Nautilus, Inc. v. Icon Health & Fitness, Inc.

Filing 57

ORDER granting 46 Defendant's Motion to Change Venue and Amend its Answer; this matter is to be TRANSFERRED to the District of Utah; signed by Judge Ronald B. Leighton.(DN)

HONORABLE RONALD B. LEIGHTON

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

7
8

CASE NO. C16-5393-RBL

NAUTILUS, INC.,
9
Plaintiff,
10
11
12

v.
ICON HEALTH & FITNESS, INC.,

ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO
AMEND AND TO TRANSFER
DKT. #46

Defendant.

13
14

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Defendant ICON’s Motion [Dkt. #46] for leave to

15

amend its answer. ICON seeks to deny that venue is proper, and asks the Court to transfer the

16

case to Utah, where ICON actually has a place of business.

17

Plaintiff Nautilus claims ICON’s “FreeStrider Elliptical” exercise machine infringes upon

18

four of Nautilus’s patents for “variable stride technology” in such machines. Nautilus initially

19

alleged (and ICON admitted) that venue was proper in this District, because ICON sells its

20

devices to Washington residents, online.

21

ICON’s venue motion was triggered by the Supreme Court’s recent holding that venue

22

for a patent infringement case against a domestic corporation is proper only where it is

23

incorporated or where it has committed alleged acts of infringement and has a “regular and

24
ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO AMEND AND
TO TRANSFER - 1

1

established place of business.” TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, No. 16–

2

341, 2017 U.S. LEXIS 3213 (May 22, 2017). It is undisputed that ICON is not incorporated here

3

and does not have an established place of business here. It asks the Court to transfer the case to

4

Utah (where is does have an established place of business) under 28 U.S.C. § 14001 (the venue

5

provision for patent cases).

6

DISCUSSION

7

Nautilus sued ICON in May 2016, and TC Heartland was decided a year later. The

8

Markman hearing in this case is scheduled for October 13, and in accordance with the Court’s

9

scheduling order, the parties filed a joint claim chart and pre-hearing statement on August 18—

10
11

the day after ICON filed this motion.
In determining whether to grant leave to amend under Rule 15, the Court considers five

12

factors: “bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, futility of amendment, and

13

whether the plaintiff has previously amended the complaint.” United States v. Corinthian

14

Colleges, 655 F.3d 984, 995 (9th Cir. 2011) (emphasis added). Among these factors, prejudice to

15

the opposing party carries the greatest weight. Eminence Capital, 316 F.3d at 1052.

16

Nautilus argues that ICON unreasonably delayed bringing its motion, noting the passage

17

of time between the opinion and the motion (87 days). It argues that ICON continued to litigate

18

in this district after TC Heartland, waiving the venue defect, and that transfer at this late stage

19

would be unduly prejudicial, because its patents expire in less than four years and moving the

20

case would delay trial by at least a year.

21
22
23
24

1
ICON’s Motion also mentions §1404(a) (transfer for convenience) but its Reply makes clear that the motion is
based on TC Heartland and the venue statue it construes—§1400. The gist of the dispute is whether venue is proper,
not whether a different proper venue would be more convenient.

DKT. #46 - 2

ICON denies that its conduct or the passage of time amounts to a waiver of its venue

1
2

challenge. The “litigation” in which it engaged in the interim consisted of stipulations, a request

3

for a case management conference, and its court-required participation in drafting the joint

4

statement. It argues that the impact of TC Heartland was not immediately known (specifically

5

whether it applied retroactively), and that it was at the same time awaiting word from the PTAB

6

about its (unsuccessful) challenge to Nautilus’s patents. Indeed, it had sought a stay while the

7

PTAB process was ongoing.
It also argues that in TC Heartland’s wake, a number of cases have held that it was an

8
9

intervening change of law excusing or precluding waiver, citing opinions from this Circuit, this

10

District, and this Court. It points out that the Oregon District Court recently (September 5)

11

transferred a similar case after the Markman hearing, after dispositive motions, and only ten days

12

before trial, because the defendant did not reside in Oregon, or have a regular, established place

13

of business there. Like Nautilus, the plaintiff there argued that the defendant had waived the

14

venue objection through its litigation conduct and the passage of time. Indeed, the showing of

15

prejudice to the plaintiff there was far greater than Nautilus’s showing here. Nevertheless, under

16

§ 1406, the Court held that prejudice to the plaintiff was not a relevant consideration.
This Court is not prepared to go quite that far, but it is clear that any prejudice to Nautilus

17
18

stems not from ICON’s conduct or inaction, but from TC Heartland and the Utah Court’s

19

calendar. The work that was done in the 87 days between the opinion and motion in preparation

20

for the Markman hearing was not wasted; the parties can presumably use the same document in

21

Utah. In any event, the short delay in bringing the motion did not cause a one year delay in the

22

trial.

23
24

DKT. #46 - 3

1
2

Venue is improper in this District. ICON’s Motion to Amend its answer to so allege is
GRANTED, and its Motion to Transfer is also GRANTED.

3

The case is TRANSFERRED to the District of Utah, where venue is proper.

4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

Dated this 13th day of September, 2017.

7

A

8

Ronald B. Leighton
United States District Judge

6

9

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

DKT. #46 - 4