Certusview Technologies, LLC v. S & N Locating Services, LLC et al

Filing 57

OPINION and ORDER the Court DENIES Defendants'motion to transfer venue. Signed by District Judge Mark S. Davis and filed on 12/12/2013. (rsim, )

IN THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Norfolk Division

CERTUSVIEW TECHNOLOGIES,

LLC,

Plaintiff,
Civil No.

S & N

LOCATING SERVICES,

2:13cv346

LLC,

and

S & N

COMMUNICATIONS,

INC.,

Defendants.

OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on a motion to transfer venue

filed

by

defendants

Communications,

S

Inc.

&

N

Locating

(collectively

Services,

LLC,

"Defendants"

or

and
"S

S

&

&

N

N").

Defendants' motion seeks transfer of this patent infringement action
to Defendants'

Plaintiff

Certusview

"Certusview")
below,

home forum of the Middle District of North Carolina.

Technologies,

opposes such transfer.

the Court DENIES Defendants'

LLC,

("Plaintiff"

or

For the reasons set forth

motion to transfer venue.

I. Factual and Procedural Background

Plaintiff filed its complaint in the United States District

Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on May 29, 2013.
the Court granted Defendants'

After

unopposed motion to extend the time

to file pleadings or a motion in response to the Complaint, Defendants

filed the instant motion to transfer venue.

a motion requesting additional time,

The parties again filed

and this Court extended the

briefing schedule on the instant motion.

Nearly a month after this

matter was fully briefed, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file
a surreply.

Defendants'

motion

for

briefed on November 4, 2013.

leave to

file

a surreply was

fully

On November 9, 2013, Magistrate Judge

Lawrence Leonard issued an order denying Defendants' request to file

a surreply.

Accordingly,

this matter is ripe for review.

II. Standard for Discretionary Transfer of Venue
Title 28 of the United States Code, Section 1404, establishes

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
or to any district or division to which all parties have consented."
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

Such statute "is intended to place discretion

in the district court to adjudicate motions for transfer of venue

according

to

an

^individualized,

convenience and fairness.'"

U.S. 22, 29 (1988)

case-by-case

consideration

of

Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487

(quoting Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 622

(1964) ); see Brock v. Entre Computer Ctrs., Inc., 933 F.2d 1253, 1257

(4th Cir. 1991) ("Decisions whether to transfer a case pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1404 are committed to the discretion of the transferring
judge").

In a patent infringement action, such motions to transfer

venue pursuant to Section 1404(a)

are governed by the law of the

regional circuit in which the Court sits.

See Winner Int'l Royalty

Corp. v. Wang, 202 F.3d 1340, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
To determine whether a

transfer of venue to another district

is appropriate under § 1404(a),

"a district court must make two

inquiries:

(1) whether the claims might have been brought in the

transferee

forum,

and

(2)

whether

the

interest

of

justice

and

convenience of the parties and witnesses justify transfer to that
forum."

Koh v. Microtek Int'1, Inc., 250 F. Supp. 2d 627, 630 (E.D.

Va. 2003) ; see 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (a) ; TechnoSteel, LLC v. Beers Constr.

Co., 271 F.3d 151, 160 (4th Cir. 2001)

(indicating that a § 1404(a)

transfer is merely a "discretionary change to another district where

the action could have been brought") (internal citation and quotation
marks

omitted).

In

conducting

the

second

inquiry,

the

Court

considers several factors to determine whether to transfer venue,

including:

"MD

ease

of

access

to

sources

of

proof;

(2)

the

convenience of the parties and witnesses; (3) the cost of obtaining

the attendance of witnesses;
process;

home;

(6)

(4)

the availability of compulsory

(5) the interest in having local controversies decided at

in diversity cases,

the

court's

familiarity with the

applicable law; and (7) the interest of justice.'"

One Beacon Ins.

Co. v. JNB Storage Trailer Rental Corp., 312 F. Supp. 2d 824, 828
(E.D. Va. 2004)

(quoting BHP Int'l Inv., Inc. v. Online Exch., Inc.,

105 F. Supp. 2d 493,
to consider,

however,

498

(E.D. Va. 2000)).

are:

(1)

Plaintiff's

The principal factors
choice

of

forum;

(2)

witness

convenience

and

access

to

sources

convenience; and (4) the interest of justice.

of

proof;

(3)

party

Koh, 250 F. Supp. 2d

at 633; see Praqmatus AV, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., 769 F. Supp. 2d 991,
994-95 (E.D. Va. 2011).
movant

to show "that

Ultimately, the burden of proof is on the

transfer does more

inconvenience to the other party.'"
Supp. 2d 731,
Corp.,

736 (E.D. Va. 2007)

617 F. Supp.

76,

77

A.

