IDQ Operating, Inc. v. Aerospace Communications Holdings Co., Ltd.

Filing 188

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 123 Report and Recommendations, and denying 29 Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion to Transfer to the Northern District of Alabama, filed by Aerospace Communications Holdings Co., Ltd. Signed by Judge Rodney Gilstrap on 9/21/16. (mjc, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
THE ARMOR ALL/STP PRODUCTS
CO.
vs.
AEROSPACE COMMUNICATIONS
HOLDINGS CO., LTD.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:15cv781

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, which contains her findings,
conclusions, and recommendation for the disposition of this action, has been presented for
consideration.

The Report and Recommendation (ECF 123) recommends that Defendant’s

Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion to Transfer to the Northern District of Alabama
(ECF 29) be denied. Defendant filed an Amended Objection to and Request for Reconsideration
of the Report and Recommendation Denying Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue (ECF 136)
on June 27, 2016.
Having made a de novo review of the objections filed by Defendant, the Court finds that
the findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are correct and
Defendant’s objection is without merit. Defendant only objects to the denial of the motion in the
alternative to transfer venue. Defendant asserts that the Report and Recommendation fails to
consider facts that occurred after briefing ended—namely, that the original plaintiff in this
lawsuit, IDQ Operating, Inc., transferred its patent rights to Armor All. On July 5, 2016, the
Court granted Plaintiff’s motion to substitute The Armor All/STP Products Co. (“Armor All”) as
1

the plaintiff in this case. Defendant submits that the transfer to Armor All affects the relative
ease of access to sources of proof. As the Court noted in the Report and Recommendation,
however, neither party’s documents are located in the Eastern District of Texas. Moreover, the
motion is to be decided based on the facts as they existed when suit was instituted. In re EMC,
501 Fed.Appx. 973, 976 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Defendant’s remaining assertions are fully addressed
in the Report and Recommendation. Defendant has not shown that the Northern District of
Alabama is a clearly more convenient forum.
To the extent Defendant is also seeking reconsideration pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 72,
Defendant has not shown that the order denying the alternative motion to transfer is clearly
erroneous or contrary to law. It is
ORDERED that Defendant’s objection is OVERRULED.

Defendant’s Motion to

Dismiss or, in the Alternative, Motion to Transfer to the Northern District of Alabama (ECF 29)
is DENIED.

So Ordered this
Sep 21, 2016

2