IP UPDATE
Exploring the Latest in Intellectual Property Law
IP UPDATE
Exploring the Latest in Intellectual Property Law
Venue
Subscribe to Venue's Posts

Patent Venue: VENUE Act Would Expand Scope of Venue

by | May 2, 2024 |

As part of proposed legislation intended to address several procedural issues related to judicial proceedings, a recent section titled the Venue Equity and Non-Uniformity Elimination Act of 2024 (VENUE Act) seeks to expand the number of jurisdictions in which a patent infringement suit can be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(b). The bill, S 4095, is almost identical to a 2016 bill introduced by then-Senator Jeff Flake.

The VENUE Act seeks to legislatively overrule the 2017 Supreme Court ruling in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands by significantly broadening the number of venues in which a suit can be brought. Under the current state of the law, venue for a patent suit is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) only where a defendant resides (i.e., for a business, its state of incorporation) or where the defendant has infringed the patent and maintains a regular and established place of business. In the wake of TC Heartland, venue has become a contested preliminary issue in many patent litigations.

In addition to the already established venues for patent suits, the VENUE Act would include jurisdictions where an inventor conducted research or development underlying the patent-in-suit. It would also allow venue where the defendant business conducted research and development for the asserted patent, manufactures a product or performs a manufacturing process purportedly embodied by the asserted patent. The VENUE Act would limit a “regular and established place of business” to a “physical facility,” excluding the homes of a business’s teleworking employees.

Procedurally, the VENUE Act would codify – and potentially strengthen – the existing practice of challenging district court venue determinations by mandamus petitions. By statute, a court’s “clearly and indisputably erroneous” denial of a venue transfer or dismissal motion would constitute “irremediable interim harm,” which would have the effect of requiring the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to grant such petitions when warranted.

If enacted, the VENUE Act would create new statutory interpretation issues in its significant expansion of the number of districts in which venue may be sought. At the same time, however, the expansion might be significant enough that venue challenges would return to the rarity they once enjoyed.



read more

TikTok Makes It Out of West Texas to Sunny Northern California

by | Nov 16, 2023 |

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:

  1. Are there other ways to obtain the desired relief?
  2. Is the reviewing court’s right to issue the writ “clear and indisputable”?
  3. 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



read more

Ninth Circuit Extends § 230 Immunity to Domain Name Registrars

by | Feb 16, 2023 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s suit against a domain name registrar, holding that the plaintiff did not adequately allege that the registrar used the disputed trademark “in commerce” as required by the Lanham Act. The Court also extended immunity under the Communications Decency Act to include domain name registrars. Rigsby v. GoDaddy Inc. et al., Case No. 21-16182 (9th Cir. Feb. 3, 2023) (Clifton, McKeown, Thomas, JJ.).

Scott Rigsby, the first double leg amputee to complete an IRONMAN triathlon and founder of the Scott Rigsby Foundation (a nonprofit for wounded veterans and disabled persons), registered the domain name “scottrigsbyfoundation.org” with GoDaddy.com in 2007. GoDaddy is the world’s largest domain name registrar. When Rigsby failed to renew the domain name in 2018 because of a billing glitch, a third party registered the domain name and changed the content to an online gambling site. Rigsby filed suit against GoDaddy in the US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, seeking declaratory judgment and alleging Lanham Act and state law claims. The suit was transferred to the US District Court for the District of Arizona pursuant to the forum selection clause in GoDaddy’s terms of service. The district court dismissed all claims with prejudice. Rigsby appealed, challenging dismissal and transfer of venue.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed dismissal. As an initial matter, the Court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review the transfer order because the transferor fell within the Eleventh Circuit.

Turning to the Lanham Act claims under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), Rigsby alleged that GoDaddy knowingly provided use of the domain name in a deceptive manner. The Ninth Circuit rejected this argument for two reasons. First, § 1125(a) has a use in commerce requirement, and GoDaddy simply granted the third-party gambling site access to the domain name. The Court held that the third party’s use in commerce does not subject the registrar to liability for trademark infringement or unfair competition. Second, as a domain name registrar that did not engage in activities other than registration, GoDaddy is shielded from liability for cybersquatting under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA). Importantly, the Court held that the plaintiff did not prove that GoDaddy registered, used or trafficked the domain name with a bad-faith intent to profit—a registrar’s lack of intervention with an infringing third-party use is not equivalent to use in commerce or active promotion of infringement.

The Ninth Circuit also barred Rigsby’s state law claims and related injunctive relief, explaining that GoDaddy is entitled to statutory immunity under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA). (See § 230(c)(1) (“[n]o provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider”).) The Court identified three reasons why GoDaddy qualifies for CDA immunity. First, the Ninth Circuit joined the Second Circuit in ruling that domain name registrars and website hosting companies qualify as interactive computer services because [...]

Continue Reading



read more

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

by | Feb 16, 2023 |

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



read more

Oh Snap: Sufficient Reasoning Must Support Declaratory Judgment Dismissal

by | Jun 2, 2022 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the dismissal of a declaratory judgment action because the district court failed to sufficiently support its decision. Mitek Systems, Inc. v. United Services Automobile Association, Case No. 21-1989 (Fed. Cir. May 20, 2022) (Dyk, Taranto, Cunningham, JJ.)

United Services Automobile Association (USAA) owns four patents directed to using a mobile device to capture and transmit an image of a bank check for deposit. Mitek created software for mobile check capture called MiSnap™, which it licenses in the form of a software development kit to financial institutions. In 2017, USAA sent letters to Mitek’s customers, some with claim charts and patent lists. The customers subsequently demanded indemnification by Mitek. In 2018, USAA sued Wells Fargo, a Mitek customer, in the Eastern District of Texas. As the case progressed, USAA served a subpoena on Mitek seeking documents, source code and testimony about MiSnap™. The case went to trial on two of the four patents, and Mitek and its products were frequently mentioned.

Shortly thereafter, Mitek filed a complaint in California seeking declaratory judgment of no infringement as to all four USAA patents. To support jurisdiction for its declaratory judgment claim, Mitek alleged that there was real and substantial apprehension of imminent litigation between Mitek and USAA for infringement of the patents-in-suit. In response, USAA argued that there was no case or controversy as required by Article III of the Constitution, and thus the case should be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. USAA also argued that the California court should exercise discretion to decline to hear claims for declaratory relief. USAA requested alternatively that the action be transferred to the Eastern District of Texas.

The California court transferred the case to the Eastern District of Texas. The Texas court then dismissed the action for lack of a case or controversy and stated that the court would exercise discretion to decline to entertain the declaratory judgment action. Mitek appealed.

Addressing subject matter jurisdiction, the Federal Circuit explained that the question was “whether the facts alleged, under all the circumstances, show that there is substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interest, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment.” Along these lines, a plaintiff must plead facts sufficient to establish jurisdiction at the time of the complaint, and a case or controversy must remain present throughout the course of the suit. The Court found that the Texas court’s decision provided insufficient reasoning for dismissal because it failed to identify first whether to treat the Rule 12(b)(1) motion as a facial or factual challenge, as required under Fifth Circuit precedent. The Federal Circuit instructed the district court on remand to explore any post-filing events that may have impacted jurisdiction, as well as similarities between Mitek’s relationships with Wells Fargo and other customers.

The Federal Circuit found that the district court’s case or controversy analysis was similarly inadequate. The Court explained [...]

Continue Reading



read more

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

by | May 5, 2022 |

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



read more

Patent Venue Statute Doesn’t Apply to Third-Party Counterclaim Defendant; Acts in Furtherance of Partnership May Be Imputed to Partner for Venue Purposes

by | Mar 24, 2022 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s determination of proper venue, finding that the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), does not apply to a third-party counterclaim defendant and that acts done by separate entities in furtherance of a partnership can be imputed to a partner for purposes of venue determination. The Federal Circuit also affirmed and reversed jury verdicts of adequate written description and patent co-ownership. BASF Plant Sci., LP v. Commonwealth Sci. and Indus. Rsch. Org., Case Nos. 20-1415; -1416; -1919; -1920 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 15, 2022) (Newman, Taranto, Chen, JJ.) (Newman, J., dissenting).

