§ 1400(b), which provides that “any civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the
judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of
infringement and has a regular and established place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). Jensen,
the defendant in this case, resides within the Western District of North Carolina pursuant to the
domicile provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c). Because venue is proper in both this district,
and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), in the Western District of North Carolina, the only issues
that remain to be decided pertain to the convenience of the parties and witnesses, as well as the
interests of justice.
Il. Convenience of Parties and Witnesses and Interests of Justice

A. Private Factors

The plaintiff's choice of forum usually deserves considerable weight, especially when it is
plaintiff's home forum. Energaire Corp. v. E.S. Originals, Inc., 1999 WL 1018039, at *2 (N.D.
Ill. Nov. 2, 1999). Plaintiff's choice of forum becomes less important, however, when it has
“telatively weak connections with the operative facts giving rise to the claim.” Von Holdt, 887 F.
Supp. at 188. Although the sale of infringing products in this district is certainly significant, the
accused products are sold nationwide. Thus, the alleged infringement is presumably occurring in
several, if not all, the districts across the country. Therefore, the connection to this district is not
very strong, aside from it being Ellis’ home forum, and the plaintiff’s choice of forum in this case
should not be accorded significant weight. See Berol Corp. v. BIC Corp. and BIC U.S.A., Inc.,
2002 WL 1466829, at *4 (N.D. Til. July 8, 2002).

The same logic applies to the “situs of material events” prong. The Federal Circuit

dictates that “the situs of injury is the location, or locations, at which the infringing activity



but the other was filed at least a month before this case was filed and it is still pending. Because
of this history, it is likely the North Carolina court is more familiar with the parties and the
salient issues of the case than we are. Therefore, principles of judicial economy dictate that this
case be transferred to the Western District of North Carolina.

With respect to the public “community interest” factor, Ellis argues that Illinois has an
interest in redressing patent infringement that allegedly occurred within its borders. This is
certainly true. Because the accused products are sold nationwide, however, the alleged
infringement presumably occurred in many states that equally have an interest in redressing the
alleged infringement. Further, the “administration of justice is served more efficiently when the
action is brought before a court that is ‘closer to the action.’”” Paul v. Land's End, Inc., 742 F.
Supp. 512, 514 (N.D. Ill. 1990). Once again, the “action” is usually associated with the
defendant’s activities, which in this case are concentrated in the suburbs of Charlotte, North
Carolina. These factors combine to favor transfer to North Carolina.

Finally, the Court finds that the last two public interest factors have little significance to
our decision in this case. There is no doubt that both this Court and the Western District of
North Carolina are equally suited to resolve patent infringement cases. See 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).
With respect to any state law claims that Ellis may bring, we are confident that the court in North
Carolina will be able to properly apply the principles of Ilinois law. Further, available statistics
suggest that the median time from the filing of a complaint to trial in a civil action has been less

in the Wester District of North Carolina than in this district.


justice.” United Air Lines, Inc. v. Mesa Airlines, Inc., 8 F. Supp. 2d 796, 798 (N.D. Ill. 1998).
Because determining whether transfer is appropriate “involves a large degree of subtlety and
latitude,” and is made on a case-by-case basis, it is therefore “committed to the sound discretion
of the trial judge.” Coffey, 796 F.2d at 219; see also ISI, Int'l, Inc. v. Borden Ladner Gervais
LLP, 256 F.3d 548, 553-554 (7th Cir. 2001); Amoco Oil Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 90 F. Supp. 2d
958, 959 (N.D. Ill. 2000). The defendant, as the moving party, must demonstrate that transfer
will promote the efficient administration of justice. See Coffey, 796 F.2d at 219-20.

In making a transfer determination, the Court must consider both the private interest of
the parties and the public interests of the Court. Medi USA v. Jobst Inst., Inc., 791 F. Supp. 208,
210 (NLD. Ill. 1992). Factors for the Court to consider in assessing private interests include: (1)
plaintiff's choice of forum; (2) the situs of material events; (3) the relative ease and access to
sources of proof; (4) the convenience of the parties; and (5) the convenience of the witnesses.
Amoco Oil, 90 F. Supp. 2d at 960. Public interest or interests of justice factors “relate to the
court’s familiarity with the applicable law, the speed at which the case will proceed to trial, and
the desirability of resolving controversies in their locale.” Von Holdt v. Husky Injecting Molding
Sys, Ltd., 887 F. Supp. 185, 188 (N.D. Ill. 1995). These interests of justice “may be
determinative in a particular case, even if the parties and witnesses might call for a different
result.” Coffey, 796 F.2d at 220.
I Venue in the Transferor and Transferee Districts

