Reflex Packaging, Inc. v. Audio Video Color Corporation
3:13-cv-03307
N.D. Cal.Oct 9, 2013Background
- Plaintiff Reflex filed a patent infringement action in the Northern District of California against AVC.
- The NDA between Reflex and AVC contains a Santa Ana forum selection clause (Central District).
- Reflex alleges Seagate’s involvement and that AVC used Reflex’s confidential pricing to compete.
- The amended complaint drops the breach-of-contract claim but keeps the patent claim; the NDA may still relate to related disputes.
- Defendant seeks dismissal for improper venue or transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); reflexively, Reflex opposes transfer in favor of the Northern District.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is venue proper in either district for patent infringement? | Venue is proper where defendant resides or where acts of infringement occurred; defendant subjected to personal jurisdiction in N.D. Cal. | Venue in the Central District is proper due to the NDA forum clause and Seagate-related acts; Northern District is not clearly mandatory. | Venue is proper in both districts; transfer possible under § 1404(a). |
| Should the case be transferred to the Central District under § 1404(a)? | Northern District is plaintiff’s forum of choice and closer to Seagate witnesses; central district bears less burden. | Central District is more convenient because both parties and most witnesses and documents reside there; proximity and local interest favor transfer. | Transfer to the Central District of California is appropriate. |
| Do the relevant transfer factors weigh in favor of transfer? | Northern District is preferred; Seagate witnesses and documents located here. | Central District hosts most witnesses, documents, and operations; local interest and efficiency favor transfer. | Most factors weigh in favor of transfer; efficiency and convenience justify transfer. |
Key Cases Cited
- Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (1964) (forum transfer policy; broad discretion to transfer)
- Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. McDonnell Douglas Corp., 820 F. Supp. 503 (C.D. Cal. 1992) (transfer factors and convenience analysis)
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981) (strong presumption in plaintiff's forum; weight varies by residence)
- VE Holding Corp. v. Johnson Gas Appliance Co., 917 F.2d 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (venue proper where defendant resides or has substantial acts of infringement)
- Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495 (9th Cir. 2000) (transfer factors; importance of convenience to witnesses)