Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04281/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-04281-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement (Insurance)

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TROPOS NETWORKS INC.,

Plaintiff,

 v.

IPCO LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-04281 JSW

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

TRANSFER VENUE AND

DENYING AS MOOT MOTION

TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF

PERSONAL JURISDICTION

INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of the motion to dismiss based

on lack of personal jurisdiction or, in the alternative, transfer of action on grounds of

inconvenient forum filed by Defendant IPCO, LLC (“IPCO”). Having considered the parties’

pleadings, the record in this case, relevant legal authority, and having had the benefit of oral

argument, the Court HEREBY GRANTS IPCO’s motion to transfer venue and DENIES AS

MOOT the motion to dismiss.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Tropos Networks, Inc. (“Tropos”) is a California corporation located in

Sunnyvale, California, which designs, develops and provides metro-scale Wi-Fi mesh network

products and services. (Compl., ¶¶ 2, 11.)

IPCO is a limited liability company located in Atlanta, Georgia. IPCO owns, by

assignment, the rights to U.S. Patent No. 6,249,516 (“‘516 Patent”), which is directed to a 

Case 3:05-cv-04281-JSW Document 63 Filed 07/07/06 Page 1 of 7
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

Wireless Network Gateway and Method for Providing Same and U.S. Patent No. 6,044,062 

(“‘062 Patent”), which is directed to a Wireless Network System and Method for Providing

Same. (Declaration of Gregory L. Hillyer (“Hillyer Decl.”), Exs. B-D.) The named inventors

on the ‘516 and ‘062 Patents are Edwin R. Brownrigg and Thomas W. Wilson, both of whom,

according to the face of the patents, are residents of California. (Id., Exs. B-C.) IPCO received

its rights in the ‘516 and ‘062 patents from CommUnique Wireless, LLC (“CommUnique”), a

California corporation. (Id., Exs. D-E; Compl., ¶ 18.) CommUnique assigned its rights to

IPCO for “the sum of ONE DOLLAR ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration.” (Id.,

Ex. D.) The assignment was signed by Edwin Brownrigg on behalf of CommUnique. (Id.; see

also Compl., ¶ 17.) 

IPCO asserts that it is not registered to conduct business in California and does not

conduct business here. IPCO also states that it holds no real property in California, has no bank

accounts here, does not advertise here, does not have offices or employees here, and does not

pay taxes in California. (Declaration of Joel Goldman (“Goldman Decl.”), ¶¶ 1-9.) 

On August 22, 2005, IPCO, through counsel, sent a letter to Tropos, which states “[w]e

write to put your company on notice of IPCO’s intellectual property rights. We are concerned

that Tropos may be infringing IPCO’s patent rights. We ask that you review these patents and

let us know what Tropos’ position is on whether its mesh network system infringes these

patents.” (Goldman Decl., ¶ 12; Declaration of Michael B. Taylor (“Taylor Decl.”), Ex. A;

Compl., ¶ 19.) Both the ‘516 and ‘062 Patents are mentioned in this letter. (Id.) 

According to the allegations in Tropos’ Complaint, IPCO has contacted its customers

and informed them that they (the customers) and Tropos are infringing the ‘516 and ‘062

Patents. (Compl., ¶ 36.) However, the only specific contact Tropos has identified is an alleged

phone call to Scientific Atlanta, a company located in Atlanta, Georgia. (Taylor Decl., ¶¶ 6-9.) 

IPCO has not denied Tropos’ assertion that it made contact with Scientific Atlanta. (See, e.g.,

Goldman Decl., ¶ 14.) Tropos claims, as a result of this contact and IPCO’s threat of

infringement, that it “feared a negative impact on Tropos’ ability to do business an a continuing

exposure to similar threats made to other existing and potential customers and partners.” 

Case 3:05-cv-04281-JSW Document 63 Filed 07/07/06 Page 2 of 7
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

3

(Taylor Decl., ¶ 11.) Tropos has not identified any sales or customers that it has lost as result of

IPCO’s alleged actions. 

In response to IPCO’s threats, however, Tropos filed this action on October 21, 2005,

seeking a declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity as to the patents-in-suit. 

Tropos also asserts causes of action for: (1) tortious interference with contract; (2) tortious

interference with prospective economic advantage; and unfair competition under California

Business and Professions Code § 17200.