The first and second prongs of the Section 1404(a) test require this Court to consider both
whether venue was proper in the transferor district and whether venue and jurisdiction would be

proper in the transferee district. Venue in patent infringement actions is controlled by 28 U.S.C.


directly impacts on the interests of the patentee.” Beverly Hills Fan Co. v. Royal Sovereign
Corp., 21 F.3d 1558, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In order to apply this test, courts have often focused
on the location of the allegedly infringing sales, or the alleged infringer’s place of business. See,
e.g., Berol, 2002 WL 1466829, at *4; Energaire, 1999 WL 1018039, at *2; H.B. Sherman Mfg.
Co. v. Rain Bird Nat'l Sales Corp., 979 F. Supp. 627, 630 (N.D. Ill. 1997); SRAM Corp. v.
Sunrace Roots Enter. Co., Ltd., 953 F. Supp. 257, 259 (N.D. Ill. 1997). Again, the allegedly
infringing sales have occurred across the country, rather than exclusively in the Northern District
of Illinois, and the alleged infringer’s places of business in not located in Ilinois. In fact, the
defendant’s principal place of business is in Fort Mill, South Carolina, which Jensen describes as
being within the Charlotte, North Carolina metropolitan area, Accordingly, the situs of material
events prong favors transfer to the Western District of North Carolina.

The “ease of access to sources of proof” prong further supports transfer. This Court has
observed that patent infringement suits usually focus on the activities of the alleged infringer, its
employees, and its documents rather than upon those of the plaintiff. See Energaire, 1999 WL
1018039, at *3; Wen Prods., Inc. v. Master Leather, Inc., 899 F. Supp. 384, 385 (N.D. Ill. 1995).
Defendant’s South Carolina headquarters, which house most of the documents, employees, and
activities relating to the accused products, are obviously closer to Charlotte, North Carolina than
to Chicago, Illinois. Thus, ease of access to sources of proof would be better achieved by
moving this case to North Carolina rather than keeping it in Illinois.

Finally, we will briefly address the “convenience of the parties” prong. In terms of
transporting witnesses, documents, and employees, this forum is obviously more convenient for

Ellis, while North Carolina is more convenient for Jensen. In addition to the fact that most of the



Therefore, because private and public interests weigh in favor of transfer, the third and
last of the Section 1404(a) considerations has been fulfilled. Transfer to the Western District of
North Carolina is proper.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s motion to transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1404(a) [Docket No. 9-1] is granted. The defendant’s alternative motion for an extension of time
to file a responsive pleading [Docket No. 9-2] is denied as moot. Any and all other pending
motions are denied as moot. The Clerk is ordered to transfer this case to the United States
District Court for the Western District of North Carolina.

It is so ordered.

Q), . Cx

Wayne R. Andersen
United States District Court

Dated:


«Minute Ofer Form (067) +

x

United States District Court, Northern District of Dlinois

Docketing to mail notices.
Mail AO 450 form.
Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

courtroom
deputy’s
initials

Name of Assigned Jud; Sitting Judge if Oth
or Magistrate Judge Wayne R. Andersen than Assigued Judge
CASE NUMBER 2.C 7380 DATE 9/2/2003
CASE Ellis Corporation vs. Jensen USA, Inc.
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:
(69) im Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.)
(2) Oo Brief in support of motion due
(3) o Answer brief to motion due. . Reply to answer brief due. .
(4) o Ruling/Hearing on set for at
(5) oO Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at
(6) Qo Pretrial conference[held/continued to) [set for/re-set for] on set for at
(o) Oo Trial{set for/re-set for] on at
(8) a [{Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) o This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OFRCP4(m) (Local Rule 41.1 OFRCP41(a)(1) OO FRCP41(a)(2).
ao [Other docket entry] Enter MEMORANDUM, OPINION AND ORDER: For the foregoing
reasons, the defendant’s motion to transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404 [9-1] is granted. The
defendant’s alternative motion for an extension of time to file a responsive pleading [9-2] is denied
as moot. Any and all other pending motions are denied as moot. The Clerk is ordered to transfer
this case to the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina.
qal) (For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]
No notices required, advised in open court.
No notices required. sues of nies
yim! at ‘SEP 0 9 2003
Notified counsel by telephone. date docketed

runog Latulsia’s'n

ea nl Ww - das £0
jj

Date/timk rédetved in
central Clerk's Office

fib



focus will be on defendant’s activities, documents, and staff, the presence of related litigation
(Jensen’s September 13, 2002 patent infringement action) in the Western District of North
Carolina weighs heavily in favor of transfer. Because the plaintiff will have to travel to Charlotte
to litigate a similar matter involving the same parties anyway, convenience supports transfer.

