Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al v. NVIDIA Corporation et al, No. 3:2014cv00757 - Document 74 (E.D. Va. 2015)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 04/03/2015. (tjoh, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al v. NVIDIA Corporation et al Doc. 74 I IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT rrit APR-3 2015 COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA b\ 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 America, brought Velocity Electronics six Micro, and Velocity "Velocity"), infringement Inc. patent Inc. Holdings, and claims Co., ("SEA") infringement d/b/a LLC NVIDIA Ltd. Velocity ("Velocity Corporation against Velocity Dockets.Justia.com 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
]]>
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.
