Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 94-8 Filed 12/19/11 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 588
`Case 1:11—cv—OO797—RGA Document 94-8
`Filed 12/19/11 Page 1 of 7 Page|D #: 588
`
`TAB 8
`
`TAB 8
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 94-8 Filed 12/19/11 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 589
`
`Slip Copy, 2011 WL 148052 (N.D.Ill.)
`(Cite as: 2011 WL 148052 (N.D.Ill.))
`
`Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.
`
`United States District Court,
`N.D. Illinois,
`Eastern Division.
`Armin RUDD, Individually and d/b/a ABT Systems,
`LLC, and the University of Central Florida Board of
`Trustees on Behalf of the University of Central Flor-
`ida, Plaintiffs,
`v.
`LUX PRODUCTS CORPORATION EMERSON
`CLIMATE TECHNOLOGIES BRAEBURN SYS-
`TEMS, LLC, and Lennox International Inc., Defen-
`dants.
`
`Civil Action No. 09-cv-6957.
`Jan. 12, 2011.
`
`A Michael P. Mazza, Dana Lauren Drexler, Michael
`P. Mazza, Llc, Glen Ellyn, IL, for Plaintiffs.
`
`Jonathan R Spivey, Foley & Lardner, David L.
`Newman, Kevin John O'Shea, Greenberg Traurig,
`LLP, Chicago, IL, Jeffery N. Costakos, Kadie M.
`Jelenchick, Linda E.B. Hansen, Foley & Lardner
`Milwaukee, WI, Dillis V. Allen Law Offices Of
`Dillis V. Allen, Schaumburg, IL, for Defendants.
`
`OPINION AND ORDER
`CHARLES RONALD NORGLE, District Judge.
`*1 Before the Court is Defendant Emerson Elec-
`tric Co.'s FN1 Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second
`Amended Verified Complaint for Improper Joinder
`or, in the Alternative, to Sever and Transfer pursuant
`to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 and 28 U.S.C.
`§ 1440(a). For the following reasons the Motion to
`Sever and Transfer Plaintiffs' claims is granted. The
`Clerk shall transfer Plaintiffs' claims against Emerson
`to the Eastern District of Missouri.
`
`FN1. Plaintiffs, by way of their Second
`Amended Verified Complaint,
`removed
`Emerson Climate Technologies as a defen-
`dant and substituted Emerson Electric Co. in
`its place.
`
`Page 1
`
`I. INTRODUCTIONFN2
`
`FN2. The introduction information is taken
`from the Second Amended Verified Com-
`plaint, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, or in
`the Alternative, to Sever and Transfer, and
`Plaintiffs' Response to the Motion.
`
`A. Facts
`This case involves a claim of patent infringement
`arising under the patent laws of Title 35 of the United
`States Code. Plaintiff Armin Rudd, individually and
`d/b/a ABT Systems, LLC (jointly “Rudd”) is an indi-
`vidual with his principal place of business in Penn-
`sylvania. Plaintiff The University of Central Florida
`Board of Trustees on behalf of the University of Cen-
`tral Florida (“UCF”) is a university established by
`and located in the state of Florida. Rudd alleges that
`he is the inventor and exclusive licensee of United
`States Patent No. 5,547,017 (the “'017 patent”), enti-
`tled “Air Distribution Fan Recycling Control.” The
`'017 patent was issued on August 20, 1996. Rudd also
`alleges that he is the inventor and exclusive licensee
`of United States Patent No. 6,431,268 B1 (the “'268
`patent”), entitled “Air Distribution Fan And Outside
`Air Damper Recycling Control.” The '268 patent was
`issued on August 13, 2002. The '017 and '268 patents
`(collectively, the “Rudd patents”) concern thermo-
`stats that utilize a fan recycling control.
`
`Defendant Emerson Electric Co. (“Emerson”)
`and White-Rodgers, the Emerson division that sells
`the alleged infringing products, is a Missouri com-
`pany with its principal place of business in St. Louis,
`Missouri. Plaintiffs allege that Emerson “commits
`direct and/or contributory infringement, and/or in-
`duces infringement” of the Rudd patents pursuant to
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a)-(c). Second Am. V. Compl. ¶¶ 63,
`75.
