MCP IP, LLC v. Velocity Outdoor Inc.
795 F.Supp.3d 510
D. Del.2025Background
- MCP IP, LLC (MCP), a South Dakota LLC based in Wisconsin, owns three patents for crossbow technology and alleges Velocity Outdoor Inc. (Velocity), a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York, infringes these patents via the R500 and R50X crossbows.
- Velocity is the parent company of Ravin Crossbows, LLC, which operates in Wisconsin and produces the accused products; both companies dispute the allocation of responsibility for alleged infringement.
- Prior and ongoing related patent litigation existed in the Western District of Wisconsin involving MCP and Ravin regarding similar products but different patents.
- MCP filed this current action in the District of Delaware, where Velocity is incorporated; Velocity moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim or, alternatively, transfer the case to Wisconsin.
- The court considered whether Delaware or Wisconsin is the appropriate and most convenient forum under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), applying both public and private interest factors under the Third Circuit's Jumara test.
- The court granted transfer to the Western District of Wisconsin and declined to address the motion to dismiss, to be resolved by the transferee court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper forum for the case (§1404(a)) | Delaware is proper (defendant’s state of incorporation); action focuses on Velocity, not Ravin | Only connection to Delaware is incorporation; Wisconsin is more convenient and relates to the claims | Action could have been brought in Wisconsin; transferring is appropriate |
| Personal jurisdiction in Wisconsin | Defendant’s conduct or agency in Wisconsin suffices for jurisdiction | No specific, non-conclusory acts alleged by Velocity in Wisconsin | Sufficient minimum contacts and agency alleged for jurisdiction |
| Venue in Western District of Wisconsin | Agency is insufficient for venue; must disregard corporate separateness | Agency/control over Ravin suffices for venue; Ravin's place is Velocity’s via agency | Agency theory viable; venue proper in Wisconsin on these allegations |
| Relevance of Jumara convenience factors | Plaintiff’s choice of forum is paramount; Delaware is convenient | Related litigation, witnesses, and events concentrated in Wisconsin; efficiencies favor transfer | Transfer favored by majority of Jumara factors (except forum choice) |
Key Cases Cited
- Shutte v. Armco Steel Corp., 431 F.2d 22 (3d Cir. 1970) (plaintiff’s forum choice is a paramount consideration but can be outweighed)
- Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335 (1960) (transferee forum must have been proper independently of defendant’s consent)
- Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) (purposeful availment is required for personal jurisdiction)
- Ford Motor Co. v. Mont. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 592 U.S. 351 (2021) (claims must arise out of forum-related contacts)
- TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC, 581 U.S. 258 (2017) (patent venue statute requires more than merely state of incorporation for venue)
- Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873 (3d Cir. 1995) (lists private and public factors for §1404(a) transfer)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (jurisdiction via agents’ conduct in a forum)
- Andra Grp., LP v. Victoria’s Secret Stores, L.L.C., 6 F.4th 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (agency theory and corporate separateness for patent venue)