Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02304/USCOURTS-azd-2_11-cv-02304-2/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 

Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Suns Legacy Partners, LLC, 

Defendant. 

Lead No. CV-11-2304-PHX-NVW 

CONSOLIDATED WITH 

Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 

Defendant. 

No. CV-11-2476-PHX-NVW

Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

NBA Properties, Inc., et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-12-0100-PHX-NVW

Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC, 

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., et al., 

Defendants. 

No. CV-12-0060-PHX-NVW

ORDER 

Case 2:11-cv-02304-NVW Document 164 Filed 02/05/13 Page 1 of 6
- 2 - 

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 

Before the Court is Plaintiff Helferich Patent Licensing’s Motion to Transfer 

Venue (Doc. 133), Defendants’ Response, and the Reply. For the following reasons, the 

Court will deny the Motion. 

Helferich Patent Licensing (“Helferich”) moves to transfer this action to the 

Northern District of Illinois pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Section 1404(a) provides 

that “[f]or the convenience of the 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). Because Helferich requested the transfer, it has the 

burden of showing that the transfer is appropriate under § 1404(a). See Jones v. GNC 

Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 499 (9th Cir. 2000). 

To meet that burden, Helferich must show that that the Northern District of Illinois 

is a district where the case “might have been brought.” A district where the action 

“might have been brought” is one having subject matter jurisdiction over the controversy, 

where the defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction, and where venue is proper. 

Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 343–44 (1960). Most pertinent to this case is the 

requirement that defendants be subject to personal jurisdiction in the district to which the 

case is to be transferred. Defendants claim that the two remaining Arizona-based 

Defendants—Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., and Midway Holdings, LLC (“the Arizona 

Defendants”)—are not subject to personal jurisdiction in the Northern District of Illinois 

such that it is not a district in which this action “might have been brought.” Defendants 

do not dispute that the remaining defendants would be subject to personal jurisdiction in 

Illinois. 

In patent cases, Federal Circuit law applies to a determination of personal 

jurisdiction “because the jurisdictional issue is intimately involved with the substance of 

the patent laws.” Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Aten Int'l Co., 552 F.3d 1324, 1328 (Fed. 

Cir. 2008). There is a two-step inquiry to determine whether personal jurisdiction is 

proper over an out-of-state defendant: (1) whether a forum state's long-arm statute 

permits service of process; and (2) whether assertion of personal jurisdiction violates due 

Case 2:11-cv-02304-NVW Document 164 Filed 02/05/13 Page 2 of 6
- 3 - 

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 

process. Grober v. Mako Products, Inc., 686 F.3d 1335, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Illinois 

and federal due process limitations are coextensive, be2 LLC v. Ivanov, 642 F.3d 555, 

558 (7th Cir. 2011), so the inquiry collapses into whether the exercise of personal 

jurisdiction comports with due process. Grober, 686 F.3d at 1345. The Due Process 

Clause is satisfied if a defendant has minimum contacts with a forum state such that 

requiring him to defend against a lawsuit in that state “does not offend traditional notions 

of fair play and substantial justice.” See International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 

310, 316 (1945). 

General jurisdiction is not at issue in this Motion, as Helferich asserts only that 

Defendants are subject to specific personal jurisdiction in Illinois. “Specific jurisdiction 

. . . must be based on activities that arise out of or relate to the cause of action, and can 

exist even if the defendant's contacts are not continuous and systematic.” Autogenomics, 

Inc. v. Oxford Gene Tech. Ltd., 566 F.3d 1012, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). 

The Federal Circuit applies a three-prong test to determine if specific jurisdiction exists: 

(1) whether the defendant purposefully directed activities at residents of the forum; (2) 

whether the claim arises out of or relates to those activities; and (3) whether assertion of 

personal jurisdiction is reasonable and fair. Nuance Commc’ns, Inc. v. Abbyy Software 

House, 626 F.3d 1222, 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010). 

The question of whether the Northern District of Illinois can exercise personal 

jurisdiction over the Arizona Defendants will turn on the first prong of this test: whether 

the Arizona Defendants purposefully directed activities at Illinois residents. Helferich 

argues that the infringement allegations against all Defendants are based directly on 

interactive communications over the internet that Defendants, including the Arizona 

Defendants, caused to be sent to Illinois and every other state. Defendants’ electronic 

communications to subscribers in Illinois via text messaging programs and social media 

websites, according to Helferich, involve “intentional use of these electronic channels 

that are national in scope, and which certainly reach Chicago.” (Doc. 148 at 6.) 