On March 13, 2006, IPCO filed suit against Tropos in the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia, alleging that Tropos infringed the ‘516 Patent. In addition

to the case against Tropos, there are two other lawsuits pending in Georgia, IPCO LLC v. Elster

Electricity, LLC, Case No. 05-1138-CC and IPCO LLC v. CellNet Technology, Case No. 05-

2658-CC. All three of the Georgia cases involve the ‘516 Patent. IPCO has asserted the ‘062

Patent in the CellNet case, although CellNet has moved to dismiss that patent from the

litigation. Currently, the CellNet and Elster cases have been consolidated for pretrial purposes.

(See generally, Stipulation of Tropos Networks, Inc. and IPCO LLC Concerning Patents in

Georgia Litigation.)

ANALYSIS

Although IPCO moved in the first instance to dismiss this case outright for lack of

personal jurisdiction, it moved in the alternative to transfer the matter to the Northern District of

Georgia, where the other matters are pending. This is a close case but, for the reasons set forth

in the remainder of this Order, the Court finds that the interests of justice tip the balance in

favor of transfer. 

“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). As the moving party, IPCO bears the burden of showing that the

inconvenience of litigating in this forum favors transfer. See E. & J. Gallo Winery v. F. &

P.S.p.A., 899 F. Supp. 465, 466 (E.D. Cal. 1994) (noting that to meet this burden requires

production of affidavits or declarations identifying key witnesses and anticipated testimony).

Case 3:05-cv-04281-JSW Document 63 Filed 07/07/06 Page 3 of 7
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

4

 In order for a district court to transfer an action under section 1404, a court must make

the following two findings: (1) that the transferee court is one where the action “might have

been brought;” and (2) that the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interest of

justice favor transfer. Hatch v. Reliance Ins. Co., 758 F.2d 409, 414 (9th Cir. 1985). There is no

dispute in this case that Tropos could have brought this action in the Northern District of

Georgia. Accordingly, IPCO has met its burden on this prong.

To determine whether IPCO has met its burden on the second prong, the Court considers

the following factors: plaintiff’s choice of forum; convenience of the parties; convenience of the

witnesses; access to compulsory process of third party witnesses; ease of access to sources of

proof; local interest in the controversy; familiarity of each forum with the applicable law; and

relative court congestion in each forum. Gulf Oil Co. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508-09 (1947);

Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986). It is within

the Court’s discretion to determine whether the convenience of the parties, convenience of the

witnesses, and the interests of justice would be served by transfer. E. & J. Gallo, 899 F. Supp.

2d at 466. 

1. The Plaintiff’s Choice of Forum.

A court should give the plaintiff’s choice of forum deference unless the defendant can

show that the other factors of convenience clearly outweigh the plaintiff’s choice of forum.

Decker Coal Co., 805 F.2d at 843. Tropos contends that its choice to file this action in the

Northern District of California should be given great weight. 

Tropos seeks a declaration that it has not infringed IPCO’s patents and that those patents

are invalid. Not only are the inventors of the patents located in California, in a patent case the

central facts of the lawsuit occur “where the defendant is alleged to have developed, tested,

researched, produced, marketed, and made sales decisions concerning the accused product.” 

Sorensen v. Daimler Chrylser, A.G., 2003 WL 1888866 at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2003). Thus,

although Tropos is the nominal plaintiff, to the extent IPCO will assert that IPCO infringed its

patents, because Tropos is located here, it can be expected that the development, design, and

marketing of the allegedly infringing products occurred in California. 

Case 3:05-cv-04281-JSW Document 63 Filed 07/07/06 Page 4 of 7
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

5

However, the operative facts that give rise to Tropos’ tort claims appear to have

occurred in Georgia. Accordingly, the Court concludes that while Tropos’ choice of forum is

entitled to some deference, on balance this factor is neutral. See Florens Container v. Cho Yang

Shipping, 245 F. Supp. 2d 1086, 1092 (N.D. Cal. 2002) (citing Pacific Car and Foundry Co. v.

Pence, 403 F.2d 949, 954 (9th Cir. 1968)) (noting that while plaintiff’s choice of forum is

normally entitled to great deference, minimal consideration should be given to that choice

where the operative facts do not occur within the selected forum).

