R2 Solutions LLC v. Fedex Corporate Services, Inc.
4:21-cv-00940
| E.D. Tex. | Jul 6, 2022Background
- Plaintiff R2 Solutions LLC, a Texas company based in Frisco (E.D. Tex.), sued FedEx Corporate Services, Inc. for infringement of three patents, alleging four FedEx systems (tracking engine, FedEx.com search, job search, and a Hadoop-based data analytics system) infringe the Asserted Patents.
- FedEx is headquartered in Memphis, Tennessee (Western District of Tennessee); FedEx moved to transfer the case to that district under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
- The parties agreed the case could have been brought in the Western District of Tennessee (threshold for § 1404(a) satisfied); the dispute focused on convenience and public-interest factors.
- FedEx emphasized that source code, data, and many relevant employees/non-party witnesses are in Memphis (and stored on servers/cloud managed there), arguing subpoena power and witness convenience favor transfer.
- R2 stressed cloud accessibility of documents, identified several FedEx employees in the Eastern District of Texas as willing witnesses, and highlighted judicial-economy concerns because R2 has related patent suits pending in the Eastern District of Texas.
- The court found some private and public factors favored transfer (but often only slightly), while judicial economy and the presence of willing witnesses in E.D. Tex. weighed against transfer, and ultimately denied FedEx’s motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the case could have been brought in WD Tenn (§1404(a) threshold) | R2 did not contest venue in WD Tenn. | FedEx: HQ in Memphis establishes regular and established place of business. | Threshold satisfied; transfer analysis proceeds. |
| Relative ease of access to sources of proof | Documents are cloud-based and accessible anywhere; physical location less important. | Relevant source code/data were developed and stored in Memphis; defendant’s documents favor transfer. | Weighs slightly in favor of transfer, but given cloud storage given limited weight. |
| Availability of compulsory process and witness convenience | R2: relevance/willingness of FedEx-identified witnesses not established; some witnesses are subject to E.D. Tex. subpoenas. | FedEx: several non-party and party witnesses reside in Memphis and are within WD Tenn subpoena range; many others are outside 100-mile zone. | Weighs in favor of transfer (non-party subpoena power important). |
| Cost of attendance, practical problems, and judicial economy | R2: several willing FedEx witnesses in E.D. Tex.; judicial economy and risk of duplicative litigation in E.D. Tex. weigh strongly against transfer. | FedEx: forcing Memphis employees to travel is burdensome; WD Tenn slightly less congested. | Convenience of party witnesses and judicial economy weigh against transfer; overall transfer not clearly more convenient, motion denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) (articulates private/public factors and presumption favoring plaintiff’s chosen venue)
- Vasquez v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 325 F.3d 665 (5th Cir. 2003) (strong presumption for plaintiff’s home venue; transfer warranted only when factors clearly point elsewhere)
- In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201 (5th Cir. 2004) (threshold inquiry: transferee district must be one where action could have been brought)
- In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (bulk of relevant evidence usually comes from accused infringer; location of defendant’s documents favors transfer)
- In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (local sales or contacts alone may be insufficient to shift local interest factor)
- Continental Grain Co. v. The Barge FBL—585, 364 U.S. 19 (1960) (duplicative suits in different districts create waste that §1404(a) seeks to avoid)