considering that plaintiff resides in Quebec, Montreal, the court concludes that the first two private
interest factors are neutral.

The third factor, ease of access to evidence and sources of proof, favors transfer. Plaintiff
does not dispute defendant’s contention that “the vast majority” of documentation and technical
materials relevant to the instant dispute are in California, and that the cell phones that allegedly
infringe plaintiff’s patents are designed and produced in Southem California. Hence, the court
concludes that the ease of access to proof favors transfer to California.

The court finds that the fourth and fifth factors, convenience of parties and witnesses, also
favor transfer, KCW resides in California, and plaintiff resides in Montreal, Quebec. Virtually all
of the defendant’s party-witnesses reside in California, making litigation in this forum inconvenient.
Moreover, defendant has identified at least three crucial non-party witnesses cmployed by
Qualcomm, all of whom reside in Califomia, including the lead engineer and product manager for
the allegedly infringing phones at issue in the instant dispute. In contrast, plainti(Thas not identified
any potential witnesses residing in Illinois. Thus, the fourth and filth factors support transfer.

in addition to the private interest factors, the court must also consider certain public interest
factors that may warrant transfer: 1) the relationship of the community 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 an earlier
trial. See Hughes v. Cargill, Inc., 1994 WL 142994, at *2 (NLD. II. April 14, 1994).

The first factor slightly favors transfer. Although the alleged infringement occurs in both the

Northern District of Dlinois and the Southem District of Califomia, and thus gives both districts an



judicial district in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced.”).
Therefore, the court has the power to transfer the case if to do so is in the interest of justice and for
the convenience of parties and witnesses.

In evaluating the convenience and fairness of a transfer, the court considers relevant private
and public interests. The private interests include: 1) plaintiff's initial choice of forum; 2) the situs
of material events; 3) ease of access to sources of proof; 4) the availability of compulsory process
for the attendance of unwilling witnesses and the cost of obtaining the attendance of the witnesses;
and 5) the convenience to the parties, specifically their respective residences and their ability to bear

the expense of litigation in a particular foram. Georgouses v. NaTec Resources, Inc., 963 F. Supp.

728, 730 (N.D. Ill. 1997).

“The weight given to plaintiff's choice of forum is lessened if the chosen forum has relatively
weak connections with the operative facts giving rise to the claim.” Von Holdt v. Husky Injection
Molding Systems, Ltd., 887 F. Supp. 185, 188 (N.D. Ill. 1995). When “the conduct and events
giving rise to the cause of action did not take place in the plaintif"s selected forum, the plaintiff’s
preference has minimal value.” Dunn v. Soo Line R. Co., 864 F. Supp. 64, 65 (N.D. TI]. 1994).
Thus, the court must consider the situs of material events to determine how much weight to assign
to plaintiff's choice of forum.

According to the complaint, the instant casc arises out of defendant’s alleged infringement
of plaintiff's patents “within the United States.” Although plaintiff docs not single out this district

as the situs of infringement, the court presumes that “within the United States” encompasscs this

district. Nonetheless, in the absence of any allegations singling out this district over others, and



interest in resolving the instant controversy, KCW resides in California, not Illinois, Accordingly,
the Southern District of California has a stronger relationship to the instant dispute than this district.

The second factor, the court’s familiarity with applicable law, is ncutral. The instant patent
dispute involves questions of federal law, with which both districts are presumably equally familiar.’

The final factor, the speed at which the trial will progress, is neutral. The median time
interval between the filing of a civil case and trial in the Northern District of Iinois is 26.3 months,
compared with 24 months in the Southem District of California. This 2.3 month difference is
negligible and neither favors nor disfavors transfer.

Consideration of the foregoing public and private interests convinces this court that, in the
interest of justice and for the convenicnce of parties and witnesses, a transfer of venue to the
Southern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is proper.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, defendant’s motion to transfer the instant dispute to the Southern

Robert W. Gettleman
United States District Judge

District of California is granted.

ENTER: March 28, 2003

‘Although not dispositive, the court acknowledges that the California action has already
proceeded to settlement discussions. Notwithstanding plaintiff's arguments to the contrary, the
court is not empowered to stay those proceedings.

