NetSoc, LLC v. LinkedIn Corporation

Filing 73

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER re: (35 in 1:18-cv-12215-RA) MOTION to Transfer Case . filed by LinkedIn Corporation. For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that LinkedIn has made "a clear and convincing showing" that the relevant factors weigh in favor of transfer, and its motion is granted. Solar v. Annetts, 707 F. Supp. 2d 437, 441-42 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion pending at docket entry 35 and to transfer this action against LinkedIn, No. 18-CV-12215, to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. (Signed by Judge Ronnie Abrams on 1/14/2020) (rj) Transmission to Orders and Judgments Clerk for processing.

USDC-SDNY
DOCUMENT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

ELECTRONICALLY FILED
DOC#:
DATE FILED:

I/ (Lf / 2. o 2--0

NETSOC, LLC,
Plaintiff,

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER
No. 18-CV-12215 (RA)

V.

LINKEDIN CORP.,
Defendant.

NETSOC, LLC,
Plaintiff,
No. 18-CV-12267 (RA)
V.

OATH INC.,
Defendant.
RONNIE ABRAMS, United States District Judge:
PlaintiffNetSoc, LLC filed claims for patent infringement against Defendants Chegg
Inc., Linkedln Corp., Quora Inc., and Oath Inc., in four separate actions that were consolidated
through claim construction. 1 See Dkt. 23. 2 Now before the Court is Defendant Linkedln's
motion to transfer the action against it to the Northern District of California pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1404(a). For the following reasons, the motion is granted.

1 On

October 2, 2019, the action against Defendant Quora Inc. was transferred to the Northern District of
California, see No. 18-CV-12250, Dkt. 72, and yesterday, the action against Cbegg Inc. was dismissed on collateral
estoppel grounds, see No. 18-CV- l 0262.
2

Unless otherwise noted, this opinion cites submissions filed on the docket in NetSoc, LLC v. Linkedln

Corp., No. 18-CV-12215.

BACKGROUND3

I.

Procedural History
Plaintiff filed a complaint against Linkedln on December 26, 2018. It asserted that

Linkedln's website infringes U.S. Patent No. 9,978,107 (the '"107 Patent") and U.S. Patent No.
7,565,344 (the "'344 Patent"), which Plaintiff owns by assignment. See Dkt. 1, Comp1. Jrfr 7, 13.
Both patents are described generally as "a method and system for establishing and using a social
network to facilitate people in life issues." Id

ff 8, 14.

On March 4, 2019, Linkedln filed a motion to dismiss the complaint. See Dkt. 19. On
May 24, Linkedln filed the present motion to transfer this case to the Northern District of
California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). See Dkt. 35. In July, the Court stayed discovery
pending resolution of these and other motions in the four actions. See Dkt. 44. In spite of the
fact that it also has pending a motion to dismiss, Linkedln has requested that the Court first
resolve its motion to transfer. See Dkt. 70 ("Linkedln maintains its position as stated during the
Status Conference on August 27, 2019, that it would be procedurally proper to resolve
Linkedln's pending Motion to Transfer ... before reaching issues of collateral estoppel as to
Linkedln. "). 4

3 The facts in this section are drawn from Plaintiff's complaint unless otherwise stated, see Dkt. 1, and are
accepted as true for the purposes of this motion. See Peerless Network, Inc. v. Blitz Telecom Consulting, LLC, No.
17-CV-1725 (JPO), 2018 WL 1478047, at *l (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 26, 2018). When reviewing a§ 1404(a) motion, the
Court may also consider materials outside of the pleadings. See Garcia v. Pearson Educ., Inc., No. 15-CV-7289
(KPF), 2016 WL 5921083, at •4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 7, 2016). Linkedln submitted several documents, including
declarations from Jared Goralnick ("Goralnick Deel."), the Group Manager in Product Management at Linkedln,
and Vidya Chandra ("Chandra Deel."), the Principal Product Manager at Linkedln, which the Court refers to
throughout the opinion.

On August 28, 2019, the Court ordered supplemental briefing as to "whether Plaintiff's claims against
[Linkedln] are barred by collateral estoppel" in light of the United States District Court of the Northern District of
Texas's July 22, 2019 decision that Plaintiff's' 107 Patent was ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Dkt. 53; see also
NetSoc, LLC v. Match Grp., LLC, No. 18-CV-1809, 2019 WL 3304704 (N.D. Tex. July 22, 2019).
4

2

II.

