Source: http://wa.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20180409_0002397.WWA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 14:42:26+00:00

Document:
WIRELESS ACCESSORY SOLUTIONS, LLC, d/b/a IBOLT - WIRELESS ACCESSORY SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant.
Before the court are the parties' responses to the court's order to show cause why the court should not transfer Plaintiff National Products, Inc.'s (“NPI”) non-patent claims against Defendant Wireless Accessory Solutions, LLC, d/b/a iBolt - Wireless Accessory Solutions, LLC (“iBolt”) to the Central District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). (iBolt Resp. (Dkt. # 28); NPI Resp. (Dkt. ## 31 (redacted), 33 (sealed).) On March 23, 2018, the court determined, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1400(b) and 1406(a), that venue of NPI's patent claim against iBolt was improper in this district and the claim should be transferred to the Central District of California. (Order (Dkt. # 27) at 7-17, 19.) In the same order, the court ordered the parties to show cause why the court should not also transfer NPI's non-patent claims to the Central District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). (Order at 17-19.) The court deferred transferring NPI's patent claim until after it reviewed NPI's and iBolt's responses to the court's order to show cause. (Id. at 18-19.) Having reviewed the parties' responses, the court now DIRECTS the Clerk to transfer the entire case-both NPI's patent and non-patent claims against iBolt-to the Central District of California for the reasons stated herein.
On December 29, 2015, NPR filed a complaint against iBolt in the Western District of Washington alleging patent and trademark claims, along with a variety of state law claims. (See Compl. (Dkt. # 1).) On September 19, 2017, the court held a claims construction hearing (see 15-1984 9/19/17 Min. Entry (Dkt. # 95)) and subsequently issued a claims construction order (15-1984 CC Order (Dkt. # 96)).
On November 30, 2017, iBolt filed a motion to dismiss or transfer NPI's patent claim based on improper venue under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1400(b) and 1406(a). (See 15-1984 MTD (Dkt. # 111).) On March 23, 2018, the court granted iBolt's motion and determined that NPI's patent claim should be transferred to the Central District of California. (Order at 7-17, 19.) The court, however, deferred transferring NPI's patent claim until after the court reviewed the parties' responses to the court's order to show cause why it should not also transfer NPI's non-patent claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). (Order at 17-19.) The court now considers whether to transfer NPI's non-patent claims.
“For 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The threshold question is whether the plaintiff could have originally brought the action in the forum proposed for transfer. See Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 344 (1960). Once this question is resolved, district courts have discretion to transfer venue on a case-by-case basis. Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988).
(1) the location where the relevant agreements were negotiated and executed, (2) the state that is most familiar with the governing law, (3) the plaintiff's choice of forum, (4) the respective parties' contacts with the forum, (5) the contacts relating to the plaintiff's cause of action in the chosen forum, (6) the differences in the costs of litigation in the two forums, (7) the availability of compulsory process to compel attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses, and (8) the ease of access to sources of proof.
Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-99 (9th Cir. 2000) (footnotes omitted). The court now considers the relevant public and private factors.

References: § 1404
 § 1404
 § 1404
 § 1404
 v. 
 v. 
 v.