5



‘Minute Order Fuer (06/97)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Se

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

Name of Assigned Judge 4 Sitting Judge if Other
- Magistrate Judge Robert W. Gettleman than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 C 7348 DATE March 28, 2003
CASE Tony Colida v_ Kyocera Corp.
TITLE
Lin 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. ]
Ni
DOCKET ENTRY:
(1) im Filed motion of [ usc listing in “Motion” box above.]
(2) Oo Brief in support of motion due
G) im Answer brief to motion due . Reply to answer brief duc.
(4) im Hearing
(5) a Status hearing
(6) o Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on setfor at
(7) 0 Trial{sct for/re-set for] on at
(8) Oo [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at
(9) Oo This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]
OOFRCP4(m) OGeneral Rule21 OO FRCP41(a)(1) (©) FRCP41(a)(2).
(10) Ml [Other docket entry] Memorandum opinion and order entered.

Accordingly, defendant’s motion to transfer case to the Southern District
of California is granted. Status hearing date of 4/17/03 is stricken.

No notices required, advised in open court.

No notices required. number of notices

Sy.) Number!

X | Notices maited by judge’s staff,

>

PR Q. 200’

Notified counsel by telephone.

Dockeling to mail notices,

Mail AO 450 form.

oder deputy inffials

Copy to judge/magistrate judge,

LUND LIM I SIq ‘stg

date maijed notice
courtroom

deputy's
initials

SsclhY Le evweu

CHT Ma es lee

GDS

vil deputy nicnks



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

EASTERN DIVISION
TONY COLID,
A, } APR @ 1 2004
Plaintiff, )
) No, 02€ 7348
v. )
) Judge Robert W. Gettleman.
KYOCERA WIRELESS CORPORATION, )
)
Defendant. )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

In his first amended complaint, pro se plaintiff Tony Colida alleges that defendant Kyoccra
Wireless Corporation (“KWC”) infringed his design patents for a “Portable Cellular Handset
Telephone.” Defendant has moved pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer the instant action 10
the Southern District of California, For the reasons stated herein, defendant’s motion is granted.

FACTS

Plaintiff is a citizen of Canada, residing in Montreal, Quebec. Defendant KWC is
headquartered in San Diego, California. In his amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that KWC’s
sales “throughout the United States and worldwide” of its “2255" and “Q phone” products infringe
plaintiff's United States Design Patent Nos. 321,184, 321,347, and 321,349 for the “Portable
Cellular Handset Telephone.”"

Inhis initial complaint, plaintiff sued KWC’s parent company, Kyocera Corporation, which
is headquartered in Japan. Shortly thereafter, KWC initiated a declaratory judgment action in the

Southern District of California, Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. President Electronics & Tony Colida,

‘Although referenced as exhibits to the amended complaint, the registrations for these
patents were not presented to the court.

|



Casc No. 02 CV 2042-L (the “California action”), against plaintiff, involving the same patents as
the instant casc. To date, the court presiding over the California action has held two status hoarings
and scheduled an “Early Neutral Evaluation” mecting for the purpose of exploring settlement
between the parties for March 18, 2003.

After the initiation of the California action, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint in the
instant dispute against KWC alone. Indeed, the docket reflects that Kyoccra Corporation was
dismissed as a defendant on December 26, 2002, the date of the filing of the amended complaint.’

With this background in mind, the court tums to the merits of the instant motion.

DISCUSSION

28 U.S.C, § 1404(a) provides in relevant part: "For the convenience of partics 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." Pursuant to Section 1404(a), a court may transfer a civil action
to another district when: (1) venue is proper in both the transferor and transferee courts; (2) transfer
serves the convenience of the parties and witncsscs; and (3) transfer is in the interest of justice.
Symons Corp. v. Southern Forming and Supply, Inc., 954 F, Supp. 184, 186 (N.D.Tll. 1997). For the
reasons that follow, the court transfers the instant action to the Southern District of California.

With regard to the first factor, defendant concedes that venue is proper in the Northern
District of Illinois. Moreover, because KWC resides in the Southem District of California, and is
thus subject to personal jurisdiction there, venue is also proper in the Southern District of California.

See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c) (“[A] defendant that is a corporation shall be deemed to reside in any

*Notwithstanding the fact that Kyocera Corporation has been dismissed as a defendant,
the instant motion was filed on behalf of “defendants” Kyocera Corporation and KWC.

2