The Parties
Plaintiff is a Texas limited liability company with its principal place of business in Harris

County, Texas. See Dkt. 1, Comp1.

Jr 1. In April 2018, Emily White, the inventor of the '107

Patent and '344 Patent, assigned the rights to these patents to Plaintiff. See Dkt 35, Ex. B (Patent
Assignment Cover Sheet). Plaintiff alleges that "Linkedln maintains, operates, and administers a
website at www.Linkedln.com that infringes one or more claims of the '107 patent" and "of the
'344 patent." Dkt. 1, Compl.

ff 9, 15.

Plaintiff specifically identifies two ofLinkedin's services

- "Recruiter" and "ProFinder" - as the services that infringe on these two patents. See id. ff 1011, 16-17.
Linkedln is a domestic corporation organized under the laws of Delaware. Plaintiff
alleges that Linkedln's principal place of business is in New York City. See id

Jr 2.

Linkedln

disputes this, asserting that its principal place of business is in Northern California. According to
Linkedln, it "has been located in the San Francisco Bay Area since its founding in Mountain
View, California in 2003." Goralnick Deel.

Ir 5.

Its headquarters - described as "the strategic

center ofLinkedln's business" - are presently located in Sunnyvale, California, and it has
"multiple, additional large offices in the San Francisco Bay Area." Id As such, it employs
approximately 6,500 employees in Northern California. See id.
Linkedln acknowledges that it has had an office in New York since 2011. Nonetheless, it
contends that employees in that office focus only on "marketing and sales activities," and that
"[e]mployees in the San Francisco Bay Area ultimately oversee" the New York office's work.
Chandra Deel.

Ir 13.

In particular, according to Linkedln, all "operations relevant to the design,

development, marketing, and function of' its services related to this patent infringement action

3

"reside in its Sunnyvale, Mountain View, and San Francisco offices." Goralnick Deel.

Jrlr 7, 12;

Chandra Deel. ff 7, 12.
LEGAL STANDARD

"For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court
may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been
brought[.]" 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). "In considering whether to grant a venue transfer, courts
engage in a two-part test: ( 1) whether the action 'might have been brought' in the proposed
transferee forum; and (2) whether the transfer promotes convenience and justice." Excelsior
Designs, Inc. v. Sheres, 291 F. Supp. 2d 181, 185 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) (quoting Schertenleib v.
Traum, 589 F.2d 1156, 1161 (2d Cir. 1978)). "The moving party bears the burden of showing,
by clear and convincing evidence, that a transfer is appropriate." Phillips v. Reed Grp., Ltd., 955
F. Supp. 2d 201,229 (S.D.N.Y. 2013). "District courts have broad discretion in making
determinations of convenience under Section 1404(a) and notions of convenience and fairness
are considered on a case-by-case basis." D.H Blair & Co. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95, 106 (2d
Cir. 2006).
DISCUSSION

I.

Whether the Action Might Have Been Brought in the Northern District of
California
"An action 'might have been brought' in another forum if venue would have been proper

there and the defendants would have been amenable to personal jurisdiction in the transferee
forum when the action was initiated." Wang v. Phx. Satellite Television US, Inc., No. 13-CV218 (PKC), 2014 WL 116220, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2014) (citation omitted). Plaintiff does
not dispute that this matter "could have been brought in the Northern District of California," Dkt.
35 at 7, and the Court agrees. Accordingly,§ 1404(a)'s first requirement is satisfied. The

4

remaining inquiry is, therefore, "whether the transfer promotes convenience and justice."
Excelsior Designs, Inc., 291 F. Supp. 2d at 185.

II.

Whether the Transfer Promotes Convenience & Justice
In determining whether a transfer would promote convenience and justice, courts weigh

certain factors including: "(I) the convenience of witnesses, (2) the convenience of the parties,
(3) the locus of operative facts, (4) the availability of process to compel the attendance of
unwilling witnesses, (5) the location of relevant documents and the relative ease of access to
sources of proof, (6) the relative means of the parties, (7) the forum's familiarity with the
governing law, (8) the weight accorded the plaintiff's choice of forum, and (9) trial efficiency
and the interest of justice, based on the totality of the circumstances." Invivo Research, Inc. v.
Magnetic Resonance Equip. Corp., 119 F. Supp. 2d 433,436 (S.D.N.Y. 2000); see also Liberty
1\.fut. Ins. Co. v. Fairbanks Co., 17 F. Supp. 3d 385,396 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) (explaining that "[t]he

convenience of the witnesses and the locus of the operative facts of the case" are given the most
consideration in this analysis).