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), a research arm of the Australian government, owns six patents directed to the engineering of plants, particularly canola, to produce specified oils not native to the plants. BASF Plant Science is a plant biotechnology company. CSIRO and BASF each explored genetic modification of familiar oilseed crop plants, such as canola, to get them to produce omega-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (LCPUFAs), commonly known as “fish oil,” that could be fed to farm-raised fish and are beneficial to human health. In 2007, CSIRO and BASF discussed a focused collaboration and in 2008 entered into a two-year Materials Transfer and Evaluation Agreement (MTEA) to advance that goal. In 2010, following the conclusion of the MTEA, CSIRO partnered with another Australian government entity, Grains Research and Development Corporation, and private company, Nuseed, to commercialize its products. CSIRO granted Nuseed an exclusive license to CSIRO’s LCPUFA technology and patents. In 2011, BASF entered into a commercialization agreement with Cargill. BASF developed a canola seed line that it used to apply for regulatory approvals, which Cargill used in cross-breeding work. As part of the joint project, BASF deposited seeds with the American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) to support BASF’s patent applications.

During this period, BASF and CSIRO entered negotiations for BASF to take a license to CSIRO’s LCPUFA technology, but the negotiations broke down. In 2016, Nuseed sent Cargill a letter identifying multiple CSIRO patents and inviting Cargill to discuss CSIRO’s omega-3 patent portfolio. In April 2017, BASF sued Nuseed in the District of Delaware, seeking a declaratory judgment that BASF did not infringe certain CSIRO patents listed in the 2016 letter. The District of Delaware dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

In 2017, BASF filed a declaratory judgment action in the Eastern District of Virginia against CSIRO, Nuseed and Grains Research (collectively, CSIRO). CSIRO filed an answer and counterclaims asserting infringement of the asserted patents against BASF and Cargill. BASF entered the case as a party and asserted co-ownership of the asserted patents under the MTEA. Cargill moved to dismiss the counterclaims for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. The district court denied the motion, determining that it had personal jurisdiction over Cargill and that venue was proper. Cargill did not dispute that it had a regular and established place of business in the Eastern District of Virginia but argued that it [...]

Continue Reading



read more

Dude, Where’s My Venue? Texas Car Dealerships Aren’t Distributor Agents

by | Mar 17, 2022 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a district court’s denial of motions made by two car distributors to transfer cases out of the Western District of Texas for improper venue, finding that the patent owner failed to establish that franchised car dealerships in the judicial district were agents of the manufacturers for venue purposes under § 1400(b). In re Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc., Case Nos. 22-108; -109 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2022) (Dyk, Reyna, Chen, JJ.) (per curiam).

StratosAudio filed complaints in the Western District of Texas against Volkswagen and Hyundai, asserting infringement of infotainment-related patents. Volkswagen and Hyundai are car distributors incorporated in New Jersey and California, respectively. Both distributors moved to dismiss or transfer their cases for improper venue under § 1406(a). The district court denied the motions, concluding that venue was proper because independently owned Volkswagen and Hyundai car dealerships operated in the district. The district court found that franchise agreements gave the car distributors sufficient control over their respective dealerships such that they constituted regular and established places of business in the district. The district court reached this finding despite the fact that Texas law prohibited direct or indirect operation or control of a franchise by a car manufacturer or distributor. Volkswagen and Hyundai petitioned the Federal Circuit for writ of mandamus to vacate the district court’s order or transfer for improper venue.

The Federal Circuit first considered whether mandamus review was appropriate. The Court explained that it may only issue a writ if the petitioner has no other means adequate to attain the desired relief. In contrast to a motion to transfer to a more convenient venue under § 1404(a), denial of a motion to dismiss or transfer for improper venue under § 1406(a) can be remedied on appeal from final judgment. The Court explained that mandamus relief is therefore only available for a ruling on a § 1406(a) motion where the issue presented doing so is important to “proper judicial administration.” Citing to its ruling in In re. Google LLC, the Court explained that this condition may be met when there are a significant number of district court decisions that adopt conflicting views on a basic legal issue. The Court described the disagreement among district courts over whether independent car dealerships establish venue over vehicle manufacturer and distributors and determined that the situation warranted immediate review.

The Federal Circuit turned to the merits to analyze the factors for determining whether a defendant has a “regular and established place of business” for the purposes of establishing proper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). There was no dispute that the car dealerships were physically located in the Western District of Texas, and that the defendants did not have any employees at these locations. The Court thus identified the three operative statutory requirements that StratosAudio had the burden of establishing:

  • Whether the dealerships were the agents of the defendants
  • Whether the dealerships conducted the defendants’ [...]

