IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXASMARSHALL DIVISION
MEDIDEA, LLC,Plaintiff,v.ZIMMER HOLDINGS, INC., ZIMMER,INC., and ZIMMER US, INC.,Defendants.§§§§§§§§§ CIVIL ACTION NO. 2-09-cv-258-TJW
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendants Zimmer Holdings, Inc., Zimmer, Inc., and ZimmerUS, Inc.’s (collectively “Zimmer”) Motion to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).[Dkt. No. 20] After considering the parties’ arguments and the applicable law, the Court is of theopinion that Zimmer’s motion should be DENIED.
I.
Background
Plaintiff MedIdea, LLC (“MedIdea”) filed this lawsuit on August 26, 2009, accusingZimmer of infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,200,350 (“the ‘350 patent”); 6,383,225 (“the ‘225patent”); 6,267,785 (“the ‘785 patent”); 6,379,391 (“the ‘391 patent”); 6,398,812 (“the ‘812patent”); 6,821,300 (“the ‘300 patent”); and 7,229,478 (“the ‘478 patent”) (collectively, “thepatents-in-suit”). On December 4, 2009, MedIdea filed a related case in this Court asserting,
inter alia
, the ‘478 patent against Smith & Nephew, Inc.
See
MedIdea, LLC v. Smith & Nephew, Inc.,2:09-cv-378.MedIdea is a Michigan corporation with a principal place of business in Longview, Texas.Zimmer is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business in Warsaw, Indiana.Zimmer seeks to transfer the case to the Northern District of Indiana or the Eastern District of Michigan.
II.
Legal Standard
“For the convenience of parties, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer anycivil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. §1404(a). The district court has “broad discretion in deciding whether to order a transfer.”
Balawajder v. Scott
, 160 F.3d 1066, 1067 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting
Caldwell v. Palmetto State Sav. Bank
, 811 F.2d 916, 919 (5th Cir. 1987)).The Federal Circuit applies regional circuit law to district court decisions related to venue.
See In re TS Tech USA Corp
., 551 F.3d 1315, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (applying the Fifth Circuit’s
enbanc
Volkswagen
decision to this Court’s transfer order). The Fifth Circuit has recently clarifiedthe standard that district courts in this circuit should apply in deciding motions to transfer venue.
In re Volkswagen of America, Inc
., 545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc),
cert. denied
,
Singletonv. Volkswagen of Am., Inc.
, No. 08-754, 2009 WL 425117 (Feb. 23, 2009). The Court ruled thatҤ 1404(a) venue transfers may be granted upon a lesser showing of inconvenience than
forum nonconveniens
dismissals,” and that “the burden that a moving party must meet to justify a venuetransfer is less demanding than that a moving party must meet to warrant a
forum non conveniens
dismissal.”
Id
. at 314 (citing
Norwood v. Kirkpatrick
, 349 U.S. 29, 32 (1955)). The Court heldthat moving party bears the burden of showing “good cause,” which the Court explained issatisfied “when the movant demonstrates that the transferee venue is clearly more convenient.”
Id
.The Court reiterated that the relevant factors to be considered for a 1404(a) motion are thesame as those for
forum non conveniens
dismissals, which include both public and private interestfactors.
Id. at 315 (citing Humble Oil & Ref. Co. v. Bell Marine Serv., Inc., 321 F.2d 53, 56 (5thCir. 1963)).
The private interest factors are: (1) the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (2)the availability of compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses; (3) the cost of
attendance for willing witnesses; and (4) all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy,expeditious and inexpensive.
Id
. (citing
In re Volkswagen AG
, 371 F.3d 201, 203 (5th Cir.2004)). The public interest factors are: (1) the administrative difficulties flowing from courtcongestion; (2) the local interest in having localized interests decided at home; (3) the familiarityof the forum with the law that will govern the case; and (4) the avoidance of unnecessary problemsof conflict of laws or in the application of foreign law.
Volkswagen II
, 545 F.3d at 315. Thesefactors are not necessarily exhaustive or exclusive, and none can be said to be of dispositiveweight. Id. (citing Action
Indus., Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Corp.
, 358 F.3d 337, 340 (5th Cir.2004)).
A.
Discussion1.
Convenience of the Parties and Witnesses and Cost of Attendance forWitnesses
The Court first considers the convenience of the witnesses and parties. In
Volkswagen I
, theFifth Circuit established the “100-mile” rule, which states that “[w]hen the distance between anexisting venue for trial of a matter and a proposed venue under § 1404(a) is more than 100 miles,the factor of the convenience to witness increases in direct relationship to the additional distance tobe traveled.” 371 F.3d at 204–5. When applying the 100-mile rule, a court should not place toomuch weight to the relative inconvenience for overseas parties and witnesses.
See In reGenentech
, 566 F.3d 1338, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (finding that
A
witnesses from Europe will berequired to travel a significant distance no matter where they testify
@
). Furthermore, in caseswhere potential witnesses are from widely scattered locations, a trial court should not consider its“central location . . . in the absence of witnesses within the plaintiff’s choice of venue.”
Id.
Thecourt “should assess the relevance and materiality of the information the witness may provide,” notthe “significance of the identified witnesses’ testimony.”
Id.
at 1343–44.
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
MedIdea Zimmer Transfer
ED Texas refuses to transfer case to ED Michigan or ND Indiana.
667
Reads
0
Readcasts
201
Embed Views
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
