IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Richmond Division

ORBITAL AUSTRALIA PTY LTD,

et al. ,

Plaintiffs,

V.

DAIMLER AG, et al. ,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 3:14CV808

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the Court on DEFENDANT ROBERT BOSCH

LLC'S MOTION TO DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO TRANSFER TO

THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN (Docket No. 27); DEFENDANTS

MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC AND MERCEDES-BENZ U.S. INTERNATIONAL,

INC.'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND

TRANSFER TO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN (Docket No. 34);

DEFENDANT ROBERT BOSCH GMBH'S MOTION TO DISMISS OR, IN THE

ALTERNATIVE, TO TRANSFER TO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

(Docket No. 100); DEFENDANT DAIMLER AG'S MOTION TO TRANSFER TO

THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN (Docket No. 105); and DEFENDANT

ROBERT BOSCH LLC'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO RESPOND TO

RESPOND [s^] TO JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY REQUESTS 12-24 (Docket

No. 85) . For the reasons stated below, the motions will be

granted in part and denied in part as moot.

2:15-cv-12398-GCS-APP Doc # 4 Filed 07/06/15 Pg 1 of 21 Pg ID 164
BACKGROUND

On December 2, 2014, Orbital Australia PTY LTD (^'Orbital

Australia") and Orbital Fluid Technologies, Inc. {''Orbital

Fluid") {collectively, ''Orbital" or "Plaintiffs") filed the

present action alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos.

6,923,387 {"the '387 patent"), 5,655,365 ("the '365 patent") and

5,606,951 ("the '951 patent") by Defendants Daimler AG

("Daimler"), Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC {"MBUSA"), and Mercedes-Benz

U.S. International, Inc. ("MBUSI") , as well as Robert Bosch GmbH

("Bosch GmbH") and Robert Bosch LLC ("Bosch LLC") (collectively,

"Defendants"). On February 2, 2015, Orbital filed its Amended

Complaint alleging that Daimler, MBUSA, and MBUSI infringe the

asserted patents by making, using, importing, selling, and/or

offering for sale Mercedes-Benz automobiles, while limiting its

infringement allegations against Bosch GmbH and Bosch LLC to the

'387 patent. (Docket No. 25 at 11 6, 9, 41, 46, 85, 129.)

Orbital Australia Pty Ltd is an Australian company having

its principal place of business in Australia. {Id. at SI 2.)

Orbital Fluid Technologies, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of

Orbital Australia, is incorporated in Delaware. {Id. at 1 1.)

MBUSA is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in

Montvale, New Jersey. {Id. at 1 4.) MBUSA distributes and

markets Mercedes-Benz vehicles throughout the United States.

(Id. ) MBUSI is an Alabama corporation with its headquarters in

2:15-cv-12398-GCS-APP Doc # 4 Filed 07/06/15 Pg 2 of 21 Pg ID 165
Vance, Alabama. {I^ at SI 5.) MBUSI manufactures Mercedes-Benz

vehicles in the United States. (Id.) Bosch LLC is a Delaware

limited liability company with its headquarters in Farmington

Hills, Michigan. (Id. at f 8.) Daimler is a German corporation

and Bosch Germany is a German limited liability company, both

having their principal places of business in Germany. (Id. at

Sl^ 3, 7.)

On February 20, 2015, Bosch LLC filed a motion to dismiss

the Amended Complaint or, in the alternative, transfer the case

out of the Eastern District of Virginia to the Eastern District

of Michigan. {Docket No. 27.) On February 27, 2015, MBUSI and

MBUSA filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and

transfer to the Eastern District of Michigan. (Docket No. 34.)

MBUSA did not challenge jurisdiction and only joined the Motion

with respect to transfer. On June 10, 2015, Bosch GmbH

filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to transfer to

the Eastern District of Michigan. (Docket No. 100.) On the

same day, Daimler filed a motion to transfer to the Eastern

District of Michigan. (Docket No. 105.) In addition, Bosch LLC

has filed a motion for protective order. (Docket No. 85.)^

^ The Bosch defendants have also filed a motion to stay the

proceedings, (Docket No. 107), which remains outstanding.

Resolution of this motion will rest with the Eastern District of

Michigan.