B. Public Factors

The interests of justice components of the Section 1404(a) analysis concems the
“efficient administration of the court system.” Coffey, 796 F.2d at 221. This consideration
embraces “traditional notions of judicial economy, rather than the private interests of the litigants
and their witnesses.” 7IG Ins. Co. v. Brightly Galvanized Products, Inc., 911 F. Supp. 344, 346
(N.D. Ill. 1996). Certain public interest factors that may warrant transfer include: (1) the relation
of the communities to the issue of the litigation and the desirability of resolving controversies in
their locale; (2) the Court’s familiarity with applicable law; and (3) the congestion of the
respective court dockets and the prospects for earlier trial. Berol Corp., 2002 WL 1466829, at
*5,

While these factors are important, larger principles of judicial economy militate in favor
of transferring this case to North Carolina. Transferring a lawsuit to a venue in which related
litigation is pending generally serves the efficient administration of justice. When pending
litigation involves the same parties and similar legal, technical and infringement issues, transfer
to that venue is logical and strongly favored. See id. at *5, n. 5; Magnavox Co. v. APF
Electronics, Inc., 496 F. Supp. 29 (N.D. Ill. 1980). As has already been mentioned, two cases
between the same parties and involving the same issues and patents have been filed in the

potential transferee district. One of those cases settled before a full adjudication on the merits,



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
DOCKETED
ELLIS CORPORATION, ) SEP 09 2003
)
Plaintiff, ) No. 02 C 7380
)
v ) Wayne R. Andersen
) District Judge
JENSEN USA, INC. )
)
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM. OPINION AND ORDER

This case is before the Court on the motion of defendant Jensen USA, Inc. to transfer this
case to the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1404(a). For the following reasons, the motion to transfer is granted.

BACKGROUND

This suit is the third in a series of civil actions between plaintiff Ellis Corporation
(“Ellis”) and defendant Jensen USA, Incorporated (“Jensen”). Ellis is a corporation organized
under the laws of the State of Illinois and it maintains its headquarters and principal place of
business in Itasca, Illinois. Jensen is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of North
Carolina and it maintains its headquarters and principal place of business in the Charlotte, North
Carolina metropolitan area.

In June 1999, Jensen determined that Ellis was making and selling a line of washer-
extractors that allegedly infringed patents owned by Jensen — U.S. Patent No. 5,357,771 and U.S.
Patent No. 5,421,049. Upon discovering this information, Jensen filed a patent infringement

action in North Carolina against Ellis in August of 1999. After considerable discovery, the



parties agreed to a settlement and stipulated to the dismissal of the action. The settlement
agreement is required to be construed, interpreted and applied in accordance with the laws of the
State of North Carolina.

In the summer of 2002, Jensen learned that Ellis was allegedly advertising and offering
for sale a laundry machine that continued to infringe Jensen’s patents. On September 13, 2002,
Jensen filed a second action in the Western District of North Carolina against Ellis alleging, inter
alia, infringement of its patents and breach of the settlement agreement. In related transactions,
Ellis’ attorney sent a letter to Jensen’s counsel on July 23, 2002 accusing Jensen of infringing
claims of U.S. Patent Application No. 09/597,443, which eventually issued as Ellis’ U.S. Patent
No. 6,463,768. The letter threatened legal action if Jensen did not stop producing the allegedly
infringing products. The Ellis patent issued on October 15, 2002 and, on that same day, Ellis
filed the instant infringement action in this Court. Jensen subsequently amended the North
Carolina complaint to include a claim for declaratory judgment of patent invalidity and non-
infringement.

DISCUSSION

A motion to transfer is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Under Section 1404(a), a
federal district court may “for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of
justice . . . transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been
brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron Works, 796 F.2d 217, 219 (7th Cir.
1986). A Section 1404(a) transfer is appropriate only when “(1) venue was proper in the
transferor district; (2) venue and jurisdiction would be proper in the transferee district; and (3)

the transfer will serve the convenience of the parties and the witnesses as well as the interests of