3. Convenience of the Witnesses and Parties

The convenience of the witnesses often is viewed as the most important factor to consider
in evaluating whether a transfer would be appropriate. Ambrose v. Steelcase, Inc., 2002 WL
1447871, at * 3 (N.D. Ill. July 3, 2002). In this case, neither party has identified any individual
witnesses in Illinois. The majority of the witnesses are located either in Tennessee or California.
Thus, consideration of the convenience of the witnesses for The Heil Company does not tilt the
scales in one direction or another as these witnesses will have to travel no matter where the trial
will occur. However, consideration of the convenience of the witnesses for Curotto Can does tilt
the scale in favor of transfer as defendant’s witnesses are located in California.

With regard to convenience of the parties, neither party is located in Illinois while one
party is located in California. Also, it is not a significant burden for The Heil Company to travel
from Tennessee to California rather than to Illinois as in either instance it cannot avoid travel.
Also, the fact that counsel for The Heil Company is located in Chicago does not tilt the scales in
favor of The Heil Company in the transfer analysis. See Hemstreet v. Scan-Optics, Inc., 1990
WL 36703, at * 4 (N.D. Ill. Mar, 9, 1990) (stating that “{t]he convenience and location of counsel
have never been accorded weight in a transfer analysis”).

4, Public Interests of Justice

The final consideration is whether a change of venue would serve the overall interests of
justice. Public interests include a court’s familiarity with applicable law and the desirability of
resolving controversies in its locale. Anchor Wall Systems, Inc., 55 F. Supp. 2d at 874. Both
forums are equally familiar with federal patent law. However, Illinois does not have a strong

interest in adjudicating a case between two companies neither of which is located in this State,


1, Plaintiff's Choice of Forum

Although The Heil Company filed suit in this district, its choice of forum has diminished
significance because it is not a resident of Illinois. Thus, this factor is simply another factor in
the mix and is not given any additional weight. H.B. Sherman Mfg. Co. v. Rain Bird Nat'l Sales
Corp., 979 F. Supp, 627, 630 (N.D. Ill. 1997). The weight given to a plaintiff's choice of forum
is further lessened if the chosen forum lacks any significant connection to the lawsuit. Anchor
Wall Systems, Inc., 55 F. Supp. 2d at 874. ,

In this case, The Heil Company is not located in Illinois and does not appear to have any
connection with this forum. Curotto Can also is not located in Illinois and has limited connection
with this forum based on-minimal sales that have taken place in Illinois and the headquarters of
the company that manufactures the alleged infringing product is in Illinois, However, the actual
manufacturing activities take place in Canada. Thus, little weight will be accorded The Heil
Company’s choice of forum in this case.

2. Situs of Material Events

In patent cases, courts often focus on “the alleged infringing activities of the defendant
and the employees and documents that evidence these activities,” and the situs of the material
events generally is where the alleged infringing activities occurred. Sitrick v. Dreamworks LLC,
2003 WL 21147898, at * 3 (N.D. Ill. May 14, 2003). In this case, the Northern District of INinois
has a de minimus connection with the operative facts giving rise to the alleged infringement
while the Northern District of California has a much greater connection because Curotto Can is
headquartered in Northern California and its sales activities are based in California. Thus,

consideration of the situs of material events favors the transfer of this matter to California.


and California has a greater interest in resolving a patent infringement action involving a
company headquartered in California.

In addition, although this Court oversaw discovery in this matter, we have not resolved
any substantive legal issues in this case. All substantive matters have been stayed pending
settlement negotiations, and contrary to The Heil Company’s claim, no trial date has been set.
Thus, because this lawsuit does not have any significant connection to this forum, the interests of
justice are better served by transferring this matter to the Northern District of California.

Having examined each of the factors enumerated above, we conclude that the continued
litigation of this case in the Northem District of Califomia is clearly more convenient and in the
interests of justice.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion to transfer venue is granted, and this mater

is transferred to the United States District Court for the Northen District of California.

It is so ordered.