2:15-cv-12398-GCS-APP Doc # 4 Filed 07/06/15 Pg 3 of 21 Pg ID 166
DISCUSSION

When evaluating a motion to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1404(a), courts follow a two-step inquiry. First, the court

must determine whether the civil action could have been brought

in the proposed transferee forum. See Jaffe v. LSI Corp., 874

F. Supp. 2d 499, 502 (E.D. Va. 2012). Second, the court

should consider: (1) the plaintiff's choice of forum; (2) the

convenience of the parties; (3) access to evidence; (4) the

convenience of the witnesses, including third-party witnesses;

and (5) the interest of justice. Samsung Elec. Co. v. Rambus,

Inc. , 386 F. Supp. 2d 708, 716 (E.D. Va. 2005). One of the

purposes of Section 1404(a) is to "prevent the waste of 'time,

energy, and money' and to 'protect litigants, witnesses and the

public against unnecessary inconvenience and expense.'"

Original Creatine Patent Co. v. Met-Rx USA, Inc., 387 F. Supp.

2d 564, 566 (E.D. Va. 2005) (quoting Van Dusen v. Barrack, 367

U.S. 612, 616 (1964)). With the interests of justice and

efficient adjudication in mind, the Court will examine the

relevant factors.

I. The Proposed Forum

For the domestic defendants, there is no question whether

jurisdiction is presently proper in the Eastern District of

Michigan, as all defendants have consented to jurisdiction in

the transferee forum. However, the relevant question is where

2:15-cv-12398-GCS-APP Doc # 4 Filed 07/06/15 Pg 4 of 21 Pg ID 167
the action "could" have been brought at the time the suit was

commenced. See Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 342-43 {I960).

While later consent to in personam jurisdiction may be a valid

consideration under the ''interests of justice" factor of the

transfer calculus, it cannot retroactively render the Eastern

District of Michigan a forum where the claim could have been

brought ab initio.

Bosch LLC contends that Orbital could have brought its

claims of patent infringement in the Eastern District of

Michigan, because the subject technology is at least minimally

supported by Bosch from Michigan and because Bosch is a resident

of Michigan. Mem. in Supp. of Def. Robert Bosch LLC's Mot. to

Dismiss at 16 {Docket No. 28). Orbital does not contest that

the action could have been brought in the Eastern District of

Michigan. Pis.' 0pp. to Def. Robert Bosch LLC's Mot. to Dismiss

at 20 (Docket No. 45). And while MBUSI contests personal

jurisdiction in Virginia,^ Plaintiffs' theory of personal

jurisdiction - the theory upon which the suit was commenced in

the Eastern District of Virginia - would seem to apply equally

in the Eastern District of Michigan. If the Plaintiff could

have brought the claim here, then the Plaintiff could have

brought the claim there. Thus, if personal jurisdiction is

2 Mem. in Supp. of Defs. Mercedes-Benz USA LLC and Mercedes-Benz

U.S. Int'l, Inc.'s Mot, to Dismiss for Lack of Personal

Jurisdiction at 9 {Docket No. 35)

2:15-cv-12398-GCS-APP Doc # 4 Filed 07/06/15 Pg 5 of 21 Pg ID 168
proper in the Eastern District of Virginia - a question this

Court need not, and does not, reach - then personal jurisdiction

would have been proper in the Eastern District of Michigan.

As for foreign Defendant Bosch GmbH, Orbital offers

alternate jurisdictional arguments. To the extent Orbital

argues that personal jurisdiction is available in the Eastern

District of Virginia, the same rationale discussed above holds

and personal jurisdiction - if available at all - would have

been available in the Eastern District of Michigan at the

commencement of the suit.^

To the extent that Plaintiffs alternately attempt to rely

upon Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2) and the burden-shifting framework

articulated by the Federal Circuit in Touchcom, Inc. v. Bereskin

& Parr, 574 F.3d 1403, 1415 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the Court also

finds jurisdiction in the Eastern District of Michigan proper.

Simply put, this is because if Rule 4(k)(2) is truly

applicable and Bosch GmbH would not have been subject to

jurisdiction anywhere at the time of the suit, then - by the

very operation of Rule 4(k)(2) itself - Orbital could have filed

the suit in any United States jurisdiction at the time of the

suit. Thus, the first facet of the Section 1404(a) analysis

would be satisfied. To argue that the choice of the plaintiff

^ For example, Daimler does not contest jurisdiction here or in

the Eastern District of Michigan. Reply Mem. in Supp. of Def.

Daimler AG's Mot. to Transfer at 3 (Docket No. 115).

