-RJJ Robert Bosch LLC v. Corea Autoparts Producing Corporation et al, No. 2:2010cv01924 - Document 98 (D. Nev. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER Granting 35 Motion to Transfer. The Clerk is directed to transfer this case to the Eastern District of Michigan. FURTHER ORDERED that 83 Motion to Consolidate is DENIED as moot. FURTHER ORDERED that the Court defers ruling on 84 Motion to Bifurcate Trial and Stay. Signed by Judge Roger L. Hunt on 9/13/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-RJJ Robert Bosch LLC v. Corea Autoparts Producing Corporation et al Doc. 98 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 *** 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ROBERT BOSCH LLC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) COREA AUTOPARTS PRODUCING ) CORPORATION and CAP AMERICA, ) ) Defendants. ) _______________________________________) Case No.: 2:10-cv-01924-RLH-RJJ ORDER (Motion to Transfer–#35; Motion to Consolidate–#83) Before the Court is Defendants Corea Autoparts Producing Corporation (“Corea 17 Autoparts”) and CAP America’s (collectively “CAP”) Motion to Transfer (##35–37, filed Mar. 18 29, 2011) under 28 U.S.C. § 1404. The Court has also considered Plaintiff Robert Bosch LLC’s 19 (“Bosch”) Opposition (#40, filed Apr. 15, 2011), and CAPs’ Reply (#41–43, filed Apr. 25, 2011). 20 BACKGROUND 21 This dispute arises from Bosch’s allegations that CAP has infringed on its patent 22 for a wiper blade invention. Bosch alleges that CAP violated federal patent law, 35 U.S.C. § 271, 23 inter alia, by making, importing, offering for sale, using, and selling wiper blades embodying its 24 patented inventions, the CF4 and MA1 wiper blade products. (Dkt. #1, Compl. ¶¶ 2–14 (Patent 25 Nos. 6,553,607; 6,675,434; 6,836,926; 6,944,905; 6,973,698; 7,293,321; 7,523,520). Bosch is a 26 Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in Illinois (though Bosch AO 72 (Rev. 8/82) 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 does not dispute that its automotive business is based out of Michigan). Corea Autoparts is a 2 Korean company and CAP America is an automotive products manufacturer with its main offices 3 in Farmington Hills, Michigan. 4 Bosch filed suit against CAP in Las Vegas while both companies (and many others 5 Bosch sued at the same time) were present for the Automotive Aftermarket Products Expo. All 6 but one other of these suits has since been settled or otherwise terminated. Now before the Court 7 is CAP’s motion to transfer this case to what it considers a more convenient forum for all parties 8 involved, the Eastern District of Michigan, where both parties automotive businesses are 9 headquartered. For the reasons discussed below, the Court grants CAP’s motion. 10 11 DISCUSSION I. CAP America’s Motion to Transfer 12 A. 13 A motion to transfer an action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) presents two basic 14 questions: (1) whether the action sought to be transferred might have been brought in the proposed 15 transferee district; and (2) whether the transfer would be for the convenience of parties and 16 witnesses, in the interest of justice. Int’l Patent Dev. Corp. v. Wyomont Partners, 489 F. Supp. 17 226, 228 (D. Nev. 1980) (internal citation omitted). “A defendant over whom personal 18 jurisdiction exists but for whom venue is improper may move for dismissal or transfer for 19 improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). A defendant for whom venue is proper but 20 inconvenient may move for a change of venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).” Action Embroidery 21 Corp. v. Atlantic Embroidery, Inc., 368 F.3d 1174, 1181 (9th Cir. 2004). Section 1404(a) states 22 that “a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might 23 have been brought” for “the convenience of the parties and witnesses [and] in the interest of 24 justice.” The moving party must first show that the action could have been brought in the 25 transferee district. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 820 F. Supp. 503, 26 506 (C.D. Cal. 1992). The court then balances the competing public and private interest factors to AO 72 (Rev. 8/82) Legal Standard 2 1 determine if transfer is appropriate, recognizing that “1404(a) provides for transfer to a more 2 convenient forum, not to a forum likely to prove equally convenient or inconvenient,” Van Dusen 3 v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 645–46 (1964). Additionally, “transfer should not be granted if the 4 effect is simply to shift the inconvenience to the party resisting the transfer.” Id. at 646. Nor is the 5 court required to determine the best venue for the action. Gherebi v. Bush, 352 F.3d 1278, 1303 6 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal quotations omitted), vacated on other grounds, 542 U.S. 952 (2004). 