In Re Link_A_Media Devices Corp.
662 F.3d 1221
| Fed. Cir. | 2011Background
- LAMD seeks mandamus to vacate denial of its motion to transfer venue from Delaware to the Northern District of California.
- The suit involves patent infringement claims by Marvell against LAMD, incorporated in Delaware.
- LAMD sought transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) for convenience of parties and witnesses.
- LAMD argued Delaware has little connection; witnesses and relevant documents are in California.
- Delaware district court denied transfer, treating Marvell's forum choice and incorporation as dispositive.
- Panel grants mandamus, ordering transfer to the Northern District of California.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion under § 1404(a). | LAMD contends Delaware has no meaningful connection; witnesses in CA; private/public factors favor CA. | Marvell argues forum choosing Delaware should be given deference and that Delaware is appropriate. | Yes; district court abused discretion. |
| Whether plaintiff’s choice of forum and incorporation improperly dictated the result. | LAMD's Delaware incorporation and forum choice should not control the transfer. | Marvell relies on plaintiff's forum choice as persuasive. | No; such factors not dispositive. |
| Whether private factors like convenience of witnesses and location of books were properly considered. | District court ignored these factors or treated them as outdated. | These factors are less important but should be weighed. | Improper to ignore; these factors must be weighed. |
| Whether public interest factors favored transfer. | Public interest weighed in favor of transfer due to CA witnesses/evidence. | Public interest favors Delaware due to judicial expertise in patent matters. | Public interest favored transfer to CA. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873 (3d Cir. 1995) (private/public factors in §1404 transfer analysis)
- Sinochem Int'l Co. v. Malaysia Int'l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422 (U.S. 2007) (home forum presumption applies with less force when foreign/plaintiff)
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (U.S. 1981) (forum choice deference when plaintiff foreign)
- Koster v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 330 U.S. 518 (U.S. 1947) (incorporation not dispositive factor in venue transfer)
- In re Verizon Bus. Network Servs. Inc., 635 F.3d 559 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (consider concurrent litigation if experience relevant)
- In re Vistaprint Ltd., 628 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (patent-specific experience relevant to venue)