6

2:15-cv-12398-GCS-APP Doc # 4 Filed 07/06/15 Pg 6 of 21 Pg ID 169
should govern in such instances is to conflate the question of

whether the plaintiff could have brought suit under the first

prong of 1404(a) and the question of whether transfer is

appropriate under the second prong of 1404(a).

The Federal Circuit's decision in Merial Ltd. v. Cipla

Ltd. , 681 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2012), instructs no differently.

In Merial, the defendant attempted to challenge a previously

entered default judgment by the Middle District of Georgia by

consenting to jurisdiction in the Northern District of Illinois.

681 F.3d at 1294. Unlike the ex post consent to suit presented

in that case, which was provided in an attempt to invalidate the

jurisdiction and judgment of the federal court in Georgia, the

consent here is in the present case with respect to a motion to

transfer and, if Rule 4 (k) (2) applies at all, it would have

bestowed the choice of jurisdiction by the Plaintiffs upon both

federal district courts proposed. See id. at 1295 (^^Absent some

independent basis for jurisdiction, neither forum is manifestly

more appropriate than the other[.]").

The Merial court quite explicitly limited its holding to

the facts before it and expressly declined to consider ^'the

general requirements for a defendant to prevent the application

of Rule 4(k)(2) by consenting to suit in another jurisdiction."

Id. Because that court went out of its way to decline adopting

Orbital's reading, this Court views the issue as an open

2:15-cv-12398-GCS-APP Doc # 4 Filed 07/06/15 Pg 7 of 21 Pg ID 170
question and holds that, upon a defendant's motion to transfer

under 1404(a), the question as to whether the plaintiff might

have brought the claim in the proposed transferee jurisdiction

is satisfied where jurisdiction is initially premised upon Rule

4(k) (2) .

This rule also functions to simultaneously advance the

purposes of both Section 1404(a) and Rule 4(k)(2). With respect

to Section 1404(a), the rule encourages both parties to seek a

forum that furthers the interests of justice and the efficient

adjudication of disputes. The courts are well equipped under

the second prong of the 1404(a) analysis to evaluate the factors

in favor of transfer and make a determination as to whether the

plaintiff s choice is entitled to deference and whether transfer

is warranted. The plaintiff is encouraged to avoid gamesmanship

and select a forum that is supported by good reasons from the

outset to avoid the risk that its initial choice is upset by a

well-supported motion to transfer. Similarly, the defendant is

incentivized to move for an alternate forum only if plaintiff

has overreached and selected a clearly inferior forum where the

interests of justice and efficient adjudication weigh strongly

in favor of transfer.

Rule 4(k)(2), on the other hand, was adopted to avoid a

situation wherein "a non-resident defendant who did not have

^minimum contacts' with any individual state sufficient to

8

2:15-cv-12398-GCS-APP Doc # 4 Filed 07/06/15 Pg 8 of 21 Pg ID 171
support exercise of jurisdiction, but did have sufficient

contacts with the United States as a whole, could escape

jurisdiction in all fifty states." Touchcom, 574 F. 3d at 1414.

But, when a foreign defendant moves to transfer and consents to

jurisdiction in the transferee court, that purpose is satisfied.

Moreover, adopting Orbital's interpretation of Rule 4{k) (2)

would provide plaintiffs with an unreasonable amount of power by

largely eliminating the burden of establishing personal

jurisdiction. Plaintiffs already benefit from the burdenshifting framework adopted by the Federal Circuit in Touchcom

and do not need to "prove a negative" in all 50 states before

resorting to the power of Rule 4(k) (2) . If defendants were

barred from any motion to transfer accompanied by consent to

jurisdiction in the transferee forum, then the plaintiff could

forum shop without regard to personal jurisdiction, claim

jurisdiction under 4(k) (2), and then rely upon the burdenshifting framework to force the defendant to either (1) submit

to the plaintiff's artificial forum choice, or (2) argue that

the action could have been brought elsewhere even in the absence

of 4{k)(2), notwithstanding the defendant's belief to the

contrary. That approach to the burden-shifting rule is unjust

and unnecessary.

Finally, the proposed approach would thread the needle

between the Federal Circuit's holding in Touchcom and its

2:15-cv-12398-GCS-APP Doc # 4 Filed 07/06/15 Pg 9 of 21 Pg ID 172
holding in Merial. The language in Touchcom seemed to hint that

a Defendant could defeat the operation of 4(k) (2) altogether by

consenting to jurisdiction. In adopting the Seventh Circuit's

burden-shifting approach to Rule 4(k)(2)(A), the Federal Circuit

noted:

A defendant who wants to preclude the use of

Rule 4{k)(2) has only to name some other

state in which the suit could proceed.

