Rovi Guides, Inc. et al v. Comcast Corporation et al
Filing
182
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roy S. Payne on 10/25/2016. (ch, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
ROVI GUIDES, INC., ROVI
TECHNOLOGIES CORP., VEVEO, INC.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
COMCAST CORPORATION, et al.,
Defendants.
ROVI GUIDES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
COMCAST CORPORATION, et al.
Defendants.
§
§
§
§ Case No. 2:16-CV-00321-RSP
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§ Case No. 2:16-CV-00322-JRG-RSP
§
§
§
§
§
§
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court are Comcast Defendants’ 1 Motions to Change Venue under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1404(a) to the Southern District of New York pursuant to forum-selection clauses in contracts
between Comcast and Rovi (Case No. 2:16-cv-00321-RSP, Dkt. 78; Case No. 2:16-cv-00322JRG-RSP, Dkt. 67).
Comcast STB filed unopposed Motions to Intervene pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
24(b)(1)(b) for the limited purpose of joining the Comcast Defendants’ Venue Motions (Case
1
The Comcast Defendants are Comcast Corporation, Comcast Cable Communications, LLC,
Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC, Comcast of Houston, LLC, Comcast
Business Communications, LLC, Comcast Holdings Corporation and Comcast Shared Services,
LLC (together, “Comcast”).
1
No. 2:16-cv-00321-JRG-RSP, Dkt. 80; Case No. 2:16-00322, Dkt. 69). Comcast STB is a
signatory to the contracts that include the relevant forum-selection clauses, and thus permissive
intervention under Fed. R. P. 24(b)(1)(B) is warranted. Comcast STB’s Motions to Intervene are
therefore GRANTED.
Also before the Court are ARRIS Defendants’ 2 Motions to Change Venue under
§ 1404(a) to the Southern District of New York pursuant to forum-selection clauses in contracts
between ARRIS and Rovi (Case No. 2:16-cv-00321, Dkt. 88; Case No. 2:16-cv-00322, Dkt. 77).
For the following reasons, Comcast’s and ARRIS’s Motions to Change Venue are
GRANTED.
I. BACKGROUND
In 2004, Rovi and Comcast executed a series of agreements creating a joint venture to
develop interactive programing guides. As part of the joint venture, Rovi granted Comcast a
perpetual cross-license to use relevant Rovi software (the “Software Agreement”). Rovi also
licensed Comcast relevant patent rights (the “Patent Agreement”). The Patent Agreement
extended for twelve years before expiring on March 31, 2016. Case No. 2:16-cv-00321, Dkt. 787.
Both Agreements include forum-selection clauses. The Software Agreement provides that
any “suit, action or proceeding . . . based on any matter arising out of or in connection with” the
agreement or “the transactions contemplated hereby shall be brought” in New York. Id., Dkt. 789 § 12.09. The Patent Agreement specifies that New York shall be the “exclusive jurisdiction”
for “any dispute arising from” the agreement.” Id., Dkt. 78-10 § 23.
2
ARRIS Defendants are International plc, ARRIS Group, Inc., ARRIS Technology, Inc., ARRIS
Enterprises LLC, ARRIS Solutions, Inc., Pace Ltd. (now known as “ARRIS Global Ltd.”), Pace
Americas Holdings, Inc., Pace Americas Investments, LLC, and Pace Americas, LLC.
2
Before the Comcast Patent Agreement expired on March 31, 2016, the parties attempted
to renew the Patent Agreement, but negotiations failed. Id., Dkt. 2. On April 1, 2016, Rovi filed
the -321 action against Comcast and other Defendants for infringement of various patents,
contending that the infringing activity is occurring “without authority or license.” Id. Rovi also
instituted an action in this Court against the same Defendants alleging infringement of additional
patents (the -322 action). Rovi thereafter instituted a proceeding at the International Trade
Commission (“ITC”) against the Defendants on April 6, 2016, asserting the same patents
asserted in the -322 action. See In the Matter of Certain Digital Video Receivers and Hardware
and Software Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1001 (ITC Apr. 6, 2016).