A. Convenience of Witnesses
"Courts typically regard the convenience of witnesses as the most important factor in
considering a§ 1404(a) motion to transfer." Rosen v. Ritz-Carlton Hotel Co., No. 14-CV-1385
(RJS), 2015 WL 64736, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2015). A party seeking a transfer based on this
factor "must clearly specify the key witnesses to be called and must make a general statement of
what their testimony will cover." Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 17 F. Supp. 3d at 396 (citation omitted).
"In the context of a patent infringement suit, a court should give particular consideration to
individuals who can testify about the technology of the allegedly infringing inventions." Int'!

5

Sec. Exch., LLC v. Chi. Bd Options Exch. Inc., No. 06-CV-13445, 2007 WL 1541087, at *3
(S.D.N.Y. May 24, 2007).
In arguing for a transfer, Linkedln relies heavily on the fact that the majority of its
witnesses are based in Northern California. It emphasizes that key witnesses on its behalf are
employees on its "development, engineering, and management" team, who are "most
knowledgeable about Linkedln's accused technologies." Dkt. 35 at 9. Because these employees
reside in Northern California, they would "face the disruption of traveling across the country" if
the action remains in this district. Id. The Court agrees with Linkedln that these witnesses are
highly relevant, as they are those who can speak best to "the technology of the allegedly
infringing inventions." Int'l Sec. Exch., LLC, 2007 WL 1541087, at *3. The witnesses'
proximity to the proposed transferee forum is thus particularly significant in this analysis. 5
Linkedln further notes that relevant non-party witnesses are also based in California See
Dkt. 1, Ex. A, B; Dkt. 35, Ex. B, C. "[T]he convenience of non-party witnesses is weighed more
heavily than that of party witnesses." Rosen, 2015 WL 64736, at *3. Here, Linkedln identifies
two specific non-party witnesses- White, the patents' inventor, and the patents' prosecuting
attorneys. In this type of patent action, these two types of non-party witnesses are generally
deemed very useful. See Smart Skins LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 14-CV-10149 (CM), 2015
WL 1499843, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2015) ("[I]nventors named in the patents in suit ...
would of course provide material testimony about the patented inventors and the technology used
in those inventions."); see also In re Acer Am. Corp., 626 F.3d 1252, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

5 Linkedln has not identified specific employees that might serve as witnesses, and instead only describes
potential witnesses as "employees most knowledgeable about Linkedin's accused technologies." Dkt. 35 at 9-10.
"While it is true that usually courts do not consider the convenience of such unspecified, unnamed witnesses in the
transfer analysis, here the Court will do so because it has enough information to enable the trial court to balance the
parties' interests." IKB Int'/ S.A. v. Wilmington Tr. Co., No. 16-CV-4917 (RA), 2017 WL 4084052, at *5 (S.D.N.Y.
Sept. 14, 2017) (internal citations and alterations omitted).

6

(accounting for the convenience of the patent's "inventor and prosecuting attorneys" as witnesses
in its§ 1404(a) analysis). Linkedln, therefore, correctly argues that the inconvenience posed- in
expenses and day-to-day disruptions - in bringing these non-party witnesses to this district can
be significantly minimized by transferring the case to the Northern District of California. 6
Plaintiff, on the other hand, has not identified a single witness for whom keeping the
action in this district would be more convenient. Nor does it dispute the likely inconveniences
for witnesses that Linkedln has described. Instead, Plaintiff only offers to delay and/or lessen
any inconvenience by "mak[ing] inventor Emily White available for deposition in [N]orth
California and for trial in New York" and that "the Linkedln witnesses will not be
inconvenienced because their depositions would occur in the San Francisco Bay area (or other
location as the parties will agree to).'' Dkt. 41 at 3. But this fails to address that the simpler
solution for party and non-party witnesses would be moving this case to another district.
In light of Linkedln's legitimate concern that important witnesses - current and former
employees, who are most knowledgeable about the allegedly infringing services, and the patent's
inventor - are all based in California, this factor weighs heavily in favor of transferring the case.