7 Generally, there is a strong presumption in favor of the plaintiff’s choice of forum which must be 8 taken into account when deciding whether transfer is required. Id. at 1303. The Ninth Circuit has identified a number of public and private factors that a 9 10 district court may consider on a case-by-case basis in deciding whether venue should be 11 transferred. Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498–99 (9th Cir. 2000). These factors 12 include: (1) the location where the relevant agreements were negotiated and executed, (2) the state 13 that is most familiar with the governing law, (3) the plaintiff’s choice of forum, (4) the respective 14 parties’ contacts with the forum, (5) the contacts relating to the plaintiff’s cause of action in the 15 chosen forum, (6) differences in the costs of litigation in the two forums, (7) the availability of 16 compulsory process to compel attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses, and (8) ease of access 17 to sources of proof. Id. The Ninth Circuit has also concluded that the relevant public policy of the 18 forum state, if any, is at least as significant a factor in the § 1404(a) balancing. Id. 19 B. Analysis 20 1. 21 The first question the Court must answer before addressing the various convenience Transferee District 22 factors set out by the Ninth Circuit is whether the case could have been brought in the proposed 23 transferee district. Corea Autoparts has admitted and claims that its principal place of business is 24 located at 34705 West 12 Mile Road, Farmington Hills, Michigan 48331 (Dkt. #89, Ans. to Am. 25 Compl., Counterclaims ¶ 2), the same address as CAP America’s principal place of business (Dkt. 26 43, Decl. of Sunghoon (“Eric”) Lim, ¶ 6). While the Court is unclear on the exact legal AO 72 (Rev. 8/82) 3 1 relationship between Corea Autoparts and CAP America (parent/subsidiary or whether Corea 2 Autopoarts is just doing business as CAP America, etc.), at this point it is immaterial as Corea 3 Autoparts has admitted to jurisdiction in the Eastern District of Michigan. While it may not have 4 been clear prior to suit, it is clear now that this suit could have been brought in the Eastern District 5 of Michigan when suit was originally filed. 6 2. 7 Convenience Factors i. Location of the Alleged Harm and Contacts with the Forum 8 CAP admits that its products are sold in Nevada, however, these same products are 9 sold throughout the United States and there is no special connection to this forum. Without some 10 special connection, this district has “no more or less of a meaningful connection to this case than 11 any other venue.” In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (applying Fifth 12 Circuit law). The only really relevant connection to Nevada for purposes of this dispute was 13 Bosch’s ease in serving multiple parties in separate cases at a local trade show. This is insufficient 14 to consider Nevada the location of the alleged harm. It is more appropriate to consider Michigan, 15 where both Plaintiff and Defendants maintain their auto parts businesses, the location of the 16 alleged harm. 17 Bosch further argues that this is the most appropriate forum because of its contacts 18 here. Yet these contacts amount to trade show attendance and maintenance of a warehouse for its 19 power tools division. While these are real contacts that cannot be entirely ignored, they are not 20 substantial or really related to alleged patent infringement of wiper blade technology. Thus, these 21 factors weigh slightly towards transfer. 22 ii. Plaintiff’s Choice of Forum 23 This factor is neutral because Bosch is not a resident of Nevada. While a plaintiff’s 24 choice of forum is normally entitled to some level of deference (frequently a very high level), Galli 25 v. Travelhost, Inc., 602 F. Supp. 1260, 1262, (D. Nev. 1985), that level of deference is 26 substantially less when the Plaintiff is not a resident of his chosen forum, Miracle Blade, LLC v. AO 72 (Rev. 8/82) 4 1 Ebrands Commerce Group, LLC, 207 F.Supp.2d 1136, 1156 (D. Nev. 2002). Here, Bosch does 2 not even contend that it is a Nevada resident and therefore its choice of forum is not an overly 3 important consideration. 