Case 2:11-cv-02304-NVW Document 164 Filed 02/05/13 Page 3 of 6
- 4 - 

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 

Helferich contends that the reach of those electronic communications into Illinois is 

sufficient to establish specific personal jurisdiction in that state. 

Whether electronic communications sent to subscribers and followers in a forum 

state represent activities purposefully directed at residents of that state depends on 

whether the defendant deliberately targets those residents. be2, 642 F.3d at 559. “Courts 

should be careful in resolving questions about personal jurisdiction involving online 

contacts to ensure that a defendant is not haled into court simply because the defendant 

owns or operates a website that is accessible in the forum state, even if that site is 

‘interactive.’” Id. at 558 (quoting Illinois v. Hemi Group, LLC, 622 F.3d 754, 760 (7th 

Cir. 2010)). So to be subject to specific personal jurisdiction, a defendant must do more 

than simply operate a website that is accessible from the forum state: “a defendant must 

in some way target the forum state’s market.” Id. at 559. 

Here, Helferich has not presented any evidence that the Arizona Defendants 

deliberately target the Illinois market with the allegedly infringing electronic messages. 

Rather, the evidence Defendants have presented suggests that the Arizona Defendants do 

not use their online content or their social media activities to target the Illinois market. 

The Arizona Defendants Facebook pages and Twitter accounts, while interactive, are all 

informational in nature and function more like broad national advertising campaigns than 

activities targeted at any particular state: such a campaign is not itself sufficient for 

exercising personal jurisdiction. See Sweetgreen, Inc. v. Sweet Leaf, Inc., No. 11-CV0859, 2012 WL 975415 (D.D.C. Mar. 23, 2012) (citing Miller Yacht Sales, Inc. v. Smith, 

384 F.3d 93, 106 (3d. Cir. 2004)). 

The Arizona Defendants have no reason to advertise or promote their businesses to 

Illinois residents, and Helferich has presented no evidence that they do so any more than 

to residents of any other state. The electronic communications in question are not 

deliberately targeted at the residents of Illinois, so the Arizona Defendants “may not be 

haled into court in that state without offending the Constitution.” be2, 642 F.3d at 559. 

The fact that some residents of Illinois may sign up for and receive electronic 

Case 2:11-cv-02304-NVW Document 164 Filed 02/05/13 Page 4 of 6
- 5 - 

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 

communications from the Arizona Defendants can represent only “attenuated contacts.” 

Id. The Arizona Defendants do not deliberately target their online content at the Illinois 

market, and so cannot be subject to personal jurisdiction there “without offending 

traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Id. 

There would be obvious judicial economy and economy to the litigants if these 

consolidated cases were processed and tried together with substantively identical claims 

in the Northern District of Illinois, Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC v. New York Times 

Company, No. 1:10-cv-04387. But without a showing that all of the Defendants are 

subject to personal jurisdiction in the transferee forum, Helferich cannot establish that the 

Northern District of Illinois is a district in which this action might have been brought. As 

a result, Helferich has failed to meet its burden of showing that transfer is available under 

§ 1404(a), and the case cannot be transferred. 

Nevertheless, this Court will manage these cases in a manner that minimizes the 

inefficiency of conducting parallel proceedings. The related cases in the Northern 

District of Illinois are advancing on a faster track and important stages of the litigation, 

including claim construction, will be concluded there first. As a result, the case 

management schedule for these cases will be modified to enable the Court to process this 

litigation as quickly and efficiently as possible with the benefit of the rulings from the 

related cases in the Northern District of Illinois. With the aid of those rulings, to which 

this Court will give due consideration, the parties will avoid some of the duplicative 

burden and expense of re-litigating claims in both forums. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer Venue (Doc. 

133) is DENIED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties file a joint proposed Revised Case 

Management Schedule by February 20, 2012. The Revised Schedule shall include 

deadlines for discovery that mirror and promptly trail similar deadlines set in the 

proceedings in the Northern District of Illinois, Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC v. New 

York Times Company, No. 1:10-CV-04387 and related cases. 

Case 2:11-cv-02304-NVW Document 164 Filed 02/05/13 Page 5 of 6
- 6 - 

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 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in the Revised Case Management Schedule, all 

deadlines for briefing regarding claim construction shall be suspended until claim 

construction is complete in the related cases in the Northern District of Illinois, with 

briefing in light of that claim construction to follow the decision promptly. 

Dated this 5th day of February, 2013. 

Case 2:11-cv-02304-NVW Document 164 Filed 02/05/13 Page 6 of 6