Porto Technology Co., LTD v. Motorola Mobility LLC

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne on 03/11/2016. (nkl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
PORTO TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.,
Plaintiff,
v.
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
INC.,
v.
LG ELECTRONICS MOBILECOMM
U.S.A., INC.,
v.
HTC AMERICA, INC.,
v.
MOTOROLA MOBILITY LLC,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Case No. 2:15-cv-00456-JRG-RSP
Case No. 2:15-cv-00458-JRG-RSP
Case No. 2:15-cv-00459-JRG-RSP
Case No. 2:15-cv-00460-JRG-RSP

MEMORANDUM ORDER
The Court, on March 10, 2016, held a hearing to address the Motion to Transfer Venue
by Defendants Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (SEA), LG Electronics MobileComm U.S.A.,
Inc. (LGEMU), HTC America, Inc., and Motorola Mobility LLC. (Dkt. No. 23 (2:15-cv-456JRG-RSP); Dkt. No. 15 (2:15-cv-458-JRG-RSP); Dkt. No. 20 (2:15-cv-459-JRG-RSP); Dkt. No.
18 (2:15-cv-460-JRG-RSP).) Defendants assert this case should be transferred to the Northern
District of California. Plaintiff Porto Technology Co., Ltd. opposes transfer. The Court having
considered the facts and arguments finds that transfer is warranted.

Section 1404(a) provides that “[f]or 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). The first step in a Court’s transfer
analysis is deciding “whether the judicial district to which transfer is sought would have been a
district in which the claim could have been filed.” In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201, 203 (5th
Cir. 2004) (“Volkswagen I”).
If that threshold is met, the Court then analyzes public and private factors relating to the
convenience of parties and witnesses and the interests of particular venues in hearing the case.
See Humble Oil & Ref. Co. v. Bell Marine Serv., Inc., 321 F.2d 53, 56 (5th Cir. 1963); In re
Nintendo Co., Ltd., 589 F.3d 1194, 1198 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d
1315, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The private factors are: 1) the relative ease of access to sources of
proof; 2) the availability of compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses; 3) the cost
of attendance for willing witnesses; and 4) all other practical problems that make trial of a case
easy, expeditious, and inexpensive. Volkswagen I, 371 F.3d at 203; Nintendo, 589 F.3d at 1198;
TS Tech, 551 F.3d at 1319. The public factors are: 1) the administrative difficulties flowing from
court congestion; 2) the local interest in having localized interests decided at home; 3) the
familiarity of the forum with the law that will govern the case; and 4) the avoidance of
unnecessary problems of conflict of laws or in the application of foreign law. Volkswagen I, 371
F.3d at 203; Nintendo, 589 F.3d at 1198; TS Tech, 551 F.3d at 1319.
The plaintiff’s choice of venue is not a factor in this analysis. In re Volkswagen of Am.,
Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 314–15 (5th Cir. 2008) (“Volkswagen II”). Rather, the plaintiff’s choice of
venue contributes to the defendant’s burden of proving that the transferee venue is “clearly more
convenient” than the transferor venue. Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 315; Nintendo, 589 F.3d at

2

1200; TS Tech, 551 F.3d at 1319. Although the private and public factors apply to most transfer
cases, “they are not necessarily exhaustive or exclusive,” and no single factor is dispositive.
Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 314–15.
Timely motions to transfer venue should be “should [be given] a top priority in the
handling of [a case]” and “are to be decided based on ‘the situation which existed when suit was
instituted.’” In re Horseshoe Entm’t, 337 F.3d 429, 433 (5th Cir. 2003); In re EMC Corp., Doc.
No. 2013-M142, 2013 WL 324154 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 29, 2013) (quoting Hoffman v. Blaski, 363
U.S. 335, 443 (1960)).
Defendants offered evidence at the hearing that some party and third-party witnesses are
in the Northern District of California. Porto failed to adequately challenge this evidence in its
briefing and at the hearing. The moving party bears the burden of showing a transferee venue is
clearly more convenient. However, the non-moving party has some obligation to offer rebuttal or
countervailing evidence. Here, the Court finds the convenience to the willing witnesses and the
Northern District of California’s power over third-party witnesses favors transfer. Genentech,
566 F.3d at 1342; Fed. R. Civ. P. 45. The Court further finds the remaining factors are neutral as
to transfer.
A motion to transfer venue should be granted when the moving party shows one venue is
“clearly more convenient” than another. Nintendo, 589 F.3d at 1197; Genentech, 566 F.3d at
1342. The Court has weighed the facts. The Court finds that the Northern District of California is
“clearly more convenient.” The Motion to Transfer Venue (Dkt. No. 23 (2:15-cv-456-JRG-RSP);
Dkt. No. 15 (2:15-cv-458-JRG-RSP); Dkt. No. 20 (2:15-cv-459-JRG-RSP); Dkt. No. 18 (2:15cv-460-JRG-RSP)) is GRANTED. The clerk is directed to transfer this case to the Northern
District of California.

3

SIGNED this 3rd day of January, 2012.
SIGNED this 11th day of March, 2016.

____________________________________
ROY S. PAYNE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4