Deep Nines, Inc. v. McAfee, Inc., 2009 WL 3784372(E.D.Tex. Nov 10, 2009) (NO. CIV.A.9:09CV89)
Judge: Ron Clark
Holding: Motion to Transfer Venue DENIED
"It is clear that where there is no connection with Texas or the Eastern District of Texas, venue is improper here," Judge Clark opens this opinion, citing In re Genentech, 566 F.3d 1338 (Fed.Cir.2009). That was not the situation in this case, he concluded, since there were significant contacts with Texas generally, and the Eastern District specifically. One of the Defendants has an office in the Eastern District, and several potential witnesses are located in the district. In addition, a number of witnesses have also been identified in Dallas (which seasoned venue practitioners know is immediately adjacent to the Eastern District). In addition, Judge Clark had previously adjudicated a dispute between two of the parties in this case, including a claim construction hearing and a trial, involving infringement of one of the patents-in-suit. Also, Deep Nines's claims involve, to some extent, the settlement agreement entered into by Deep Nines and McAfee at the conclusion of the earlier case, and the agreement provides that it shall be governed by Texas law. "Under these facts," Judge Clark wrote, "Secure has not met its burden to demonstrate that transfer to the District of Minnesota is 'clearly more convenient.'”
Judge: Ron Clark
Holding: Motion to Transfer Venue DENIED
"It is clear that where there is no connection with Texas or the Eastern District of Texas, venue is improper here," Judge Clark opens this opinion, citing In re Genentech, 566 F.3d 1338 (Fed.Cir.2009). That was not the situation in this case, he concluded, since there were significant contacts with Texas generally, and the Eastern District specifically. One of the Defendants has an office in the Eastern District, and several potential witnesses are located in the district. In addition, a number of witnesses have also been identified in Dallas (which seasoned venue practitioners know is immediately adjacent to the Eastern District). In addition, Judge Clark had previously adjudicated a dispute between two of the parties in this case, including a claim construction hearing and a trial, involving infringement of one of the patents-in-suit. Also, Deep Nines's claims involve, to some extent, the settlement agreement entered into by Deep Nines and McAfee at the conclusion of the earlier case, and the agreement provides that it shall be governed by Texas law. "Under these facts," Judge Clark wrote, "Secure has not met its burden to demonstrate that transfer to the District of Minnesota is 'clearly more convenient.'”
