2:23-cv-01016
W.D. Wash.May 10, 2024Background
- Valve Corporation and Display Technologies previously settled a patent lawsuit in 2016, with a Global Settlement and License Agreement (GSLA) including a Texas choice of law and a clause about jurisdiction and venue.
- Valve later sued several defendants including Display Technologies, Leigh Rothschild, Rothschild Broadcast, Patent Asset Management, and Meyler Legal in the Western District of Washington, alleging, among other claims, violations under Washington’s Patent Troll Prevention Act.
- Defendants moved to transfer the suit to the Eastern District of Texas, citing the GSLA’s forum-selection language and 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
- The GSLA states Texas law governs the agreement and that parties consent to Texas courts’ jurisdiction but does not expressly make Texas an exclusive forum for disputes.
- Most parties and witnesses pertinent to Valve’s claims are based in Washington, but Defendants noted ongoing related patent litigation in Texas.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether GSLA requires transfer to Texas | GSLA is only permissive on venue, not exclusive | GSLA submits parties to Texas jurisdiction | GSLA’s clause is permissive; no transfer |
| Appropriateness of transfer under § 1404(a) | Washington forum more convenient; witnesses local | Texas courts more familiar with contract law, related lawsuits pending | Washington more convenient; no transfer |
| Choice of law vs. choice of venue distinction | GSLA only mandates Texas law, not exclusive venue | GSLA “shall” governs both law and forum | Clause governs law, not exclusive venue |
| Balance of Jones factors | Most relevant activities & witnesses in WA | Related actions and interests in TX | Factors favor keeping case in WA |
Key Cases Cited
- Hunt Wesson Foods, Inc. v. Supreme Oil Co., 817 F.2d 75 (9th Cir. 1987) (distinguishes between permissive and mandatory forum-selection clauses)
- Docksider, Ltd. v. Sea Tech., Ltd., 875 F.2d 762 (9th Cir. 1989) (requirement for mandatory venue clause language)
- Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495 (9th Cir. 2000) (lays out factors for transfer of venue under § 1404(a))
- Atl. Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for W. Dist. of Tex., 571 U.S. 49 (2013) (forum-selection clause enforcement framework)