Naming a more appropriate state would amount

to a consent to personal jurisdiction there.

, If, however, the defendant contends

that he cannot be sued in the forum state

and refuses to identify any other state

where suit is possible, then the federal

court is entitled to use Rule 4 (k) (2). This

procedure makes it unnecessary to traipse

through the 50 states, asking whether each

could entertain the suit.

Touchcom, 574 F.3d at 1414 (quoting ISI Int'l, Inc. v. Borden

Ladner Gervais LLP, 256 F.3d 548, 552 (7th Cir. 2001), ^

amended (July 2, 2001)) (citations omitted) (emphasis added).

This has the merits of avoiding forum shopping by the plaintiff

and fulfilling the goals of Rule 4(k)(2), but gives free license

to defendants to engage in forum shopping and does not seem

reconcilable with Section 1404(a) for the reasons stated by the

Supreme Court in Hoffman:

That thesis, if adopted, would empower a

District Court, upon a finding of

convenience, to transfer an action to any

district desired by the defendants and in

which they were willing to waive their

statutory defenses as to venue and

jurisdiction over their persons, regardless

10

2:15-cv-12398-GCS-APP Doc # 4 Filed 07/06/15 Pg 10 of 21 Pg ID 173
of the fact that such transferee district

was not one in which the action ^might have

been brought' by the plaintiff.

Hoffman, 363 U.S. at 344. A defendant's consent after the

commencement of the action cannot render Rule 4{k) (2)

retroactively inapplicable because jurisdiction under 4(k)(2) is

created at the moment that the plaintiff commences the action,

assuming that the defendant is, in fact, truly not subject to

jurisdiction in any particular forum at the time the suit

commences.

In contrast, the language in Merial seemed to hint that a

defendant could not defeat the operation of Rule 4{k) (2) by

consenting to jurisdiction and that there was no reason why the

forum choice of the defendant should govern under the rule. 681

F.3d at 1294-95. This has the merits of avoiding forum shopping

by the defendant and ensuring that the jurisdiction is one ''in

which the plaintiff could have brought suit," id. at 1294, but,

if taken to exclude any possibility of transfer, would give free

license to plaintiffs to engage in forum shopping.

The approach suggested by this Court is that, by operation

of Rule 4{k)(2), the plaintiff could bring the suit in any

jurisdiction in the United States but, because of this, the

defendant could similarly move to transfer the case to any

jurisdiction. Thus, the plaintiff's choice under Rule 4{k) (2)

is not cut short by a defendant's belated consent after the

11

2:15-cv-12398-GCS-APP Doc # 4 Filed 07/06/15 Pg 11 of 21 Pg ID 174
cominencement of the action, but the plaintiff's choice is not

immune to evaluation of the transfer factors by the transferor

court. The rule avoids giving either party carte blanche to

forum shop, allows defendants to maintain a principled argument

against personal jurisdiction while still submitting to

jurisdiction in the transferor and transferee forum, and

provides plaintiffs the initial choice of forum.

For these reasons, the Court finds that the civil action is

one that ''could have been brought" in the proposed transferee

forum, and that transfer to the Eastern District of Michigan is

permitted here.

II. The Transfer Factors

A. Plaintiffs' Choice of Forum

The first factor to evaluate in weighing a decision to

transfer is the plaintiffs' choice of forum. In most cases, the

plaintiff s choice of forum is entitled to deference when

weighing the transfer factors. Furmanite America, Inc. v.

Durango Assoc. Inc., 662 F. Supp. 348, 351 (E.D. Va. 1996).

However, ''if the chosen forum is not the plaintiff's 'home

forum,' and the cause of action bears little or no relation to

the chosen forum," then the plaintiff's choice is not entitled

to substantial weight. Lycos, Inc. v. TiVo, Inc., 4 99 F. Supp.

2d 685, 692 (E.D. Va. 2007) (quoting Telepharmacy Solutions,

Inc. V. Pickpoint Corp., 238 F. Supp. 2d 741, 743 (E.D. Va.

