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.

NST Global, LLC v. SIG Sauer Inc.

United States District Court, D. Delaware

July 9, 2019

NST GLOBAL, LLC, d/b/a SB TACTICAL, Plaintiff,
v.
SIG SAUER, INC., Defendant.

          Raeann Warner, JACOBS & CRUMPLAR, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware; Brittany J. Maxey-Fisher, William R. Brees, Maxey-Fisher, PLLC, Saint Petersburg, Florida Counsel for Plaintiff.

          Helena C. Rychlicki, Pinckney, Weedinger, Urban & Joyce LLC, Greenville, Delaware; Laura L. Carroll, Eric G. J. Kaviar, Anthony E. Faillaci, Burns & Levinson LLP, Boston, Massachusetts Counsel for Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          COLM F. CONNOLLY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Plaintiff NST Global, LLC filed this lawsuit accusing Defendant Sig Sauer, Inc. of infringing two patents covering stabilizing braces for handguns. Defendant has moved to transfer the case to the District of New Hampshire (D.I. 15). I will grant the motion.

         I. BACKGROUND

         The connections between this case and Delaware are weak. First, Defendant is incorporated in Delaware. Second, according to Plaintiff, one of the accused products can be purchased from a store in Delaware, see D.I. 19 at 4-5, although Defendant stresses that it "has no distributers or dealers in Delaware, and does not ship to any distributors or wholesale customers in Delaware," see D.I. 30 at 6. No. other facts connect this case to Delaware.

         The connections between this case and New Hampshire are strong. Plaintiff has a place of business in New Hampshire. See D.I. 19 at 3. Defendant maintains its corporate headquarters and four other facilities in New Hampshire. See D.I. 16 at 13-14. The accused products were designed in New Hampshire. See Id. at 3.

         II. DISCUSSION

         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 District of New Hampshire, where Defendant is headquartered. Thus, the only issue before me is whether I should exercise my discretion under § 1404(a) to transfer the case to New Hampshire.

         Defendant 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 (3dCir. 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:

[1] 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 for a; 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 for a resulting from court congestion; [10] the local interest in deciding local controversies at home; [11] the public policies of the for a; and [12] ...

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.