Micro Design LLC v. ASUS Computer International, C.A. No. 14-837-LPS-CJB, May 1, 2015
Burke, M.J. Defendant’s motion to transfer is denied. Briefing on the motion was completed on February 2, 2015 and the case is scheduled for trial on April 10, 2017.
A motion to transfer venue is considered a non-dispositive motion. There are 7 related cases regarding the same patent-in-suit. Plaintiff is a Delaware LLC with its principal place of business in Wilmington. Defendant is a California Corporation with its principal place of business in California. It is responsible for US sales, marketing, distribution and service of the accused products. The disputed technology relates to a method and apparatus for issuing a command to store an instruction and load resultant data in a microcontroller. All of the related cases involve the same patent claims and all accused products include the same coprocessor. Defendant claims that plaintiff misrepresented the location of its business, but did not persuade the court that the office is nothing more than a drop box. Plaintiff’s choice of Delaware weighs against transfer despite defendant’s arguments that plaintiff manipulated the forum. Defendant’s choice of California where its business is located weighs in favor of transfer. Place where the claims arose factor weighs slightly in favor of transfer. The convenience of the parties and witnesses factors are neutral. The location of books and records weighs slightly in favor of transfer. The public interest factors weigh against transfer primarily due to the number of related cases in Delaware. The balancing of these factors do not weigh strongly in favor of transfer and therefore the motion to transfer is denied.