12

2:15-cv-12398-GCS-APP Doc # 4 Filed 07/06/15 Pg 12 of 21 Pg ID 175
2003)). "[I]f there is little connection between the claims and

this judicial district, that would militate against a

plaintiff's chosen forum and weigh in favor of transfer to a

venue with more substantial contacts." Koh v. Microtek Int'l,

Inc., 250 F. Supp. 2d 627, 635 (E.D. Va, 2003).

Both Plaintiffs are subsidiaries of Orbital Corporation

Limited {''Orbital Corporation") , an Australian company. Mem. in

Supp. of Def. Robert Bosch LLC's Mot. to Dismiss at 2 (Docket

No. 28). Orbital Australia is also an Australian company, and

Orbital Fluid is a Delaware corporation. Neither Orbital

Australia nor Orbital Fluid Technologies currently has any

operations or facilities in this District. Id. at 17-19; Pis.'

0pp. to Def. Robert Bosch LLC's Mot. to Dismiss at 2-3 (Docket

No. 45) . Orbital Fluid owns an interest in Synerject LLC

C'Synerject") , which is located in Newport News, Virginia, Am.

Complaint for Patent Infringement at SI 1 (Docket No. 25), but

Synerject is not a named party to the current lawsuit, and

Synerject does not appear to have an interest in the patents

asserted in this case.

Orbital alleges that it previously maintained operations in

Newport News during the development of the ^387 patent, which

Bosch is accused of infringing. Pis.' 0pp. to Def. Robert Bosch

LLC's Mot. to Dismiss at 3 (Docket No. 45). However, Orbital

admits that ''economic pressure forced Orbital USA to cut back

13

2:15-cv-12398-GCS-APP Doc # 4 Filed 07/06/15 Pg 13 of 21 Pg ID 176
and eventually close its United States [o]ffice." Id. By all

indications, Orbital has not had any presence in this district

in over a decade.

Given these facts, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs'

choice of forum is entitled to no weight in balancing the

factors regarding transfer.

B. Convenience of the Parties

The second factor to consider is the convenience of the

parties. Included within this consideration is the "the cost of

obtaining the attendance of witnesses, and the availability of

compulsory process." Lycos, 499 F. Supp. 2d at 693 (quoting

Rambus, 386 F. Supp. 2d at 717 n. 13). With respect to Daimler

and Orbital, the potential fora are equally convenient. Orbital

is located in Australia, Daimler is located in Germany, and

neither would derive any particular convenience or efficiency

from a trial held in Virginia as opposed to Michigan. With

respect to Bosch GmbH, travel to Michigan could be marginally

more convenient. Because Michigan is home to Bosch GmbH's

domestic subsidiary, potential witnesses and representatives

from Bosch GmbH could combine travel for litigation with other

work-related trips.

With respect to the domestic parties, Michigan would be a

far more convenient and cost effective location for Bosch LLC

and would appear to be no more inconvenient or expensive than

14

2:15-cv-12398-GCS-APP Doc # 4 Filed 07/06/15 Pg 14 of 21 Pg ID 177
Virginia for MBUSA and MBUSI. Between the districts proposed for

this litigation, Michigan is the only "home forum" available.

On balance, this factor weighs in favor of transfer.

C. Access -bo Evidence

The third factor in the transfer analysis is the ease of

access to evidence. In this case, the majority of evidence is

likely to be abroad. Pis.' 0pp. to Def. Robert Bosch LLC's Mot.

to Dismiss at 24-25 (Docket No. 45), and lends no weight in the

analysis. However, to the extent that any domestic evidence is

to be found, it will be found in Michigan. Mem. in Supp. of

Def. Robert Bosch LLC's Mot. to Dismiss at 19-20 (Docket No.

28} .

Orbital protests that Bosch LLC has not made a strong,

particularized showing as to this factor, Pis.' Opp. to Def.

Robert Bosch LLC's Mot. to Dismiss at 24-25 (Docket No. 45), and

has even expressly disclaimed the presence of some documents and

information in Michigan in its interrogatory responses and

responses to production. Pis.' Opp. to Def. Robert Bosch GmbH's

Mot. to Dismiss at 22 (Docket No. 112) . But Bosch LLC has not

claimed that it has no relevant information or evidence

whatsoever or that it has no relevant witnesses whatsoever. On

the contrary, Bosch LLC has agreed to produce relevant and

requested documents and information and has put forth at least

one potential witness. Reply Br. In Supp. of Def. Robert Bosch

15

2:15-cv-12398-GCS-APP Doc # 4 Filed 07/06/15 Pg 15 of 21 Pg ID 178
GmbH's Mot. to Dismiss at 7-8 (Docket No. 114). Frankly, it

would be astounding if Plaintiffs were truly planning on

offering no evidence and calling no witnesses from a named

defendant - a party of their choosing.