JTH Tax,

'shift the

Inc. v. Lee,

482 F.

(quoting DMP Corp. v. Fruehauf

(W.D.N.C.

III.

than merely

1985)).

Discussion

Venue in Transferee Forum

"As an initial matter,

the court must determine whether the

proposed transferee court is one in which the action originally may
have been brought."

BHP Int' 1 Inv., 105 F. Supp. 2d at 4 98.

If the

claims could have been brought in the transferee court initially,
the subsequent decision to transfer venue is within the discretion

of the court.

One Beacon Ins. Co., 312 F. Supp. 2d at 828 (citing

Verosol B.V. v. Hunter Douglas,
Va.

Inc.,

806 F. Supp. 582, 591

(E.D.

1992)).

Under 28 U. S.C. § 1400(b), venue in patent infringement lawsuits
is proper in any "district where the defendant resides, or where the

defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and
established place of business."
added).

28

U.S.C.

§

1400(b)

(emphasis

A corporate defendant resides in any district in which it

is subject to personal jurisdiction.

28 U.S.C.

§ 1391(c).

In the instant matter, it is undisputed that Plaintiff's patent

infringement action could have initially been filed in the Middle
District

of

North

district

and

Carolina

their

Accordingly,

as

corporate

Defendants

are

headquarters

residents

are

located

of

such

therein.

the Court finds that venue would have been proper in

the proposed transferee court.
B.

Section 1404(a)

Although

there

are

Convenience and Justice Factors

various

ways

to

formulate

the

relevant

considerations for determining whether a discretionary transfer is
appropriate, the primary considerations are: (1) Plaintiff's choice

of forum;
(3)

(2) witness convenience and access to sources of proof;

party convenience; and (4)

F. Supp.

2d at 633; Lee,
1.

Koh,

250

482 F. Supp. 2d at 736.

Plaintiff's

"Generally,

the interest of justice.

Initial Choice of Venue

the first factor - a plaintiff's choice of venue

- is given substantial weight as '[i]t is well settled that a court

should rarely disturb

a plaintiff's

choice

of

forum unless

balance of hardships clearly favor transfer . . . .'"

Scis.,

Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,

928 F.

the

Va. Innovation

Supp. 2d 863, 868

(E.D.

Va. 2013) (quoting Verizon Online Servs. v. Ralsky, 203 F. Supp. 2d
601, 623-24)

(E.D. Va. 2002)

Norfolk & W. Ry. Co.,

(alteration in original); see Akers v.

378 F.2d 78, 80

(4th Cir.

1967)

(recognizing

"the primary right of the plaintiff to choose his forum, a selection
not

easily

to

be

overthrown").

However,

the

"weight

given

to

plaintiff's choice of venue varies with the significance of the
contacts between the venue chosen by plaintiff and the underlying
cause of action."

Bd.

Baylor

Air

1256

Heating

(E.D.

Va.

&

1988)

of Trs.,

Sheet Metal Workers Nat'l Fund v.

Conditioning,
[hereinafter

Inc.,

Baylor

702

F.

Supp.

Heating];

see

1253,
Agilent

Techs., Inc., 316 F. Supp. 2d at 327 ("[T]he greater the connection

between a plaintiff's chosen forum and the plaintiff's cause of
action, the more weight a court will give to the plaintiff s choice") .
Furthermore, a plaintiff's selection of a foreign forum is typically
given less weight than a plaintiff's selection of its home forum.
Baylor Heating,

702 F. Supp. at 1256.

This is so because "'it is

often more difficult for the plaintiff to show why such a forum is
more convenient for the plaintiff.'"

Koh,

(quoting 17

James Wm.

Moore's

111.13[1] [c]

(3d ed.

Here,

Florida,

it

is

Moore,

et al.,

250 F. Supp. 2d at 634
Federal

Practice §

2002)).

undisputed that Plaintiff's "home forum"

in

Accordingly,

not the Eastern District of Virginia.

is

to

determine whether substantial weight should be given to Plaintiff's

chosen

forum,

connection

this

between

Court's

inquiry

Plaintiff's

cause

focuses
of

on

action

the
and

degree
the

of

Eastern

District of Virginia.