On May 24, 2016 Comcast filed a suit against Rovi in the Southern District of New York,
alleging that Rovi’s institution of the patent infringement and ITC enforcement actions
constituted breach of the License and Patent Agreements. See Comcast v. Rovi, No. 16-cv-3852,
Dkt. 1 (S.D.N.Y. May 23, 2016). Accordingly, Comcast seeks to transfer Rovi’s patent
infringement actions pending in this Court to New York pursuant to the forum-selection clauses
in the License and Patent Agreements.
In 2014, Defendant ARRIS Group, Inc. entered into an Interactive Program Guide Patent
License Agreement (the “ARRIS Agreement”) with Plaintiff Rovi Guides, Inc., and its
subsidiaries. Case No. 2:16-cv-00321, Dkt. 88-3. The Agreement specified that New York law
would govern and that “[v]enue for any proceedings arising out of or related to this Agreement
shall be in a court within the State of New York and the City of New York.” Id. ¶ 9.4. The
parties “unequivocally waive[d] any and all defenses and/or rights to challenge the jurisdiction or
venue of such courts.” Id. Rovi granted ARRIS a license under Rovi’s relevant patents to make
and sell interactive programming guides. Id. ¶ 2.1.
3
The Agreement also provided ARRIS the right to sublicense service providers that
deployed the interactive programming guides. Id. ¶ 2.1.1. ARRIS was not permitted, however, to
license Comcast because Comcast, as well as several other large cable companies, had separate
license agreements with Rovi. Id. ¶ 4.9. Because of the complex licensing relationship between
Rovi, ARRIS, and Comcast, the Agreement specified that Rovi would itself negotiate with larger
service providers such as Comcast and would not “involve Licensee [ARRIS] in any such
discussions or subsequent enforcement actions . . . so long as Licensee does not seek to
indemnify such [providers] against a claim by Rovi.” Id. ¶ 2.2. ARRIS argues that these actions
should be transferred to New York pursuant to the forum selection clause in the ARRIS
Agreement.
II. DISCUSSION
Section 1404(a) allows the Court to transfer “any civil action to any other district or
division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have
consented.” This section “provides a mechanism for enforcement of forum-selection clauses that
point to a particular federal district.” Atl. Marine Const. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for W. Dist. Of
Texas, 134 S. Ct. 568, 579 (2013). “[A] proper application of § 1404(a) requires that a forum
selection clause be ‘given controlling weight in all but the most exceptional cases.’” Id. (citation
omitted). “When the parties have agreed to a valid forum-selection clause, a district court should
ordinarily transfer the case to the forum specified in that clause.” Id.; see Indus. Print Techs.
LLC v. Canon U.S.A., Inc., No. 2:14-CV-00019, 2014 WL 7240050, at *1-*6 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 19,
2014) (finding forum-selection clause required transfer).
“The presence of a valid forum-selection clause requires district courts to adjust their
usual § 1404(a) analysis.” Atl. Marine, 134 S. Ct. at 581. “First, the plaintiff’s choice of forum
4
merits no weight. Rather, as the party defying the forum-selection clause, the plaintiff bears the
burden of establishing that transfer to the forum for which the parties bargained is unwarranted.”
Id. “Second, a court evaluating a defendant’s § 1404(a) motion to transfer based on a forum
selection clause should not consider arguments about the parties’ private interests. When parties
agree to a forum-selection clause, they waive the right to challenge the preselected forum as
inconvenient or less convenient for themselves or their witnesses, or for their pursuit of the
litigation.” Id. at 582. “As a consequence, a district court may consider arguments about public
interest factors only.” Id. However, “[b]ecause those factors will rarely defeat a transfer motion,
the practical result is that forum-selection clauses should control except in unusual cases.” Id.
“When parties have contracted in advance to litigate disputes in a particular forum, courts
should not unnecessarily disrupt the parties’ settled expectations.” Id. at 583. “A forum-selection
clause, after all, may have figured centrally in the parties’ negotiations and may have affected
how they set monetary and other contractual terms; it may, in fact, have been a critical factor in
their agreement to do business together in the first place.” Id. “In all but the most unusual cases,
therefore, ‘the interest of justice’ is served by holding parties to their bargain.” Id.
