CIVIX-DDI, LLC v. Loopnet, Inc., No. 2:2012cv00002 - Document 84 (E.D. Va. 2012)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING Defendant Loopnet's Motion to Transfer Venue. As outlined in this Order, this case is TRANSFERRED to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for all further proceedings. Entered and filed 8/30/12. (Signed by District Judge Mark S. Davis on 8/30/12). (ecav, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA AUG 3 0 2012 Norfolk Division CIVIX-DDI, CLERK, US DISTRICT COURT LLC, NORCOLK, VA Plaintiff, V. Case No.: LOOPNET, 2:12cv2 INC., Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER This matter ("Loopnet") District to 28 I. Court § before to for the Northern 1404 (a). ECF No. plaintiff, January 3, U.S. CIVIX-DDI, 2012. Patent U.S. Patent No. deal with technology of Transfer Court Venue on to District 57. Loopnet, the of United Illinois, For the Inc.'s reasons States pursuant set forth FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY infringing the the the defendant's motion to transfer is GRANTED. The on Motion U.S.C. herein, is a items alleges offering Civix No. 6,415,219 "system and methods for for Loopnet sale, has ("Civix"), accuses 6,385,622 ("the known from a database." that LLC as a "local remotely accessing 1, operating and a complaint Loopnet patent") Both search" and of and patents describe selected group Exhibits A-B. infringed its patents selling, A622 patent"). See ECF No. a defendant ("the '291 filed by making, providing searching systems through the www.loqpiiet.coin website. real Civix using, estate Civix is a Colorado alleged principal Loopnet is a business place Delaware in San location-based limited of business corporation Francisco, searching liability in July Transfer 56. 1 Venue Civix The 11, to filed as before and Transfer place which District Illinois was Exhibits 4, its 10, fact could not tell On May 14, to add recently 39. On that any joined an in a the Loopnet instant attempt a infringement Case No. Motion of in to suit. by Civix their Motion that by in the Chicago, ECF the No. 58, Court on that it place stated of although shift to submitted principal Virginia, counsel occurred. Costar of No. to IL. motion Illinois. the As the of Civix Civix on the No. of this complaint, the June of non- patents21, by Eastern pending of properly judgment responded currently be result regarding to ECF explaining instant Illinois had acquisition not a declaratory litigation is motion could 52. Costar subsidiary. to amend a since that thus against Transfer That prior District N.D. the denied and seeking invalidity Northern District Civix's has See Civix wholly-owned ECF I:12cv4 968, Virginia. Northern a matter complaint and the to of filings complaint defendant Court infringement unsuccessful in-suit as this separate Costar filed a exactly when that additional 2012, alleged was place been alleging questioned that ECF principal business. to No. 2012, 25, has to ECF plaintiff's argument, 2006 Motion Civix filed a Motion to Amend its Complaint as 21, July defendant 2006 of Illinois the Court on Opposition the when oral after from acquired June Loopnet during 2012, Costar place commercial Illinois. filed in Furthermore, sometime shifted 2003. Civix Illinois principal inconsistency in reveals for of The However, of provides instant Virginia since 64. of 11. business 2 No place Loopnet plaintiff's Virginia. business ECF Virginia.1 the District that an including Virginia.2 filed the with principal services opposition memorandum indicate of 1, documentation Northern Northern identifies Court at Loopnet Alexandria, the principal was its Complaint business this the its California. systems 2012, Alexandria, having properties throughout the United States, On company 2012. filing a District before the No. 64, 2012, and a reply memorandum was ECF No. 70. Markman hearing docket the 5, and 2013 oral reset 2012, under on the Court the matters the On Motion advisement and now 29, 16, 2012, Transfer. issues its 8, to the Court's for October August to on August rescheduled the in this matter due respectively. argument matter 16, and jury trial congestion February heard On August filed by Loopnet 2012 this The and Court Court took findings as set witnesses, in the forth below. II. LEGAL "For the interest action STANDARD of to convenience justice, any a other of the parties district district court or and may division transfer where it any