Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01531/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-01531-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc., a Delaware

corporation,

Plaintiff/Counterdefendant,

vs.

Avago Technologies Limited, a Singapore

corporation; Avago Technologies U.S.,

Inc., a Delaware corporation; Avago

Technologies Wireless IP (Singapore) Pte.,

Ltd., a Singapore corporation,

Defendants/Counterclaimants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-01531-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is a Motion to Sever and Transfer Venue of Trade Secret

and Copyright Claims Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (Doc. # 231 or the “Motion”) filed by

Plaintiff and Counterdefendant TriQuint Semiconductor, Inc. (“TriQuint”). Defendants and

Counter-claimants AvagoTechnologies Limited, Avago Technologies U.S., Inc., and Avago

Technologies Wireless IP (Singapore) Pte. (collectively, “Avago”) oppose the Motion.

TriQuint moves the Court to sever Avago’s trade secret and copyright infringement

counterclaims, and then to transfer these claims to the Middle District of Florida where

nearly identical claims are currently pending in an action filed by Avago against two

TriQuint employees. For the reasons that follow, the Court will deny the Motion.

Case 2:09-cv-01531-JAT Document 255 Filed 03/29/11 Page 1 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 Additionally, on December 14, 2010, the Court conducted a Markman hearing on

the disputed claim constructions in the 13 patents at issue in this action. On January 12,

2011, the Court issued its order constructing the disputed claim terms. (Doc. # 229.) Based

on the parties’ extensive briefings, tutorials and hearings, the Court has acquired an

understanding of the complex technology at issue in this action.

- 2 -

I. BRIEF BACKGROUND

On April 24, 2009, TriQuint and Avago entered into a Standstill &Tolling Agreement

(the “Agreement”), regarding the intellectual property claims each party contends it has

against the other party. (Doc. # 242-2, Ex. 1.) The Agreement contains a forum selection

clause in which the parties consented and agreed “to exclusive jurisdiction and venue in the

United States District Court for the District of Arizona, for the resolution of any and all

disputes by and between Avago, on the one hand, and TriQuint on the other, relating in any

way to the [certain intellectual property claims against the other].” (Id. at p. 2, ¶ 8.)

After the parties were unable to reach a settlement, TriQuint filed a complaint against

Avago in the District of Arizona for patent infringement on July 23, 2009. (Doc. # 1.) On

September 17, 2009, Avago answered TriQuint’s complaint and asserted counterclaims for

patent infringement. (Doc. # 21.) In its answer to Avago’s counterclaim, TriQuint filed a

reply and asserted “counter-counterclaims” for declaratory judgment and antitrust violations.

(Doc. # 34, 78.) On March 5, 2010, Avago filed an amended answer to TriQuint’s countercounterclaims, and also amended its counterclaims against TriQuint by adding trade secret

and copyright infringement claims. (Doc. # 80, 85.) After conducting discovery, Avago

further amended its trade secret and copyright infringement claims on August 26, 2010 (Doc.

# 156), which filing was corrected on September 14, 2010 (Doc. # 164). TriQuint seeks to

have these trade secret and copyright infringement claims severed from the pending action

and transferred to the Middle District of Florida.

Following significant motion practice, the pleadings closed on September 16, 2010.

The Court has resolved numerous discovery disputes since the commencement of this action.1

On October 1, 2010, the Court extended the discovery and dispositive motions deadlines to

Case 2:09-cv-01531-JAT Document 255 Filed 03/29/11 Page 2 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

 The discovery deadline has been further extended to June 1, 2011. The dispositive

motion deadline remains August 2, 2011, which is a few weeks past the two year anniversary

of the filing of this action. (Doc. # 246.)

- 3 -

April 1, 2011 and August 2, 2011, respectively.2

 (Doc. # 182.) Discovery had been limited

to 30 depositions and 60 interrogatories per side as stipulated to by the parties, and the Court

denied TriQuint’s subsequent request to increase the number of depositions and

interrogatories. (Id.)

On October 6, 2010, Avago filed an action in the Middle District of Florida against

TriQuint employees, Drs. Aigner and Fattinger. Avago Tech. Ltd. v. Aigner, CV-10-1486-

Orl-22DAB (M.D. Fla. Oct. 6, 2010) (the “Florida action”). The Florida action contains

similar allegations and causes of action as Avago’s trade secret and copyright infringement

counterclaims against TriQuint, and arises out of the same factual circumstances. TriQuint

is not a party to the Florida action. On January 19, 2011, “TriQuint moved to transfer

Avago’s trade secret and copyright infringement claims to the Middle District of Florida

simply and solely because Avago has recently filed essentially identical claims in that court

against two current TriQuint employees, . . . both of whom are not subject to this Court’s

jurisdiction.” (Doc. # 245 at p. 1.)

