Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Celgard, LLC v. LG Chem, Ltd.

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division

May 21, 2015

CELGARD, LLC, Plaintiff,
v.
LG CHEM, LTD., and LG CHEM AMERICA, INC., Defendants.

ORDER

MAX O. COGBURN, Jr., District Judge.

THIS MATTER is before the court on Plaintiff's "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Order Granting Defendants' Alternative Motion to Transfer Venue" (Document No. 266), the associated response (Document No. 269), and the supplemental briefs allowed by the court (Document Nos. 275-1; 278). The court heard oral argument on the objections on April 8, 2015. Also before the court are Defendants' "Motion To Dismiss Counts III, IV, V, VI of Celgard's First Amended Complaint..." (Document No. 222), Defendants' "Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint For Lack Of Personal Jurisdiction" (Document No. 226), and the associated briefs. Having considered the briefs, the oral arguments of counsel as to the objections, the Magistrate Judge's Order, and the record in this matter, the court enters the following Order.

I. INTRODUCTION

Celgard, LLC ("Plaintiff" or "Celgard") initiated this patent infringement action on January 30, 2014, asserting claims against LG Chem, Ltd. ("LGC") and LG Chem America, Inc. ("LGCAI") (together "LG Chem" or "Defendants") for: (1) direct infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6, 432, 586; and (2) induced infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6, 432, 586. (Document No. 1, pp.10-12). The underlying patent, U.S. Patent No. 6, 432, 586 (the "'586 patent"), is titled "Separator for a High Energy Rechargeable Lithium Battery, " and relates to "separators" used in the construction of high energy rechargeable lithium-ion batteries. See (Document No. 1, ¶ 7); (Document No. 1-A, p.1). Put simply, this technology reduces the likelihood that a battery will fail, catch fire, or experience a short. See (Document Nos. 16, p.4; 1-A, p.1).

Plaintiff's Amended Complaint generally alleges that LG Chem obtains uncoated polymeric base films from third parties, to which it applies a ceramic coating layer to create battery separators that fall within the scope of the '586 Patent. (Document No. 217, ¶ 51). The separators are then sold by LGC and/or LGCAI to third parties, or used in Defendants' own production of lithium-ion batteries, all allegedly in violation of the '586 Patent. Id. at ¶¶106-09. Plaintiff alleges that batteries containing infringing separators manufactured by Defendants are used in various consumer electronic devices and electric vehicles that are sold throughout the United States, including North Carolina. Id. at ¶¶16, 52-53, 106.

A. Factual Background and Relationship Of The Parties

As previously discussed by this court, see (Document No. 128), the factual setting of this patent dispute is somewhat unique and, as it relates to the contested issue of personal jurisdiction, bears repeating here. In contrast to the typical patent litigation in which the parties produce the same or similar product, compete for the same customers, and have little or no prior relationship with the opposition, the parties in this case have been involved with each other in the production of lithium ion batteries since 2005. Beginning in 2006 and continuing through 2008, Celgard supplied LGC, on an as-needed purchase order basis, with uncoated base films to be used in the production of lithium-ion batteries for consumer-electronic ("CE") products. (Document No. 18, Declaration of Mitchell Pulwer ("Pulwer Decl."), ¶¶ 4-5; Document No. 217, ¶ 67). In 2008, at LGC's request, the relationship significantly expanded as the parties entered into discussions regarding the prospect of Celgard becoming LGC's exclusive supplier of base film for lithium-ion batteries to be used in electric vehicles ("EVs"). (Pulwer Decl., ¶ 6; Document No. 217, ¶ 17).

As the parties began negotiating the terms of a Long Term Supply Agreement ("LTA") that would solidify their new relationship, LGC notified Celgard that it would need to increase its production capacity to satisfy LGC's supply demands. (Pulwer Decl. ¶ 8). Negotiating the terms of the LTA for Celgard was its Vice President and General Manager Mitch Pulwer. Id. at ¶ 1. During these negotiations, Jai Ham, a Vice President of LGC, explained to Pulwer that if Celgard "demonstrated its commitment" to LGC and their new relationship by expanding its production capacity, LGC would enter into the LTA, with Celgard becoming the exclusive supplier of base film for LGC's EV program. Id. at ¶ 8. Plaintiff states that in reliance on this representation and in order to meet LGC's supply demands, Celgard began a five-phase expansion project including an expansion to its Charlotte, North Carolina facility and the construction of a new facility in Concord, North Carolina, costing in excess of $300, 000, 000. Id. at ¶ 9; (Document No. 217, ¶ 68-70). LGC stopped purchasing base film for use in CE devices in 2008 in order for Plaintiff to be able to focus exclusively on producing base film for EVs. (Pulwer Decl. ¶ 6).

Despite Celgard's expansion, the parties were unable to reach an agreement on the LTA. According to Celgard, LGC continuously rejected terms to which the parties had previously agreed, made counterproposals that included only minor changes, and requested changes that included terms that it had rejected during previous rounds of negotiations. Id. at ¶ 11. The parties were able to agree to a Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") as a precursor to an LTA. Id. at ¶ 13; MOU (Document No. 18-1), p.2 ("LGC and Celgard understand that this is a non-binding MOU and is made in anticipation of the parties entering into a long-term supply agreement").