The parties present vastly divergent pictures of the connection
between the instant dispute and the Eastern District of Virginia.
Plaintiff

contends

that

Defendants

are

engaged

in

large-scale

infringement of Plaintiff's various patents almost exclusively in
the

Commonwealth

allegation by
electronic

of

Virginia.

explaining that

mapping

of

Commonwealth of Virginia,
companies,
methods.

utility

is

Plaintiff

at

the

In contrast,

companies

in

the

seeks

to

justify its

disputed technology involves

underground

utilities

and

that

the

through several of its largest utility

forefront

of

adopting

electronic mapping

Plaintiff asserts that it is unaware of any

North

Carolina

that

are

utilizing

such

electronic mapping services.

In

response,

Defendants

note

that

Plaintiff's

alleged

unawareness of sales by Defendants of their products or services in
North

Carolina

is

"irrelevant" and

indicate

that

they

perform

electronic mapping services in several states, including Virginia,
North Carolina, Maryland, and Ohio.

that

the facts-not

Plaintiff's

Although Defendants are correct

knowledge or lack thereof-should

drive the inquiry, curiously, Defendants offer no sales data or other

information to refute Plaintiff's suggestion that the vast majority
of all (purported) infringement is occurring in Virginia.
250 F. Supp.

Cf. Koh,

2d at 635-36 (considering the percentage of domestic

sales in Virginia in determining the "relation between this district
and the claims against [the defendants]").

Defendants' efforts to

refute Plaintiff's claim that the instant suit bears substantial ties

to Virginia falls flat because: 1) prior to discovery,
are the sole possessors of any such evidence;

2)

Defendants

Defendants have

submitted no such data or evidence; and 3) Defendants bear the burden

of proving that venue should be transferred.
The Court further notes that Defendants seek to demonstrate the

lack of a connection to Virginia by citing case law indicating that
"[f]ederal

courts

are

not

solicitous

of

plaintiffs

claiming

substantial weight for their forum choice where the connection with
the forum is limited to sales activity without more."
Creatine Patent Co. v. Met-Rx USA,

Inc.,

387 F.

Original

Supp. 2d 564, 568

(E.D. Va. 2005) (quoting Acterna, L.L.C. v. Adtech, Inc., 129 F. Supp.
2d

936,

938

(E.D.

Va.

2001)).

However,

the

instant

facts,

as

presented to this Court by Plaintiff, involve infringement that is

occurring almost exclusively in Virginia.

At least based on the

information before the Court at this time, this is not a case where

an infringing physical device is designed and manufactured in one

state and the connection to the state in which suit is filed is merely
claimed retail sales.

See,

e.g.,

GTE Wireless,

Inc., 71 F. Supp. 2d 517, 519 (E.D. Va. 1999)
to

California

where

"the

central

issues

Inc.

v. Qualcomm,

(transferring the case

concerning the

accused

activity revolve around the cellular phones which are designed and

manufactured in San Diego")
that

Plaintiff's

primary

(emphasis added).
allegation

of

Rather, it appears

infringement

is

that

Defendants are currently, on a daily basis, infringing Plaintiff's
patent in Virginia by using Plaintiff's patented method of creating
electronic

maps

of

utility

lines

8

in

Virginia,

and

that

such

electronic maps are specific to land surveyed in Virginia.
Intercarrier Commc'ns v. Glympse,

Inc., No.

Cf.

3:12-CV-767, 2013 U.S.

Dist. LEXIS 113572, at *8 (E.D. Va. Aug. 12, 2013) (declining to give
substantial weight to foreign plaintiff's choice of venue in Virginia
where

"nothing

demonstrates

that

Virginia

residents

use

this

software proportionately more than residents of any other state").
It

is

also notable

that

Defendants

have more

Virginia which, according to Defendants,

purportedly infringing activities,

than ten offices

in

support both the accused

as well as unrelated clearly

non-infringing construction activities.1
Although
infringement
System"

-

Defendants'
stems

which

from

was

filings

Defendants'

designed

and

suggest

that

"product"
created

in

-

the

the
North

claimed

"SN LocSys
Carolina,

Defendants fail to articulate the type of product (i.e., software
or hardware) and fail to effectively refute Plaintiff's assertion

that the focus of the instant suit
infringed in Virginia,

is on "method" claims being

rather than an infringing apparatus being

designed and manufactured in one state and merely being sold in
another.

