Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-00932/USCOURTS-cand-4_10-cv-00932-5/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

YMAX CORPORATION, et al.,

Plaintiffs, No. C 10-0932 PJH

v. ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO 

TRANSFER AND DISMISS

AT&T INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY II,

L.P.,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

Defendant’s motions to transfer the action and to dismiss plaintiffs Tigerjet Networks,

Inc. (“Tigerjet”), and Stratus Telecommunications LLC (“Stratus”) for lack of standing, came

on for hearing before the court on July 28, 2010. Plaintiffs YMax Corporation (“YMax

Corp.”), YMax Communications Corp. (“YMax Comm.”), magicJack LP (“magicJack”),

Tigerjet, and Stratus (all collectively “plaintiffs”), appeared through their counsel, Virginia

DeMarchi, and Darryl Woo. Defendant AT&T Intellectual Property II, L.P. (“AT&T” or

“defendant”) appeared through its counsel, Claudia Wilson Frost. Having read all the

papers submitted and carefully considered the relevant legal authority, the court hereby

DENIES both motions, as stated at the hearing, and summarized as follows.

1. Defendant’s motion to transfer the action to the Southern District of Florida is

DENIED, for failure to establish that transfer is warranted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). 

See, e.g., Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964); A.J. Indus., Inc. v. United

States Dist. Ct., 503 F.2d 384, 389 (9th Cir. 1974)(noting as factors to be considered that of

the convenience of the parties; the convenience of the witnesses; judicial economy; and

relative ease of access to proof, among others). Plaintiff’s choice of forum warrants some

deference, at a minimum, and at least one of the plaintiffs – Tigerjet – is a California

Case 4:10-cv-00932-PJH Document 76 Filed 08/02/10 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

plaintiff. Furthermore, Tigerjet witnesses are likely to have significant knowledge about the

design, development and operation of the magicJack device, and at least two of the

plaintiffs have offices and documents and evidence located outside of Florida. See Sing

Decl., ¶¶ 5-6. Given that defendant, moreover, has not demonstrated that any of its own

witnesses and documents are located in Florida, the court cannot conclude that defendant

has discharged its burden to demonstrate that Florida is a more convenient forum to litigate

the action, as contemplated by section 1404(a).

2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss Tigerjet and Stratus for lack of standing is

similarly DENIED. Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that all five plaintiffs – including Tigerjet and

Stratus – have ties to the primary plaintiff YMax Corp. and furthermore, that each are

involved in the magicJack product offering. SAC, ¶¶ 2-7. Plaintiffs also allege that

collectively, they all have the right to “make, use, sell and/or offer for sale the magicJack,”

contrary to defendant’s position. Id., ¶ 14. Thus, a valid controversy regarding

infringement as to both targeted plaintiff entities has been adequately pled. Furthermore,

defendant concedes that it seeks dismissal without prejudice to its ability to sue Tigerjet or

Stratus in the future, if their activities are found to infringe defendant’s patent. Thus, in

view of plaintiffs’ stated allegations and the potential for the evidentiary record to further

flesh out Tigerjet’s and Stratus’ actual involvement in the magicJack product offering, the

court also finds that the interest of judicial economy warrants denial of defendant’s motion

to dismiss. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2010 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:10-cv-00932-PJH Document 76 Filed 08/02/10 Page 2 of 2