Under the MOU, the parties agreed to "work together in a collaborative effort" during the "Collaboration Period, " which ran from March 11, 2011, to December 31, 2015. Id. at p. 2-3. However, the agreement was non-binding and stated that neither party was bound to enter into a subsequent supply agreement. Id. Generally speaking, the MOU includes the following principal terms: (1) that LGC will purchase separators[1] "primarily" from Celgard as long as Celgard is able to supply separators to LGC meeting certain qualifications and "overall program objectives which includes price competitiveness, in the quantity needed"; (2) that "LGC intends to purchase the majority of separator required for each application in which Celgard is qualified as long as the Celgard separator" meets the above conditions; and (3) that LGC will give "priority" to Celgard separators in any new application for the electric drive vehicle ("EDV") and energy storage system ("ESS") markets. Id.

Following the execution of the MOU in 2011, the parties' relationship began to sour over price and quantity disputes. According to Celgard, between 2009 and July 2013, LGC purchased substantially all of its base film requirements for the EV industry from Celgard. (Pulwer Decl., ¶ 19). In November of 2012, LGC demanded that Celgard significantly reduce its prices and threatened to use other base film suppliers should Celgard refuse. Id. at ¶ 21. Believing that LGC's price demands were contrary to past negotiations and course of dealings, Celgard refused to lower its prices. Id. at ¶ 23. After that, the parties' relationship spiraled downward. In June 2013, LGC gave notice that Celgard was being phased out of the EV program beginning in September 2013, with Celgard being completely out by April 2014. Id. at ¶ 25. Celgard filled all outstanding orders but stopped taking additional purchase orders from LGC. Id. at ¶ 26. Its final shipment of base film material to LGC was in July 2013. (Document No. 80 ("Paulus Decl."), ¶ 7). Celgard filed this suit in January 2014, bringing the above-mentioned claims for patent infringement.

B. Procedural History

Approximately one month after filing the original complaint in this matter, on March 5, 2014, Plaintiff filed a "Motion For Preliminary Injunction." (Document No. 15). On March 19, 2014, Defendants filed a "Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint For Lack Of Personal Jurisdiction" (Document No. 30). On April 7, 2014, Plaintiff filed an "Alternative Motion For Jurisdictional Discovery." (Document No. 58). On April 23, 2014, Defendants filed an "Alternative Motion To Transfer Venue To The Eastern District Of Michigan." (Document No. 71). On May 14, 2014, the undersigned held a hearing on the aforementioned motions, during which the court primarily considered arguments on the issues of personal jurisdiction and a preliminary injunction.

The undersigned issued an "Order" (Document No. 128) on July 18, 2014, granting Plaintiff's "Motion For Preliminary Injunction" (Document No. 15) and Plaintiff's "Alternative Motion For Jurisdictional Discovery" (Document No. 58), and directing that "The LG Chem Defendants' Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint For Lack Of Personal Jurisdiction" (Document No. 30) and "The LG Chem Defendants' Alternative Motion To Transfer Venue To The Eastern District Of Michigan" (Document No. 71) be referred to Magistrate Judge Keesler for consideration after jurisdictional discovery. The Order also discussed the factual setting, the history of the parties' business transactions, the relationship of the parties to North Carolina, and the appropriateness of jurisdictional discovery. (Document No. 128, at p.2-6). Judge Keesler issued an "Order" (Document No. 139) on July 21, 2014, setting limits and deadlines for jurisdictional discovery. Also on July 21, 2014, Defendants filed a "Notice of Appeal" as to the Order granting the Preliminary Injunction. (Document No. 150). On July 22, 2014, the undersigned issued an Order, (Document No. 160), granting Defendants' "Motion to Stay Preliminary Injunction Pending Appeal." On August 13, 2014, the undersigned entered an Order, (Document No. 188), denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration of the Order Granting LG Chem's Motion to Stay. (Document No. 165). On August 15, 2014, Plaintiff filed a "Notice of Appeal" (Document No. 191) as to the Order granting Defendants' Motion to Stay, and from the Order denying Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration. Both appeals are currently before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. See Celgard, LLC v. LG Chem, Ltd., No. 14-01675, (Fed. Cir. 2014).

On August 26, 2014, Judge Keesler issued an "Order And Memorandum And Recommendation" (Document No. 204) allowing Plaintiff to file an Amended Complaint incorporating the results of jurisdictional discovery, and recommending that the pending motions to dismiss and transfer (Document Nos. 30 and 71) be denied as moot.