For example,

in Beam Laser Sys.,

Inc.

v. Cox Commc'ns,

Inc., 117 F. Supp. 2d 515, 518-19 (E.D. Va. 2000), another Judge of
this Court rejected the defendants' attempts to demonstrate a lack
of significant ties to the Eastern District of Virginia.

1 It appears at this time that,

The Court

in addition to their corporate

headquarters, Defendants have, at most, one additional location in North
Carolina.
9

began by noting that "[u]nder patent law, 'whoever without authority
makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within
the United States . . . during the term of the patent therefor,

infringes the patent."'

Id^ at 518 (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 271(a)).

Although in some cases, the "hub of activity" where an infringing
product is designed and manufactured will have the strongest ties
to the cause of action, such is true when the "patent infringement

action alleg[es] violation of the 'makes' prong of the statute."
at 518-19.

Id.

In contrast, the "center of the accused activity" in Beam

Laser Systems

plaintiffs

was

had

the

Eastern

asserted

District

large-scale

"infringing . . . system."

of

Virginia,

use

of

the

where

the

purportedly

Id. at 519.

Considering the above, as in Beam Laser Systems, the Court finds
that

Plaintiff

has

advanced

"significant

ties"

to

the

Eastern

District of Virginia such that Plaintiff's choice of forum should

be given substantial weight.

Although various factors lead to such

conclusion, most notable is the fact that the alleged infringement
involves the use of a method (and/or apparatus) within the Eastern
District

of Virginia

in

order

located within Virginia.

to map underground utility lines

Furthermore,

Defendants fail to present

any sales data or other evidence to refute Plaintiff's assertion that
Virginia is at the forefront of adopting the disputed technology and
is

the

primary

locus

of

the

use

of

electronically map underground utilities.

10

the

patented

method

to

Accordingly, the Court

finds

that

Plaintiff

has

demonstrated

sufficient

ties

to

this

district to afford "substantial weight" to its selection of forum
for litigating the instant lawsuit.
2. Parties/Witness Convenience and Access

The Court next performs a combined analysis of considering the
convenience to the parties and witnesses in litigating in the instant
venue rather than the proposed transferee venue.

Assessment of this

factor requires the court to consider, among other things, the "ease
of access to sources of proof, the costs of obtaining witnesses, and

the availability of compulsory process."
499 F. Supp. 2d 685, 693 (E.D. Va. 2007)
v. Rambus,

Inc.,

386 F. Supp. 2d 708,

Lycos, Inc. v. TiVo, Inc.,
(quoting Samsung Elecs. Co.

717 n.13

(E.D. Va 2005)).

A party asserting witness inconvenience "has the burden to

proffer, by affidavit or otherwise, sufficient details respecting
the witnesses and their potential testimony to enable the court to
assess the materiality of evidence and the degree of inconvenience."

Koh,

250 F.

Supp.

2d at

636.

Additionally,

"the convenience of

non-party witnesses should be afforded greater weight

[than the

convenience of party witnesses] in deciding a motion to transfer."
Rambus, 386 F. Supp. 2d at 718.

As the moving party, Defendants must

demonstrate that the Eastern District of Virginia is "an inconvenient
forum in which to litigate, not simply that the [Middle District of
North Carolina]

would be more convenient."

Id.

at 718 n.15.

Here, Defendants motion and memoranda at best demonstrate why

11

the Middle District of North Carolina would be more convenient for

its witnesses and provide for easier access to Defendants' corporate
files.

Defendants do

not,

however,

demonstrate why this Court,

which is only 235 miles from the Middle District of North Carolina,
Greensboro

Division,

is

an

"inconvenient

forum."

Notably,

Defendants do not proffer, by affidavit or other evidence, sufficient

details regarding the potential testimony of its proposed witnesses
such that the Court can assess the materiality of such testimony
and/or the extent of the inconvenience.

Rather,

Defendants focus

primarily on the number of miles that need to be driven by Defendants'
potential witnesses,
lodging.
single

as well as the assumed expense of meals and

Furthermore,
witness

courthouse,
Defendants

who

not only do Defendants fail to identify a

is

located

more

than

miles

from

this

but four of the eleven S & N witnesses identified by
are

actually

closer

to

this

courthouse in Greensboro, North Carolina.
No. 41.