Regardless, this factor weighs in favor of transfer.

Either there will be no evidence in Michigan and the fora are

equally suitable or there will some evidence in Michigan and

this factor weighs in favor of transfer. Moreover, this is not

a case where transfer ^^shifts the inconvenience" to the other

party. Orbital exited the U.S. market over a decade ago. The

only entity or individual seemingly inconvenienced would be a

single, potential third-party witness. Rather than ^^shifting

the inconvenience," transfer here would reduce the inconvenience

to some parties without increasing the inconvenience to any

other party. This factor weighs in favor of transfer.

D. Convenience of Witnesses

The fourth factor in the transfer analysis is the

convenience of witnesses, including third-party witnesses. As

with the documentary sources of evidence, most witnesses in the

case are likely to come from foreign countries. Bosch LLC has,

however, identified at least one potential witness in Michigan.

Reply Brief in Supp. of Def. Robert Bosch LLC's Mot. to Dismiss

at 10 (Docket No. 52); Decl. of Peter Tadros in Supp. of Robert

Bosch LLC's Mot. to Dismiss (Docket No. 52-1). Moreover, any

16

2:15-cv-12398-GCS-APP Doc # 4 Filed 07/06/15 Pg 16 of 21 Pg ID 179
witnesses from Bosch GmbH are likely to find travel to the home

of their subsidiary at least somewhat more convenient than

travel to Virginia. To the extent that any of these witnesses

are required, holding the trial in Michigan will be more

convenient and will minimize the litigation's interference with

the activities of those individuals.

Orbital has identified one potential third-party witness

located in the Eastern District of Virginia for whom travel to

Richmond would be more convenient. Pis.' 0pp. to Def. Robert

Bosch LLC's Mot. to Dismiss at 23-24 (Docket No. 45); Decl. of

John Richard Mills in Supp. of Orbital Australia Pty Ltd and

Orbital Fluid Tech., Inc. Opp. to Transfer to the Eastern

District of Michigan (Docket No. 45-1) . This witness - John

Mills - is one of the inventors of the ^387 patent. Id.

Although this fact is weighed in the final analysis, this is

perhaps the only fact that weighs in favor of retention in the

Eastern District of Virginia.

The cost of attendance for and convenience of the witnesses

''is probably the single most important factor in transfer

analysis." In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1343 (Fed.

Cir. 2009) (citing Neil Bros. Ltd. v. World Wide Lines, Inc.,

425 F. Supp. 2d 325, 329 (E.D.N.Y. 2006)). ''Additional distance

[from home] means additional travel time; additional travel time

increases the probability for meal and lodging expenses; and

17

2:15-cv-12398-GCS-APP Doc # 4 Filed 07/06/15 Pg 17 of 21 Pg ID 180
additional travel time with overnight stays increases the time

which these fact witnesses must be away from their regular

employment." In re Nintendo Co., Ltd., 589 F.3d 1194, 1199

(Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315,

1320 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). It is true that Mr. Mills may be

required to travel to Michigan and that this is likely to

present an inconvenience. However, the fact that one potential

third-party witness in Virginia might need to travel to Michigan

and be thereby inconvenienced is not a sufficient reason to hold

the trial in Richmond. This factor weighs lightly in favor of

transfer.

E. Interests of Justice

The fifth and final factor courts must consider in the

transfer analysis is the interest of justice. The interest of

justice focuses on "systemic integrity and fairness," and

considers factors such as "docket congestion, interest in having

local controversies decided at home, knowledge of applicable

law, unfairness in burdening forum citizens with jury duty, and

interest in avoiding unnecessary conflicts of law." Jaffe, 874

F. Supp. 2d at 505 (quoting Byerson v. Equifax Info. Servs.,

LLC, 467 F. Supp. 2d 627, 635 (E.D. Va. 2006)) (internal

quotations omitted). This factor weighs in favor of transfer to

the Eastern District of Michigan.

