Northern District of California Archives

Northern District of California

Battle of the Bay: It’s Oakland Airport, Not San Francisco Bay Oakland International Airport

by Cecilia Choy, Ph.D. | Dec 5, 2024 | Trademarks

The US District Court for the Northern District of California granted the city and county of San Francisco a preliminary injunction enjoining the Port of Oakland from using the name or trademark “San Francisco Bay Oakland Airport” based on the strength of San Francisco’s mark and the proximity of goods and services. City and County of San Francisco v. City of Oakland, Case No. 3:24-cv-02311-TSH (N.D. Cal. Nov. 12, 2024) (Hixson, J.)

The city and county of San Francisco own a registered trademark for the SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT covering airport services. The Port of Oakland owns the OAKLAND INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT mark, also covering airport services. Based on a research study, the Port of Oakland contended that there was a lack of awareness among tourists visiting the San Francisco Bay Area, commonly known as the Bay Area, that Oakland is located in the Bay Area. The Port of Oakland notified San Francisco of its intent to rename its airport the San Francisco Bay Oakland International Airport. San Francisco objected to the name change as confusingly similar to its trademark. San Francisco sued Oakland and the Port of Oakland for trademark infringement, unfair competition/false designation of origin, and common law trademark infringement. San Francisco also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction (PI) to prevent the Port of Oakland from using the name.

Ruling on the PI motion, the district court started with whether the Port’s use of “San Francisco Bay Oakland International Airport” was likely to cause confusion. Courts in the Ninth Circuit evaluate likelihood of confusion using the nonexhaustive Sleekcraft factors (9th Cir. 1979), which include the following:

Strength of the mark.
Proximity of the goods.
Similarity of the marks.
Evidence of actual confusion.
Marketing channels used.
Type of goods and the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser.
Defendant’s intent in selecting the mark.
Likelihood of expansion of the product lines.

San Francisco offered several theories supporting likelihood of confusion. San Francisco argued that the new name implied an affiliation, connection, or association between the Oakland airport (OAK) and the San Francisco airport (SFO). San Francisco also argued that the new name would cause customers to confuse OAK with SFO and cause customers to buy tickets to the wrong airport, which constituted point-of-sale and initial interest confusion.

Addressing the strength of the mark, the district court determined that although San Francisco’s trademark was descriptive, it was commercially strong. The SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT is widely known among travelers and appears on signs in and around the airport. San Francisco has used its trademark for decades and invests millions of dollars annually to promote the SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT trademark. The court found that San Francisco’s brand was routinely ranked among the top 25 airport brands.

In terms of the proximity of the goods, the district court found that the services were identical, as both names were used in connection with an airport and related services.

Turning to the similarity of the marks, the [...]

Continue Reading

TikTok: Federal Circuit Follows Fifth Circuit, Transfers Case for Witness Convenience

by Kathleen Lynch | Dec 21, 2023 | Patents

In the first mandamus decision applying the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s new transfer motion guidelines under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a), the Federal Circuit followed suit and transferred a case for witness convenience. In re Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., Case No. 2023-146 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 14, 2023) (nonprecedential) (Prost, Hughes, Stoll, JJ.) (per curiam).

DoDots Licensing sued Samsung in the US District Court for the Western District of Texas (WDTX), alleging that Samsung phones and tablets infringed three DoDots patents. Samsung moved to transfer the case to the Northern District of California (NDCA). The applicable Fifth Circuit law allows for transfer only when the movant shows that the transferee forum is “clearly more convenient” than the transferor forum, which is determined by assessing a series of private and public interest factors. Echoing three of those factors, Samsung argued the following:

The teams that developed the allegedly infringing functionalities resided in NDCA and Korea.
Important third-party witnesses could be compelled to testify in NDCA but not in WDTX.
There was no meaningful connection between WDTX and the events giving rise to the suit.

Judge Albright denied the motion to transfer. He found that two factors weighed in favor of transfer: the ability to compel witness testimony and NDCA’s local interest in the case. However, Judge Albright also found that two factors weighed against transfer: WDTX was more convenient for certain witnesses, and DoDots’ co-pending and related lawsuits in WDTX meant that practical problems would arise if this case was transferred. The district court further determined that any remaining factors were neutral. Weighing all factors, the district court denied Samsung’s transfer motion, finding that Samsung had not shown that NDCA would be “clearly more convenient.”

Samsung filed a petition for writ of mandamus to the Federal Circuit, seeking to have the Court direct WDTX to transfer the case to NDCA. The sole question presented was whether, under Fifth Circuit law, the district court erred in refusing to transfer the case.

