MOTOROLA MOBILITY, INC. v. Microsoft Corp.
804 F. Supp. 2d 1271
S.D. Fla.2011Background
- Motorola Mobility, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with a Plantation, Florida facility; Motorola filed suit in SD Fla alleging patent infringement by Microsoft.
- Microsoft is a Washington corporation headquartered in the Western District of Washington; it countersued in the same SD Fla action seeking relief on its own patents.
- At filing, Motorola asserted seven Motorola patents against Microsoft products, including Windows 7, with over fifty claim limitations involved across multiple products.
- Microsoft previously filed related suits in the Western District of Washington (WDWA-1577 and WDWA-1823) and Motorola filed Wisconsin actions later transferred to Washington, creating related litigation activity.
- Motorola argued venue in SD Fla based on Microsoft's products sold here, while Microsoft moved to transfer the case to WDWA under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), asserting centralized witnesses and evidence in Washington.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether transfer is proper under § 1404(a). | Motorola: factors favor maintaining in Florida due to forum advantage and limited Florida ties. | Microsoft: Washington is more convenient due to witnesses, evidence, and related cases there. | Transfer granted to Western District of Washington. |
| Convenience of witnesses. | Motorola asserts some witnesses located locally; discovery already occurring elsewhere. | Microsoft identifies numerous Washington-based witnesses; Florida witnesses are less material. | Weighs in favor of transfer; witnesses largely concentrated in Washington. |
| Public interest and forum familiarity. | Florida forum has familiarity and efficiency with local litigation context. | Washington has greater local interest and overlapping technological issues; judicial efficiency benefits. | Public interest factors favor Washington. |
| Plaintiff's chosen forum deference. | Motorola argues minimal deference due to not being home forum. | Florida choice deserves only minimal deference given limited connections to Florida. | Minimal deference is afforded to Motorola; transfer is appropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Meterlogic, Inc. v. Copier Solutions, Inc., 185 F. Supp. 2d 1292 (S.D. Fla. 2002) (private and public interest factors guide transfer analysis)
- Cellularvision Technology & Telecommunications, L.P. v. Alltel Corp., 508 F. Supp. 2d 1186 (S.D. Fla. 2007) (plaintiff's choice of forum receives limited deference when forum is not home)
- Amazon.com v. Cendant Corp., 404 F. Supp. 2d 1256 (W.D. Wash. 2005) (center of gravity for patent cases often in where product was designed/developed)
- Medtronic, Inc. v. American Optical Corp., 337 F. Supp. 490 (D. Minn. 1971) (focus on action as filed and not counterclaims when transferring)
- Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (1988) (public-interest considerations in transfer decisions)