Russ v. Nike, Inc.
3:25-cv-00876
D. Or.May 14, 2025Background
- Jamaal Russ, a New York resident, filed a pro se petition in the Southern District of New York seeking cancellation of Nike, Inc.'s patent registration no. 6,639,128.
- Russ requested injunctive relief based on “on-sale bar principles,” arguing Nike’s patent should be canceled.
- Nike is incorporated and has its principal place of business in Beaverton, Oregon.
- The complaint did not allege facts showing that the events or claims had a substantial connection to the Southern District of New York.
- The court assessed whether venue was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and found that any relevant conduct and witnesses would likely be in Oregon.
- The court issued a transfer order, sending the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper venue under § 1391(b) | Case can be heard in the SDNY due to connection | Not specified | Venue is proper in Oregon, not SDNY |
| Convenience & interest of justice for transfer | Did not contest transfer | Not specified | Transfer to Oregon warranted under § 1404(a) |
| Personal jurisdiction over Nike in NY | Nike "does business" in district | Not specified | No facts showing Nike subjected to jurisdiction here |
| Injunctive relief – cancellation of patent | Seeks cancellation based on on-sale bar | Not specified | Venue/transfers issue decided, not patent issue |
Key Cases Cited
- D.H. Blair & Co. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95 (2d Cir. 2006) (District courts have broad discretion to order transfer for convenience and fairness)
- N.Y. Marine and Gen. Ins. Co. v. LaFarge N. Am., Inc., 599 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2010) (Factors for evaluating transfer under § 1404(a))
- Keitt v. N.Y. City, 882 F. Supp. 2d 412 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) (Lists factors for consideration in transfer motions)
- Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962) (Standard for appeals taken in good faith in forma pauperis)