Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01577/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-01577-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:101 Copyright 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

1 11cv1577 BTM(RBB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SOFTMAKER SOFTWARE GMBH, a

German limited liability company, and

SOFTMAKER ENTWICKLUNGS GMBH,

a German limited liability company,

Plaintiffs,

Case No. 11cv01577 BTM(RBB)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

TRANSFER VENUE

v.

THIRD SCROLL PRODUCTS LLC, an

Indiana limited liability company;

SONNEY COLFAX, an individual, and

DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,

Defendants.

Defendants Third Scroll Products LLC and Allan Geary (sued as “Sonney Colfax”)

have filed a motion to transfer venue to the United States District Court, Southern District of

Indiana, as well as a motion to dismiss claims against Geary for lack of personal jurisdiction.

For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS the motion to transfer venue and does

not reach the motion to dismiss.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs commenced this action in this district on July 18, 2011. Plaintiff SoftMaker

Software GmbH (“SoftMaker”) and SoftMaker Entwicklungs GmbH are companies formed

under the laws of Germany with principal places of business in Nuremberg, Germany.

Case 3:11-cv-01577-BTM-RBB Document 22 Filed 11/21/11 Page 1 of 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

2 11cv1577 BTM(RBB)

(Compl. ¶¶ 2-3.) Defendant Third Scroll Products LLC (“Third Scroll”) is an Indiana limited

liability company with its principal place of business in Indianapolis, Indiana. (Compl. ¶ 4.)

The Complaint also names as a defendant “Sonney Colfax,” who, on information and belief,

“is an officer, shareholder, director, and/or agent of Third Scroll and otherwise controls Third

Scroll.” (Compl. ¶ 5.) Defendants claim that “Sonney Colfax” is just a contact name provided

by Allen Geary, a consultant to Third Scroll, for use on press releases. (Geary Decl. ¶ 4.)

Geary is a resident of Indiana. (Geary Decl. ¶ 2.) 

According to the Complaint, Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ copyrights and trademarks

by marketing, selling, and distributing, without authorization, copies of Plaintiffs’ software

products, some of which were installed on laptop computers called “Ez Books.” (Compl. ¶

26.) Plaintiffs allege that Defendants advertised and conducted the unauthorized sales

throughout the United States over the internet, including via a website previously accessible

at http://www.ezbookpc.com. (Compl. ¶ 15.)

The Complaint asserts claims against Defendants for (1) copyright infringement in

violation of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. § 501; (2) circumvention of “Access Control

Technology” in violation of 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a); (3) trademark infringement and

counterfeiting in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114(1) and 1125(a); (4) false

designation of origin in violation of the Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a); and (5) Unfair

competition under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. 

II. DISCUSSION

Defendants contend that this case should be transferred to the Southern District of

Indiana pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Upon review of the relevant factors, the Court

concludes that a transfer for convenience is appropriate in this case.

“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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). In determining whether transfer is appropriate in a particular

case, courts consider factors such as (1) the plaintiff’s choice of forum, (2) the convenience

Case 3:11-cv-01577-BTM-RBB Document 22 Filed 11/21/11 Page 2 of 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

1

 In Piper Aircraft, the Supreme Court explained, “Because the central purpose of any

forum non conveniens inquiry is to ensure that the trial is convenient, a foreign plaintiff’s

choice deserves less deference.” 454 U.S. at 256. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ arguments, the

rationale for according less deference to a foreign plaintiff’s choice of forum does not depend

on whether the events underlying the lawsuit occurred entirely in a different country. 

3 11cv1577 BTM(RBB)

of the witnesses and parties, (3) the ease of access to sources of proof, (4) the respective

parties’ contacts with the forum, (5) the contacts relating to the plaintiff’s cause of action in

the chosen forum, (6) the differences in the costs of litigation in the two forums, (7) the state

that is most familiar with the governing law, and (8) the availability of compulsory process to

compel attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses. Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211

F.3d 495, 498-99 (9th Cir. 2000); Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d

834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986). The burden of showing that transfer is appropriate rests on the

moving party. Futures Trading Comm’n v. Savage, 611 F.2d 270, 279 (9th Cir. 1979).