4 5 iii. Cost Bosch’s arguments showing that the cost of litigating in Nevada would not be 6 substantial are unpersuasive. While it is true that many technological and other factors would 7 make litigating in Nevada not substantially more expensive than litigating elsewhere, it is likely to 8 be more expensive as none of the likely witnesses or evidence are located here and neither are the 9 companies to any real extent. See TS Tech, 551 F.3d at 1320. Thus, this factor favors transfer. 10 iv. Compulsory Process 11 Bosch contends that CAP has not demonstrated that a transfer will make litigation 12 more convenient to witnesses, particularly third-party witnesses, because CAP has not named any 13 third-party witnesses located in Michigan. While technically true, CAP has named companies in 14 Michigan (wiper-blade competitors) that it expects to have relevant witnesses to this litigation, 15 particularly its defenses, and what these parties will testify to. In the interest of justice, the Court 16 cannot expect CAP to know the names of the individual third-party witnesses at this stage of 17 litigation; the companies they are a part of is sufficient. Accordingly, because CAP has presented 18 sufficient evidence that many third-party witnesses will be located in Michigan and none in 19 Nevada, this factor heavily favors transfer. 20 21 v. Ease of Access to Evidence This factor is somewhat unique. CAP argues that most evidence will be in 22 Michigan where both companies automotive headquarters are located, but Bosch points out that 23 Corea Autoparts is a Korean company and likely does its research and development in Korea. If 24 the evidence is in Korea, then neither Nevada or Michigan are particularly more or less 25 convenient. However, CAP’s argument that much, if not most, of the evidence will be at its 26 automotive headquarters in Michigan is persuasive. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of transfer. AO 72 (Rev. 8/82) 5 1 vi. Pendency of Related Litigation 2 This is the only factor that weighs towards keeping this case in this forum. Bosch 3 initially filed suit against ten different companies on similar patent grounds. Eight of those cases 4 have been terminated by default or settlement. This case and Bosch v. ADM21, 2:10-cv-01930- 5 RLH-LRL, are the only two cases remaining. Recently, this Court denied a motion to transfer in 6 ADM21. However, the facts and conveniences in that case were substantially different than 7 present here. While the Court could exercise its discretion to deny transfer on this basis, see In re 8 Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 566 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the Court does not feel that this 9 factor or issue outweighs the multiple evidentiary convenience factors. Thus, while this factor 10 weighs against transfer, it does not weigh so strongly as to persuade the Court to maintain the case 11 in this district. In sum, after consideration of the relevant factors, the Court concludes that it 12 13 should exercise its § 1404(a) discretion and transfer this case to the more convenient Eastern 14 District of Michigan in the interest of justice. 15 II. Bosch’s Motion to Consolidate and CAP’s Motion to Bifurcate As the Court has determined to transfer this case, it cannot consolidate this case 16 17 with ADM21 or bifurcate the case in any way. However, the Court will leave it to the Eastern 18 District of Michigan to rule on bifurcation. Accordingly, the Court denies Bosch’s motion and 19 defers ruling on CAP’s motion to bifurcate. 20 / 21 / 22 / 23 / 24 / 25 / 26 / AO 72 (Rev. 8/82) 6 1 CONCLUSION 2 Accordingly, and for good cause appearing, 3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Transfer (#35) is 4 GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court is directed to transfer this case to the Eastern District of 5 Michigan. 6 7 8 9 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Consolidate (#83) is DENIED as moot. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Court defers ruling on Defendants’ Motion to Bifurcate Trial and Stay (#84). Dated: September 13, 2011. 11 ____________________________________ ROGER L. HUNT United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 AO 72 (Rev. 8/82) 7
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
