United States District Court, D. Delaware
Warner, JACOBS & CRUMPLAR, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware;
Brittany J. Maxey-Fisher, William R. Brees, Maxey-Fisher,
PLLC, Saint Petersburg, Florida Counsel for Plaintiff.
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.
F. CONNOLLY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
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
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.
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.
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.
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).
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:
 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 for a; 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 for a resulting from court congestion;  the local
interest in deciding local controversies at home;  the
public policies of the for a; and  ...