Symantec Corporation v. Zscaler, Inc.
1:17-cv-00806
D. Del.Jul 31, 2017Background
- Symantec (Delaware corp., principal place Mountain View, CA) sued Zscaler (Delaware corp., principal place San Jose, CA) for infringement of seven patents relating to cloud-based security technology.
- Symantec has no meaningful physical presence in Delaware (no officers, facilities, or employees there).
- Zscaler has no Delaware offices; most development, coding, and design of the accused products occurred in San Jose and India; many engineers are in San Jose.
- Inventors named on the patents are located across multiple states and countries; none are in Delaware.
- Venue is proper in both the District of Delaware and the Northern District of California; Zscaler moved to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
- The court applied the Jumara private and public interest factors and granted Zscaler’s motion, transferring the case to the Northern District of California.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff's forum choice deference | Symantec chose Delaware; choice entitled to deference. | Zscaler: plaintiff has minimal connection to Delaware, so choice gets little weight. | Court: Symantec’s forum preference entitled to minimal weight. |
| Defendant's forum preference | Symantec: Delaware forum acceptable. | Zscaler prefers Northern District of CA where both parties are headquartered. | Court: Zscaler’s preference favors transfer (but less weight than plaintiff’s choice). |
| Where the claims arose | Symantec: infringement occurs where products are used, including Delaware. | Zscaler: accused products were designed and developed in Northern District of CA (and India); deeper roots there. | Court: factor favors transfer (claims have deeper roots in N.D. Cal.). |
| Convenience of parties (travel/logistics/cost) | Symantec: corporate plaintiff prefers Delaware. | Zscaler: employees, witnesses, and operations located in N.D. Cal.; travel to Delaware more burdensome. | Court: convenience favors transfer. |
| Convenience of witnesses & records | Symantec: inventors will be represented and likely to testify; no showing witnesses unavailable. | Zscaler: most inventors and technical witnesses are outside Delaware; documents/engineering files in San Jose. | Court: witness factor neutral; records factor minimally favors transfer. |
| Public interest/practical considerations | Symantec: federal patent issues neutral between fora. | Zscaler: N.D. Cal. is less congested, closer to parties and evidence, trial more efficient. | Court: public-interest factors (practicality, congestion) favor transfer. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873 (3d Cir. 1995) (articulates private and public interest factors for §1404(a) transfer analysis)
- In re LinkAMedia Devices Corp., 662 F.3d 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (forum non conveniens and transfer principles in patent cases)
- In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (treats plaintiffs’ forum shopping and convenience considerations in transfer analysis)
- Smart Audio Techs., L.L.C. v. Apple, Inc., 910 F. Supp. 2d 718 (D. Del. 2012) (discusses where patent claims arose and related transfer considerations)
- Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Altera Corp., 842 F. Supp. 2d 744 (D. Del. 2012) (addresses weight to accord corporate forum preference in transfer motions)
- TriStrata Tech., Inc. v. Emulgen Labs., Inc., 537 F. Supp. 2d 635 (D. Del. 2008) (discusses convenience of witnesses and practical trial considerations in §1404(a) context)