Joseph James Farnan Ill. Esquire and Brian E. Farnan, Esquire, of Farnan LLP, Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for Plaintiff. Of Counsel, Kevin P. Burke, Esquire, Mark A. Fenster, Esquire, and Alexander C. D. Giza, Esquire, of Russ, August & Kabat.
John G. Day, Esquire, Tiffany Geyer Lydon, Esquire, and Andrew C. Mayo, Esquire of Ashby & Geddes, Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for Defendant. Of Counsel, Vincent J. Belusko, Esquire, Jason J. Lee, Esquire, Scott C. Moore, Esquire, and Nicole M. Smith, Esquire of Morrison & Foerster LLP.
SUE L. ROBINSON, Chief District Judge.
On November 9, 2012, plaintiff FastVDO LLC. ("FastVDO") filed a complaint against defendant Paramount Pictures Corporation ("Paramount") alleging infringement of its U.S. Patent No. RE40, 081 ("the '081 patent"). (D.I. 1) Presently before the court is Paramount's motion to transfer this action to the Central District of California. (D.I. 9) The court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). For the reasons that follow, Paramount's motion to transfer is denied.
FastVDO is a Florida limited liability corporation with its principal place of business located at 750 N. Atlantic Ave., Cocoa Beach, Florida 32931. (D.I. 1 at ¶ 1) FastVDO has no offices or employees in California.
Paramount is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located at 5555 Melrose Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90038. ( Id. at ¶ 2) Paramount avers that the accused products were produced and distributed by a separate non-party entity, Paramount Home Entertainment ("PHE"), also a Delaware corporation and located at 5555 Melrose Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90038. (D.I. 10 at 5) Paramount also avers that PHE does not encode the video itself, but relies on six authoring houses which are headquartered in and around Los Angeles, California, and which have facilities located in Indiana, Pennsylvania, and New York. (D.I. 11 at ¶ 4)
Ill. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Section 1404(a) of Title 28 of the United States Code grants district courts the authority to transfer venue "[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interests of justice... to any other district or division where it might have been brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Much has been written about the legal standard for motions to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). See, e.g., In re Link_A_Media Devices Corp., 662 F.3d 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873 (3d Cir. 1995); Helicos Biosciences Corp. v. Illumina, Inc., 858 F.Supp.2d 367 (D. Del. 2012).
Referring specifically to the analytical framework described in Helicos, the court starts with the premise that a defendant's state of incorporation has always been "a predictable, legitimate venue for bringing suit" and that "a plaintiff, as the injured party, generally ha[s] been accorded [the] privilege of bringing an action where he chooses.'" 858 F.Supp.2d at 371 (quoting Norwood v. Kirkpatrick, 349 U.S. 29, 31 (1955)). Indeed, the Third Circuit in Jumara reminds the reader that "[t]he burden of establishing the need for transfer... rests with the movant" and that, "in ruling on defendants' motion, the plaintiff's choice of venue should not be lightly disturbed." 55 F.3d at 879 (citation omitted).
The Third Circuit goes on to recognize that,
[i]n ruling on§ 1404(a) motions, courts have not limited their consideration to the three enumerated factors in § 1404(a) (convenience of parties, convenience of witnesses, or interests of justice), and, indeed, commentators have called on the courts to "consider all relevant factors to determine whether on balance the litigation would more conveniently proceed and the interests of justice be better served by transfer to a different forum.
Id. (citation omitted). The Court then describes some of the "many variants of the private and public interests protected by ...