2. The Convenience of the Parties.

In addition to considering the plaintiff’s choice of forum, the court will consider the

relative convenience to all the parties involved in the lawsuit of the competing forums when

deciding a motion to transfer. Gulf Oil Co., 330 U.S. at 508. IPCO argues that it would be

more convenient for it to litigate this matter in its home forum, Georgia, because it is a small

company and because Tropos does business nationwide. (Mot. at 10 (citing Tropos’ website).) 

Tropos argues that it would be more convenient more convenient to litigate this matter in its

home forum, California. Because party witnesses are likely to be located in both fora, this

factor is also neutral.

3. The Convenience of the Witnesses and Compulsory Process of Third Party

Witnesses.

The convenience of the witnesses is often the most important factor when deciding a

motion to transfer, as is the availability of key witnesses not within compulsory process of a

district court is a factor. See Gulf Oil Co., 330 U.S. 508-09. As stated previously, party

witnesses are located in Georgia and California. Apart from the inventors of the patents, who

are located in California, and the customer IPCO allegedly contacted, which is located in

Georgia, IPCO has not identified with specificity any other third-party witnesses who would

have information material to Tropos’ claims that are located outside of this jurisdiction. 

Because key witnesses are located in both fora, the Court finds these two factors to be neutral. 

Case 3:05-cv-04281-JSW Document 63 Filed 07/07/06 Page 5 of 7
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

6

4. The Ease of Access to Sources of Proof.

Access to sources of proof is another factor that favors transfer. Gulf Oil Co., 330 U.S.

at 508. IPCO does not specifically address this factor. However, the inventors of the patents

are located within California. Similarly, while Tropos also does not address where its sources

of proof are located, its principal place of business is located in California. Therefore, it is

likely that much of Tropos’ evidence regarding its own production of the accused products will

come from its documents and employees located in California. With respect to the tort claims,

the sources of proof appear to be located in Georgia. Again, this factor appears to be neutral.

5. The Local Interest.

Another consideration in a decision to transfer venue is the local interest in having

localized controversies decided at home. Gulf Oil, 330 U.S. at 508. In this case, to the extent

patent claims are asserted, it appears that Tropos’ development and marketing activities

occurred within this district. Georgia, however, would have an interest in protecting its citizens

against alleged infringers.

With respect to Tropos’ tort claims, the conduct appears to have occurred in Georgia, by

IPCO, a Georgia LLC, and the customer contacted was another Georgia corporation. In

opposing the motion to transfer, Tropos identified no customers in California that were

contacted by IPCO. Thus despite the fact that California would have an interest in protecting its

residents from such conduct, Georgia also “has an interest in its corporations and the activities

they undertake.” See Jarvis v. Marietta Corp., 1999 WL 636231, *7 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 1999)

(holding local interest factor weighed in favor of transfer despite plaintiff being a California

citizen where actions which substantiate the plaintiff’s claim occurred predominantly in New

York and involved a New York Corporation). Accordingly, the Court finds that this factor

weighs in favor of transfer. 

6. Familiarity of each forum with the applicable law

To the extent patent claims are involved, he law applied by both courts will be the same. 

However, Tropos asserts claims against IPCO under California state law, including an unfair

Case 3:05-cv-04281-JSW Document 63 Filed 07/07/06 Page 6 of 7
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

7

competition claim, and this Court would have greater familiarity with those claims than the

Georgia court. The Court finds that this factor weighs against transfer.

7. Relative court congestion in each forum

Neither party addressed this factor in their papers. Based on statistics available to the

Court, this factor again would appear to weigh in favor of transfer. 

Finally, IPCO, however, has initiated two additional lawsuits alleging infringement of

its patents in the Northern District of Georgia. Moreover, it is apparent from the record in the

Elster case that the parties have already fully briefed the matter of how the claims of the ‘516

Patent should be construed. Accordingly, while recognizing that in general, a plaintiff’s choice

of forum should not be disturbed, the Court finds that on balance, IPCO has met its burden to

show transfer to the Northern District of Georgia is warranted. 

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to transfer venue is GRANTED. The Clerk is directed

to transfer this matter to the Northern District of Georgia. In light of this ruling, Defendant’s

motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 7, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-04281-JSW Document 63 Filed 07/07/06 Page 7 of 7