Buzzballz, LLC v. MPL Brands NV, Inc.
2:24-cv-00548
| D. Nev. | Jul 18, 2024Background
- Buzzballz, LLC (based in Texas) sued MPL Brands NV, Inc. d/b/a Patco Brands (incorporated in Nevada, principal place of business in California) for patent infringement over beverage containers.
- The dispute centers on Patco's "Big Sipz" premade cocktails, which Buzzballz alleges infringe its patented spherical cocktail container (the '441 patent).
- Parallel litigation between the same parties is ongoing in several jurisdictions: Texas, Northern California, and (originally) Nevada.
- The Western District of Texas already transferred a related Buzzballz trademark case to the Northern District of California.
- Patco moved to transfer the Nevada patent action to Northern California for convenience and judicial economy; Buzzballz opposed, citing Nevada’s proximity to Texas and Patco's Nevada incorporation.
- The court took judicial notice of the Texas court’s transfer order but decided it was not controlling authority for the present motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to consider supplemental authority | Texas transfer order not binding | Order relevant for context | Denied as moot; order considered only for its result |
| Whether transfer to N.D. Cal. is warranted | Nevada is more convenient, Patco is incorporated there | Northern California is where evidence and witnesses are; more judicially efficient | Granted; factors favor transfer to N.D. Cal. |
| Weight of forum connection/convenience | Nevada closer to Texas HQ; venue proper | Buzzballz’s ties to Nevada are minimal; Patco’s ops in CA | Connections to Nevada weak; slight inconvenience to Buzzballz outweighed |
| Application of first-to-file doctrine | Nevada patent case was filed before CA complaint amended to add '441 patent | Amended CA complaint relates back and is first-filed | First-to-file applies; CA action is first; transfer favored |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495 (9th Cir. 2000) (factors for evaluating venue transfer for convenience and justice)
- Merial Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd., 681 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (outlining the first-to-file rule in federal cases)
- Genentech, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 998 F.2d 931 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (preference for the forum where all interests are best served, not rigid forum priority)
- In re Genentech, 566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (in patent cases, most discovery comes from accused infringer; location of defendant's evidence favors transfer)
- Anza Tech., Inc. v. Mushkin, Inc., 934 F.3d 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (test for relation back in amended complaints based on overlapping patents/products)