The Federal Circuit determined that the district court had clearly abused its discretion and that failing to transfer the case to NDCA had led to a “patently erroneous result.” The Federal Circuit found that the two factors that the district court determined weighed against transfer instead weighed in favor of transfer.

First, the Federal Circuit explained that the district court erred in finding that the “willing witness” factor weighed against transfer. Various Samsung entities had 10 relevant employees in NDCA and 20 in Korea. DoDots, in contrast, pointed to no potential technical or key witnesses in WDTX, although there were some Samsung marketing employees in Eastern Texas. The district court found that this weighed against transfer because any added travel from California to Texas for these technical witnesses was only a “slight” inconvenience. This argument echoed the argument that the Fifth Circuit rejected in its recent ruling in In re TikTok. In that case, the Fifth Circuit found on very similar facts that it was [...]

Continue Reading

TikTok Makes It Out of West Texas to Sunny Northern California

by Kathleen Lynch | Nov 16, 2023 | Copyrights

The US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit granted a writ of mandamus ordering the transfer of a case, finding that the district court’s denial of the motion to transfer “was so patently erroneous” that the extreme measure was appropriate. In re TikTok, Inc., Case No. 23-50575 (5th Cir. Oct. 31, 2023) (Smith, Southwick, Wilson, JJ.)

In the underlying case, Beijing Meishe Network Technology Co. sued TikTok in the US District Court for the Western District of Texas, alleging infringement, trade secret misappropriation and false advertising. All claims stemmed from the theory that a former Meishe employee disclosed copyrighted source code for video and audio editing software to TikTok, which TikTok then implemented into its app. Meishe and TikTok are Chinese companies, and both the alleged disclosure and TikTok’s alleged code implementation occurred in China, assisted by TikTok engineers in California. TikTok has no engineers in Texas but does maintain a business office there, although not within the Western District.

TikTok moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 to transfer the case to the Northern District of California. The district court took 11 months to rule on the motion, and in the meantime the case continued through discovery. After the district court denied the motion, TikTok petitioned the Fifth Circuit for a writ of mandamus.

The sole issue on mandamus was the propriety of the district court’s refusal to transfer venue. To succeed on a writ of mandamus, a petitioner must satisfy the reviewing court regarding the following questions:

Are there other ways to obtain the desired relief?
Is the reviewing court’s right to issue the writ “clear and indisputable”?
Is the writ appropriate, given the circumstances?

The Fifth Circuit focused on the second question, its right to issue the writ. In the Fifth Circuit, the 2008 en banc In re Volkswagen case mandates an eight-factor test that a district court must consider in deciding a § 1404 transfer motion. No one factor is dispositive, and the Fifth Circuit has cautioned against tallying the yes/no results or denying transfer just because most factors are neutral. Unsurprisingly, in the 15 years since Volkswagen, district courts applying these factors have reached inconsistent results. Even the Fifth Circuit has reached “conflicting outcomes” when reviewing these cases. The Fifth Circuit therefore took the opportunity to address each factor.

The Fifth Circuit found that two factors weighed in favor of transfer:

The relative ease of access to sources of proof
The cost of attendance of willing witnesses

Regarding ease of access to proof, the Fifth Circuit clarified that factfinders analyze “relative ease of access, not absolute ease of access” to documents and other physical evidence. The district court had determined that this factor was neutral, given that most documentation was electronic. The Fifth Circuit disagreed, explaining that while the source code was electronically stored, it was protected by a high level of security clearance. Only certain TikTok employees based in California and China were able to access the code. Using the relative metric, [...]

Continue Reading

Things May Be Bigger in Texas, but Not Necessarily More Convenient

by Benjamin Ediger, Ph.D. | Feb 16, 2023 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted a mandamus petition after analyzing the Fifth Circuit’s public and private interest factors for transfer motions and ordered the US District Court for the Western District of Texas to transfer a case to the petitioner’s venue. In re Google LLC, Case No. 23-101 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 1, 2023) (Lourie, Taranto, Stark, JJ.).

Jawbone Innovations, LLC, had an eventful 2021:

February: Incorporated in Texas
May: Obtained ownership of nine patents (all directed to technologies behind the eponymous product line that liquidated in July 2017)
August: Rented office space in Waco, Texas
September: Asserted the nine patents it just acquired against Google in the Western District of Texas–Waco Division.