civil might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Section intended to place discretion in the district court motions for transfer according an Ricoh, Inc., Barrack, Imaging 689, 376 Sys., 696 district burden Section 487 U.S. Inc. (E.D. is on 1404 (a) 612, v. Va. court has U.S. 22, 622 29 (1964)); Recognition 2000) (1988) see Research (recognizing Van also Inc., the movant is proper. to show that Cognitronics, 83 F. Dusen F. Supp. discretion transfer Inc. v. Cognitronics 83 to transfer to a more convenient the case-by-case Steward Org., (citing "is to adjudicate 'individualized, consideration of convenience and fairness.'" v. 1404(a) forum). pursuant Supp 2d at 2d the The to 696. In a patent infringement pursuant to Section regional circuit Royalty Corp. In appropriate, whether forum, of the and in which 202 to "a parties v. Microtek Va. 2003). forum settled of . that 601, . A. second balance of of in Supp. of venue a and to as clearly (1) convenience that 627, forum." 630 "[i]t is favor 203 (E.D. choice plaintiff's Ralsky, is transferee plaintiff's weight v. Int'l 2000). the 2d a the inquires: justice disturb Inc. Cir. transfer of Winner two brought F. law transfer hardships Servs., (Fed. inquiry, rarely See make substantial should Va. 250 the venue well choice transfer F. Supp. 2d 2002). Jurisdiction of the Potential Transferee Forum order district been the Online must justify Inc., by transfer DISCUSSION In the the {E.D. a interest given court Verizon 623-24 of be unless ." III. a whether been to sits. 1352 witnesses part Court 1340, have the motions governed court Intern., should forum . and As F.3d might whether Koh the district (2) such are determine claims the of 1404 (a) Wanq/ v. order action, where Court must brought Inc. 2004) . v. in to the cause determine the Micromuse, The determine whether of action whether court Inc., F. phrase "might transferee "might have Plaintiff's transferee 316 the Supp. have 2d been been claims initially. 322, court brought" a brought," could Agilent 325 is have Techs., (E.D. has Va. been interpreted to mean has a to sue of defendant." right 1084, at 4 324 could L. be brought in decision court. F. Hunter to Douglas, a 1400(b) 3 In 28 is where has 2d 824, regular Co. U.S.C. § and the Va. 2004) 1400(b), 582, has the place of 316 80 F. in the acts Ct. 2d claims have been subsequent discretion of Rental Va. patent S. considering the (E.D. wishes Supp. whether Trailer 591 where committed 344, (citing Verosol venue "district the could initially, within plaintiff of before claims Storage established Complaint, the JNB (emphasis added).3 its court court Supp. 335, determine v. F. any defendant first (E.D. 828 806 in U.S. also Agilent, If is commenced, independently transferee venue Inc., proper the must is 363 see venue). Ins. suit Blaski, transferee Beacon Supp. lawsuits the transfer One Under or the v. court in a district, (1960); a transfer "when that 1254 that brought to in Hoffman 2d (noting whether 312 Ed. that the Corp., B.V. v. 1992)). infringement defendant resides, of infringement business." 28 and U.S.C. § A corporate defendant resides in any plaintiff merely states venue is appropriate in the Eastern District of Virginia under section 1400(b). However, it appears the second portion of section 1400(b) would not support venue in this district [or in the Eastern District of Illinois]. In a district where the defendant does not reside, venue is only proper where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business. It does not appear that the defendant has such a place of business in Virginia [or in the Eastern District of Illinois] that would support venue under the second prong. The first part of section 1400(b), however, looks to the district in which the defendant resides. For venue district in U.S.C. 1391 (c). § Both could which parties have Civix's it is subject that brought been agree in Opposition to the Motion to Transfer Complaint alleges it is having principal Alexandria, However, Virginia Plaintiff limited Illinois. Additionally, Illinois, personal jurisdiction availed of purposes, any a corporate at At then it Civix's 1 company Street, at as transact internet sufficient a f 1. foreign business company contacts it filing least one "shall which it the such is If the of to in Civix lawsuit to patent is still reside to is has Northern numerous subject does support the deemed action at 691. [or in personal of be that appears jurisdiction the time appears an the at Supp. 2d district No. 64; in personal commenced." infringing sales have Eastern District of jurisdiction likely exists, venue. least principal 326, of in the to No. Prince registered Moreover, defendant district Cognitronics, 83 F. made in this 4 there. and been does is has lawsuits, judicial Illinois], too ECF liability ECF claims Illinois. 