250

courthouse

than

to

the

Defs.' Reply at 14, ECF

As to the seven potential witnesses who are far closer to

Greensboro,

Defendants broadly assert that those individuals have

"relevant knowledge . . . regarding the development, maintenance,

advertising, and/or sales" of the accused technology.
SI

5,

ECF.

No.

36-2.

As

the

parties

asserting

Defs.' Aff.

inconvenience,

Defendants' broad statements fall far short of the requirement that
they

"proffer

by

affidavit

or

otherwise,

sufficient

details

respecting the witnesses and their potential testimony" to permit

12

the Court to assess whether such testimony is "central to a claim,"
as well as whether it is "merely cumulative" to testimony offered

by other witnesses.

Rambus, 386 F. Supp. 2d at 718.2

Although Defendants have identified one third-party witness
located 90 miles

this

Court,

witness

from the Greensboro courthouse and 240 miles from

Defendants

suggesting

that

"inconvenient."
third-party
actually

not

included an

traveling

Defendants

witnesses

closer

have

to

who

live

Greensboro,

to

vaguely
in

affidavit

Norfolk

North

would

identify

Roanoke,

from that

additional

Virginia

Carolina

than

be

to

(which

is

Norfolk,

Virginia); however, Defendants' own facts suggest that one or more
of those witnesses live more than 100 miles from Greensboro and would

thus be outside the subpoena power of the Greensboro Court, but would

still

be

within

the

subpoena

power

of

this

Court.

Finally,

Defendants do not persuasively demonstrate that air travel from

2 Curiously, Defendants attack Plaintiff's affidavits submitted in
opposition to the pending motion to transfer as being "self-serving," when
Defendants themselves primarily rely on a similarly "self-serving"
affidavit from S & N's vice president.

Moreover,

Defendants'

affidavit

does not even include a sworn assertion that "it would be inconvenient"

for S & N, or its vice president, to appear in Norfolk.
Rather, the
affidavit includes numerous facts attempting to demonstrate that
Greensboro would be "more convenient and less expensive" than Norfolk for
Defs.' Aff. f 7, ECF No.
S & N and many of its potential party witnesses.
36-2 (emphasis added).
However, the affidavit acknowledges that the S &

N employees responsible for advertising and selling the purportedly
infringing products and services are located either in Kernersville, North
Notably,
Carolina, Troy, Virginia, or Louisa, Virginia.
Id. fl 5.
Defendants do not include affidavits from such party witnesses with an
individualized explanation as to any inconvenience that each would
purportedly suffer.
Furthermore, although Defendants contend that the
claimed inconvenience to third parties should garner greater weight than
the inconvenience to party witnesses, Defendants do not submit an affidavit
from a single third-party witness or potential party witness.
13

Florida to Greensboro, North Carolina, as compared to air travel from
Florida to Norfolk, Virginia, is any different in length of travel,

price, or inconvenience.3
Regarding "access to sources of proof," Defendants also assert
that "S & N related documents" are housed in North Carolina and would

need to be transported to Virginia.

However,

Defendants fail to

identify such documents with any degree of particularity, fail to
quantify the scope of the relevant documents, and fail to indicate

whether the documents are paper or electronic. 4
Defendants

fail

to

provide

any

evidence

Furthermore,

rebutting

Plaintiff's

assertion that the bulk of the alleged infringement is occurring in
Virginia, or that Defendants have more than ten offices in Virginia.
Considering the above information,
instant prong,
District

at

of North

best,

the Court finds that the

slightly favors

Carolina.

That

said,

transfer to
the

the

Middle

limited information

provided by Defendants does little to distinguish the facts of this
case from almost any other lawsuit because transferring a case to
a defendant's home forum is almost always more convenient for that

3 Defendants submitted numerous exhibits consisting of Internet
printouts of flights from Florida into the Greensboro, North Carolina
airport and the Norfolk, Virginia airport.
Such exhibits demonstrate that
on the day of such searches, the frequently-changing price of air travel
resulted in a higher fare of only $80 to fly to Norfolk.

4 Although it has no bearing on this Court' s ruling, the fact that
Defendants' counsel are based outside of North Carolina suggests that this
case does not involve an unwieldy number of documents or other difficulty
in transferring physical evidence that can only be effectively managed in
the twenty miles between Defendants' corporate office in Kernersville,
North Carolina and the Greensboro courthouse.