`
`B. Procedural History
`Plaintiff Rudd and Plaintiff UCF (collectively,
`“Plaintiffs”) initiated this case on November 5, 2009.
`They filed an amended complaint on December 10,
`2009. Pursuant to a Stipulated Dismissal, Defendant
`and Counter Claimant Lennox International, Inc. was
`
`© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 94-8 Filed 12/19/11 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 590
`Page 2
`
`Slip Copy, 2011 WL 148052 (N.D.Ill.)
`(Cite as: 2011 WL 148052 (N.D.Ill.))
`
`terminated as a party to this case on May 26, 2010.
`Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Verified Com-
`plaint on August 23, 2010. Defendant's Motion to
`Dismiss, or in the Alternative, to Sever and Transfer
`is fully briefed and before the court.
`
`II. DISCUSSION
`A. Standards of Decisions
`
`1. Permissive Joinder, Misjoinder, & Consolida-
`tion
`
`Rule 20(a) provides for permissive joinder when
`two requirements are met: (1) the cases to be joined
`must contain a right to relief arising out of the same
`transaction or occurrence, or series of transactions or
`occurrences; and (2) there must be a question of law
`or fact common to all the plaintiffs. Fed.R.Civ.P.
`20(a).
`
`Misjoinder occurs when the parties fail to satisfy
`either of the requirements for permissive joinder un-
`der Rule 20. Mosley v. Gen. Motors Corp., 497 F.2d
`1330, 1332 (8th Cir.1974); Androphy v. Smith &
`Nephew, Inc., 31 F.Supp.2d 620, 623 (N.D.Ill.1998).
`In the event the Court finds that joinder is improper,
`Rule 21 comes into effect and allows the Court to add
`or drop a party, or sever any claim against another
`party. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 21. Moreover, where joinder
`is improper the Court will consider the possibility of
`consolidation under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
`42(a). Magnavox Co. v. APF Elecs., Inc., 496 F.Supp.
`29, 34 (N.D.Ill.1980).
`
`*2 A district court may consolidate a case pursu-
`ant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a), which
`provides: “If actions before the court involve a com-
`mon question of law or fact, the court may: (1) join
`for hearing or trial any or all matters at issue in the
`actions; (2) consolidate the actions; or (3) issue any
`other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay.”
`Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a). “The determination of whether
`consolidation is appropriate lies within the discretion
`of the trial court.” Magnavox, 496 F.Supp. at 32 (cit-
`ing Madigan, Inc. v. Goodman, 57 F.R.D. 512, 514
`(N.D.Ill.1972); Am. Photocopy Equip. Co. v. Fair,
`Inc., 35 F.R.D. 236, 237 (N.D.Ill.1963)).
`
`2. Motion to Transfer
`A district court may transfer a case pursuant to
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which provides: “For the con-
`
`venience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of
`justice, a district court may transfer any civil action
`to any other district or division where it might have
`been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Under this sec-
`tion, transfer is proper if: (1) venue is proper in both
`the transferor and transferee court; (2) transfer is for
`the convenience of the parties and witnesses; and (3)
`the transfer is in the interest of justice. See Boyd v.
`Snyder, 44 F.Supp.2d 966, 968 (N.D.Ill.1999). The
`moving party bears the burden of demonstrating that
`the transferee forum is the more convenient forum.
`See Heller Fin., Inc. v. Midwhey Powder Co., 883
`F.2d 1286, 1293 (7th Cir.1989). “The weighing of
`factors for and against transfer necessarily involves a
`large degree of subtlety and latitude, and therefore, is
`committed to the sound discretion of the trial judge.”
`Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron Works, 796 F.2d 217, 219
`(7th Cir.1986).
`
`B. Motion to Dismiss or Sever
`Emerson first moves to dismiss this case because
`Plaintiffs failed to sufficiently allege that it is prop-
`erly joined. Emerson's alternative argument is that
`this case should be severed. The Court declines Em-
`erson's invitation to dismiss this case, and proceeds to
`address Emerson's alternative argument in favor of
`severance. In support, Emerson stresses that Plaintiffs
`have not complied with Federal Rule of Civil Proce-
`dure 20 because they cannot establish that their
`claims arose out of the same transaction or occur-
`rence, or series of transactions or occurrences. Plain-
`tiffs advance two main arguments in response that:
`(1) Defendants' accused thermostats operate in a
`nearly identical manner as it relates to the asserted
`patents; and (2) Defendants' affirmative defenses and
`counterclaims are nearly identical. This, they say, is
`enough to satisfy Rule 20's first prong. The Court,
`however, disagrees.
