Opinion
Civil Action No. 01-309-JJF
March 26, 2002
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Presently before the court is a Motion To Transfer Venue To The Central District of California (D.I. 11) filed by Defendant E20 Communications, Inc. ("E20"). For the reasons discussed, the motion will be denied.
BACKGROUND
Stratos Lightwave, Inc. ("Stratos") and E20 both manufacture and sell optoelectronic transciever modules which are used in computer networks. (D.I. 8 at 1). Stratos is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Chicago, Illinois and facilities in California. (D.I. 17 at 1). E20 is also incorporated in Delaware, but maintains its headquarters in Calabasas, California. (D.I. 8 at 2). The design and development of E20's accused products is conducted in California, where the majority of E20's domestic employees are located. (D.I. 8 at 2). The accused products are manufactured internationally, in Asia. (D.I. 8 at 2).
On May 5, 2001, Stratos filed this action against E20 alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,717,533, 5,734,558, 5,864,468, 5,879,173, Re. 36,820, 6,201,704B1, and 6,320,878BI. (D.I. 1). E20 subsequently filed the instant motion to transfer.
DISCUSSION
By its motion, E20 contends that Delaware is an inconvenient forum because its corporate offices, where all the relevant documents and knowledgeable fact witnesses are located, are in California. (D.I. 8 at 7). E20 contends that litigation in Delaware would be not only expensive, but disruptive to the corporation. (D.I. 8 at 7). E20 further contends that Delaware is an inconvenient forum for the witnesses, none of whom reside in Delaware, and further that several non-party witnesses exist who would be beyond the Court's subpoena power. (D.I. 8 at 8). Additionally, E20 contends that the Central District of California is more convenient because the median time to trial is faster. (D.I. 8 at 11). Finally, E20 contends that California, not Delaware, has a local interest in deciding this controversy because the majority of the allegedly infringing activity took place in California. (D.I. 8 at 11).
E20 continuously argues that Stratos' contacts with Delaware are "de minimis, at best;" however, the Court finds this argument to be immaterial in the context of a motion to transfer.
In opposition, Stratos contends that its choice of forum is entitled to substantial deference. (D.I. 17 at 4). Stratos contends that although Delaware is not its home turf, it chose to sue E20 in Delaware because E20 is incorporated in this state. (D.I. 17 at 5). Stratos further contends that E20, a successful international company, is capable of financing litigation in Delaware, and transferring this action to California would merely shift the burden of expense to Stratos. (D.I. 17 at 7). By E20's failure to identify non-party witnesses beyond subpoena power, Stratos contends that the convenience of the witnesses does not weigh in favor of transfer. (D.I. 17 at 11-10). Stratos further contends that adjudication of this action, pursuant to the Court's Scheduling Order (D.I. 15), will be faster than in California, where a new scheduling order would be put in place. (D.I. 17 at 12).
Transfer of a civil action is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) which provides, "[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." The purpose of § 1404(a) is "to prevent the waste of time, energy, and money and to protect litigants, witnesses, and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and expense." Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964) (internal citations omitted) Because it is undisputed that Stratos could have brought the instant action in the Central District of California, the Court's only task is to determine whether the factors enumerated in § 1404(a) and by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, warrant a transfer.
The Third Circuit has instructed that when reviewing a motion to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) district courts must consider, among other things, private and public interests. See Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873 (3d Cir. 1995). When determining whether or not transfer is warranted in the circumstances presented, district courts must balance all of the relevant factors and respect that a plaintiff's choice of forum is entitled to substantial deference and should not be lightly disturbed. Id. at 883; See also Shutte v. Armco Steel Corp., 431 F.2d 22, 25 (3d Cir. 1920). The burden is upon the movant to establish that the balance of the interests strongly weighs in favor of transfer, and a transfer will be denied if the factors are evenly balanced or weigh only slightly in favor of the transfer. See Continental Cas. Co. v. American Home Assurance Co., 61 F. Supp.2d 128, 131 (D. Del. 1999).
The private interests are:
(1) the plaintiff's choice of forum, (2) the defendant's preferred forum, (3) whether the claim arose elsewhere, (4) the convenience of the parties due to their relative physical and financial conditions, (5) the convenience of the expected witnesses, but only so far as the witnesses might be unavailable for trial if the trial is conducted in a certain forum, and (5) the location of books and records, to the extent that these books and records could not be produced in a certain forum.
Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 883 (3d Cir. 1995).
The public interests are:
(1) the enforceability of the judgment, (2) practical considerations regarding the ease, speed, or expense of trial, (3) the administrative difficulty due to court congestion, (4) the local interest in deciding local controversies in the home forum, (5) the public policies of the two fora, and (6) the trial judge's familiarity with the applicable state law in diversity cases.Id.
I. Private Interests
After a consideration of the relevant private interests, the Court concludes that the balance of these factors does not weigh strongly in favor of transfer. As stated previously, a plaintiff's choice of forum is entitled to substantial deference and should not be lightly disturbed.Shutte, 431 F.2d at 25. In the instant case, Stratos' preference for Delaware is not given as much deference because it, admittedly, has not chosen its home turf. See Continental, 61 F. Supp. 2d at 131 (stating that "the transfer of a case will generally be regarded as less inconvenient to a plaintiff if the plaintiff has not chosen its home turf or a forum where the alleged wrongful activity occurred"). However, it is not appropriate to disregard a plaintiff's choice of forum where it had a rational and legitimate reason for choosing the forum. See Joint Stock Society v. Heublein, Inc., 936 F. Supp. 177, 187 (D. Del. 1996). And the fact that E20 has incorporated in Delaware is a rational and legitimate reason for choosing to sue E20 in Delaware. In fact, E20, having received the benefits of Delaware incorporation, should not now complain that another corporation has chosen to sue it here. Critikon, Inc. v. Becton Dickinson Vascular Access, Inc., 821 F. Supp. 962, 965 (D. Del. 1993). Therefore, Stratos' forum preference, as well as E20's Delaware incorporation, weigh in favor of maintaining this action in Delaware.
The Court cannot conclude that the balance of the remaining factors strongly weigh in favor of transfer. No witness, reluctant to testify, beyond the subpoena power of the Court, has been identified. The relevant documents, books, and records can be easily transported to Delaware. The financial burden on Defendants to litigate in Delaware is not unduly harsh. In sum, the private interests weigh in favor of maintaining this action in Delaware.
II. Public Interests
In the Court's view, none of the public interests weigh in favor of transfer. Patent rights are not local or state matters and therefore cannot give rise to a local controversy, or implicate local public policy. Similarly, because this is a patent infringement action, the familiarity of the trial judge with the application of state law is not applicable. Further, in light of the Scheduling Order already in place, the Court is not persuaded that this case would be adjudicated faster in the Central District of California. Finally, as discussed above, the Court concludes that Delaware is not an unduly inconvenient forum for E20 to litigate this action in. Accordingly, the motion to transfer will be denied.
The Court is aware of Methode Electronics Stratos Lightwave, Inc. v. Finisar, Civil Action No. 00-20985 (N.D.Ca.) (the "Methode Case"), and its resolution. It is the Court's view that the Methode Case is irrelevant to the instant case, and the presence or absence of that action is not material to the Court's decision to retain jurisdiction over the instant case.
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this ___ day of March 2002 that E20's Motion To Transfer Venue To The Central District of California (D.I. 11) is DENIED .