    Continue Reading


read more

California, I’m Coming Home: Transfer to Venue Where Products Were Designed Is Appropriate

by | Mar 10, 2022 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied a patent owner’s petition for writ of mandamus, finding that the district court properly transferred a case from the Eastern District of Virginia to the Northern District of California because the center of the alleged infringing activities occurred in California. In re: SunStone Information Defense, Inc., Case No. 2022-121 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 11, 2022) (Moore, Dyk, Stoll, JJ). (non-precedential).

SunStone filed a patent infringement suit against F5 Networks and one of its customers in the Eastern District of Virginia. F5 Networks moved to transfer the case to the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), arguing that at the time of filing, SunStone was headquartered in Northern California, and the F5 Networks subsidiary that designed and developed the accused products was also located in the area. F5 Networks also noted that essentially all of the relevant documents and knowledgeable employees were in Northern California.

The district court granted F5 Networks’ motion, explaining that F5 Networks satisfied its burden of proving that transfer was warranted based on convenience of the parties and witnesses and because California was the “center of the alleged infringing activities.” The district court also noted that neither party disputed that the action “might have been brought” in the Northern District of California. SunStone petitioned for writ of mandamus.

The Federal Circuit applied the law of the regional circuit (the Fourth Circuit), which requires finding a clear abuse of discretion in order to overturn a district court’s transfer decision. The Court found that SunStone failed to meet this “stringent standard.” The Court also found that SunStone’s choice of forum was not entitled to significant weight because it was not SunStone’s home forum and had no specific connection to the infringement claims. The Court therefore denied SunStone’s petition.

Practice Note: This is another decision in a long line of recent Federal Circuit rulings relating to venue, which are summarized in an article related to a string of transfer denials in the Western District of Texas and our 2022 IP Outlook Report: The Developments Shaping Patent Law.



read more

Power Play: District Court Properly Transferred Bad Faith Anticipatory Suit

by | Jan 27, 2022 |

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied a petition for mandamus relief from an order transferring a first-filed declaratory judgment action from the District of New Jersey to the Western District of Texas, finding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in departing from the first-to-file rule. In re Amperex Tech. Ltd., Case No. 22-105 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 14, 2022) (Lourie, Prost, Taranto, JJ.) (per curiam).

Maxell, Ltd. owns patents related to lithium-ion battery technology. To facilitate licensing discussions regarding Maxell’s patents, Maxell and Amperex entered into a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) stipulating that neither party would sue the other for one year. At the end of the one-year period, Amperex proposed extending the NDA because the parties had not reached an agreement. Maxell replied that Amperex’s products infringed Maxell’s patents and cautioned that if “Maxell and Amperex are not able to enter into a licensing agreement by Friday, April 9, 2020, Maxell will be left with no choice but to pursue litigation.”

After some discussion, Maxell’s counsel expressed interest in having another meeting and requested Amperex’s presentation materials in advance. Amperex’s counsel replied, “I will be in touch as soon as I can get the materials,” just two hours before filing a 90-page complaint seeking a declaratory judgment of noninfringement in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey. Two days later, Maxell filed an infringement action in the US District Court for the Western District of Texas. Maxell moved the New Jersey court to decline jurisdiction over the declaratory judgment action or transfer the action to the Western District of Texas. Amperex subsequently moved to enjoin Maxell’s action, and Maxell filed a motion to dismiss or transfer Amperex’s complaint, arguing that the action was brought in bad faith and in anticipation of Maxell’s actions.

Departing from the first-to-file rule, the district court granted Maxell’s transfer request. The district court acknowledged that a “first-filed action is preferred . . . unless considerations of judicial and litigant economy, and the just and effective disposition of disputes, require otherwise.” The district court then addressed several factors, including whether Amperex’s suit was anticipatory and the relative convenience of the forums. The district court concluded that Amperex’s suit was anticipatory because “when one party gives a deadline by which a dispute must be resolved non-judicially and the other party quickly files a declaratory action, the declaratory action is anticipatory.” Moreover, while neither bad faith nor ongoing negotiations are required for a suit to be anticipatory, bad faith actions that “disrupt the non-judicial settlement of disputes or . . . string the defendant along so that the plaintiff can win the race to the courthouse . . . weigh strongly in favor of transfer or dismissal.” Thus, the district court found that Maxell’s clear ultimatum coupled with Amperex’s “feigned cooperation” weighed heavily in Maxell’s favor.

The district court next noted that neither district was more convenient for the parties or witnesses, whereas Amperex’s failure to properly serve Maxell [...]

Continue Reading



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Paul Devinsky

Amol Parikh

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES