Tristar Products, Inc. v. Novel Brands LLC, 1:17-cv-00043

Tristar Products, Inc. (Pennsylvania corp.; principal place in New Jersey) owns U.S. Design Patent D772,641 for a pan and sued Novel Brands, LLC (New Jersey LLC) for patent infringement in the District of Rhode Island.
Tristar’s Rhode Island counsel purchased an allegedly infringing “Copper Pro Square Pan” from Novel Brands’ website and had it shipped to Providence, Rhode Island.
Novel Brands moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue, or alternatively to transfer the case to the District of New Jersey.
The parties and most U.S.-based witnesses and documentary evidence are located in New Jersey; one inventor lives in New Jersey and the other abroad.
The court declined to resolve personal jurisdiction or venue questions and instead evaluated transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (and noted § 1406(a)/§ 1631 would yield the same result).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether this forum should retain the case (transfer under § 1404(a))	Tristar prefers Rhode Island because the infringing act (purchase/shipment) occurred here and its counsel is here	New Jersey is more convenient: parties, witnesses, and most evidence are in New Jersey	Transferred to D.N.J.; § 1404(a) transfer granted
Weight to give plaintiff’s choice of forum	Plaintiff’s choice merits deference	Defendant says Tristar is nonresident so choice merits little weight	Court gave Tristar's choice reduced weight because it is a nonresident with no strong Rhode Island ties
Convenience of witnesses and access to proof	Rhode Island not significantly less convenient; local counsel presence favors keeping case	Most witnesses, parties, and evidence are in or nearer New Jersey	Convenience of parties and witnesses favors New Jersey
Whether need to resolve personal jurisdiction/venue before transfer	Tristar sought jurisdictional discovery and insisted jurisdiction exists	Novel Brands argued transfer preferable regardless	Court declined to decide jurisdiction/venue and transferred under § 1404(a) (noting § 1406(a)/§ 1631 would lead to same result)

Brian Jackson & Co. v. Eximias Pharm. Corp., 248 F. Supp. 2d 31 (D.R.I. 2003) (court applies individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience when ruling on transfer)
Momenta Pharm., Inc. v. Amphastar Pharm., Inc., 841 F. Supp. 2d 514 (D. Mass. 2012) (movant bears burden to show transfer under § 1404(a) is warranted)