`
`In support of their first argument, Plaintiffs urge
`the Court to adopt the Eastern District of Texas' ap-
`plication of Rule 20(a), see MyMail, LTD. v. Am.
`Online, Inc., 223 F.R.D. 455 (E.D.Tex.2004). In
`MyMail, the court held that claims arise out of the
`same series of transactions or occurrences if there is
`“a nucleus of operative facts or law in the claims
`against all the defendants.” Id. at 456-57. The Court
`agrees with Emerson that this approach “eviscerates
`the same transaction or occurrence requirement and
`makes it indistinguishable from the requirement that
`there be a common question of law or fact.” Reply in
`
`© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 94-8 Filed 12/19/11 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 591
`Page 3
`
`Slip Copy, 2011 WL 148052 (N.D.Ill.)
`(Cite as: 2011 WL 148052 (N.D.Ill.))
`
`Supp. of Emerson Electric Co.'s Mot. to Dismiss for
`Improper Joinder or, in the Alternative, to Sever and
`Transfer, at 4. The Court, therefore, rejects this ap-
`proach.
`
`*3 After researching the issue, the Court deter-
`mines that MyMail 's approach is in the minority.
`This Court follows the prevailing approach of this
`District and numerous others that have concluded that
`a party fails to satisfy Rule 20(a)'s requirement of a
`common transaction or occurrence where unrelated
`defendants, based on different acts, are alleged to
`the same patent. Adrophy, 31
`have
`infringed
`F.Supp.2d at 623; Magnavox, 496 F.Supp. at 34; see
`also Golden Scorpio v. Steel Horse Bar & Grill, 596
`F.Supp.2d 1282, 1285 (D.Ariz.2009) (“[A]llegations
`against multiple and unrelated defendants for acts of
`patent, trademark, and copyright infringement do not
`support joinder under Rule 20(a).”); Pereo, Inc. v.
`Alloc, Inc., 262 F.Supp.2d 122, 128 (S.D.N.Y.2003)
`(“[T]he fact that two parties may manufacture or sell
`similar products, and that these sales or production
`may have infringed the identical patent owned by the
`plaintiffs is not sufficient to join unrelated parties as
`defendants in the same lawsuit pursuant to Rule
`20(a).”); Philips Elecs. N. Am. Corp. v. Contec
`Corp., 220 F.R.D. 415, 417 (D.Del.2004) (“Allega-
`tions of infringement against two unrelated parties
`based on different acts do not arise from the same
`transaction.”); New Jersey Mach. Inc. v. Alford In-
`dus., Inc., 21 U.S.P.Q.2d 2033, 2034-35 (D.N.J.1991)
`( “[C]laims of infringement against unrelated defen-
`dants, involving different machines, should be tried
`separately against each defendant.”), aff'd 983 F.2d
`1087 (Fed.Cir.1992); Paine, Webber, Jackson & Cur-
`tis, Inc. v. Merrill Lynch, 564 F.Supp. 1358, 1371
`(D.Del.1983) (“Allegations of infringement against
`two unrelated parties based on different acts do not
`arise from the same transaction.”); Spread Spectrum
`Screening, LLC v. Eastman Kodak Co., No. 10 C
`1101, 2010 WL 3516106, at *2 (N.D.Ill. Sept.1,
`2010) (“The accused infringing software, other evi-
`dence and witnesses are all different and unique ....
`Therefore, because plaintiff's action is against ... two
`competing products, Kodak and Heidelberg and Haf-
`ner are improperly joined as defendants.”). Moreover,
`allegations that unrelated defendants design, manu-
`facture and sell similar products does not satisfy Rule
`20(a)'s requirement. Pergo, 262 F.Supp. at 128; see
`Movie Sys., Inc. v. Abel, 99 F.R.D. 129, 130
`(D.Minn.1983) (“It may be that the complaints assert
`a right to relief against all defendants arising from
`
`similar transactions, but the rule permitting joinder
`requires that such arise from the same transactions.”).
