AudioEye, Inc. v. accessiBe Ltd., 6:20-cv-00997

Background

AudioEye, Inc. sued accessiBe Ltd. alleging infringement of nine patents plus Lanham Act and several New York state-law claims arising from marketing statements directed at New York entities.
accessiBe is an Israel-based company; AudioEye is based in Arizona with some personnel in New York. The complaint centers on conduct involving Finger Lakes and Hoselton (both in New York).
accessiBe moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer venue to the Western District of New York (WDNY) or, alternatively, to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; the district court initially denied transfer and later issued an amended order revisiting venue/jurisdiction issues.
accessiBe sought mandamus; the Federal Circuit denied mandamus and suggested seeking district-court reconsideration, after which accessiBe filed a Rule 54(b) reconsideration motion.
On reconsideration the district court concluded WDNY has personal jurisdiction over the claims, reweighed § 1404(a) convenience factors (documents, subpoena power, witness travel, local interest, docket congestion), and found WDNY "clearly more convenient."
The court vacated its Amended Transfer Order and transferred the case to the Western District of New York.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court should reconsider its Amended Transfer Order under Rule 54(b)	Opposed reconsideration; maintained original ruling was correct and that transfer was not warranted	Sought reconsideration per Federal Circuit guidance and presented additional jurisdictional and transfer arguments	Court granted reconsideration under Rule 54(b) and proceeded to re-evaluate jurisdiction and transfer factors
Whether the WDNY has personal jurisdiction over AudioEye for the asserted claims	Did not contest jurisdiction in response to reconsideration (relied on prior positions)	Argued WDNY has personal jurisdiction over all asserted claims	Court found WDNY has personal jurisdiction over AudioEye for all asserted claims
Whether venue/transferee court is proper and whether the case "might have been brought" in WDNY	Argued transfer should be denied and emphasized contacts to Texas and docket speed here	Argued venue and jurisdiction are proper in WDNY and that transfer is warranted under § 1404(a)	Court concluded venue and jurisdiction are proper in WDNY and proceeded with § 1404(a) analysis
Whether transfer under § 1404(a) is warranted after balancing convenience/public-interest factors	Emphasized some witnesses and partners in Texas and faster trial speed in W.D. Tex.	Pointed to NY-based evidence (servers, Finger Lakes, Hoselton), subpoenaable NY nonparties, and convenience for certain witnesses	Court found relative ease of access, availability of compulsory process, and witness convenience (slightly) favor transfer; practical problems neutral; court congestion favored keeping case here; local interest favors transfer; overall WDNY is clearly more convenient and transfer was ordered

Key Cases Cited

Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (1988) (§ 1404(a) transfer entails case-by-case balancing of convenience and fairness)
Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (1964) (principles governing transfer of venue)
In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201 (5th Cir. 2004) (sets private and public interest factors for transfer)
In re Volkswagen, Inc., 545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) (preliminary inquiry whether action "might have been brought" in transferee venue)
In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (patent-case transfers governed by regional-circuit law)
In re Vistaprint Ltd., 628 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (burden on movant to show transfer is appropriate)
In re Radmax, Ltd., 720 F.3d 285 (5th Cir. 2013) (plaintiff's choice given less weight when forum has no connection)
In re Apple Inc., 979 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (clarifies how to weigh transfer factors)
In re Genentech, 566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (consideration of witness travel and timing factors)
Austin v. Kroger Texas, L.P., 864 F.3d 326 (5th Cir. 2017) (district courts may reconsider interlocutory orders under Rule 54(b))