Google moved to transfer the dispute to the US District Court for the Northern District of California. That district was where (1) the accused products (earbuds, smartphones, speakers, displays and software) were researched, designed and developed; (2) the asserted technology was developed, and the asserted patents were prosecuted; and (3) the witnesses and sources of proof were primarily located. In contrast, no witnesses or sources of proof were located in the Western District of Texas. Moreover, Jawbone Innovations had no personnel in Waco nor activities related to the accused technology in the whole of Texas.

Judge Albright nevertheless denied Google’s transfer motion, weighing the Fifth Circuit’s four public interest factors and four private interest factors and finding that the transferee venue failed to meet the Fifth Circuit’s “clearly more convenient” standard. With the district court finding half of the eight factors not favoring either the transferee or the transferor, its holding boiled down to a ruling that considerations of “court congestion” and “judicial economy” (found to favor the transferor) outweighed considerations of “unwilling witness compulsion” and the “cost of attendance for willing witnesses” (found to favor the transferee).

Google petitioned the Federal Circuit for a writ of mandamus. The Court, applying the Fifth Circuit’s eight factor test, identified clear error in the district court’s analysis of five of the factors.

First: Addressing the “cost of attendance for willing witnesses” factor, the Federal Circuit found error in the district court’s conclusion that this factor only slightly favored transfer. Rather, the Court explained that this factor “weigh[ed] heavily in favor of transfer” because the transferee venue was clearly more convenient for potential witnesses, especially Google employees with technical, marketing and financial knowledge of the accused products. The error was localized to how the district court considered a Google declaration identifying at least 11 potential employee witnesses (all of whom were located in the transferee venue) and Jawbone Innovations’ assertions that the declaration omitted three potentially relevant Texas-based employees. The Court noted that while this 11 to three imbalance alone was sufficient to settle this factor, the district court’s error went further, finding Google’s declaration unreliable and less worthy of consideration because of the alleged omissions. The Federal Circuit determined this was error on error because the district court improperly ignored that the depositions [...]

Continue Reading

Golden State of Mind: Witness Convenience Isn’t Based Solely on Travel Distance

by Amol Parikh | May 5, 2022 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ordered a district court to transfer a patent infringement case from Texas to California because the district court had wrongly assessed facts relating to the convenience of witnesses when it originally denied a motion to transfer venue. In re: Apple Inc., Case No. 22-128 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 22, 2022) (Dyk, Reyna, Chen, JJ.) (non-precedential).

CPC Patent Technologies PTY Ltd. filed a lawsuit against Apple in the Western District of Texas, alleging that Apple’s mobile phones, tablets and computing products equipped with Touch ID, Face ID or Apple Card features infringed three of CPC’s patents relating to biometric security. Apple moved to transfer to the Northern District of California, arguing that its employees responsible for the design, development and engineering of the accused functionality resided either in California or outside of the United States, and that the employees most knowledgeable about the marketing, licensing and financial issues relating to the accused products resided in California. Apple explained that no employees with relevant information worked in Western Texas.

The district court denied Apple’s motion. After acknowledging that the action might have been brought in Northern California, the district court analyzed the private and public interest factors governing transfer determinations. The court determined that the factor concerning the convenience of willing witnesses slightly favored transfer. However, the court determined that the factor accounting for the availability of compulsory process weighed strongly against transfer. The district court also determined that court congestion and practical problems factors weighed against transfer based on its ability to quickly reach trial and the fact that CPC had another pending infringement suit in Western Texas. The district court recognized that Apple had identified seven relevant witnesses in California who would have to travel to Texas but found that inconvenience was counterbalanced by the presence of two Apple employees in Austin who CPC insisted had relevant information, and an Apple witness in Florida who would “find it about twice as inconvenient to travel to [Northern California] than to [Western Texas] because Texas sits halfway from Florida to California.” The district court also relied on its ability to compel the third-party Mac Pro manufacturer in Western Texas to attend trial. Finally, the Court noted that there was local interest in the dispute because Apple employs thousands of workers in Western Texas. Balancing these facts, the district court determined that Apple had failed to meet the burden of proving that Northern California was clearly more convenient that Western Texas, and thus denied the motion. Apple petitioned for mandamus review.

The Federal Circuit reversed, finding that Apple had shown clear entitlement to transfer to the Northern District of California. The Court found that the district court erroneously relied on two Apple employees in Austin whom CPC identified as potential witnesses and concluded that it was far from clear that either employee had relevant or material information. One employee had testified that he worked on authentication technology that was different from that accused by CPC, [...]

Continue Reading