Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 94-5 Filed 12/19/11 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 572
`Case 1:11—cv—OO797—RGA Document 94-5
`Filed 12/19/11 Page 1 of 4 Page|D #: 572
`
`TAB 5
`
`TAB 5
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 94-5 Filed 12/19/11 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 573
`
`Slip Copy, 2011 WL 2293999 (D.Del.)
`(Cite as: 2011 WL 2293999 (D.Del.))
`
`Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
`
`United States District Court,
`D. Delaware.
`MARVELL INTERNATIONAL LTD., Plaintiff,
`v.
`LINK_A_MEDIA DEVICES CORP., Defendant.
`
`Civ. No. 10–869–SLR.
`June 8, 2011.
`
`Thomas Lee Halkowski, A. MartinaTyreus Hufnal,
`Fish & Richardson, P.C., Wilmington, DE, Indranil
`Mukerji, Pro Hac Vice, William Sekyi, Pro Hac Vice,
`for Plaintiff.
`
`Elena C. Norman, Monte Terrell Squire, Young,
`Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor LLP, Wilmington, DE,
`Diana Luo, Pro Hac Vice, Harold McElhinny, Pro
`Hac Vice, Mark W. Danis, Pro Hac Vice, for Defen-
`dant.
`
`MEMORANDUM ORDER
`SUE L. ROBINSON, District Judge.
`*1 At Wilmington this 8th day of June, 2011,
`having reviewed defendant Link_A_Media Devices
`Corp.'s (“LAMD's”) motion to transfer, as well as the
`papers submitted in connection therewith;
`
`IT IS ORDERED that said motion (D.I.10) is
`denied, as follows:
`
`1. Background. On October 11, 2010, plaintiff
`Marvell International Ltd. (“Marvell”) instituted the
`present patent infringement litigation, alleging that
`LAMD
`infringes U.S. Patent Nos.: 7,328,395;
`7,751,138; 7,099,411; and 7,228,485. (D.I. 1 at ¶¶
`11–32) LAMD moved to transfer the present action
`to the Northern District of California. (D.I.10)
`
`2. The parties. LAMD, a Delaware corporation
`having its principal place of business in California, is
`a maker, seller, and/or distributor of micro chips for
`data storage devices in the United States. (D.I. 1 at ¶¶
`
`Page 1
`
`8–10; D.I. 11 at 1–2) LAMD has offices in Califor-
`nia, Minnesota, the United Kingdom, and Japan. (D
`.I. 11 at n. 2) Marvell, a Bermuda company having its
`principal place of business in Bermuda, is the as-
`signee and sole owner of the patents-in-suit. (D.I. 1
`at. ¶¶ 1, 12, 18, 24, 29)
`
`3. LAMD asserts that transfer is appropriate be-
`cause: (1) LAMD has its principal place of business
`in the Northern District of California; (2) the court
`should not defer to Marvell's choice of forum as it did
`not sue on its home turf; (3) the events giving rise to
`the litigation arose outside of Delaware; (4) LAMD is
`a regional enterprise; (5) relevant records and impor-
`tant non-party witnesses reside in the Northern Dis-
`trict of California; and (6) court congestion in Dela-
`ware gives rise for transfer to California. (D.I.11)
`Notwithstanding LAMD's arguments in support of
`transfer, there is one pivotal connection to Delaware;
`it is LAMD's state of incorporation. (D.I. 1 at ¶ 2;
`D.I. 11 at 1)
`
`4. Marvell opposes transfer, arguing that the
`court should defer to its choice of forum because: (1)
`LAMD is incorporated in Delaware; (2) LAMD has
`not met its burden to compel the court to transfer the
`case as LAMD is unable to point to any witness or
`document that could not be produced in Delaware;
`and (3) Delaware is known for its expertise in patent
`litigation. (D.I.16)
`
`5. Standard of review. Under 28 U.S.C. §
`1404(a), a district court may transfer any civil action
`to any other district where the action might have been
`brought for the convenience of parties and witnesses
`and in the interests of justice. Congress intended
`through § 1404 to place discretion in the district court
`to adjudicate motions to transfer according to an in-
`dividualized, case-by-case consideration of conven-
`ience and the interests of justice. Stewart Org., Inc. v.
`Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29, 108 S.Ct. 2239, 101
`L.Ed.2d 22 (1988); Affymetrix, Inc. v. Synteni, Inc.,
`28 F.Supp.2d 192, 208 (D.Del.1998).
`
`6. The burden of establishing the need to transfer
`rests with the movant “to establish that the balance of
`convenience of the parties and witnesses strongly
`favor the defendants.” Bergman v. Brainin, 512
`
`© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 94-5 Filed 12/19/11 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 574
`Page 2
`
`Slip Copy, 2011 WL 2293999 (D.Del.)
`(Cite as: 2011 WL 2293999 (D.Del.))
`
`F.Supp. 972, 973 (D.Del.1981) (citing Shutte v.
`Armco Steel Corp., 431 F.2d 22, 25 (3d Cir.1970));
`Medicis Pharm. Corp. v. Nycomed U.S. Inc., Civ. No.
`10–419–SLR, 2011 WL 1230276, at *2 (D.Del.
`Mar.31, 2011). “Unless the balance is strongly in
`favor of a transfer, the plaintiff's choice of forum
`should prevail.” ADE Corp. v. KLA–Tencor Corp.,
`138 F.Supp.2d 565, 567–68 (D.Del.2001); Shutte,
`431 F.2d at 25. The deference afforded plaintiff's
`choice of forum will apply as long as a plaintiff has
`selected the forum for some legitimate reason. C.R.
