to any other district or division where it might have beenbrought." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Much has been written about the legal standard formotions to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
re Link_A_Media DevicesCorp.,
662 F.3d 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2011);
State Farm Ins.
Helicos Biosciences Corp.
Supp. 2d 367
Del.2012).Referring specifically to the analytical framework described
the courtstarts with the premise that a defendant's state
incorporation has always been
predictable, legitimate venue for bringing suit" and that
plaintiff, as the injured party,generally ha[s] been 'accorded [the] privilege of bringing an action where he chooses."'858
Supp. 2d at
349 U.S. 29,
(1955)).Indeed, the Third Circuit
reminds the reader that "[t]he burden
establishingthe need for transfer
rests with the movant" and that, "in ruling
defendants'motion, the plaintiff's choice
venue should not be lightly disturbed." 55 F.3d at 879(citation omitted).The Third Circuit goes
to recognize that,[i]n ruling
1404(a) motions, courts have not limited their considerationto the three enumerated factors
§ 1404(a) (convenience
witnesses, or interests
justice), and, indeed,commentators have called
the courts to "consider all relevant factors todetermine whether
balance the litigation would more convenientlyproceed and the interests
justice be better served by transfer to adifferent forum.
(citation omitted). The Court then describes some
the "many variants
the private and public interests protected by the language
Case 1:12-cv-01427-SLR Document 35 Filed 06/04/13 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 495