57. 1220 28 27. through jurisdiction as currently Illinois infringement at of 5, No. limited authorized itself at Complaint, Loopnet it District ECF business Exhibit since in District of also 58, business repeatedly Colorado company ECF No. 9, jurisdiction. infringement Transfer at 22314.A is liability a patent Northern to Motion place personal Civix's Loopnet's a to as place Chicago, late of as August business Illinois 60606. was 24, 125 ECF No. 2006, South 58, Civix Wacker Exhibit alleged Drive, 11. its Suite currently pending. No. 05cv06869. Civix v. Therefore, have been brought" U.S.C. B. § 1404(a); Hotels.com, it is clear et al., this N.D. civil 111. action "might in the Northern District of Illinois. 28 U.S.C. Plaintiff's Choice § of Case See 28 1391 (c). Forum / Convenience to Parties and Witnesses The second consider several These (2) factors convenience obtaining of the compulsory controversies decided of (quoting BHP 493, consider, the 498 Loopnet choice because Civix the Ins. v. Online 2000)). Plaintiff's sources of 250 F. in 312 having of party Supp. cost local cases, and F. the (7) Supp. the 2d at 105 F. factors to Inc., principal choice the availability Exch., The proof, the law; Co., of proof; (3) diversity applicable Inc. Koh, (4) Court transfer venue. witnesses; in the forum, witness convenience, 2d at and 633. Choice of Forum argues Civix's has sources interest (6) Inv., interest of justice. 1. Plaintiff s home; Va. and the Beacon are to analysis witnesses; One (E.D. access of (5) with Int'l however, convenience, parties at justice.'" 1404 (a) ease of access to the process; interest 2d "Ml) attendance familiarity Supp. the to determine whether to of court's 828 of factors include: the of prong of is that the a little Eastern deference District non-practicing entity of should Virginia whose main be as given a to forum business is enforcing argues that its that intellectual Civix it has Virginia for has been nine property minimal a ties to "resident" years rights. Virginia. of because its Loopnet the therefore Civix Eastern principal, responds District William of Semple, has lived in the Eastern District of Virginia since 2002.5 ECF No. its 64. Plaintiff primary place District of also business of Virginia" Generally, states a in from 2003. plaintiff's See Heinz LLC, Supp. 660, 667 2d at and 623. "the 2d However, greater forum and the court will Inc., 316 the give to F. Supp. 71 infringement center of Supp. F. 5 accused 2d 936, Supp. 2d 939 at moved No. at 64 Virginia 2. where (E.D. Va. Civix Then he 2d the in of to 2008, continues to Eastern preferred Acterna Mr. that its more Id. Supp. weight Agilent Wireless, Va. is v. 1999). In generally "the Inc., forum in to 129 Inc., for principal, moved a Techs., Inc. Techs., Virginia Semple to reside. 8 the Adtech, Delaphane, F. chosen forum preferred 250 USA, plaintiff's se_e Agilent that Razor varies {E.D. v. v. to choice choice." 519 entitled Koh, this a GTE is Co. action, 517, explains & 2010); see 2001); (noting from Colorado within forum between 327; activity." 326 Specifically, Semple, at cases, the accorded cause Supp. to GmbH Va. plaintiff's 2d F. patent (E.D. connection the changed of Kettler weight plaintiff's Inc., Qualcomm, the "formally Colorado choice weight. F. it Id. substantial 750 that F. 316 patent William 2002. ECF Alexandria, infringement are Eastern Civix Civix made the business. is in Civix conceded after changed tell business is is a in See and evidence Illinois if of its employees that principal, Mr. that to the Semple, does entity located owns not a place to 10, of 11. until business counsel could occurred. rights. these place dispute business district in 2005 ignore operations, home of business actually to only 64. documentation, principal this in 4, appear place copy transition property in a of were 2003 No. Illinois this the allegations. with although whose facilities, its not that in ECF place principal Plaintiff's Civix who was Court 1, Exhibits with it when at of 58, Virginia, intellectual are No. that in principal