`
`Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate how Defendant
`Emerson's alleged acts of infringement are in any
`way related to Defendant Braeburn's alleged acts of
`infringement. Defendants' accused thermostats are
`unrelated and different products. Simply alleging that
`Defendants manufacture or sell similar products does
`not support joinder under Rule 20. Therefore, Plain-
`tiffs cannot satisfy Rule 20(a)'s same transaction or
`occurrences requirement based on their allegations
`that Defendants' alleged infringing thermostats oper-
`ate in a nearly identical manner as it relates to the
`asserted patents.
`
`*4 Plaintiffs next argue that Rule 20(a)'s same
`transaction or occurrences requirement is satisfied
`because Defendants' affirmative defenses and coun-
`terclaims are nearly identical. Plaintiffs, however,
`have not cited any legal authority to support this
`proposition. At least one court in this District has
`rejected a similar argument. MLR, LLC v. U.S. Robot-
`ics Corp., No 02 C 2898, 2003 WL 685504, at *3
`(N.D.Ill. Feb.26, 2003) (“Rule 20(a) ... requires that a
`claim asserted against the Defendants arise out of the
`same transaction or occurrence. Thus, the fact that
`the defendants' defenses may arise out of the same
`transaction or occurrence is not sufficient for joinder
`under Rule 20(a).”). The Court concludes that simi-
`larity in Defendants' defenses and counterclaims can-
`not establish that their claims arose out of the same
`transaction or occurrence, or series of transactions or
`occurrences. Accordingly, the Court concludes that
`Emerson was misjoined.
`
`Finally, Plaintiffs argue that Emerson should be
`consolidated with this action for pretrial purposes.
`Plaintiffs emphasize that consolidation will promote
`judicial efficiency. The Court acknowledges that this
`action involves a common question of law or fact.
`See Fed.R.Civ.P. 42(a). As a discretionary matter,
`however, the Court finds insufficient basis to justify
`consolidated discovery. The Court agrees with Emer-
`son that requiring Rudd to be deposed separately by
`Defendants does not hinder judicial efficiency be-
`cause Plaintiffs already consented to multiple deposi-
`tions. Dkt. No. 59, ¶ 4(b). Moreover, because Defen-
`dants are unrelated entities there will be different
`documents and technical drawings solicited. The
`Court has already concluded that Emerson was mis-
`
`© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 94-8 Filed 12/19/11 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 592
`Page 4
`
`Slip Copy, 2011 WL 148052 (N.D.Ill.)
`(Cite as: 2011 WL 148052 (N.D.Ill.))
`
`joined, and declines to consolidate Emerson with this
`case. Therefore, the Court grants Emerson's motion to
`sever pursuant to Rule 21.
`
`C. Motion to Transfer
`Emerson argues that this case should be trans-
`ferred to the Eastern District of Missouri pursuant to
`28 U.S.C. § 1401(a) because that is where many wit-
`nesses and much of the evidence is located. For the
`reasons stated below, the Court concludes that Emer-
`son has met its burden of showing that the transferee
`forum is more convenient under § 1404(a).
`
`1. Venue
`The parties do not dispute that venue is proper in
`both the Northern District of Illinois and the Eastern
`District of Missouri. In a patent infringement case,
`venue is proper in the judicial district: (1) where the
`defendant resides; or (2) where the defendant has
`committed acts of infringement and has a regular and
`established place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). A
`corporation resides in “any judicial district in which
`it is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the
`action is commenced.” 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c). Here,
`Plaintiffs allege that Emerson is a Missouri corpora-
`tion with its principal place of business in St. Louis,
`Missouri. Second Am. V. Compl. ¶ 5. Further, Emer-
`son concedes that it is subject to personal jurisdiction
`in the Northern District of Illinois. Br. in Supp. of
`Emerson Electric Co.'s Mot. to Dismiss for Improper
`Joinder or, in the Alternative, to Sever and Transfer
`7. Accordingly, venue is proper in both the Northern
`District of Illinois and the Eastern District of Mis-
`souri. The parties, however, dispute whether the
`transfer will serve the convenience of the parties and
`witnesses and the interest of justice.
