Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/214672151/Wireless-Media-Innovations-LLC-v-Leapfrog-Enterprises-Inc-C-A-No-13-1545-SLR-SRF-Report-and-Recommendation-D-Del-Mar-20-2014
Timestamp: 2014-07-22 11:02:33
Document Index: 583960778

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1331', '§ 1404', '§ 1404', '§ 1404', '§ 1404', '§ 1404']

P. 1Wireless Media Innovations, LLC v. Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc., C.A. No. 13-1545-SLR-SRF, Report and Recommendation (D. Del. Mar.20, 2014)Wireless Media Innovations, LLC v. Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc., C.A. No. 13-1545-SLR-SRF, Report and Recommendation (D. Del. Mar.20, 2014)Ratings: (0)|Views: 164|Likes: 0Published by Alfred ReyesReportReportMore info:Published by: Alfred Reyes on Mar 26, 2014Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reservedAvailability:Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate content|Add to collectionSee moreSee lesshttp://www.scribd.com/doc/214672151/Wireless-Media-Innovations-LLC-v-Leapfrog-Enterprises-Inc-C-A-No-13-1545-SLR-SRF-Report-and-Recommendation-D-Del-Mar-20-201403/26/2014pdftextoriginal IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE WIRELESS MEDIA INNOVATIONS, LLC, Plaintiff, V. LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant. C.A. No. 13-1545-SLR-SRF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION I INTRODUCTION On September 5, 2013, plaintiff Wireless Media Innovations, LLC ( WMI ) filed this action against defendant LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc. ( LeapFrog ) alleging infringement of United States Patent Nos. 6,148,291 ( the '291 patent ) and 5,712,789 ( the 789 patent ). (D.I. 1 Pending before the court is LeapFrog's motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of California. (D.I. 13) The court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a). For the following reasons, I recommend that the court deny LeapFrog's motion to transfer. (D .I. 13) II BACKGROUND WMI is a Delaware limited liability company that was formed by an organizer located in Texas. (D.I. 14 at 3; D.I. 15, Exs. 10-11) Additionally, WMI s manager, a limited liability corporation named Auctus, maintains its principal place of business in Texas. (D.I. 14 at 3; D.I. 15, Exs. 13-14) LeapFrog is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business located in Emeryville, California. (D.I. 14 at 3) LeapFrog designs and manufactures educational products for children. ( d.) LeapFrog has no offices, employees, marketing, or sales operations in Delaware, and does not own property in Delaware. ( d. at 3-4) LeapFrog maintains its documents, information, and tangible things in California. ( d. at 4) All alleged acts of infringement in the present matter occurred at LeapFrog's distribution center in California. ( d. at 6) III. ST ND RD OF REVIEW Section 1404(a) of Title 28 ofthe United States Code grants district courts the authority to transfer venue [f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interests of ustice to any other district or division where it might have been brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Much has been written about the legal standard for motions to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). See e.g. In re Link_A_Media Devices Corp. 662 F.3d 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co. 55 F.3d 873 (3d Cir. 1995); Helicos Biosciences Corp. v. Illumina Inc. 858 F Supp. 2d 367 (D. Del. 2012). Referring specifically to the analytical framework described in Helicos the court starts with the premise that a defendant's state of incorporation has always been a predictable, legitimate venue for bringing suit and that a plaintiff, as the injured party, generally ha[s] been 'accorded [the] privilege of bringing an action where he chooses. ' 858 F. Supp. 2d at 371 (quoting Norwood v. Kirkpatrick 349 U.S. 29, 31 (1955)). Indeed, the Third Circuit in Jumara reminds the reader that [t]he burden of establishing the need for transfer rests with the Although LeapFrog sells its products nationally, WMI does not accuse any of LeapFrog's education products of infringement. Instead WMI alleges that at least one yard management system and operative methods associated therewith to monitor the locations, movement, and load statuses of shipping containers at facilities used by LeapFrog infringes the patents-in-suit. (D.I. 1 at -r -r 11-12, 15-16) 2 movant and that, in ruling on defendants' motion, the plaintiffs choice of venue should not be lightly disturbed. 55 F.3d at 879 (citation omitted). The Third Circuit goes on to recognize that, [i]n ruling on§ 1404(a) motions, courts have not limited their consideration to the three enumerated factors in§ 1404(a) (convenience of parties, convenience of witnesses, or interests of justice), and, indeed, commentators have called on the courts to consider all relevant factors to determine whether on balance the litigation would more conveniently proceed and the interests of justice be better served by transfer to a different forum. d. (citation omitted). The Court then describes some ofthe many variants of the private and public interests protected by the language of§ 1404(a). d. The private interests have included: plaintiffs forum of preference as manifested in the original choice; the defendant's preference; whether the claim arose elsewhere; the convenience of the parties as indicated by their relative physical and financial condition; the convenience of the witnesses but only to the extent that the witnesses may actually be unavailable for trial in one of the fora; and the location of books and records (similarly limited to the extent that the files could not be produced in the alternative forum). The public interests have included: the enforceability ofthe judgment; practical considerations that could make the trial easy, expeditious, or inexpensive; the relative administrative difficulty in the two fora resulting from court congestion; the local interest in deciding local controversies at home; the public policies of the fora; and the familiarity of the trial judge with the applicable state law in diversity cases. d. (citations omitted). IV ANALYSIS As this court has previously emphasized, transfer motions affect federal comity and are discretionary decisions by the trial court. See, e.g. McRo Inc. v. Activision Blizzard Inc. 2013 WL 6571618, at *2 D. Del. Dec. 13, 2013). Therefore, there is no bright line guidepost 3 Activity (0)FiltersAdd to collectionReview Add NoteLikeShowingAllMost RecentReviewsAll NotesLikesYou've already reviewed this. Edit your review.Rating 0/5Post notePost reviewPost replyPost note and likeNo activity yetLoad more
More From This User Cot’n Wash, Inc., et al. v. Henkel Corp, et al., C.A. No....
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l...
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library HBAC Matchmaker Media, Inc. v. CBS Interactive Inc., C.A....
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Hand Held Products, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al., C.A...
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Antares Pharma, Inc. v. Medac Pharma, Inc., et al., C.A. ...
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. v. Innopharma, Inc...
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Masimo Corp. v. Philips Elec. N. Am. Corp., et al., C.A. ...
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Andover Healthcare, Inc. v. 3M Company, C.A. No. 13-843-L...
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Joao Bock Transaction Systems, LLC v. Jack Henry & Associ...
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Butamax May 19 Order
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Butamax™ Advanced Biofuels, LLC v. Gevo, Inc, et al., C.A...
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library M/A-COM Technology Solutions Holdings, Inc. v. Laird Tech...
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Versata Software, Inc. v. Callidus Software, Inc., Civ. N...
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Robocast, Inc. v. Apple Inc., C.A. No. 11-235-RGA (D. Del...
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Carrier Corp. v. Goodman Global, Inc. et al., C.A. No. 12...
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library SecureBuy, LLC v. CardinalCommerce Corporation, C.A. No. ...
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Walker Digital - 11-318
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Cornerstone Therapeutics Inc., et al. v. Exela Pharma Sci...
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Pragmatus Telecom LLC v. Aspect Software Inc., C.A. No. 1...
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library HSM Portfolio LLC, et al. v. Fujitsu Limited, et al., C.A...
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Case Management Checklist
Added to My Library Click again to add to a collection Removed from your Library Procedures for Managing Patent Cases