II. LEGAL STANDARD

The Court has the power to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which provides:

“For the convenience 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.”

According to the Supreme Court, “Section 1404(a) is intended to place discretion in the

district court to adjudicate motions for transfer according to an ‘individualized, case-by-case

consideration of convenience and fairness.’” Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22,

29 (1988) (quoting Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 622 (1964)).

It is not disputed that this case could have been brought in the Middle District of

Florida. The relevant inquiry is which forum best serves “the convenience of the parties, the

convenience of the witnesses, and the interests of justice.” Advanced Semiconductor

Case 2:09-cv-01531-JAT Document 255 Filed 03/29/11 Page 3 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

Materials v. Applied Materials, Inc., 30 USPQ2d 1553, 1554 (D. Ariz. 1993). The Court

may consider several factors in determining whether to transfer venue. These factors may

include the plaintiff’s choice of forum, the extent of the parties’ contacts with the forum, the

contacts in the forum relating to the plaintiff’s cause of action, the availability of non-party

witnesses, and the accessibility of evidence. Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495,

498–99 (9th Cir. 2000).

III. ANALYSIS

This Order will focus on whether transferring Avago’s trade secret and copyright

infringement claims is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1404. If transfer is warranted, the

Court has broad discretion to sever the claims pursuant to Rule 21 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, which provides in relevant part: “The court may also sever any claim against

a party.” FED.R.CIV.P. 21. The issue raised by the parties is not whether severance is

possible, but whether transfer (following severance) is appropriate.

TriQuint’s primary reason for seeking to sever and transfer Avago’s trade secret and

copyright infringement claims is to prevent Avago from gaining a “strategic advantage by

expanding the scope of discovery available to it through the Florida action.” (Doc. # 231 at

p. 4.) TriQuint also argues that transferring Avago’s trade secret and copyright infringement

claims is necessary and appropriate to avoid the risk of inconsistent verdicts and to conserve

judicial resources. (Doc. # 245 at p. 1.) Avago opposes the severance and transfer of its

trade secret and copyright infringement claims, because the parties’ forum selection clause

in the Standstill & Tolling Agreement is valid and binding, and no other considerations

warrant disturbing the contracted-for venue. (Doc. # 242 at p. 6.) Avago also argues that

TriQuint unduly delayed in bringing this motion, and did so to gain a strategic advantage.

(Id.)

A. Choice of Forum

As noted above, the parties chose the District of Arizona as the forum for all disputes

related to their intellectual property claims. (Doc. # 242-2, Ex. 1 at p. 2, ¶ 8.) Pursuant to

this provision in the Standstill & Tolling Agreement, TriQuint originally filed this action in

Case 2:09-cv-01531-JAT Document 255 Filed 03/29/11 Page 4 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

the District of Arizona, and does not argue that the forum-selection provision in the

Agreement is invalid. TriQuint, instead, argues that “courts routinely transfer cases in the

face of valid forum selection clauses where the other factors in the § 1404(a) analysis favor

transfer.” (Doc. # 245 at p. 3.)

Both parties rely on the Supreme Court’s decision in Stewart to support their

positions. According to the Supreme Court in Stewart: “The presence of a forum-selection

clause such as the parties entered into in this case will be a significant factor that figures

centrally in the district court’s calculus.” 487 U.S. at 29. As to the weight of the forum

selection clause in the Court’s balance of the factors, the Supreme Court stated: “The

forum-selection clause, which represents the parties’ agreement as to the most proper forum,

should receive neither dispositive consideration (as respondent might have it) nor no

consideration (as [state] law might have it), but rather the consideration for which Congress

provided in § 1404(a).” Id. at 31. Accordingly, the Court will consider the forum selection

clause in the Standstill & Tolling Agreement to be a significant factor against the transfer of

Avago’s trade secret and copyright infringement claims.