18

2:15-cv-12398-GCS-APP Doc # 4 Filed 07/06/15 Pg 18 of 21 Pg ID 181
First, it is fairer to burden jurors located in the Eastern

District of Michigan than jurors located in the Eastern District

of Virginia. Bosch LLC is located in Michigan and none of the

parties call Virginia their home. Orbital claims that ''keeping

this case in Virginia would be consistent with Virginia's

interest in protecting the rights of U.S. subsidiaries of

foreign corporations that choose to locate their U.S.

subsidiaries and other interests in Virginia." Pis.' 0pp. to

Defs.' [sic] Mercedes-Benz USA LLC and Mercedes-Benz U.S. Int'l,

Inc. Mot. to Dismiss at 22 {Docket No. 46). But Orbital has no

subsidiary in Virginia with any interest in this case. Bosch,

on the other hand, does have a subsidiary in Michigan with an

interest in the case. Am. Complaint for Patent Infringement at

H 8 {Docket No. 25). This argument favors transfer.

Second, transfer would avoid a contested question of

jurisdiction that could otherwise risk rendering the entire

litigation a moot and wasteful exercise. See Tyler v. Gaines

Motor Lines, Inc., 245 F. Supp. 2d 730, 734 (D. Md. 2003)

{transferring case because the question of personal jurisdiction

was a ''close one" and "would inject into the case an unnecessary

legal issue that would render the entire litigation null and

void, if, on appeal, jurisdiction were found to be lacking");

Datasouth Computer Corp. v. Three Dimensional Tech., Inc., 719

F. Supp. 446, 452 (W.D.N.C. 1989) {"Courts have held that a

19

2:15-cv-12398-GCS-APP Doc # 4 Filed 07/06/15 Pg 19 of 21 Pg ID 182
change of venue may conserve judicial resources, and serve the

interests of the parties as well, if a case is transferred from

a forum where there is a difficult question of personal

jurisdiction or venue to a district in which there are not such

uncertainties."). Defendants have agreed to jurisdiction in the

Eastern District of Michigan in order to have all of Orbital's

allegations addressed before a single court.

Finally, docket congestion is only "a minor consideration,

which a court must view in light of other relevant factors, and

which will receive little weight if all other reasonable and

logical factors result in a transfer of venue." See Koh, 250 F.

Supp. 2d at 639 (citing Intranexus, Inc. v. Siemens Med.

Solutions Health Servs. Corp., 277 F. Supp. 2d 581, 585 (E.D.

Va. 2002); GTE Wireless, Inc. v. Qualcomm, Inc., 71 F. Supp. 2d

517, 520 (E.D. Va. 1999)). S^ also Praqmatus AV, LLC v.

Facebook, Inc., 769 F. Supp. 2d 991, 997 (E.D. Va. 2011) (^^When

a plaintiff with no significant ties to the Eastern District of

Virginia chooses to litigate in the district primarily because

it is known as the ^rocket docket,' the interest of justice ^is

not served.'") (quoting Original Creatine, 387 F. Supp. 2d at

572) .

Based on the factors above, the Court finds that the

interests of justice and efficient adjudication warrant

transferring the case to the Eastern District of Michigan.

20

2:15-cv-12398-GCS-APP Doc # 4 Filed 07/06/15 Pg 20 of 21 Pg ID 183
CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, DEFENDANT ROBERT BOSCH LLC'S

MOTION TO DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO TRANSFER TO THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN (Docket No, 27); DEFENDANTS

MERCEDES-BENZ USA, LLC AND MERCEDES-BENZ U.S. INTERNATIONAL,

INC.'S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION AND

TRANSFER TO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN (Docket No. 34);

DEFENDANT ROBERT BOSCH GMBH'S MOTION TO DISMISS OR, IN THE

ALTERNATIVE, TO TRANSFER TO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

(Docket No. 100); and DEFENDANT DAIMLER AG'S MOTION TO TRANSFER

TO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN (Docket No. 105) will all be

granted with respect to the motions to transfer. Because the

Defendants consent to jurisdiction in the Eastern District of

Michigan, all motions to dismiss and DEFENDANT ROBERT BOSCH

LLC'S MOTION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER TO RESPOND TO RESPOND [s^] TO

JURISDICTIONAL DISCOVERY REQUESTS 12-24 (Docket No. 85) will be

denied as moot.

It is so ORDERED.

Richmond, Virginia

Date: July 1, 2015

/s/

Robert E. Payne

Senior United States District Judge

21

2:15-cv-12398-GCS-APP Doc # 4 Filed 07/06/15 Pg 21 of 21 Pg ID 184