Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Quest Integrity USA, LLC v. Clean Harbors Indus. Servs., Inc.

United States District Court, D. Delaware

July 8, 2015

QUEST INTEGRITY USA, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
CLEAN HARBORS INDUSTRIAL SERVICES, INC., Defendant. QUEST INTEGRITY USA, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
COKEBUSTERS USA INC., Defendant

Thomas C. Grimm, Esquire and Jeremy A Tigan, Esquire of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for Plaintiff. Of Douglas A Grady, Esquire, John R. Nelson, Esquire, Richard T. Black, Esquire, Emily R. Kelly, Esquire, and Benjamin Hodges, Esquire of Foster Pepper, PLLC.

Kelly E. Farnan, Esquire and Selena E. Molina, Esquire of Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for Defendant Clean Harbors Industrial Services, Inc. Of Michael J. Turgeon, Esquire and Robert S. Rigg, Esquire of Vedder Price, PC.

Richard L. Horwitz, Esquire, David E. Moore, Esquire, and Bindu A. Palapura, Esquire of Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, Delaware. Counsel for Defendant Cokebusters USA Inc. Of Thomas M. Fulkerson, Esquire, Wesley G. Lotz, Esquire, and Gavin Uttecht, Esquire of Fulkerson Lotz LLP, and Michael Hudgins, Esquire and Steven Hudgins, Esquire of The Hudgins Law Firm.

Page 188

MEMORANDUM OPINION

SUE L. ROBINSON, District Judge.

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Quest (" plaintiff" ) initiated two lawsuits on December 15, 2014, by filing complaints against Cokebusters USA Inc.[1] (" Cokebusters" ) and Clean Harbors Industrial Services, Inc.[2] (" Clean Harbors" ) (collectively, " defendants" ) individually,[3] asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 7,542,874 (" the '874 patent" ), entitled " 2D and 3D Display System and Method for

Page 189

Furnace Tube Inspection." (D.I. 1, ex. A) Plaintiff's motions for preliminary injunctions against defendants were denied. (D.I. 116)

Presently before the court is a motion to transfer venue to the Southern District of Texas filed by defendant Cokebusters. (D.I. 25) Defendant Clean Harbors joined that motion. (Civ. No. 14-1482, D.I. 25) The court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § § 1331 and 1338(a). Venue is proper in the District of Delaware pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § § 1391(b)-(c) and 1400(b).

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff is a limited liability company organized and existing under the laws of the State of Texas and having its principal place of business in Seattle, Washington. (D.I. 34 at 3) Defendant Clean Harbors is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware and having its principal place of business in Norwell, Massachusetts. Defendant Cokebusters is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware and having its principal place of business in Houston, Texas. (D.I. 26 at 3)

III. 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.