Court principal Civix's assume manufacturing the its its support District ECF exactly Virginia, to resided and Transfer confronted Court that Court to has years Virginia Motion when 2006" of alleges the and nine Northern Civix to for provided non-practicing enforcement no the even inconsistencies has witnesses principal nothing Illinois. from the to has argument, Nevertheless, it of its District offered in which oral Virginia Loopnet filed in "sometime not has Chicago, During was majority that Opposition contrast, 2006 of Eastern Civix complaints and where alleges District However, In is located). Here, of cases that is Thus, the Civix offices, besides Alexandria, of or its Virginia. Furthermore, for Civix brief it and also that states Mr. "take a job Transfer Inc., at 769 where that not F. limited to because 6 During Semple 2d at as full and internet and its at SI 2, ECF No. "federal with to whose used 1; see courts weight' the in the have company ^substantial connection home regularly that claiming "only Thus, Loopnet based that weight" owned a are (noting the (noting "minimal has to Facebook, part-time"). claim area to Motion v. 2011) entity time Plaintiff's to LLC given here an 938 where are for forum is activity without more"). it district the underlying lacks work in choice appears argument, not be Complaint plaintiffs currently working Va. services of Plaintiff's oral does works is AV, co-owner who underlying Plaintiff's this business (E.D. and Supp. transfer, forum and not work Opposition would a district. sales Although against is choice forum side non-practicing searching solicitous their a Loopnet this 129 995 the "location-based Acterna, does Praqmatus 2007 connection throughout" see, forum district since is a D.C.."6 991, of is in this Virginia just 64; 2d choice Alexandria only No. Supp. Plaintiff employee is Washington ECF F. Plaintiff's Civix Semple Semple originally moved to the Virginia in 2, appears Mr. real of forum actual cause Plaintiff's full time estate. 10 connection of significant action contacts counsel for generally Civix is between weak. with the conceded and weighs this Thus, claim, that instead Mr. is Plaintiff's choice of forum will not be given great weight. See Glamorgan Coal Corp. 438 (W.D. Va. forum, v. Ratners Group PLC, 1993)(noting that "the district's underlying] claim although lack makes of this 854 F. Plaintiff significant factor Supp. 436, filed in its home contact neither with [the dispositive nor conclusive"). 2. Convenience of the Parties and Witnesses The Court and witnesses factor must of weigh in litigating requires sources next courts proof, convenience in either venue. to the the consider costs of the 499 Co F. Supp. v. 2d 685, Rambus, Inc., The 693 party 2005)). burden to proffer, Va. 2007) F. Supp. 2d 386 asserting Inc. 708, 717 or otherwise, the materiality of assess inconvenience." "the convenience greater weight deciding 718. Eastern a As Koh, of [than motion the the to moving District of 250 F. Supp. non-party the of party, Virginia of Samsung, Loopnet is at witnesses transfer." "an 11 v. and TiVo, to the Inc., n.13 (E.D. must "has Va the sufficient details testimony to enable evidence 2d convenience access inconvenience and their potential to of witnesses, respecting the witnesses court parties (quoting Samsung Elecs. witness by affidavit "ease Lycos, (E.D. the Assessment of this obtaining availability of compulsory process." to and 636. 386 be afforded witnesses] F. Supp demonstrate inconvenient degree Additionally, should party the forum 2d. that in in at the which to litigate, not simply that the would be more convenient." Loopnet forum . argues . . Id. that given [Northern District of Illinois] at 718 n.15. "Illinois that it is is an a far more internet convenient company business operation in Virginia." at that 2. Loopnet middle the ground" as majority Coast. Id^ counsel three goes of its at 9. resides in inventors) Id. argues convenient No. a of transfer of that is will located likely officers likely be be to two who as and Maryland. Costar's and (the employees inconvenienced in Washington, 12 "may" they Id. will D.C. able a be 9. that Northern the at most 8, ECF witnesses in the Civix (co- to since Western also recently called transfer again. inconvenienced by reside at to is Transfer be Northern inconvenient," Virginia to the "[t]he non-party entity by be that of Motion identifies in particularly District litigation of Virginia Loopnet) not that should concedes patents-in-suit) this out available thus Civix Opposition District it points from and (the and coming Francisco lead Eastern the San "convenient Civix's that also in a West also be themselves before the will is the may Civix inventors headquartered Illinois forum. 