Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05534/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-05534-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELECTRONICS FOR IMAGING, INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 TESSERON, LTD,

Defendant. /

No. C 07-05534 CRB

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

TRANSFER

This case involves allegations of patent infringement by Tesseron, the owner of

intellectual property rights in the field of high-speed and high-volume variable printing,

against Electronics for Imaging (“EFI”), which offers printing products and services. On

September 26, 2007, Tesseron filed a patent infringement claim – based on, inter alia, U.S.

Patent 6,381,028 (“’028 patent”) and U.S. Patent 6,771,387 (“’387 patent”) – against Konica

in the United States District Court, Northern District of Ohio. On October 30, 2007, EFI

filed this action for declaratory relief in the Northern District of California, seeking to

determine its rights to eight patents owned by Tesseron, including the ’028 and ’387 patents. 

Tesseron amended their complaint in the Ohio action on December 6, 2007, adding EFI as an

additional defendant. 

Defendant Tesseron now moves this Court to transfer venue to the Northern District

of Ohio pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Section 1404(a) grants district courts the discretion

Case 3:07-cv-05534-CRB Document 29 Filed 01/29/08 Page 1 of 3
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

1

 Because the Court grants Tesseron’s motion to transfer, it does not address Tesseron’s

arguments regarding personal jurisdiction.

2

 EFI implies in the Introduction to its Opposition that it would not be subject to the

court’s personal jurisdiction in the Northern District of Ohio. See Opp. at 1-2. However,

because EFI has provided no additional explanation or support for its personal jurisdiction

argument, the Court must assume that the argument has now been abandoned.

2

 to transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought

“[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice.” The purpose of

this section is to “prevent the waste ‘of time, energy, and money’ and ‘to protect litigants,

witnesses and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and expense.” Van Dusen v.

Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964) (quoting Continental Grain Co. v. The Barge FBL-585,

364 U.S. 19, 26-27 (1960)). Because interests of justice and judicial economy favor transfer,

defendant’s motion is GRANTED.1

 The hearing scheduled for February 1, 2008 is

VACATED.

Section § 1404(a) has two requirements: (1) that the district to which the defendants

seek to have the action transferred is one in which the action “might have been brought”; and

(2) that the transfer be for the convenience of parties and witnesses, and in the interest of

justice. EFI does not contest that the Northern District of Ohio would have subject matter of

its action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). Accordingly, the decision to transfer turns on §

1404’s second requirement.2

With respect to the second factor, the interest of justice is the most important

consideration. “Consideration of the interest of justice, which includes judicial economy,

may be determinative to a particular transfer motion, even if the convenience of the parties

and witnesses might call for a different result.” Regents of the University of California v. Eli

Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (internal quotation omitted). Because

Tesseron has a pending case against EFI in the Northern District of Ohio that concerns two

of the patents at issue in EFI’s complaint, the interest of justice and considerations of judicial

economy weigh overwhelmingly in favor of transfer. “To permit a situation in which two

cases involving precisely the same issues are simultaneously pending in different District

Courts leads to the wastefulness of time, energy and money that s 1404(a) was designed to

Case 3:07-cv-05534-CRB Document 29 Filed 01/29/08 Page 2 of 3
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

G:\CRBALL\2007\5534\Transfer Order.wpd 3

prevent.” Continental Grain Co. v. The FBL-585, 364 U.S. 19, 26 (1960). Having both

actions before a single judge will obviate the need for duplicative tutorials and evidence, and

will facilitate global settlement.

On the other side of the scale, there are numerous witnesses who live in California,

EFI maintains its principal place of business in California, and EFI’s choice of forum

deserves some deference. Thus, it is arguable that transferring this case to Ohio will place

certain burdens on EFI and likely witnesses. 

However, the pertinent question is not simply whether this action would be more

conveniently litigated in Ohio than California, but whether it would be more convenient to

litigate the California and Ohio actions separately or in a coordinated fashion. In the Court’s

opinion, the interest of justice and judicial economy would be promoted by transferring this

case to Ohio to prevent duplicative and unnecessary efforts. Accordingly, Tesseron’s motion

to transfer is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 29, 2008 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:07-cv-05534-CRB Document 29 Filed 01/29/08 Page 3 of 3