Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al v. NVIDIA Corporation et al
Filing
74
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 04/03/2015. (tjoh, )
I
IN THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT
rrit
APR-3 2015
COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT
RICHMOND VA
Richmond Division
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO.,
LTD.,
et al. ,
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No.
v.
3:14CV757
NVIDIA CORPORATION,
et al.,
Defendants
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This
matter
TRANSFER VENUE
(Docket No.
is
before
the
PURSUANT TO 28
46).
Court
U.S.C.
on
DEFENDANTS'
§ 1404(a),
For the reasons stated below,
MOTION
SEVER,
TO
AND STAY
this motion will
be denied.
BACKGROUND
In
this
("SEC")
case,
and
Samsung
(collectively,
claims
Micro
Plaintiffs
"Samsung")
against
Defendants
("Velocity Micro")
Holdings")
("NVIDIA"),
(collectively,
two
patent
Samsung
Electronics
have
brought
Velocity
Electronics
America,
six
Micro,
and Velocity
"Velocity"),
infringement
patent
Holdings,
and
claims
Co.,
Inc.
Inc.
b\
("SEA")
infringement
d/b/a
LLC
NVIDIA
Ltd.
Velocity
("Velocity
Corporation
against
Velocity
alone,
and
a
false
advertising
claim
against
NVIDIA
under
Virginia Code §§ 18.2-216 and 59.1-68.3.
The Defendants contend that Samsung has included the patent
infringement
claims
manufacture
(Defs.'
a
connection"
Mem.
at
transfer the
California
against
1,
Docket
claims
while
to
Velocity
the
No.
against
severing
in
Eastern
47.)
and
District
The
NVIDIA to
"an
attempt
of
Virginia.
Defendants
the
move
to
District
the Northern
staying
to
of
claims
against
Velocity until the NVIDIA action is adjudicated.
DISCUSSION
When evaluating a motion to transfer venue under 28
§
1404(a) , courts
follow a two-step inquiry.
First,
U.S.C.
the court
must determine whether the civil action could have been brought
in the proposed forum.
499,
502
"(1) the plaintiff's choice of forum;
(2) the convenience of the
witnesses,
716
access
to
evidence;
(4)
the
including third-party witnesses;
of justice."
708,
2012).
Supp. 2d
the court should consider:
(3)
Va.
874 F.
Second,
parties;
(E.D.
See Jaffe v. LSI Corp.,
Samsung Elec. Co. v. Rambus,
(E.D.
Va.
2005).
The
convenience
and
(5)
the
the interest
Inc., 386 F.
Defendants
of
advance
Supp. 2d
persuasive
evidence and arguments regarding each of these factors in their
motion.
When a motion to transfer venue is contingent upon severing
and
staying
the
remaining
claims,
defendants
must
first
demonstrate
that
(1)
the
peripheral in nature,
and
claims
(2)
to
be
severed
are
adjudication of the remaining main
claims will potentially dispose of the severed claims.
v.
Microtek Int'l,
2003) .
the
Only if
claims
is
Inc.,
250
F.
Supp.
these requirements
otherwise
only
warranted
2d 627,
are met
under
631-32
(E.D.
Va.
and the transfer of
section
district court grant a motion to transfer,
See Koh
sever,
1404 (a)
can
and stay.
a
See
id.
Claims
simply
a
product.
See,
2d
be
customer,
Electronics
Supp.
tend to
804
peripheral
reseller,
e.g.,
Inc.
Koh,
v.
(E.D.
nature
deemed peripheral
of
of
however,
defendant
the
In
is
infringing
(distributor);
Computer
(reseller).
claims,
the
2d 627
Creative
2001)
the
distributor
250 F. Supp.
Advance
Va.
or
when
Corp.,
131
evaluating
"what matters
in
LG
F.
the
not
whether a defendant is a customer or distributor of the alleged
infringer,
but
rather
whether the
claim against
is peripheral to the main dispute."
16 F. Supp. 2d 660,
665
(E.D. Va.
this
defendant
Corry v. CFM Majestic Inc.,
1998).
In five of the six infringement claims lodged against both
NVIDIA
and
peripheral.
Velocity,
Although
the
claims
Velocity
against
does
not
stand
"end consumer" because it incorporates the
into
its
nonetheless
own
product,
because
the
Velocity
of
in
the
appear
role
of
infringing component
remains
infringement
Velocity
its
a
mere
own
customer
product
is
entirely
conditional
incorporated
upon
through
transactions.
a
part
what
so
long as
one
of
the
six
has
be
purchased
routine
and
business
the peripheral customers need not
"the claim against
is peripheral to the main dispute."
In
it
to
appear
In other words,
be end consumers
that
[the]
defendant
Id.
infringement
claims,
however,
the
infringing product involves a combination of NVIDIA and Velocity
components.
Under the "Display Adapter Computer System Patent"
(U.S. Patent No. 6,804,724,
system
results
defendants.
system,
Of
a
combination
(the
cable").
and
"LCD
As
of
components
"monitor power
panel,"
such,
sensor")
"external
Samsung
claims
and
video
that
Velocity provides
port,"
and
"[p]roving
not resolve the issue of Velocity's infringement."
Docket No.
The
both
(the "digital transmitter," "video
infringes the Display Adapter Computer System Patent
at 12,
from
the six major elements of the claimed computer
NVIDIA provides three
controller,"
three
from
or "*724"), the allegedly infringing
"digital
that
NVIDIA
(^724) does
(Pis.' Opp'n
53.)
Defendants
retort
that
Samsung
refers
non-Velocity laptops in its Amended Complaint
to
examples
(Defs.'
of
Reply at
13-14, Docket No. 55), thereby implying that Velocity is not a
necessary party for Samsung to pursue direct infringement claims
on the
'724 Patent.
Id.
at 15 n.8.
That may be the case, but
it does not show that the claim before the Court is "peripheral"
with respect to Velocity;
it only shows that Samsung could have
chosen a different venue with a different co-defendant.
The
should
record,
remain
as
it
before
now
this
exists,
Court.
shows
that
the
Furthermore,
A724
the
Patent
defendants
have not met their burden respecting allegedly peripheral claims
as
defined
interests
by
of
maintaining
venue:
Koh.
The
justice
all
claims
Court,
and
in
therefore,
efficient
the
finds
that
adjudication
Plaintiffs'
original
the
warrant
choice
of
the Eastern District of Virginia.
CONCLUSION
For
VENUE
No.
the
foregoing
PURSUANT
46)
It
TO
28
reasons,
U.S.C.
§
DEFENDANTS'
1404(a),
MOTION
SEVER,
AND
TO
TRANSFER
STAY
(Docket
will be denied.
is
so ORDERED.
/s/
fcU
Robert E. Payne
Senior United States District Judge
Richmond, Virginia
Date:
April 3, 2015
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?