Monster Cable Products, Inc. v. Trippe Manufacturing Co., (9-07-cv-00286) (June 18, 2008)
Judge: Ron Clark
Holding: Motion to Transfer Venue DENIED
There are four things about this opinion that readers might find interesting:
First, readers may recall that the poster child for Eastern District opinions declining to transfer patent cases, cited repeatedly by AIPLA in its amicus brief in the In re Volkswagen case, was Aerielle, Inc. v. Monster Cable Prods., Inc., 2007 WL 951639 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 26, 2007), in which the court declined to transfer the case even though both parties were from the Northern District of California. What numerous commentators did not note (although I did my best to tell them) was that while Monster is a California resident, its claims in that case of inconvenience should be considered in the context of the fact that it files its patent infringement cases not in its home district in California either, but in the Eastern District of Texas.
This was the case presented in this case, in which the defendant sought a transfer of Monster's patent infringement claims to Illinois. Judge Clark denied the motion,. noting that the defendant had not identified a single non-party witness whose testimony may be important and who would have to travel to the district. More interestingly, he noted that "[s]ince this court already has several cases involving Plaintiff’s products" it already had some expertise on the subject matter involved. What, the aggrieved defendant in Aerielle actually files its patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas too? A bunch, actually, including Monster Cable Products, Inc. v. Monster Pod Technology, Inc., Civil Action 9:07cv226 (Clark, J.) (closed March 7, 2008) and Monster Cable Products, Inc. v. Dealtree, Inc., et al., Civil Action 9:07cv306 (Clark, J.). Just a little perspective I thought readers might find useful.
Second, following Judge Love's lead in the Aloft Media case, Judge Clark explained how he handled this motion to transfer in light of the pendency of In re VW en banc.
The vacated opinion [In re VW II] “appears to adopt a slightly lower threshold favoring the party moving for transfer.” See Aloft Media, LLC v. Adobe Sys., Inc., 2008 WL 819956 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 2008). In light of the uncertainty surrounding the applicable legal standard governing Section 1404(a) venue transfer motions, this court will follow the example of the court in Aloft Media and give Trippe the benefit of the doubt by analyzing Trippe’s motion under the Volkswagen II standard, even though that opinion was vacated. Analysis under the standard set out in earlier cases would only bolster the court’s decision to deny transfer.
Third, in discussing the possibility of delay or prejudice, Judge Clark raised a few interesting facts. He first noted that the defendant admitted that the Eastern District of Texas typically brings cases to trial faster than the Northern District of Illinois, an admission supported by statistics indicating that in 2007 the median time from filing of a civil case to trial was 29.7 months in the Northern District of Illinois and 18.0 months in the Eastern District of Texas. "With more than 600 weighted case filings before the undersigned during the last twelve months, punting a complex patent case to Illinois would be the easy choice," Judge Clark wrote. "However, during the twelve months prior to September 30, 2007 the median disposition time for felony cases was 14.7 months in the Northern District of Illinois and 8.7 months in the Eastern District of Texas. Should this court shirk an irksome task by transferring it to a sister court struggling to comply with Congressional Speedy Trial Act mandates?" Accordingly, after considering whether he ought to shirk his duties by dumping on a court struggling to prosecute criminals effectively, much less handle patent cases Judge Clark decided no, he really shouldn't, and held that this factor weighed against transfer as well.
Fourth, and most important, we now have a source (well, other than judicial notice) for the statement that "Nothing patent lawyers do is cheap."
