WORLD WIDE MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES LLC et al v. CORE ONCOLOGY INC et al
Filing
74
ORDER granting 63 Defendant Oncura, Inc.'s Motion to Sever and Transfer Venue. The Clerk is directed to transfer case 4:12cv170/RS-CAS to the Northern District of Illinois. Signed by JUDGE RICHARD SMOAK on 4/13/2012. (jem)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
In Re WORLD WIDE MEDICAL TECH.
LLC., et al., patent litigation
consolidated cases,
CASE NO. 4:11-cv-614/RS-CAS
_________________________________________
WORLD WIDE MEDICAL TECH.
LLC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
CASE NO. 4:12cv170/RS-CAS
ONCURA INC.,
Defendants.
_________________________________________/
ORDER
Before me are Defendant Oncura, Inc.’s (“Oncura”) Motion to Sever and Transfer
Venue (Doc. 63) and Plaintiff’s Response in Opposition (Doc. 68). I previously severed
the eight defendants in this patent infringement case pursuant to 35 U.S.C.A § 299(b).
For pretrial matters, the cases have been consolidated. (See Doc. 69).
Plaintiffs are three Connecticut corporations with their principal place of business
also in Connecticut. (Doc. 39, ¶¶3-5).
Defendant Oncura is a Delaware corporation
with its principal place of business in Illinois. Id. at ¶ 10.
I.
Legal Standard
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) provides that “for the convenience of the parties and
witnesses, and the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any
other district or division where it might have been brought . . . .” The standard for
transfer under § 1404(a) gives broad discretion to the trial court, and a trial court’s
decision will be overturned only for abuse of discretion. Mason v. SmithKline Beecham
Clinical Labs., 146 F. Supp. 2d 1355, 1358 (S.D. Fla. 2001) (citing Brown v. Ct. Gen.
Life Ins. Co., 934 F.2d 1193, 1197 (11th Cir. 1991)).
The question of whether to transfer venue involves a two-pronged inquiry.
Mason, 146 F. Supp. 2d at 1359. The first prong holds that the alternative venue “must
be one in which the action could have originally been brought by the plaintiff.” Id. The
second prong requires Courts to “balance private and public factors” to determine
whether or not transfer is justified. Id. “Defendants moving for transfer have a
heightened burden as they must prove with particularity the inconvenience caused by the
plaintiff’s choice of forum.” Mason, 146 F. Supp. At 1359 (citation omitted).
Consequently, transfer will only be granted where the balance of convenience of the
parties “strongly favors” the defendant. Id. (citing Robinson v. Giarmarco & Bill. P.C.,
74 F.3d 253, 260 (11th Cir. 1996)).
II.
Analysis
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) grants district courts original jurisdiction “of any civil
action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents.” In such actions, venue is
proper “in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has
committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.” 28
U.S.C. § 1400(b). Oncura’s principal place of business is in Arlington Heights, Illinois.
Thus, Plaintiff could have filed the instant civil action in the Northern District of Illinois,
and therefore transfer is permissible—provided that transfer is justified as evinced by an
analysis of public and private factors.
In Manuel v. Convergys Corp., 430 F.3d 1132 (11th Cir. 2005), the Eleventh
Circuit listed a number of public and private factors relevant to determine whether or not
transfer is justified under § 1404(a). These factors include:(1) the convenience of the
witnesses; (2) the location of relevant documents and the relative ease of access to
sources of proof; (3) the convenience of the parties; (4) the locus of operative facts; (5)
the availability of process to compel the attendance of unwilling witnesses; (6) the
relative means of the parties; (7) a forum's familiarity with the governing law; (8) the
weight accorded a plaintiff's choice of forum; and (9) trial efficiency and the interests of
justice, based on the totality of the circumstances. Id. at 1135 n.1.
A. Convenience of the Witnesses
Oncura has only one employee in Florida, a marketing person in the Middle
District (Doc. 63, Attach. 1, ¶ 8). There are approximately 200 Oncura employees in
Illinois, of which approximately 100 work on the product in dispute. Id. at ¶ 4. Those
witnesses employed by Oncura are those most likely to have relevant information about
the development and production of the patented product. Id. at ¶6-7. This factor weighs
heavily towards transferring this case.
B. Location of Documents
In patent infringement cases “the bulk of relevant evidence usually comes from the
accused infringer.” In re Genentech, Inc.¸566 F. 3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
“Consequently, the place where defendant’s documents are kept weighs in favor of
transfer to that location.” Id. Oncura represents that the majority of its relevant
documents are located in Illinois. Plaintiffs state that many of its relevant documents are
located in the Northern District of Florida. Because of the ease by which documents can
be scanned and made available through electronic discovery, this factor is slightly in
favor of transfer.
C. Convenience of the parties
It is undisputed that Illinois will be most convenient for the Defendant. Plaintiffs
do not reside in Florida. Plaintiffs’ only connection to Florida is that the allegedly
infringing product was sold in Florida. Panama City Florida is certainly more remote
than Chicago and in my experience it is more costly and time consuming to travel here.
There are no direct flights between Panama City and Chicago or the Northeast. This
factor weighs in favor of transfer.
D. Locus of the Operative Facts
In patent cases, the preferred forum is the defendant's place of business because
that usually constitutes the “center of gravity of the alleged patent infringement."
Suomen Colorize Oy v. DISH Network, LLC, 801 F. Supp. 2d 1334, 1338 (M.D. Fla.
2011). With only one employee in Florida, it is difficult to see how the operative facts in
this case can be located here. While the infringing product may have been sold within
this district, the research, design, and manufacture occurred elsewhere. This factor
weighs in favor of transfer.
E. Compulsory Process
Plaintiff has not identified any non-party witnesses in the Northern District of
Florida or within 100 miles of this courthouse. Defendant, on the other hand, has
identified several witnesses which would be subject to compulsory process within the
Northern District of Illinois. This factor weighs in favor of transfer.
F. Plaintiff’s Choice of Forum
"The plaintiff's choice of forum should not be disturbed unless it is clearly outweighed
by other considerations.'" Robinson v. Giarmarco & Bill, P.C., 74 F.3d 253, 260 (11th
Cir. 1996) (quoting Howell v. Tanner, 650 F.2d 610, 616 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981)). This
factor obviously weighs greatly to plaintiff.
G. Other factors which I consider neutral.
Because there is no indication that Florida would be a less costly forum for either
party, the relative means of the parties is a neutral factor.
Similarly, a transfer at this
early stage of the case to another Federal District Court has little bearing on the
efficiency of the judicial process or the competency of the other forum.
Considering the totality of the factors, I find that Defendant Oncura has met its
burden to establish that the Northern District of Illinois is the most appropriate forum for
this litigation.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Defendant Oncura, Inc.’s Motion to Sever and Transfer Venue (Doc. 63) is
GRANTED.
2. The Clerk is directed to transfer case 4:12cv170/RS-CAS to the Northern
District of Illinois.
ORDERED April 13, 2012.
/S/ Richard Smoak
RICHARD SMOAK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?