B. Convenience of the Parties
The convenience of the parties is also a relevant factor. For Linkedln, litigating the case
in the Northern District of California is evidently more convenient. Not only are its headquarters
located there, but it is also where its employees who work on the Recruiter and ProFinder

Linkedln raises a related and pertinent point, noting that, in the event that these non-party witnesses refuse
to appear, this Court would lack the authority to compel them to do so. See Everlast World's Boxing Headquarters
Corp. v. Ringside, Inc., 928 F. Supp. 2d 735, 746 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)(explaining that the ability ofa court to compel
the attendance of unwilling witnesses is a "factor [that] is closely aligned with the first - witness convenience").
The Court's authority to "command a person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition" only applies "within 100 miles
of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person; or ... within the state where the
person resides, is employed or regularly transacts business in person." Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1 XA)-(B); see Dkt. 35
at I0-11. The Court thus considers this an additional reason weighing in favor of transferring the action.
6

7

services reside. See Goralnick Deel. lr 8; Chandra Deel. lr 8. Moreover, it is where "[t]he
overwhelming majority of [its] documents and relates related to the [two] service[s] are located."
See Goralnick Deel. lr 11; Chandra Deel. lr 11.

By contrast, Plaintiffs convenience would not be affected if the action were transferred.
Plaintiff is based in Texas, see D kt. 1, Com pl. Jr 1, and thus already chose to litigate in a forum
that requires travel and increased expenses. Whether the case now proceeds in New York or
California does not change that fact or pose any additional burden. Because "[t]he convenience
of the parties favors transfer when transfer would increase convenience to the moving party
without generally increasing the inconvenience to the non-movant," this factor also favors
granting Linkedln' s motion. Sentegra, LLC v. ASUS Comput. Int 'J, No. l 5-CV-3768 (GHW),
2016 WL 3093988, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. June 1, 2016).

C. Locus of Operative Facts
The locus of operative facts "will substantially favor[] transfer from this district when a
party has not shown that any of the operative facts arose in the Southern District of New York."
Berger v. Cushman & Wakefield of Pa., Inc., No. 12-CV-9224 (JPO), 2013 WL 4565256, at *10

(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 28, 2013) (citation omitted). "To determine the locus of operative facts, a court
must look to the site of the events from which the claim arises." Ivy Soc y Grp., LLC v.
Baloncesto Superior Nacional, No. 08-CV-8106 (PGG), 2009 WL 2252116, at *6 (S.D.N.Y.

July 28, 2009). '·Operative facts in a patent infringement action include facts relating to the
design, development, and production of a patented product." lnvivo Research, Inc., 119 F. Supp.
2dat 439.
Here, the operative facts took place entirely in Northern California White developed her
inventions, which evolved into the patents at issue here, in Mountain View, California See Dkt.

8

1, Ex. A. Separately, Linkedin developed its Recruiter and ProFinder services-the two
allegedly infringing services- in Northern California, and it continues to manage the services
from that area today. See Goralnick Deel.

Jrfr 7, 12; Chandra Deel. ff 7, 12.

Plaintiff contends that, because Linkedln has utilized these services in New York, the
"infringement does occur in New York, and New York is a 'locus of operative facts."' Dkt. 41
at 4. That argument is unpersuasive. First, this patent infringement action is primarily about the
development, production, and management ofLinkedln's Recruiter and ProFinder services,
which is all based in California. While the New York office handles some "marketing and sales
activities," even the product marketing for these two services occurs in California. See
Goralnick Deel.

ff 8, 13; Chandra Deel. ff 8, 13.

Second, and more importantly, the fact that

"Linkedin's accused services are provided nationwide," and thus logically in New York, has
little force. Dkt. 41 at 4. "[C]ourts have consistently found that where defendants' products are
sold in many states, sales alone are insufficient to establish a material connection to the forum
and to override the other factors favoring transfer." Bionx Implants, Inc. v. Biomet, Inc., No. 99CV-740 (WHP), 1999 WL 342306, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. May 27, 1999). Plaintiff, therefore, fails to
identify any operative facts that tie its claim against Linkedln to this district.