`
`2. Convenience of the Parties and Witnesses
`*5 In evaluating the relative convenience of the
`parties and witnesses under § 1404(a), the court must
`consider both the private interests of the parties and
`the public interest of the court. Private interests of the
`parties include: (1) plaintiffs' choice of forum, (2)
`situs of material events, (3) relative ease of access to
`sources of proof in each forum, including the court's
`power to compel appearance of unwilling witnesses
`at trial; and (4) costs of obtaining attendance of wit-
`nesses. Medi USA, L.P. v. Jobst Inst., Inc., 791
`F.Supp. 208, 210 (N.D.Ill.1992) (Norgle, J.) (citing
`G.H. Miller & Co. v. Hanes, 566 F.Supp. 305, 307
`(N.D.Ill.1983); 15 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R.
`
`Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure
`§§ 3849-53 (1986)). Public factors include the: (1)
`court's familiarity with applicable law; (2) speed at
`which the case will proceed to trial; and (3) local
`interest in having controversies decided at home. Id.
`(citing Van Gelder v. Taylor, 621 F.Supp. 613, 619
`(N.D.Ill.1985)).
`
`a. Plaintiffs Choice of Forum
`A plaintiff's choice of forum is typically given
`substantial weight. In re Nat'l Presto Indus., Inc., 347
`F.3d 662, 664 (7th Cir.2003). This factor, however, is
`entitled to less deference where the plaintiffs' chosen
`forum is “not the plaintiffs' home forum or lacks sig-
`nificant contact with the litigation.” Plotkin v. IP
`Axess, Inc., 168 F.Supp.2d 899, 902 (N.D.Ill.2001)
`(citing Bryant v. ITT Corp., 48 F.Supp.2d 829, 831
`(N.D.Ill.1999)). Here, Plaintiffs' chosen forum is Illi-
`nois. However, Illinois is not Plaintiffs' home forum.
`Plaintiff Rudd's home forum is Pennsylvania, where
`he has his principal place of business. Second Am. V.
`Compl. ¶ 2. Plaintiff UCF's home forum is Florida.
`Id. ¶ 3. Plaintiffs' only apparent connection to Illinois
`is through their counsel, located in Illinois. Consid-
`eration of the convenience of Plaintiffs' counsel is not
`appropriate in evaluating transfer. Von Holdt v.
`Husky Injection Molding Sys., Ltd., 887 F.Supp. 185,
`190 (N.D.Ill.1995); Tissue Extraction Devices, LLC
`v. Suros Surgical Sys., Inc., No. 08 C 140, 2008 WL
`4717158, at *2 (N.D.Ill. May 20, 2008). Therefore,
`the Court affords Plaintiffs' choice of forum less def-
`erence because the Northern District of Illinois is not
`Plaintiffs' home forum and because Plaintiffs lack
`significant contact within the state of Illinois.
`
`b. Situs of Material Events
`The situs of material events is irrelevant in this
`case. Even though Plaintiffs' chose Illinois as their
`forum, “the material events of a patent infringement
`case do not revolve around any particular situs.”
`Medi, 791 F.Supp. at 210. After the claims have been
`construed without reference to the accused device,
`the trier of fact compares the accused device with the
`construed claims to determine patent infringement.
`Id.; see also SRI Int'l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of
`Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed.Cir.1985). The al-
`leged patent infringement in this case does not center
`around a specific location. Therefore, this sub-factor
`is neutral.
`
`c. Relative Ease of Access to Sources of Proof in
`
`© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 94-8 Filed 12/19/11 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 593
`Page 5
`
`Slip Copy, 2011 WL 148052 (N.D.Ill.)
`(Cite as: 2011 WL 148052 (N.D.Ill.))
`
`Each Forum, Including the Court's Power to Com-
`pel Appearance of Unwilling Witnesses at Trial
`*6 The relative ease of access to sources of proof
`in each forum strongly favors transfer. Plaintiffs ar-
`gue that this District is more convenient because Illi-
`nois is a central location to all the Defendants and is a
`more convenient forum for both party and potential
`third-party witnesses located “everywhere across the
`country.” Pls.' Resp. in Opp'n to Emerson Climate
`Technologies' Mot. to Dismiss for Improper Joinder
`or, in the Alternative, to Sever and Transfer 11. The
`Court is unpersuaded.