Lb. ~ (A

7 Wayne R. Andersen
United States District Court

pated, 7 Maetd. DL P24) 4



Minwie Ong Form (0897),

( United States District Court, Northern District of Minois

qu)

aalihtiers as juate Wayne R. Andersen oan Anttned Sodes

CASE NUMBER 2C 782 DATE 3/30/2004

CASE The Heil Company vs. Curotto Can Company

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) ia] Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) oO Brief in support of motion due___.
(3) a Answer brief to motion due. . Reply to answer briefdue___.
(4) Oo Ruling/Hearing on setfor sat
(5) Oo Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on___—ssetfor___—_—aat
(6) a Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for]on__—setfor__—Ss—saat_—
~” QO Trial{set for/re-set for]on__at
(8) o [Bench/Jury trial} [Hearing] held/continued to__—__at
(9) oO This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OFRCP4(m) O Local Rule 41.1 OFRCP41(a)(1) O FRCP41(a)(2).

(10) WW [Other docket entry] Enter MEMORANDUM, OPINION AND ORDER: Defendant’s motion

to transfer venue [22-1] is granted, and this matter is transferred to the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California.

1 | [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.
No notices required.

Notices mailed by judge's staff,
Notified counsel by telephone.
Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form.

Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

courtroom
TSA deputy’s

initials -
Date/time received in’
central Clerk's Office +



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

EASTERN DIVISION
THE HEIL COMPANY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
Case No. 02 C 782
\. } WAR 8 0 2004
) ‘Wayne R. Andersen
CUROTTO CAN COMPANY, ) District Judge.
) a
Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on defendant Curotto Can Company’s motion to transfer
this case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California pursuant to 28
USS.C. § 1404(a). For the following reasons, the motion to transfer venue is granted.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff The Heil Company filed a patent infringement action against defendant Curotto
Can Company on February 1, 2002. On May 14, 2003, after prolonged discussions between the
parties and settlement negotiations, defendant filed a motion for change of venue pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1404(a), which is presently before the Court. In the intervening period, defendant has
filed counterclaims alleging invalidity and unenforceability of the two patents that The Heil
Company claims have been infringed.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

In considering a motion to transfer venue, the court accepts all well-pleaded allegations in
the complaint as true unless controverted by affidavit. Plotkin v. IP Axess, Inc., 168 F. Supp. 2d

899, 900 (N.D. Ill. 2001). Any conflict in an affidavit is resolved in favor of the plaintiff.


Turnock v. Cope, 816 F.2d 332, 333 (7th Cir. 1987). The decision whether to transfer is in the
sound discretion of the trial judge. Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron Works, 796 F.2d 217, 219 (7th Cir.
1986).

B. Transfer of Venue

Curotto Can has moved to transfer this case to the Northern District of California.
Pursuant to 28 U.S. C. § 1404(a), “[fJor 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.” The moving party has the burden to establish that the transfer forum
is “clearly more convenient” than the transferor court. Coffey, 796 F.2d at 219-220.

Transfer is appropriate pursuant to section 1404(a) when the moving party demonstrates
that: (1) venue is proper in the transferor district; (2) venue and jurisdiction are proper in the
transferee district; and (3) a transfer will serve the convenience of the parties, the witnesses and
the interests of justice. Anchor Wall Systems, Inc. v. R&D Concrete Products, Inc., 55 F. Supp.
2d 871, 873 (N.D. Ill 1999). There is no dispute that venue and jurisdiction are proper in this
Court as well as in the Northern District of California, Thus, resolution of this issue centers
principally around the third factor.

The convenience and fairness inquiry for a transfer pursuant to section 1404(a) is
determined on a case by case basis by looking at the private interests of the parties and witnesses
and the public interest of the court. Coffey, 796 F.2d 219. Private interests generally include: (1)
plaintiff's choice of forum; (2) the situs of material events; (3) the relative ease of access to
sources of proof in each forum; and (4) convenience to the parties. Anchor Wall Systems, Inc.,

55 F. Supp. 2d at 873.