D. Location of Relevant Documents
"In patent infringement cases, the bulk of the relevant evidence usually comes from the
accused infringer." Millennium, L.P. v. Hyland Software, Inc., No. 03-CV-3900 (DC), 2003 WL
22928644, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 10, 2003). "Consequently, the place where the defendant's
documents are kept weigh in favor of transfer to that location." Id
At first glance, this factor also seems to warrant granting Linkedln's transfer request.
Linkedln asserts that the "documents and records related to the [accused] service[ s] are located

9

in Linkedln's Sunnyvale headquarters or San Francisco Bay Area offices, or are maintained on
secure servers located in or accessible from Linkedln's Sunnyvale headquarters or San Francisco
Bay Area offices." Goralnick Deel. Jr 11; Chandra Deel. Jr 11. As Plaintiff points out, however,
"[t]he documents in this case will be electronically produced, and thus are portable." Dkt. 41 at
3. In light of new technology making it easier to transport documents, courts have reached
different conclusions as to what weight to give this factor in a§ 1404(a) analysis. Compare
Constitution Reins. Corp. v. Stonewall Ins. Co., 872 F. Supp. 1247, 1251 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)

("[A]ccess to documents and other proof is not a persuasive factor in favor of transfer without
proof that documents are particularly bulky or difficult to transport[.]"), with Jackson v. Avis
Rent A Car Sys., LLC, No. 14-CV-1658 (LLS), 2015 WL 1004299, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6,

2015) ("While technological advances in storing, transferring, and reproducing documents have
rendered this factor less important, it cannot be ignored."). The Court, therefore, considers this
factor to be neutral in the overall analysis.

E. Plaintiff's Choice of Forum
A plaintifr choice of forum is generally "entitled to considerable weight." Excelsior
Designs, Inc., 291 F. Supp. 2d at 187. However, "a plaintiffs choice of forum diminishes ...

where ... the operative facts upon which the litigation is brought bear little material connection
to the chosen forum." Fuji Photo Film Co. v. Lexar .Media, Inc., 415 F. Supp. 2d 370,376
(S.D.N.Y. 2006). Plaintiff chose to bring this action in New York even though its claim against
Linkedln lacked any obvious connection to this district. As discussed previously, Plaintiff is
based in Texas. It has not even reported transacting business in New York. And, for the reasons
discussed in detail previously, Plaintiff's allegations about Linkedln's allegedly infringing
conduct also "bear little material connection to th[is] chosen forum." Id Therefore, "while the

10

Court recognizes [Plaintiffs] preference for litigation [in this district], it concludes that
Plaintiff's choice of forum is outweighed by concerns that favor transfer." Fullwood v. SDH
Servs. W:, LLC, No. 16-CV-1 (RA), 2016 WL 3951186, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. July 20, 2016).

F. Forum's Familiarity with the Governing Law
This factor is "generally given little weight." Am. Eagle Outfitters, Inc. v. Tala Bros.
Corp., 457 F. Supp. 2d 474,479 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). As numerous courts have noted, "any district

court may handle a patent case with equal skill." Smart Skins LLC, 2015 WL 1499843, at *11.

G. Trial Efficiency & the Interest of Justice
"Trial efficiency and the interest of justice are important factors in a§ 1404(a) transfer
analysis, and may be determinative in a particular case." Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 17 F. Supp. 3d at
397. As to this factor, Plaintiff presents two related arguments that transferring this action would
lessen judicial efficiency.
Plaintiff first contends that transferring the case prior to claim construction would be
inefficient because it has already been consolidated with three other pending actions in this
district. Plaintiff does not seem to dispute that eventually transferring the action for trial might
be proper, but argues that "joint litigation in this Court of claim construction and summary
judgment practice is more efficient and better serves the interests of judicial economy." Dkt. 41
at 3; see also id ("[S]plitting this defendant from the other three and transferring its case to
another court creates the inefficient situation where two courts will have to decide issues of
claim construction and risk producing conflicting claim construction decisions.").
As an initial matter, Plaintiff's argument is weakened because the Court already
transferred one of the four consolidated actions - NetSoc, LLC v. Quora Inc. - to the Northern
District of California on October 2, 2019, see No. 18-CV-12250, Dkt. 72, and dismissed another

11

on collateral estoppel grounds in a separate opinion filed yesterday, see No. 18-CV-l 0262. Even
more significantly, Plaintiff fails to acknowledge the differences among the consolidated cases
that cast doubt on how efficient joint litigation might be, even at this early stage. Not only do the
two remaining actions involve different infringing products, but they also involve different
patents. For instance, here, the '107 Patent and '344 Patent are at issue. In NetSoc, LLC v. Oath

Inc., No. 18-CV-12267, however, an entirely separate patent is now in dispute. Therefore, while
the Court acknowledges that consolidating cases can help avoid duplicative discovery and lessen
expenses, this is not an obvious instance where the two remaining actions benefit from being
tried together. 7
Focusing on efficiency in the present action is supported by recent case law cautioning
courts against resolving a motion to transfer "principally on the basis of [related] pending suits."

