As noted, both parties maintain their principal place
business in San Diego, California.(D.I. 1
1-2.) In addition, both parties' headquarters are located
the Southern District
California. Thus, it is clear that each party has sufficient minimum contacts with the proposedtransferee forum to provide that district court with personal jurisdiction.
28 U.S.C. § 1400(b)("Any civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where thedefendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts
infringement and has a regularand established place
4(k).Likewise, as a patent dispute, the Southern District
California would have subject matterjurisdiction over the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a), which provides district courts withoriginal jurisdiction in such matters.
28 U.S.C. § 1338(a). Thus, the court finds that this actioncould have been brought originally in the proposed transferee forum and proceeds to the secondstep
the transfer analysis.
The court must next consider whether transferring this action to the Southern District
California would serve the interests
convenience and justice.
2013 WL 1856457, at*5. The Third Circuit has instructed that courts considering a transfer motion should perform acase-by-case analysis, rather than apply a "definitive formula."
55 F.3d at 879. Thisassessment should take into account the various public and private interests protected and defined
1404(a). The private interests may include:
forum preference as maintained in the original choice; the defendant'spreference; whether the claim arose elsewhere; the convenience
the parties asindicated
their relative physical and financial condition; the convenience
only to the extent that the witnesses may actually be unavailable fortrial in one
the fora; and the location
books and records (similarly limited tothe extent that the files could not be produced in the alternative forum).
The public interests may include: