Inre: Toyota Motor Corporation
747 F.3d 1338
Fed. Cir.2014Background
- AVS filed suit in ED Texas in 2012, five months after AVS was incorporated in ED Texas; AVS is affiliated with Acacia Research and shares offices with other Acacia subsidiaries.
- Some patents at issue are in the same family as patents litigated in ED Michigan in cases dating from the early 2000s to 2011.
- Toyota and Gulf States moved to sever Gulf States, transfer Toyota’s claims to ED Michigan, and stay Gulf States’ claims pending resolution in Michigan.
- The district court denied severance and stay and also denied transfer, determining no clearly more convenient forum was shown.
- The court found several factors favored transfer to ED Michigan, notably ease of access to sources of proof and local interests; some factors were neutral.
- The district court concluded no factor favored retention in ED Texas and thus held the transfer request was not met; it did not sever or stay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in denying transfer. | AVS argues transfer to ED Michigan is clearly more convenient. | Toyota/Gulf States contend no clear convenience advantage and denial was proper. | Yes; denial was a clear abuse of discretion; transfer should be allowed. |
| Whether severance and stay should be granted if transfer is allowed. | If transfer is granted, Gulf States should be severed and remaining claims transferred. | Severance/stay should not be decided until transfer is granted or denied. | Remand required to assess severance-and-stay with the premise that Toyota can transfer. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Microsoft Corp., 630 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (mandamus review for transfer denials; abuse of discretion standard)
- In re Nintendo, Ltd., 589 F.3d 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (transfer decisions and forum convenience factors)
- In re Genentech Inc., 566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (procedural posture and transfer analysis guidance)
- In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (clear abuse of discretion in § 1404(a) analysis)
- In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc; emphasizing lack of plaintiff’s venue as a factor)