Interpretation of a forum-selection clause is governed by state law. Weber v. PACT XPP
Techs., AG, 811 F.3d 758, 770-71 (5th Cir. 2016); Indus. Print Techs., 2014 WL 7240050, at *56. There is no dispute that the forum-selection clauses at issue here are governed by New York
law. New York has a “strong public policy favoring enforcement of forum selection clauses,”
and New York courts construe such clauses broadly. See, e.g., Montoya v. Cousins Chanos
Casino LLC, 943 N.Y.S.2d 793 (Table), at *4-6 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Jan 12, 2012).
5
A. Relevance of a Party’s Defense to a Forum Selection Clause
Several courts have found that when a forum selection clause governs only a dispute
“arising out of” a contract, and the contract is relevant only as a defense, the forum selection
clause is inapplicable. In Phillips v. Audio Active Ltd., the forum selection clause stated that “any
legal proceedings that may arise out of [the agreement] are to be brought in England.” 494 F.3d
378, 386 (2d Cir. 2007). The Second Circuit found that “[b]ecause the recording contract is only
relevant as a defense in this suit, we cannot say that [the plaintiff's] copyright claims originate
from, and therefore ‘arise out of,’ the contract.” Id. at 391; see also Corcovado Music Corp. v.
Hollis Music, Inc., 981 F.2d 679, 682 (2d Cir. 1993) (“[W]here a plaintiff sues for copyright
infringement and asserts no rights under a contract with the defendant containing a forumselection clause, the forum-selection clause has no effect.”).
By contrast, courts have found forum selection clauses governing claims that arise out of
or that “relate” or “concern” the agreement applicable to actions where the agreement is raised
only as a defense. In Schering Corporation v. First Databank, Inc., the District of New Jersey
considered a forum-selection clause providing that “[i]n the event of any dispute concerning this
Agreement or the Licensed Products, suit may be brought only in a court of competent
jurisdiction in the U.S. District Court of the Northern District of California or the California
Superior Court for the Court for the County of San Mateo.” 479 F. Supp. 2d 468, 471 (D.N.J.
2007). Because the forum-selection clause utilized the word “concerning,” the court found the
action to be covered to the agreement because certain defenses were based on the agreement. Id.;
see also John Wyeth & Bro. Ltd. v. CIGNA Int’l Corp., 119 F.3d 1070, 1076 (3d Cir. 1997)
(“The answer to the question whether a ‘defense’ based on a contract that contains a forum
selection clause implicates that clause depends on the language of the clause.”).
6
Courts must be mindful, however, of extending a broadly-worded forum-selection clause
too far, such that every subsequent dispute between contracting parties triggers a forum-selection
clause when the agreement is raised as a defense. In General Protecht Group, Inc. v. Leviton
Manufacturing Company, Inc., the forum-selection clause stated that “any dispute between the
Parties relating to or arising out of this [Settlement Agreement] shall be prosecuted exclusively
in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico.” 651 F.3d 1355, 1359 (Fed.
Cir. 2011). The party invoking the forum-selection clause contended that the clause governed
any case involving a “bare allegation” that the agreement provides a defense. Id. The opposing
party argued that any defense based on the license must be established conclusively as a winning
defense. Id.
The Federal Circuit struck a balance, concluding that when a party’s defense raises “a
non-frivolous dispute regarding the scope of a patent license,” a broadly-worded forum-selection
clause may be triggered. The Court explained that “‘[p]atent infringement disputes do arise from
license agreements’ and that where ‘the governing law clause of the license agreement is not
limited to license related issues such as the amount of royalty due, term of agreement, and cross
licensing [, that clause,] . . . as in any patent license agreement, necessarily covers disputes
concerning patent issues.’” Id. (quoting Texas Instruments Inc. v. Tessera, Inc., 231 F.3d 1325,
1331 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Accordingly, because the case presented “a non-frivolous dispute”
regarding the scope of the license, the Federal Circuit concluded that the forum-selection clause
was triggered by the party’s defense based on the agreement. Id.
B. Comcast’s Forum-Selection Clause
Comcast and Rovi’s Software Agreement provides that any “suit, action or
proceeding . . . based on any matter arising out of or in connection with” the agreement or “the
7
transactions contemplated hereby shall be brought” in New York. Case No. 2:16-cv-321, Dkt.