`
`“[I]n a case featuring most witnesses and evi-
`dence closer to the transferee venue with few or no
`convenience factors favoring the venue chosen by the
`plaintiff, the trial court should grant a motion to
`transfer.” In re Nintendo Co., 589 F.3d 1194, 1198
`(Fed.Cir.2009) (citations omitted). Here, Plaintiffs
`neither allege that their or Emerson's business records
`are housed in Illinois, nor identify any witnesses that
`reside here. Plaintiffs' Initial Disclosures identify five
`potential witnesses, one located in Annville, Penn-
`sylvania, and four located in Orlando, Florida. Jel-
`enchick Decl. Ex. 1, ¶ 2. Plaintiffs' source of proof is
`not located in Illinois, and will have to be transported
`to either forum.
`
`In contradistinction, there are substantial conven-
`iences in trying this case in the Eastern District of
`Missouri. Emerson's accused products are sold by
`White-Rodgers, a division of Emerson Electric Co,
`which is headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri. Emer-
`son's accused products were developed in St. Louis,
`the marketing and sales offerings are managed there,
`and the financial documents are located there. Addi-
`tionally, Emerson identifies at least five key wit-
`nesses, likely to testify regarding central issues of the
`case, who are located in St. Louis. This weighs
`strongly in favor of transfer. See In re Genentech,
`Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1343-45 (Fed.Cir.2009) (“In
`patent infringement cases, the bulk of the relevant
`evidence usually comes from the accused infringer.
`Consequently, the place where the defendant's docu-
`ments are kept weighs in favor of transfer to that lo-
`cation.” (quoting Neil Bros. Ltd. v. World Wide Lines,
`Inc., 425 F.Supp.2d 325, 330 (E.D.N.Y.2006))).
`
`Moreover, the Eastern District of Missouri can
`compel non-party witnesses with greater ease than
`the Northern District of Illinois. See Fed.R.Civ.P.
`
`45(b)(2); In re Nat'l Presto, 347 F.3d at 664
`(“[W]itnesses are subject to the usual 100-mile limi-
`tation.” (citing Fey v. Walston & Co., 493 F.2d 1036,
`1053 n. 21 (7th Cir.1974))). This weighs in favor of
`transfer because “the convenience of non-party wit-
`nesses is often viewed as the most important factor in
`the transfer analysis.” Murphy v. Avon Prods. ., Inc.,
`88 F.Supp.2d. 851, 853 (N.D.Ill.1999). Thus, this
`sub-factor strongly favors transfer to the Eastern Dis-
`trict of Missouri.
`
`d. Costs of Obtaining Attendance of Witnesses
`Convenience of the parties and costs of litigation
`favor transfer. A court will not grant a motion to
`transfer if it will merely shift the inconvenience from
`one party to another. See Medi, 791 F.Supp. at 211.
`In any transfer case, one party will necessarily be
`somewhat inconvenienced if it is required to travel to
`another jurisdiction; that cannot be avoided. Here,
`neither party will suffer substantial inconvenience. It
`does not appear convenient for either of the parties to
`litigate in this District. Plaintiffs chose a foreign fo-
`rum and will have to travel and bear the expense as-
`sociated with litigating regardless of whether the liti-
`gation takes place in Missouri or Illinois. Missouri,
`however, is a significantly more convenient forum
`for Emerson. If this case proceeds in the Northern
`District of Illinois, Emerson and its witnesses would
`suffer the inconvenience of constant travel to and
`from their home state, to a foreign jurisdiction. This
`sub-factor, therefore, weighs in favor of transfer.
`Taken together, the relative convenience of the par-
`ties and witnesses under section 1404(a) favors trans-
`fer to the Eastern District of Missouri.
`
`3. Interest of Justice
`*7 The final consideration under § 1404(a) is
`whether transfer is in the interest of justice. The in-
`terest of justice factor pertains to the “efficient ad-
`ministration of the court system,” and is a distinct
`and “separate component of a § 1404(a) analysis.”
