Sprint Communications Company L.P. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al

Filing 54

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER overruling defendants' 42 Motion To Transfer Pursuant To 28 U.S.C. § 1404. Signed by Chief Judge Kathryn H. Vratil on 1/31/2013. (mg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY,
L.P.,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS,
)
et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

CIVIL ACTION
No. 11-2684-KHV

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Motion To Transfer Pursuant To 28 U.S.C.
§ 1404 (Doc. #42) filed September 25, 2012. Defendants in two other cases pending in this district,
all of which deal with the same patents-in-suit, filed identical motions seeking transfer to the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware.1 Plaintiff opposes the motions. For the reasons
stated in the orders denying the motions to transfer in the other two cases,2 the Court denies
defendants’ motion.
Plaintiff Sprint Communications Company, L.P. (“Sprint”) is a telecommunications company
headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas. It owns a number of patents for Voice-over-Packet
(“VoP”) technology that are the subject of these three lawsuits. Defendants in the cases are also
telecommunications companies that provide telephone services in Kansas. Defendants in this case
are organized under the laws of Delaware or Pennsylvania and have their principal place of business

1

Sprint Communications Co., L.P. v. Cable One, Inc., Case No. 11-2685-RDR and
Sprint Communications Co., L.P. v. Time Warner Cable Inc., et al., Case No. 11-2686-JTM.
2

Case No. 11-2686-JTM, Doc. # 55; Case No. 11-2685-RDR, Doc. #41.

in Pennsylvania.
In denying defendants’ motion to transfer in Case No. 11-2686, Judge Marten analyzed the
factors relevant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404 and concluded that “the balance of convenience factors do not
strongly favor defendants’ request for transfer of this matter to Delaware such that Sprint’s choice
of forum in Kansas may be properly disturbed.” Case No. 11-2686, Doc. #55 at 9. This Court has
carefully considered Judge Marten’s order and concludes that the same analysis applies and such
analysis yields the same result. Thus, for the reasons stated in Judge Marten’s order, the Court
denies defendants’ motion to transfer.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion To Transfer Pursuant To 28
U.S.C. § 1404 (Doc. #42) filed September 25, 2012 be and hereby is OVERRULED.
Dated this 31st day of January, 2013, at Kansas City, Kansas.
s/ Kathryn H. Vratil
KATHRYN H. VRATIL
United States District Judge

-2-