United States District Court, D. Delaware
Stephen B. Brauerman, Sara E. Bussiere, BAYARD, P.A.,
Wilmington, Delaware; Alfred R. Fabricant, Lawrence C.
Drucker, Peter Lambrianakos, Vincent J. Rubino, III, Joseph
M. Mercadante, Alessandra C. Messing, BROWN RUDNICK LLP, New
York, New York Counsel for Plaintiff
B. Blumenfeld, MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP,
Wilmington, Delaware; Brett Charhon, Martin C. Robson,
Anthony M. Garza, CHARHON CALLAHAN ROBSON & GARZA, PLLC,
Dallas, Texas Counsel for Defendant
Connolly, United States District Judge.
RMG Networks Holding Corporation has moved pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer to the Northern District of
Texas this patent action filed by Plaintiff Ultravision
Technologies, LLC. For the reasons discussed below, I will
grant RMG's motion.
Ultravision and RMG are Delaware entities with their
principal places of business in the Northern District of
Texas. Ultravision alleges in its complaint that RMG's
sales in the United States of certain LED display products
designed and manufactured in China infringe two patents.
1404(a) provides that "[f]or the convenience of the
parties and witnesses, in the interests of justice, a
district court may transfer any civil action to any other
district or division where it might have been brought."
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). It is undisputed that this action
could have been brought in the Northern District of Texas.
Thus, the only issue before me is whether I should exercise
my discretion under § 1404(a) to transfer the case to
the burden "to establish that a balancing of proper
interests weigh[s] in favor of the transfer." Shutte
v. Armco Steel Corp., 431 F.2d 22, 25 (3d Cir. 1970).
This burden is heavy. "[U]nless the balance of
convenience of the parties is strongly in favor of
[the] defendant, the plaintiffs choice of forum should
prevail." Id. (emphasis in original) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
proper interests to be weighed in deciding whether to
transfer a case under § 1404(a) are not limited to the
three factors recited in the statute (i.e., the convenience
of the parties, the convenience of the witnesses, and the
interests of justice). Jumara v. State Farm Ins.
Co., 55 F.3d 873, 879 (3d Cir. 1995). Although there is
"no definitive formula or list of the factors to
consider" in a transfer analysis, the court in
Jumara identified 12 interests "protected by
the language of § 1404(a)." Id. Six of
those interests are private:
[I] plaintiffs forum preference as manifested in the original
choice;  the defendant's preference;  whether the
claim arose elsewhere;  the convenience of the parties as
indicated by their relative physical and financial condition;
 the convenience of the witnesses-but only to the extent
that the witnesses may actually be unavailable for trial in
one of the fora; and  the location of books and records
(similarly limited to the extent that the files could not be
produced in the alternative forum).
Id. (citations omitted). The other six interests are
public in nature:
 the enforceability of the judgment;  practical
considerations that could make the trial easy, expeditious,
or inexpensive;  the relative administrative difficulty in
the two fora resulting from court congestion;  the local
interest in deciding local controversies at home; [II] the
public policies of the fora; and  the familiarity of the
trial judge with the applicable state law in diversity cases.
Id. at 879-80 (citations omitted). As the parties
have not identified relevant factors beyond these 12
interests, I will balance the Jumara factors in
deciding whether to exercise the discretion afforded me by