In support of the Motion, TriQuint cites cases that were transferred to forums other

than those specified in the forum selection clause where some, but not all, of the parties were

bound by the forum selection clause. See U-Haul Int’l, Inc. v. Hire A Helper, LLC, No. CV08-1271-PHX-DGC, 2008 WL 4368663, at *3–4 (D. Ariz. Sept. 23, 2008); First Franklin

Fin. Corp. v. Liberty Nat’l Mortgage, Inc., No. C-07-0504-JF (RS), 2007 WL 915190, at *3

(N.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2007). The parties in this action are the same parties to the Standstill &

Tolling Agreement. As Avago points out, any inconvenience TriQuint suffers by being

forced to litigate in the contracted-to forum was clearly foreseeable at the time the parties

entered into the Agreement. (Doc. # 242 at p. 7); see M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co.,

407 U.S. 1, 18–19 (1972). The forum selection clause, negotiated by the parties in

anticipation of a lawsuit concerning the parties’ intellectual property, is enforceable and

weighs strongly against transferring Avago’s trade secret and copyright infringement claims

to the Middle District of Florida.

Case 2:09-cv-01531-JAT Document 255 Filed 03/29/11 Page 5 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

 The Florida action has been pending for five months (Doc. # 231-1 at Ex. A), as

compared to this action, which as been pending for over 19 months (Doc. # 1). The

discovery deadline in the Florida action is November 1, 2011, and the dispositive motion

deadline is December 1, 2011. (Doc. # 231-1 at Ex. B.) Whereas, the discovery deadline in

this action is June 1, 2011, and dispositive motions are due August 2, 2011. (Doc. # 246.)

- 6 -

B. Convenience of the Parties and Witnesses

Transfer of venue “is not appropriate . . . when the transfer merely shifts the

inconvenience from one party to another.” IMPRA Inc. v. Quinton Instruments Co., 17

U.S.P.Q.2d 1890, 1891 (D. Ariz. 1990). The parties appear to have selected the District of

Arizona as a neutral forum, because neither party maintains an office in the State of Arizona.

The Middle District of Florida is certainly a more convenient forum for TriQuint, because

TriQuint’s research and development facility is headquartered in Apopka, Florida.

Regardless of the Court’s decision, Avago must litigate claims in a district where it does not

have a place of business. It would be more convenient for Avago to litigate all of its claims

in a single consolidated action in the Middle District of Florida. However, and importantly,

Avago and TriQuint will still be required to litigate matters in Arizona regardless of the

outcome of the Motion. TriQuint only seeks to transfer part of Avago’s counterclaim. The

parties’ patent infringement and antitrust claims will remain in the District of Arizona.

Therefore, any convenience to the parties in transferring part of the claims to the Middle

District of Florida is largely negated by the patent infringement and antitrust claims

remaining in the District of Arizona.

TriQuint argues that “Avago’s claims [against Drs. Aigner and Fattinger] will have

to be tried in Florida in any event and, therefore, it would be most convenient to grant the

motion so that only one trial will be necessary.” (Doc. # 231 at p. 9.) This is inaccurate.

First, TriQuint assumes that Avago’s trade secret and copyright infringement claims will be

consolidated with the Florida action. However, because these proceedings are at different

stages3

 and against different parties, it is uncertain whether the Florida Court would revise

the discovery limitations and deadlines, and consolidate the cases. Second, TriQuint’s

Case 2:09-cv-01531-JAT Document 255 Filed 03/29/11 Page 6 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 7 -

argument that if the Motion is granted, then only one trial will be necessary, fails to account

for the patent infringement and antitrust claims pending before the Court. If the Motion is

granted, then at a minimum, there will be two trials pending between TriQuint and Avago.

And, if the Florida Court does not consolidate the transferred claims and the Florida action,

there will be three trials in which Avago is a party.

With respect to witnesses, it is likely that there is overlap between non-party witnesses

for the patent infringement and antitrust claims, and non-party witnesses for the trade secret

and copyright infringement claims. (Doc. # 231 at p. 10) (“These engineers have detailed

knowledge and understanding of the particular TriQuint BAW technology at issue in this

case.”). Therefore, transferring part of this action to Florida will not alleviate the witness

inconveniences cited by TriQuint, because many witnesses will be called to testify in both

the patent infringement and antitrust action and the Florida action. Additionally, because the

discovery deadline is June 1, 2011, the parties presumably already conducted many of the

depositions of the arguably inconvenienced witnesses. There is little evidence that the partial

transfer will be considerably more convenient for the parties and non-party witnesses at this

late stage in the proceedings.

