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.

Ultravision Technologies, LLC v. RMG Networks Holding Corp.

United States District Court, D. Delaware

May 6, 2019

ULTRAVISION TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
RMG NETWORKS HOLDING CORPORATION, Defendant.

          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

          Jack 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

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          Connolly, United States District Judge.

         Defendant 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.

         DISCUSSION

         Both 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.

         Section 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 Texas.

         RMG has 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).

         The 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; [2] the defendant's preference; [3] whether the claim arose elsewhere; [4] the convenience of the parties as indicated by their relative physical and financial condition; [5] 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 [6] 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:

[7] the enforceability of the judgment; [8] practical considerations that could make the trial easy, expeditious, or inexpensive; [9] the relative administrative difficulty in the two fora resulting from court congestion; [10] the local interest in deciding local controversies at home; [II] the public policies of the fora; and [12] 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 § 1404(a).

         I. PLAINTIFF'S ...


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.