`Coffey, 796 F.2d at 220-21. This factor may be de-
`terminative, even though the court would otherwise
`find the original forum inconvenient for the parties
`and witnesses. Id. Public interest factors include the:
`(1) court's familiarity with applicable law; (2) speed
`at which the case will proceed to trial; and (3) local
`interest in having controversies decided at home. See
`id., at 221; Medi, 791 F.Supp. at 210.
`
`First, this is a patent infringement case arising
`
`© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
`
`

`
`Case 1:11-cv-00797-RGA Document 94-8 Filed 12/19/11 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 594
`Page 6
`
`over, this case has no relevant connection to this Dis-
`trict. The Northern District of Illinois is not Plaintiffs'
`home forum, and there are no identified witnesses or
`sources of proof located here. In contrast, this case
`has considerable relevance to the Eastern District of
`Missouri. Emerson's accused products were devel-
`oped in St. Louis, and marketing and sales activities
`for these products are managed there. Additionally,
`its employees, relevant witnesses and sources of
`proof are located in Missouri.
`
`*8 Considering both the private interests of the
`parties and the public interest of the court, the Court
`finds that Emerson has met its burden of showing that
`the transferee forum is more convenient under §
`1404(a). Accordingly, the Court finds that transfer to
`the Eastern District of Missouri is appropriate.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants Em-
`erson's Motion to Sever and Transfer Plaintiffs'
`claims. The Court orders the Clerk to transfer Plain-
`tiffs' claims against Emerson to the Eastern District
`of Missouri.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`N.D.Ill.,2011.
`Rudd v. Lux Products Corporation Emerson Climate
`Technologies Braeburn Systems, LLC
`Slip Copy, 2011 WL 148052 (N.D.Ill.)
`
`END OF DOCUMENT
`
`Slip Copy, 2011 WL 148052 (N.D.Ill.)
`(Cite as: 2011 WL 148052 (N.D.Ill.))
`
`under federal law, and therefore both federal district
`courts are equally familiar with Title 35 of the United
`States Code and are capable of presiding over this
`case. Thus, this factor is neutral to the § 1404(a)
`analysis.
`
`Second, the speed at which the case will proceed
`to trial slightly favors transfer. The two most relevant
`statistics available to the Court are the median times
`from filing to disposition of a case and the median
`months from filing to trial. Timebase Pty Ltd. v.
`Thomson Corp., No.07 C 460, 2007 WL 772946, at
`*3 (N.D.Ill.2007, Mar. 9, 2007) (citing Amoco Oil
`Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 90 F.Supp.2d 958, 962
`(N.D.Ill.2000)). The median time from filing to dis-
`position of a case was 6.2 months in the Northern
`District of Illinois as compared to 7.2 months in the
`Eastern District of Missouri.FN3 The median months
`from filing to trial was 27.8 months in the Northern
`District of Illinois as compared to 19.8 months in
`Eastern District of Missouri. These statistics suggest
`that, while the median time from filing to disposition
`is faster in the Northern District of Illinois by one
`month, the parties are more likely to receive a trial
`eight months faster in the Eastern District of Mis-
`souri. Plaintiffs argue that the median time from fil-
`ing to disposition should be accorded more weight
`because most civil cases do not end in a trial. Even if
`the Court places more weight on this statistic, the one
`month difference from filing to disposition in the
`forums is not substantial enough to overcome the
`eight month difference from filing to trial. Accord-
`ingly, this factor weighs slightly in favor of transfer.
`
`FN3. In evaluating this factor, the Court
`used the reports generated from the Federal
`Court Management Statistics for the North-
`ern District of Illinois and the Eastern Dis-
`trict of Missouri. Judicial Caseload Profile
`Court Select, http://www.uscourts.gov/cgi-
`bin/cmsd2009.pl (last visited Jan. 11, 2011).
`The Court used the median times statistics
`for the twelve month period ending Septem-
`ber 30, 2009, which are the latest statistics
`available at this time. Id.
`
`Finally, the local interest in having controversies
`decided at home favors transfer. Emerson is a Mis-
`souri company with its principal place of business in
`St. Louis, Missouri, and has an interest in a court in
`its own state deciding liability and damages, More-
`
`© 2011 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.