See In re Google, Inc., 2017-107, 2017 WL 977038, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 23, 2017) (concluding
the district court erred in denying the transfer motion based on "the mere co-pendency of related
suits in a particular district"); see also Sentegra, LLC, 2016 WL 3093988, at *7 ("[P]arallel suits
in separate district courts present no greater risk of inconsistent judgments than parallel suits in
the current forum."). For these reasons, the Court believes that, particularly as "there has not yet
been a significant investment by the Southern District of New York in this case in terms of either
time or work," transferring the case would not impair trial efficiency. /nvivo Research, Inc., 119
F. Supp. 2d at 439.
Next, Plaintiff argues that Linkedln ''waived any objection as to venue" because it
"explicitly agreed to consolidation and the schedule." Dkt. 41 at 2. This, however, is a

7 Plaintiff also does not address that it affirmatively chose to bring two other actions, each raising an
infringement claim involving the '107 Patent, in Texas. See NetSoc, LLC v. Teladoc Health, Inc., No. 18-CV-542
(E.D. Tex. Dec. 21, 2018); NetSoc, LLC v. Match Grp. LLC, No. 18-CV-1809 (N.D. Tex. July 13, 2018).

12

mischaracterization ofLinkedln's role in the decision to consolidate the then-four pending
actions. The Court approved consolidation after Plaintiff conferred with Defendant Chegg Inc.
and those two parties agreed ''that consolidation would be in the best interests of the Parties and
promote judicial economy." Dkt. 23. Linkedln did not participate in those discussions. See Dkt.
45 at 3 ("Linkedln was not a party to the letter and did not sign it."). Additionally, in a status
letter filed on August 20, 2019, Linkedln wTote that, in light of recent developments in this
litigation, it "believes that these actions should no longer be consolidated, as Linkedln would
only share a patent (the invalidated '107 Patent) with one other defendant (Defendant Chegg),
and the '344 Patent is unique to Linkedln." Dkt. 51. The Court, therefore, will not consider the
consolidation of these cases to be a waiver ofLinkedln's § 1404(a) argument.

H. Balancing of the Factors

In sum, all factors - and particularly the most critical ones in a § 1404(a) analysis - make
clear that transferring this action to the Northern District of California would be convenient and
just. "[I]n a case featuring most witnesses and evidence closer to the transferee venue with few
or no convenience factors favoring the venue chosen by the plaintiff, the trial court should grant
a motion to transfer." In re Nintendo Co., 589 F.3d 1194, 1198 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Here, "[t]he
convenience of the witnesses and the locus of the operative facts of the case," which "are
typically regarded as primary factors in the balance-of-convenience inquiry," weigh heavily in
favor of litigating this case in the proposed transferee forum rather than in this district. Liberty

Mut Ins. Co., 17 F. Supp. 3d at 396; see also Burgos v. United States, No. 16-CV-7091 (RA),
2017 WL 2799172, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. June 27, 2017) ("(C]ases are routinely transferred where, as
here, 'the principal events occurred in another district and the principal witnesses are located
there."' (citation omitted)). Even factors that typically lean in a non-movant's favor, such as

13

choice of forum, provide little support here for Plaintiff. As Link.edln states, Plaintiff"does not
dispute that this case has no meaningful connection to the Southern District of New York, or that
the Northern District of California is the clearly more convenient forum." Dkt. 45 at 1. And
while the Court understands Plaintiffs argument that efficiency is gained by keeping the action
in this district at least through claim construction, only two of the original four consolidated
cases remain pending, and this factor fails to overcome the strength of the§ 1404(a) analysis
otherwise in favor of a transfer.
CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that Link.edln has made "a clear and
convincing showing" that the relevant factors weigh in favor of transfer, and its motion is
granted. Solar v. Annetts, 707 F. Supp. 2d 437, 441-42 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). The Clerk of Court is
respectfully directed to terminate the motion pending at docket entry 35 and to transfer this
action against Link.edln, No. 18-CV-12215, to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.
Dated:

January 14, 2020
New York, New York

United States District Judge

14