`Bard, Inc. v. Guidant Corp., 997 F.Supp. 556, 562
`(D.Del.1998); Cypress Semiconductor Corp. v. Inte-
`grated Circuit Sys., Inc., Civ. No. 01–199, 2001 WL
`1617186, at *2 (D.Del. Nov.28, 2001); Padcom, Inc.
`v. NetMotion Wireless, Inc., Civ. No. 03–983–SLR,
`2004 WL 1192641, at *7 (D.Del. May 24, 2004).
`Although transfer of an action is usually considered
`as less inconvenient to a plaintiff if the plaintiff has
`not chosen its “ ‘home turf’ or a forum where the
`alleged wrongful activity occurred, the plaintiffs
`choice of forum is still of paramount consideration,
`and the burden remains at all times on the defendants
`to show that the balance of convenience and the in-
`terests of justice weigh strongly in favor of transfer.”
`In re M.L–Lee Acquisition Fund II, LP., 816 F.Supp.
`973, 976 (D.Del.1993).
`
`*2 7. The Third Circuit has indicated that the
`analysis for transfer is very broad. Jumara v. State
`Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 879 (1995). Although
`emphasizing that “there is no definitive formula or
`list of factors to consider,” Id., the Third Circuit has
`identified potential factors it characterized as either
`private or public interests. The private interests in-
`clude:
`
`(1) plaintiff's forum preference as manifested in the
`original choice; (2) defendant's preference; (3)
`whether the claim arose elsewhere; (4) the conven-
`ience of the parties as indicated by their relative
`physical and financial condition; (5) the conven-
`ience of the witnesses but only to the extent that
`the witnesses may actually be unavailable for trail
`in one of the fora; and (6) location of books and re-
`cords (similarly limited to the extent that the files
`could not be produced in the alternative forum).
`
`Id. (citations omitted). The public interests in-
`clude:
`(1) the enforceability of the judgment; (2) practical
`
`considerations that could make the trial easy, expe-
`ditious, or inexpensive; (3) the relative administra-
`tive difficulty in the two fora resulting from court
`congestion; (4) the local interest in deciding local
`controversies at home; (5) the public policies of the
`fora; and (6) the familiarity of the trial judge with
`the applicable state law in diversity cases.
`
`Id. (citations omitted).
`
`8. Analysis. The court reiterates that, because
`LAMD is a Delaware corporation, it has no reason to
`complain about being sued in Delaware. Further,
`while motions to transfer have been granted for re-
`gionally based defendants in the past, LAMD is not a
`regional enterprise. See Synthes USA, LLC v. Spinal
`Kinetics, Inc., Civ. No. 08–838–SLR, 2009 WL
`463977, at *1 (D.Del. Feb.24, 2009). Unlike the de-
`fendant in Spinal Kinetics, whose offices were lo-
`cated solely in California, LAMD has offices not
`only in California, but also in Minnesota, the United
`Kingdom, and Japan. See id. Having offices situated
`around the globe makes LAMD not only a national
`player, but more of an international one, displacing it
`from regional enterprise status. See id.
`
`9. With respect to LAMD's argument regarding
`court congestion, it is true that this court's docket
`reflects the fact that patent cases, perhaps more often
`than in other districts, are given a trial date and tried
`to resolution. Nevertheless, it is the rare request from
`counsel for earlier trial dates than those provided by
`the court and even rarer when such requests are not
`accommodated by the court to some extent. The court
`also notes the irony that many members of the bar
`argue both sides of this argument from case to case,
`making it even more of a non-issue from the court's
`perspective.
`
`10. Neither is the court persuaded by LAMD's
`arguments regarding convenience. In this electronic
`age, there are no substantial burdens associated with
`discovery or witness availability that support the need
`for transfer. With respect to discovery, documents
`generally are stored, transferred and reviewed elec-
`tronically. It would be surprising to the court to find
`that sophisticated litigants, such as those at bar, still
`maintain their business records in hard copy, thus
`requiring either travel to California for review of the
`documents or the copying and transporting of docu-
`ments. With respect to witnesses, generally the par-
`
`© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 94-5 Filed 12/19/11 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 575
`Page 3
`
`Slip Copy, 2011 WL 2293999 (D.Del.)
`(Cite as: 2011 WL 2293999 (D.Del.))
`
`ties agree to take depositions where the witnesses are
`located (or the court can so order). Moreover, for
`those cases that get to trial, only a handful of wit-
`nesses testify live, and only a very small proportion
`of those documents produced during discovery are
`used as trial exhibits. Given these realities, this factor
`is outdated, irrelevant, and should be given little
`weight, if any, except for those rare exceptions where
`truly regional defendants are litigating.
`
`*3 11. Finally, the court weighs California and
`Delaware's respective public interest in deciding this
`dispute as evenly balanced between the two states.
`Even if the parties may be considered to be California
`residents, LAMD is a corporate citizens of Delaware,
`and, accordingly, is subject to suit in Delaware. (D.I.
`1 at ¶ 2; D.I. 11 at 1)
`
`12. Conclusion. As LAMD is incorporated in
`Delaware and is not a regional enterprise, and in view
`of the other considerations discussed above, LAMD's
`motion for transfer is denied.
`
`D.Del.,2011.
`Marvell Intern. Ltd. v. Link-A-Media Devices Corp.
`Slip Copy, 2011 WL 2293999 (D.Del.)
`
`END OF DOCUMENT
`
`© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.