64. made though Illinois 57 and that Civix's main witnesses Illinois Illinois of is Loopnet contrast, District argue witnesses have of In to Loopnet District Civix on no ECF No. Motion to Transfer, with notes acquired testify Costar and is The convenience or inconvenience identified in the both and specific details regarding the witness's testimony Koh, 250 F. and potential the degree of Supp. to Virginia be is inventors of since area, repeatedly litigation time in travel 7 Civix Virginia) to Loopnet the "no District of Illinois and without its a plaintiff regarding in the principal these the last flight Illinois argument and or weight and that two around the as Civix has patents-in-suit nine place years of were in (during business witnesses co- able has to problem. lead counsel relevant documentation, consideration is given otherwise in non- Loopnet's longer principal, reside presumably also noted that somewhat is not given much Illinois alleges of and California Civix's its to inconvenience All in weight failed material located a have opposed to California to Virginia/DC/Maryland the Northern be little of 636. from patent-in-suit initiated degree Furthermore, convenient the parties at are inconvenience slight.7 more 2d witnesses from California to Virginia as appears both accorded will each employees been is because cumulative. which Civix analysis how thus Loopnet transfer provide and by of the potential witnesses could for Civix, and presumably were located in Illinois. However, to the convenience of counsel" for ship relevant documents and evidence to counsel in any district and use it as a basis for defeating a motion to transfer and establishing venue. See Original Creatine Patent Co., Ltd. v. Met-Rx USA, Inc., 387 F. Supp. 2d 564, 571 (E.D. Va. 2005); Coqnitronics, 83, F. Supp 2d at 698. 13 Thus, based Court on witness on the of Illinois equally inconvenient) the residence in home in favor is Eastern Plaintiff's of information and party convenience, District Though limited this the Eastern District forum, of with district, this forum District the (or perhaps of Illinois. is proposed to single employee having Virginia only to it appears the Northern an equally convenient as provided a factor does not weigh a court be heavily either party. C. Interest of Justice Last, "interest witness Section of and 1404 (a) justice," party "encompasses a requires consideration convenience. public that The interest of factors interest factors consider of unrelated justice aimed at the to factor 'systemic integrity and fairness,'" with the most prominent considerations being "judicial judgments." 2d 627, 635 721). Byerson (E.D. In circumstances court's economy v. Va. 2006) as the Equifax analyzing such and familiarity with the Info. Servs, (quoting Samsung, this "the avoidance factor pendency of LLC, applicable a related law, an unfair trial, the ability to 14 join F. Supp. Supp. 2d at should docket access to premises that might have to be viewed, of 467 386 F. courts of inconsistent other consider action, the conditions, the possibility parties, and the possibility of and Air Conditioning, Systemic to harassment."8 702 Bd. F. Supp. integrity must also take forum shop and to avoid "When related interest of actions justice in favor of transfer." U.S. Ship Mgmt. (E.D. Va. v. previously litigated a in 386 F. is Ltd., especially case involving the of familiarity 2d at the is 938 (citing Loopnet currently Illinois issue 8 Under premises argues two a matter Supp. that the case; the is facts might same and 2) of this to v. in the case, it viewed, 2d a forum, (quoting 924, 937 party has issues and facts economy, 357 Advance Va. District appears the F. Supp. Creative under 1) Northern and such 2001)). reasons: patents-in-suit be Supp. appropriate two the Northern have 2d at 721 "where (E.D. for lawsuits 2d at 721. Ship Mgmt, Inc. transfer adverse 'weigh heavily' judicial 815 consideration on of 2d 804, of likely be familiar with U.S. Electronics, pending based that LG 131 F. actions" in this As highly desirable.'" Computer Corp., "related case. to similar *a court in that district will attempt transferee F. true [because] facts Supp. Supp. 1988). a party's the 357 Va. effect generally thought Samsung, This and Baylor Heating (E.D. 386 F. pending Maersk Line, 2005)). 1260 force Samsung, are is 1253, v. into account "the rulings in prior litigation." the Of Trustees there the are District of technology at of Illinois has the access possibility of to an unfair trial, and the possibility of harassment are not at issue for no party mentioned these concerns in the filings before the Court or during oral argument. 15 past experience litigating issue. Motion to Transfer reason, the these District two of pending Illinois Costar litigation. in 2006, Case counterclaim second 21, pending 2012 when still Transfer the are the the 57. currently technology As to before Hotels.com l:05cv6869, pending, Costar10 patents-in-suit. ECF No. actions litigation, non-infringement 15, and the the at first Northern litigation and the The Hotels.com9 infringement litigation began No. is at patents and filed ECF suit has currently No. Costar invalidity Civix Costar the and 58, responded to Civix by the contract 16. began declaratory against litigation Exhibit litigation, for a The on June judgment regarding filing Eastern a of the Motion to District of 9 Civix brought this patent infringement action in December of 2006 against Defendants Hotels.Com, LP, Hotels.Com GP, LLC, and other companies that are no longer parties to the lawsuit. ECF No. 58, Exhibit 10. In October of 2010, the Illinois district court (Judge St. Eve) construed eight disputed claim terms of the X622 and '291 patents. Id^, Exhibit 13 at 2. On August 19, 2011, the Illinois court granted the Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. Id. Thus, all parties believed the Hotels.com litigation was over until the Federal Circuit issued an Order on May 1, 2012 noting that the district court never ruled on the counterclaims and didn't certify the judgment as final pursuant to Rule 54 (b) . Id^, Exhibit 14. Most recently, on June 12, 2012, Judge St. Eve denied Civix's Motion for Entry of Judgment pursuant to Rule 54 (b) and held that the remaining contract counterclaim was interrelated to the issues of infringement. Id^, Exhibit 16. Thus, trial on the remaining claim has been scheduled for January 22, 2013. 10 As mentioned earlier in this opinion, Costar recently acquired Loopnet as a wholly-owned subsidiary. Civix attempted to amend their Complaint to include Costar as an additional defendant, but such motion was denied through an order issued by Magistrate Judge Douglas E. Miller 52. 16 on June 21, 2012. ECF No. Virginia. August As This 23, to 2012. the Northern that motion See second technology briefed I:12cv4968 Civix has Illinois over the a history with the issue as it has and became (N.D. repeatedly of has at fully Case No. reason, District district is last IL), ripe ECF No. suit filed 22. the decade. these in Therefore, patents-in-suit litigated on and the issues several weigh against times.11 Civix transfer Motion 2) argues because: to docket case was to a judge to Although delay there no See 28 Co., 11 a delayed Northern slower there time is months in to bringing favor keeping District to no 2010 2004, Loopnet's and can § U.S. Defendant finds is be time-limit U.S.C. infringement 2003, the first minimal is has justice eight considerations as and Court be thus of of trial; it the the 3) this motion; case Illinois and guarantee file even would be in has if a the assigned familiar with the patents-at-issue. Plaintiff due will waited and transferred, The interests congestion jurisdiction heavier the Loopnet 1) Transfer docket this that 1404 (a) ; Dist. Loopnet's suits 2005 on in factor the in Zurich Am. 128074, of a ECF No. 17 to Co. *14-15 58, transfer. determination, v. to Ace transfer. Am. (W.D.N.C. Civix of by this motion deny motion Ins. District suffered filing Court's demonstrate Northern See in cause the filing exhibits and 2010. prejudice sufficient LEXIS the any purported delay not a that Exhibits Dec. filed Illinois 1-5, Ins. 3, patent in 1999, 10. 2010) . While it is true discovery is underway, the case is still at the beginning stages of its lifecycle and the Court has not yet conducted dispositive a Markman motions.12 hearing and Furthermore, has Loopnet not ruled has on explained any that its delay in filing was in part due to the recent revival of the Hotels.com 12, 2012 filed Costar litigation on June 21, 2012. that litigation Plaintiff's between the on June argument Eastern as to the District of as well Next, relative Virginia as the newly the Court notes docket and congestion the Northern District of Illinois is not strong enough to deny transfer.13 This court has previously explained that: Docket conditions, while a consideration, cannot be the primary reason for retaining a case in this district. This Court cannot stand as a willing repository for cases which have no real nexus to this district. The plaintiffs, attraction "rocket docket" but does not continue to act Cognitronics, 83 F. the Court dull certainly must the ensure ability of attracts that the this Court to in an expeditious manner. Supp. 2d at 699 (E.D. Va. 2000). Thus, when a plaintiff with no significant ties to the Eastern District of Virginia chooses to litigate in this district primarily because 12 The Markman hearing in this case is currently scheduled for October 16, 2012 and a jury trial is set to begin on February 5, 2013. 13 The Court notes that Plaintiff's assertion that District of Illinois has a heavier docket than the Northern the Eastern District of Virginia is questionable. The statistics show that the number of filings per judge in 2011 was 466 in the Northern District of Illinois compared to 472 per judge in the Eastern District of Virginia. ECF No. 54, 18 Exhibits E & F. it is not known as served." Inc., 387 F. guarantee Hotels.com to Original the Plaintiff argument this is case Court appreciate that that court of a "is in a likely case to fact However, U.S. Ship Mgmt, St. Court's has to 357 F. (the assignment previously similar with no transfer job instead familiar is Eve appear to be a the case" and as a matter of judicial economy, is highly desirable." USA, related there chooses involving be that Judge Court court Met-Rx Loopnet's to judge does not This v. 2005). the Illinois. district Ltd. that this consider.14 where Va. assigned if interest of justice "is Co., argues Judge) same patents-in-suit facts, (E.D. be specific to Patent undermined by District needs 572 will litigation related case to a the Creatine 2d 564, the Northern this docket," the Supp. Last, litigation the "rocket of a factor is to litigated issues the facts and of "such familiarity Supp. 2d at 938. 14 Nevertheless, in the Northern District of Illinois, on motion by any party to the case, a case may be reassigned to another judge who has a related case if: "1) both cases are pending in this Court; 2) the handling of both cases by the same judge is likely to result in a substantial saving of judicial time and effort; 3) the earlier case has not progressed to the point where designating a later filed case as related would likely delay the proceedings in the earlier case substantially; and 4) the cases are susceptible of disposition in a single proceeding." N.D. IL Civil Local Rule 40.4(b) (emphasis added) (listing conditions of reassignment). Therefore, based on the above factors of local Rule 40.4, it appears to this Court that there is a possibility that if this case is transferred to the Northern District of Illinois it will be assigned to Judge St. Eve. 19 "Litigation where one energy' court in judicial in the a same has already case." Id. economy and the the Northern committed court District judicial avoids invested Therefore, interests of Illinois resources to of as that favor district contested time it appears transfer to has issue Samsung, and 386 F. "already and is Supp. 2d 722. In sum, related the pending warrants connection cases transfer brought its Plaintiff's witnesses" to balance, justice the litigation 'substantial on familiar with the facts of the case." at duplicative this to claim choice is in of is this Northern a little single of Plaintiff Northern weight and District district. the case District forum and "convenience accorded forum the that in between where employee and to its the two Illinois could of have Illinois. the parties sole where and connection it has been litigating the same patents-at-issue in the Northern District of Illinois for the past decade. justice" and judicial economy case on to the after that the Northern party seeking balancing the the burden has District a In clearly of transfer Section contrast, 1404(a) been met. 20 favor Illinois. is a the heavy "interest transferring of this Although the burden one, factors, in the this case, Court finds
]]>
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.
