United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle
ORDER TRANSFERRING CASE TO THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF
L. ROBART, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
the court are the parties' responses to the court's
order to show cause why the court should not transfer
Plaintiff National Products, Inc.'s (“NPI”)
non-patent claims against Defendant Wireless Accessory
Solutions, LLC, d/b/a iBolt - Wireless Accessory Solutions,
LLC (“iBolt”) to the Central District of
California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). (iBolt Resp.
(Dkt. # 28); NPI Resp. (Dkt. ## 31 (redacted), 33 (sealed).)
On March 23, 2018, the court determined, pursuant to 28
U.S.C. §§ 1400(b) and 1406(a), that venue of
NPI's patent claim against iBolt was improper in this
district and the claim should be transferred to the Central
District of California. (Order (Dkt. # 27) at 7-17, 19.) In
the same order, the court ordered the parties to show cause
why the court should not also transfer NPI's non-patent
claims to the Central District of California pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1404(a). (Order at 17-19.) The court deferred
transferring NPI's patent claim until after it reviewed
NPI's and iBolt's responses to the court's order
to show cause. (Id. at 18-19.) Having reviewed the
parties' responses, the court now DIRECTS the Clerk to
transfer the entire case-both NPI's patent and non-patent
claims against iBolt-to the Central District of California
for the reasons stated herein.
is a limited liability corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of Utah. (15-1984 2d Brassard Decl.
(Dkt. # 112) ¶ 3.) iBolt's principal place of
business is Arcadia, California. (Id.) iBolt has no
property, infrastructure, inventory, or other physical
presence in the Western District of Washington. (Id.
¶ 4.) iBolt also has no employees in the Western
District of Washington and provides no localized customer
support or targeted marketing efforts here, nor does it
otherwise interact in a targeted way with existing or
potential customers in the Western District of Washington.
(Id. ¶¶ 5-6.) iBolt makes no
representations that it has any presence in the Western
District of Washington. (Id. ¶ 5.) Any records,
documents, or information related to the subject matter of
this litigation, which are in iBolt's possession,
custody, or control are located at iBolt's headquarters
in Arcadia, California. (Id. ¶ 7.)
December 29, 2015, NPR filed a complaint against iBolt in the
Western District of Washington alleging patent and trademark
claims, along with a variety of state law claims.
(See Compl. (Dkt. # 1).) On September 19, 2017, the
court held a claims construction hearing (see
15-1984 9/19/17 Min. Entry (Dkt. # 95)) and subsequently
issued a claims construction order (15-1984 CC Order (Dkt. #
November 30, 2017, iBolt filed a motion to dismiss or
transfer NPI's patent claim based on improper venue under
28 U.S.C. §§ 1400(b) and 1406(a). (See
15-1984 MTD (Dkt. # 111).) On March 23, 2018, the court
granted iBolt's motion and determined that NPI's
patent claim should be transferred to the Central District of
California. (Order at 7-17, 19.) The court, however, deferred
transferring NPI's patent claim until after the court
reviewed the parties' responses to the court's order
to show cause why it should not also transfer NPI's
non-patent claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
(Order at 17-19.) The court now considers whether to transfer
NPI's non-patent claims.
Standards for Considering a Transfer of Venue Under 28 U.S.C.
the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of
justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to
any other district or division where it might have been
brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The threshold
question is whether the plaintiff could have originally
brought the action in the forum proposed for transfer.
See Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 344 (1960).
Once this question is resolved, district courts have
discretion to transfer venue on a case-by-case basis.
Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29
determining whether to transfer an action, the district court
must weigh a number of different “case-specific
factors.” Id. These factors include both
public and private factors. Piper Aircraft Co. v.
Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 241 (1981); see Decker Coal Co.
v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir.
1986). “The district court . . . must weigh in the
balance . . . those public-interest factors of systemic
integrity and fairness that, in addition to private concerns,
come under the heading of ‘the interest of
justice.'” Stewart Org., 487 U.S. at 30
(quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)). On the other hand,
private factors generally concern the relative impact of the
venue on the private parties participating in the litigation,
the parties' access to evidence, the availability of
compulsory process, “and all other practical problems
that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and
inexpensive.” Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330
U.S. 501, 508 (1947). These private, convenience factors may
(1) the location where the relevant agreements were
negotiated and executed, (2) the state that is most familiar
with the governing law, (3) the plaintiff's choice of
forum, (4) the respective parties' contacts with the
forum, (5) the contacts relating to the plaintiff's cause
of action in the chosen forum, (6) the differences in the
costs of litigation in the two forums, (7) the availability
of compulsory process to compel attendance of unwilling
non-party witnesses, and (8) the ease of access to sources of
Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-99
(9th Cir. 2000) (footnotes omitted). The court now considers
the relevant public and private factors.
Public Factors and the ...