Signify North America Corporation v. Menard, Inc.
1:22-cv-01447-JPC
N.D. OhioDec 9, 2022Background
- Plaintiffs Signify North America Corp. and Signify Holding B.V. sued Menard, Inc. for infringing six LED-related patents by selling allegedly infringing lighting products in Menard retail stores, including at least three stores in the Northern District of Ohio.
- Menard is incorporated and headquartered in Eau Claire, Wisconsin; it is licensed to do business in Ohio and admits operating stores in the Northern District of Ohio.
- Menard moved to transfer the case to the Western District of Wisconsin under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), supporting the motion with a declaration from its controller (Souba) stating that decisionmaking, key documents, and principal witnesses (including Souba and merchandising manager Chapman) are in Wisconsin.
- Plaintiffs opposed transfer, emphasizing their choice of forum in Ohio, the local sales that give rise to venue under the patent statute, and Ohio’s local patent rules; they did not identify Ohio-based witnesses for the patents.
- The court found venue proper in Wisconsin under the patent venue statute (defendant resides there) and evaluated § 1404(a) private and public interest factors, concluding witness and operative-fact considerations favored Wisconsin.
- The court granted Menard’s motion and ordered transfer to the Western District of Wisconsin.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the case could have been brought in the Western District of Wisconsin under the patent venue statute | Signify did not contest transferee venue; emphasized Ohio sales and filed in N.D. Ohio | Menard is incorporated and headquartered in Wisconsin, so venue in W.D. Wis. is proper | Held: Menard resides in Wisconsin; plaintiffs could have sued in W.D. Wisconsin (venue proper there) |
| Weight to give plaintiff’s choice of forum when plaintiff is not at home in the forum | Plaintiff asked for deference to its chosen forum and cited local patent rules | Menard argued plaintiff’s choice deserves less weight because plaintiffs are not domiciliaries of Ohio | Held: Plaintiff’s choice favors Ohio but carries reduced weight because plaintiffs are not at home in this District |
| Private-interest factors: location of operative facts, sources of proof, and witness convenience | Signify noted alleged infringing sales occurred in N.D. Ohio and some evidence exists at Ohio stores | Menard showed decisionmaking, key documents, and central witnesses are in Eau Claire, Wisconsin; witnesses of central relevance located in Wisconsin | Held: Operative-fact and witness-convenience factors favor transfer to Wisconsin |
| Public-interest factors: court familiarity, congestion, and local interest | Signify argued Ohio’s local patent rules and public interest in local adjudication | Menard argued federal patent law applies equally and citizens of Wisconsin have as much interest as Ohio residents | Held: Public-interest factors are neutral or only slightly favor transfer; no meaningful disadvantage to applying federal law in W.D. Wisconsin |
Key Cases Cited
- TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Grp. Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017) (patent venue statute: corporate defendant resides in state of incorporation)
- In re Juniper Networks, Inc., 14 F.4th 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (witness convenience is a critical transfer factor)
- In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (analysis of convenience to witnesses in transfer motions)
- Reese v. CNH Am. LLC, 574 F.3d 315 (6th Cir. 2009) (district courts have broad discretion in transfer decisions)
- Means v. United States Conf. of Cath. Bishops, 836 F.3d 643 (6th Cir. 2016) (list of transfer factors and deference to district court’s balancing)
- In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (local interest factor can be neutral where alleged infringement spans many districts)
- In re Barnes & Noble, Inc., 743 F.3d 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (applying Sixth Circuit law in reviewing transfer decisions)
- Roxane Labs., Inc. v. Camber Pharms., Inc., [citation="666 F. App'x 899"] (Fed. Cir. 2016) (recognizing district courts’ broad discretion to transfer for convenience)