C. Interests of Justice

The Court must also consider in which forum the case can be most efficiently

litigated. In making this determination, a court may consider whether the parties are

involved in a similar case in another district. Advanced Semiconductor, 30 USPQ2d at 1553;

IMPRA, 17 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1892. “As a general rule, cases should be transferred to districts

where related actions are pending.” IMPRA, 17 U.S.P.Q.2d at 1891 (transferring a case

where all three lawsuits involved the same parties, the same technology, and competing

products in the same relevant markets.”). The Court recognizes that a similar case is pending

in the Middle District of Florida against individuals who are not parties in this action.

However, as discussed above, the Florida action is in its early stages of litigation; whereas,

this action has been pending for over 19 months.

Here, the issue is not “a race of diligence among litigants for a trial in the District

Case 2:09-cv-01531-JAT Document 255 Filed 03/29/11 Page 7 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 8 -

Court each prefers.” Continental Grain Co. v. The FBL-585, 364 U.S. 19, 26 (1960).

Despite the nearly “identical allegations” in the trade secret and copyright infringement

claims and in the Florida action, this action and the Florida action do not involve the same

parties. Compare id. (finding transfer appropriate where the same parties asserted opposing

claims in two different courts regarding the sinking of a cargo ship). With respect to the

Florida action, Avago was not bound by the forum selection clause in the Agreement, but

was required to bring suit where a court would have personal jurisdiction over the

defendants.

TriQuint argues that the risk of inconsistent verdicts necessitates transfer to the

Middle District of Florida, where the Florida action is pending and cannot be transferred to

the District of Arizona. This risk is minimized by the different stages at which these actions

are pending. Regardless, the risk of inconsistent verdicts is not eliminated completely by

transferring the trade secret and copyright infringement actions to the Middle District of

Florida. TriQuint overlooks the possibility that the Florida Court will not consolidate the

Florida action with the transferred trade secret and copyright infringement claims.

TriQuint also argues that it would be judicially efficient to transfer the trade secret and

copyright infringement claims to the Middle District of Florida. As noted above,

consolidation of the Florida action and the transferred claims is not certain, and it is

inefficient to have three actions pending, rather than the two actions currently pending, in

two different districts. Further, the Court does not find that it is judicially efficient to transfer

claims that have been pending before the Court since May 11, 2010 (Doc. # 85) in an action

that has been pending before the Court since July 23, 2009. The parties have been

conducting discovery on the trade secret and copyright infringement claims for over 10

months. The arguments that support transferring the claims are largely nullified by the

effects of this delay. If the claims are transferred and consolidated, then it would be

judicially inefficient to extend deadlines set in this action to meet the deadlines set in the

Florida action.

Finally, due to the numerous discovery disputes between the parties and significant

Case 2:09-cv-01531-JAT Document 255 Filed 03/29/11 Page 8 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 9 -

motion practice, the Court is familiar with the parties’ claims and the technology underlying

these claims. The Court finds the interests of judicial efficiency would not be served by

severing the trade secret and copyright infringement claims, which would create a third

related action.

D. Balancing the Factors Affecting the Motion to Transfer

Venue is proper in both the District of Arizona and the Middle District of Florida.

The parties selected the District of Arizona as the forum for litigating their claims in the

Standstill & Tolling Agreement. The Court does not find any significant reason to transfer

claims from the contracted-for venue to another district. If the Motion had been filed earlier

in the proceedings, then the convenience of the parties would weigh slightly in favor of

transferring the trade secret and copyright infringement claims to the Middle District of

Florida. However, at this stage of the proceedings, with the discovery deadline approaching,

and the patent infringement and antitrust claims pending before this Court, it is not more

convenient to sever part of this action and transfer it to the Middle District of Florida, where

it might be consolidated with the Florida action. Finally, the interests of justice do not weigh

in favor of severing and transferring the trade secret and copyright infringement claims.

Severing and transferring the claims does not avoid multiplicity of litigation, and, in fact,

may add a third action to the docket. The Court has acquired significant knowledge

regarding the parties’ claims, and delaying the resolution of the trade secret and copyright

infringement claims would be inefficient. The relevant factors weigh in favor of denying

TriQuint’s motion to transfer venue to the Middle District of Florida.

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

Case 2:09-cv-01531-JAT Document 255 Filed 03/29/11 Page 9 of 10
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 10 -

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that TriQuint’s Motion to Sever and Transfer Venue

of Trade Secret and Copyright Claims Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (Doc. # 231) is

DENIED.

DATED this 29th day of March, 2011.

Case 2:09-cv-01531-JAT Document 255 Filed 03/29/11 Page 10 of 10