78-9 § 12.09 (emphasis added). Comcast contends that Rovi’s patent infringement suits are at
least connected to the Software Agreement because Rovi accuses technology that may be
covered by the Agreement. See Dkt. 78 at 10-11. Accordingly, Comcast argues that because the
Agreement provides a defense to Rovi’s patent infringement suits, the forum-selection clause
applies. Id.
The Court agrees. Comcast raises a “non-frivolous dispute regarding the scope” of a
license, which the Federal Circuit found sufficient to invoke the forum-selection clause in
General Protecht Group, 651 F.3d at 1359. Comcast disputes whether the perpetual Software
Agreement constituted a “sale” for purposes of patent exhaustion and whether the Agreement,
though silent as to patent rights, gave rise to an implied patent license. The Court need not
resolve these issues to determine that Rovi’s suits are “connected” to the Software Agreement.
Rovi’s principal argument to the contrary is that because the technology and conduct
accused in its patent infringement suits against Comcast are not covered by the Software
Agreement, the forum-selection clause does not apply. Case No. 2:16-cv-321, Dkt. 119 at 7-11.
According to Rovi, the Software Agreement cannot apply to the accused products and conduct
because the Software Agreement does not expressly grant patent rights. Id. at 8. Such arguments,
however, demand resolution of Comcast’s liability and defenses, begging the question of
whether Rovi’s patent infringement suits are at least connected to the Software Agreement. 3
Accordingly, Comcast’s non-frivolous defense based on the Software Agreement is sufficient to
trigger the forum-selection clause.
3
The Court does not decide whether the forum-selection clause in the Patent Agreement applies.
8
C. ARRIS’s Forum-Selection Clause
The ARRIS Agreement specifies that “[v]enue for any proceedings arising out of or
related to this Agreement shall be in a court within the State of New York and the City of New
York.” Case No. 2:16-cv-00321, Dkt. 88-3 ¶ 9.4 (emphasis added). ARRIS contends that Rovi’s
patent infringement suits are related to the ARRIS Agreement because the suits involve the same
patents licensed to ARRIS under the Agreement. See id., Dkt. 88 at 10. ARRIS also contends
that Rovi’s actions relate to the Agreement because ARRIS alleges that the actions constitute
breach of the enforcement clauses of the Agreement, which preclude Rovi from joining ARRIS
in actions against Comcast. Id., Dkt. 77 at 12.
The Court disagrees. As Rovi correctly argues, breach of contract is not a defense to
patent infringement. Id., Dkt. 113 at 1. Aside from ARRIS’s breach of contract argument,
ARRIS does not contend that the ARRIS Agreement itself provides a license for or otherwise
covers the products and conduct accused by Rovi in the patent infringement actions.
Accordingly, ARRIS has not raised a non-frivolous defense to patent-infringement based on the
ARRIS Agreement. See General Protecht Group, 651 F.3d at 1359.
The Court nevertheless finds it necessary to transfer the entirety of Rovi’s infringement
actions to New York because Comcast and Rovi’s Software Agreement requires Rovi to litigate
the Comcast dispute in New York. Rovi decided to sue numerous defendants in the same action,
accusing the non-Comcast defendants of supplying set-top cable boxes to Comcast without
authorization. See, e.g., Case No. 2:16-cv-00321, Dkt. 113 at 4. Some of Rovi’s infringement
claims are based on divided or indirect infringement involving both Comcast and non-Comcast
defendants. The liability of the non-Comcast defendants therefore depends on or is at least
connected to Comcast’s liability. It would be difficult to untangle the knot, but even if the
9
Court could resolve the non-Comcast defendants’ liability independent of Comcast’s liability, it
.
would inefficient to do so. See Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corp. v. LG Philips LCD Co., No.
CIV.A. 2:07-CV-176, 2008 WL 901405, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2008) (granting motion to
transfer where interest of justice “weighs in favor of having the parties resolve their related
disputes in one forum”). Accordingly, Rovi’s entire actions must be transferred.
III. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that Case Nos. 2:16-cv-00321 and 2:16-cv00322 be transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
The clerk shall take all steps necessary to effectuate this transfer.
SIGNED this 3rd day of January, 2012.
SIGNED this 25th day of October, 2016.
____________________________________
ROY S. PAYNE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10
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?