The parties do not dispute that this action could have been brought in the Southern

District of Indiana. Accordingly, the Court considers the §1404(a) factors.

In contrast to the strong presumption of a domestic plaintiff’s forum choice, a foreign

plaintiff’s choice “deserves less deference.” Monegro v. Rosa, 211 F.3d 509, 513 (9th Cir.

2000) (quoting Piper Aircraft v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 256 (1981)).1 Plaintiffs in this case are

German companies with no offices in the United States. 

It would be more convenient for Defendants if the case were transferred to Indiana

because Third Scroll is located in Indianapolis, Indiana, and has no office or employees in

California. (Denney Decl. ¶ 3.) Allan Geary is a resident of Greenfield, Indiana. (Geary

Decl. ¶ 2.) It does not appear that Indiana would be a less convenient venue for Plaintiffs

because Plaintiffs do not have any offices in the United States. 

With respect to non-party witnesses, it does not appear that any of them reside in this

forum. As explained by Defendants, there were four suppliers of the EzBook laptops: one

located in Peru, Indiana; one located in Vernon, California (Central District); and two located

in China. (Denney Decl. ¶ 4.) Third Scroll used two advertising agencies, one based in

Minnesota and one located in Indianapolis. (Denney Decl. ¶ 8.) Two press releases were

issued by a company in Maryland. (Id.) To the extent any of the non-party witnesses are

Case 3:11-cv-01577-BTM-RBB Document 22 Filed 11/21/11 Page 3 of 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

4 11cv1577 BTM(RBB)

affiliated with these suppliers and/or advertising agencies, there is no basis for concluding

that either the Southern District of California or the Southern District of Indiana would, on the

whole, be a more convenient forum.

It would be easier for Defendants to access sources of proof in Indiana. Third Scroll

maintains records regarding its advertisements and sale of the EzBook laptops in addition

to some returned laptops and images of the software installed on the EzBooks, at its

headquarters in Indianapolis. (Denney Decl. ¶ 9.) It does not appear that Plaintiffs’ access

to sources of proof is any more difficult in Indiana.

Although Defendants may have advertised its product in this forum (via the internet)

and sold some EzBooks in this forum, Defendants’ contacts with this forum are not any more

significant than their contacts with any other forum where EzBooks were sold. Only 475 out

of 38,000 EzBooks (about 1.25%) were sold in this forum. Similarly, there is no evidence

that Plaintiffs have significant contacts with this forum beyond their products “being used and

protected throughout the world.” (Pl. Opp. at 5:16-17.) In terms of contacts that relate to the

claims in this case (i.e., advertising by Defendants that used SoftMaker’s trademarks and/or

the sale of EzBooks containing infringing software), again, there is nothing that sets this

forum apart from any other.

Given the location of Third Scroll’s offices and employees, it is reasonable to conclude

that the cost of litigation would be higher for Defendants in the Southern District of California.

There is no reason to believe that the cost of litigation would be higher for Plaintiffs in

Indiana.

The remaining factors regarding familiarity with the law and compulsory process do

not weigh in favor or against transfer.

Upon consideration of all of the factors set forth above, the Court concludes that this

case should be transferred to the Southern District of Indiana. The greater convenience to

Defendants, including lower costs of litigation and ease of access to proof, warrant a transfer

of the case given that none of the parties reside in this forum, none of the witnesses appear

to be located in this forum, and the contacts to this forum that relate to the litigation are not

Case 3:11-cv-01577-BTM-RBB Document 22 Filed 11/21/11 Page 4 of 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

5 11cv1577 BTM(RBB)

any more significant than the contacts in any other forum in the United States where

allegedly infringing activity occurred. 

III. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons discussed above, Defendants’ motion to transfer venue is GRANTED.

This case is hereby TRANSFERRED to the United States District Court for the Southern

District of Indiana. The Court does not reach the motion to dismiss as to “Sonney Colfax.”

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 21, 2011

Honorable Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-01577-BTM-RBB Document 22 Filed 11/21/11 Page 5 of 5