14

defendant's witnesses.
3.

Interest of Justice

"The interest of justice category is 'designedly broad,'" and
"is intended to encompass all those factors bearing on transfer that
are unrelated to

convenience of witnesses and parties."

Heating, 702 F. Supp. at 1260.

Baylor

To place a more practical framework

on such a designedly broad test, district courts generally consider

the following eight factors:
(2)

(1) the pendency of a related action,

the court's familiarity with the applicable law,

(3)

docket

conditions, (4) access to premises that might have to be viewed, (5)
the possibility of an unfair trial,

parties,

(6) the ability to join other

(7) the possibility of harassment, and (8) the interest of

having local controversies decided at home.
Supp. 2d at 996; Rambus,
interest-of-justice

Praqmatus AV, 769 F.

386 F. Supp. 2d at 721.

factor

"encompasses

public

Ultimately, the
interest

factors

aimed at 'systemic integrity and fairness,'" with the most prominent
considerations

being

"judicial

inconsistent judgments."
F. Supp. 2d 627,

economy

and

the

avoidance

of

Byerson v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 467

635 (E.D.

Va. 2006)

(quoting Rambus,

386 F. Supp.

2d at 721) .

Here,

Defendants

focus

solely

on

factor

eight

(local

controversies decided at home), asserting that the other factors are

"not at issue" in this case.5

The central dispute is which state has

5 Defendant asserts that the "docket conditions" factor cannot be
15

a

"local"

Carolina

interest

has

Defendants

a

in

the matter.

"local"

are

interest

headquartered

Defendants

in

assert

this

matter

and

because

there

that North

solely

the

because

allegedly

infringing technology was researched, designed, and developed there.
Plaintiff offers an effective counterargument,

that,

however,

asserting

regardless of Defendants' physical location, Defendants are

engaging in large-scale infringement in Virginia as they utilize
patented technology on a daily basis to create electronic maps of

underground

utilities

companies in Virginia.

headquartered

in

located

in

Virginia

for

large

utility

In other words, although Defendants may be

North

Carolina,

their

alleged

infringement

is

occurring in Virginia.
Defendants
asserting

that

attempt to counter Plaintiff's
they

perform

services

in

point by

other

states

vaguely
as

well,

including North Carolina, but Defendants fail to quantify in any way
their activities in other states.

It appears to this Court that the

state with the most direct interest in the instant action is the state

addressed because statistics for median time to trial are not available

for

the

Middle

District

of

North

Carolina.

In

response,

Plaintiff

highlights that statistics are available for median time from filing to
disposition in a civil case, and that such period is approximately twice
as long (10 months as compared to 5 months) in the Middle District of North
Carolina

than

in

this

Court.

This

Court

further

notes

that

the

same

statistics cited by the parties reveal that there are slightly more civil
cases filed in the last year per judgeship in the Middle District of North

Carolina than in this Court, and that there are substantially more pending
cases in that Court per Judgeship as compared to this Court.
Accordingly,
to the extent that this Court considers docket conditions, the interest
of justice would not favor the transfer of venue that Defendants seek.
See
Federal Court Management Statistics:
District Courts - June 2013,
http://www.uscourts.gov/Statistics/FederalCourtManagementStatistics/di
strict-courts-june-2013.aspx (last visited Dec. 9, 2013).
16

where its utility companies rely daily on the services of an alleged

infringer rather than the state where such infringer has its home
office.
favors

Accordingly,

the

interest-of-justice

factor

slightly

Plaintiff.

In sum, Defendants have failed to demonstrate that transfer to
the Middle District of North Carolina is warranted,

relevant factors present in this case.

based on the

As detailed above, a transfer

to the Middle District of North Carolina would simply shift the
inconvenience

from Defendants

to

Plaintiff,

and

Defendants

have

failed to demonstrate that "the interest of justice and convenience

of the parties and witnesses justify transfer to" the Middle District
of North Carolina.
Defendants'

Koh,

250

F.

Supp.

2d at

630.

Accordingly,

motion to transfer venue is DENIED.
Ill.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, the Court DENIES Defendants'
motion to transfer venue.

The Clerk is REQUESTED to send a copy of this Opinion and Order
to all counsel of record.
IT IS

SO ORDERED,

/.TftiafeMark S.
UNITED STATES

Norfolk, Virginia

December

I3L

, 2013

17

Davis

DISTRICT

JUDGE