in the films and the burden of transporting these witnesses to Illinois may disrupt the rapid production
schedule of ILM’s studio. Thus, the inconvenience to ILM outweighs the inconvenience to Bloomstein,
who does not seem to have anything but his residency weighing in favor of his case remaining in Illinois.

Second, the Northen District of California’s familiarity with the issues in this case warrants
transfer. The Northern District of California has already adjudicated a previous case involving ILM and
the same patent. See Bloomstein v. Paramount Pictures Corp. and Lucas Digital Ltd. d/b/a Industrial
Light & Magic, C 95-1864, 1996 WL 251918 (N.D. Cal. 1996) (Patel, J.). Because patent infringement
cases are highly technical and require careful, lengthy examination, the Northern District of California
is capable of adjudicating this case much more expeditiously because it is already familiar with
Bloomstein’s ‘281 patent. Furthermore, the interests of judicial economy favor transfer, as the prior case
may bind this case on some issues under the doctrine of collateral estoppel.

Finally, public interest supports resolving this case in California. California is the home of many
more film and computer graphics studios than Illinois. These studios employ many artists and
technicians who are likely to be affected by the outcome of this case. Since remedying patent
infringement is a likely concern to many California residents and employees of film studios, it is in the
public interest that this case be resolved in California.

For these reasons, we grant ILM’s motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of California.

an

MARVIA E. ASPEN
United States District Judge

It is so ordered.

vas 0 | a oe



Mine Order Form (06/97)

c ‘ited States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Hud i Sitting Judge if Other
or sired Marvin Aspen than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C770 DATE 5/8/2002
CASE Richard Bloomstein vs. Lucasfilms Ltd.,etal
TITLE
{In the following box (a) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature

MOTION: of the motion being presented.]

DOCKET ENTRY:

ql) oO Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) oO Brief in support of motion due

(3) Oo Answer brief to motion due . Reply to answer brief due_

(4) Oo Ruling/Hearing on set for at

(5) a Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at

(6) im Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at :

(7) o Trial[set for/re-set for] on at

(8) im) [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at

(9) o This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

CUFRCP4(m) [General Rule21 CFRCP41(a)(1) OO FRCP41(a)(2).

(ao) =x [Other docket entry]  ILM’s motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of California (3-2)
is granted. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (3-1) is moot. The Clerk of the Court is directed to transfer the
above cause of action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The status and
tuling date of 5/9/02 and 5/23/02 is stricken.

al) ff [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court, ‘Document
No notices required. vunber ofpotees ~. Number
v | Notices mailed by judge’s staff.

Notified counsel by telephone. date docketed
Docketing to mail notices.
Mail AO 450 form.
Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

courtroom ! | Ep date maled notice

GL deputy’s oL
initials ; rt
CT, Date/time received in
central Clerk’s Office mailing deputy initials



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

RICHARD BLOOMSTEIN, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)

vs. ) No. 02 C 0770
)
LUCASFILMS LTD. and LUCAS )
DIGITAL LTD. d/b/a INDUSTRIAL )
LIGHT & MAGIC, )
)
Defendants. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

MARVIN E. ASPEN, Chief Judge:

Richard Bloomstein, an Illinois resident, has brought a patent infringement action against
Lucasfilm Ltd. (“Lucasfilm”) and Lucas Digital Ltd. d/b/a Industrial Light and Magic (“ILM”), whose
principle place of business is in California. Bloomstein owns United States Patent No. 4,600,281
entitled “Altering Facial Displays in Cinematic Works,” which is a process for synchronizing the lip and
facial movements of a character in a visual track of cinematic work with the voice track of the film.
Bloomstein alleges that ILM infringed on this process in the course of making special effects for the
films Dragonheart, Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace, and Star Wars: Episode IT - Attack
of the Clones. ILM has motioned to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or lack of proper venue, or
alternatively to transfer venue to the Northern District of California. For the reasons set forth below, we
grant ILM’s motion to transfer venue and deny as moot ILM’s motion to dismiss.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), we may grant a motion for a transfer of venue if the transfer will best

serve the convenience of the parties, the convenience of the witnesses, as well as the interests of justice.

a)


See, e.g., Murphy v. Avon Products, Inc., 88 F. Supp.2d 851, 852 (N.D. Ill. 1999)(Aspen, C.J.). In
deciding whether to transfer a case, we must balance all relevant public and private factors to determine
whether the litigation would more conveniently proceed and the interests of justice would be better
served by a transfer to a different forum. Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988).
Analysis of the relevant factors lead to a broad set of considerations, “the contours of which turn upon
the particular facts of each case.” Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron Works, 796 F.2d 217, 220 (7th Cir. 1986).
Among those considerations are Bloomstein’s choice of forum, the site of the material events and the
relative ease of access to sources of proof. Murphy, 88 F.Supp.2d at 852-53. Other factors relating to
the interests of justice include such concerns as ensuring speedy trials and having a judge who is familiar
with the applicable law. Heller Fin., Inc. v. Midwhey Powder Co., Inc., 883 F.2d 1286, 1293 (7th Cir.
1989). See also, Murphy, 88 F.Supp.2d at 853 (public interest factors include “the desirability of
resolving a case in a particular foram”).

ILM has met its burden of showing that the Northern District of California is clearly more
convenient. See Heller, 883 F.2d at 1292. Although Bloomstein’s residency in the Northern District
of Illinois carries substantial weight, all other factors weigh in favor of transferring the case to the
Northern District of California.

First, the alleged infringement occurred in California. Because infringement suits focus on the
activities of the alleged infringer, its employees, and its documents, the location of the infringer’s place
of business is a critical factor. See, e.g., Habitat Wallpaper & Blinds, Inc. v. K.T. Scott Ltd. Partnership,
807 F. Supp. 470, 474 (N.D. Ill. 1992), The location of ILM raises concerns about the inconvenience
to potential witnesses if the case were to proceed in Illinois. The special effects work that allegedly
infringed Bloomstein’s patent occurred entirely within the state of California. Proceedings on the merits

of this case may involve the testimony of countless technicians who were involved in the effects work