Plaintiff filed its "First Amended Complaint" (Document No. 217) on September 5, 2014. The Amended Complaint re-asserts claims for direct infringement and induced infringement of the '586 Patent by both Defendants. Plaintiff alleges that after the parties' business relationship went sour, "Defendants walked away from their prior commitments and chose to purchase, coat and sell infringing ceramic coated separator with base film from other suppliers, despite their knowledge that these actions infringed on Celgard's exclusive patent rights." (Document No. 217, ¶ 1). The Amended Complaint also adds claims against LGC (only) for: unfair and deceptive trade practices; breach of contract; breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and, in the alternative, unjust enrichment. Id. at ¶¶ 115-143. The new claims against LGC relate to Plaintiff's role as a supplier of separator base film for lithium-ion batteries manufactured by LGC for EVs. Id. at ¶ 1. Plaintiff's additional counts contend that LGC is liable for its "repeated false promises to use Celgard as its exclusive and/or primary long-term supplier of base film for the electric vehicle industry." Id. ¶ 116.

On September 29, 2014, Defendants filed: (1) "Motion To Dismiss Counts III, IV, V, VI, Celgard's First Amended Complaint..." (Document No. 222); (2) "Motion To Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint For Lack Of Personal Jurisdiction" (Document No. 226); and (3) "Alternative Motion To Transfer Venue To The Eastern District Of Michigan In Whole Or In Part." (Document No. 230). On February 18, 2015, Judge Keesler issued an Order (Document No. 262) granting Defendants' "Alternative Motion to Transfer." In this Order, Judge Keesler declined to address the merits of, or make any recommendations regarding, the two Motions to Dismiss. In doing so, Judge Keesler cited, among other authority, BSN Medical, Inc. v. American Medical Products, LLC, 3:11cv092-GCM-DSC, 2012 WL 171269, at *2 (W.D. N.C. Jan. 20, 2012), wherein another magistrate judge in this district granted an alternative motion to transfer without reaching the merits of the motion to dismiss. Plaintiff has timely objected to Judge Keesler's Order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Fed. R. Civ. P 72(a). Defendants have responded to such objections and the matter is now ripe for review.

II. ALTERNATIVE MOTION TO TRANSFER

A. Standard of Review

When a magistrate judge issues an order on a non-dispositive matter, "[t]he district judge in the case must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the order that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a). See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(B)(1)(A) ("A judge of the court may reconsider any pretrial matter under this subparagraph (A) where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law."). In engaging in such review, a finding is "clearly erroneous' when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court... is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." High Voltage Beverages, L.L.C. v. Coca-Cola Co., No. 3:08-CV-367, 2010 WL 2342458, at *1 (W.D. N.C. June 8, 2010) (citing Walton v. Johnson, 440 F.3d 160, 173-74 (4th Cir. 2006)). A magistrate judge's order is "contrary to law" where he "failed to apply or misapplied statutes, case law, or procedural rules." Id. (citing Miceli v. KBRG of Statesville, L.L.C., No. 5:05-CV-265-V, 2008 WL 2945451, at *1 (W.D. N.C. July 24, 2008)).

B. Discussion of Plaintiff's Objections

1. Standing Order Regarding Magistrate Judge Referrals

This court's "Standing Order" regarding referrals to Magistrate Judges in this District, No. 3:11-mc-25-MOC (W.D. N.C., Mar. 16, 2011) provides, in relevant part:

pursuant to 28, United States Code, Section 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 72.1, in civil and miscellaneous cases, magistrate judges shall be specifically referred the following duties:
...
to dispose of non-dispositive civil motions, including but not limited to motions for... transfer to another division or district... Where a non-dispositive motion is pled in the alternative to a dispositive motion, a Memorandum and Recommendation will be entered as to both motions.

Id. Plaintiff's first objection centers on the argument that because Judge Keesler issued an order on a non-dispositive motion (to transfer) without addressing the merits of the two dispositive motions (to dismiss) through a Memorandum and Recommendation, Judge Keesler violated this Court's Standing Order and thus is contrary to law. Plaintiff argues that the proper remedy for this error is to require Judge Keesler to issue a Memorandum and Recommendation for each of the dispositive motions, as well as the non-dispositive alternative motion.

As discussed at the hearing, the undersigned regards the Standing Order as an in-house policy for chambers to follow in an attempt to efficiently resolve the merits of motions and move the docket along. While the court always finds it helpful to have recommendations on legal issues from the magistrate judges of this district, a magistrate judge's failure to comply with the procedures of the Standing Order does not constitute grounds for overturning his decision. The court will therefore overrule Plaintiff's objection as to Judge Keesler's non-compliance with the Standing Order.

The court finds in this situation, however, that the merits of the dispositive motions have a significant bearing on the resolution of the alternative motion to transfer. In light of the fact that the uncertainty of the jurisdictional issue was a significant reason for Judge Keesler's Order transferring venue, see (Document No. 262, pp.7-9), the court finds that the proper course of action here would have been to address the issue of personal jurisdiction (raised in the dispositive Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction) simultaneously with the issue of transfer.

The court will therefore address both of the dispositive motions along with the objections to the Order transferring venue.

2. Transfer of Venue

i. Legal Standards

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) provides: "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 or to any district or division to which all parties have consented." Id. 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), which specifically governs venue in patent actions, provides, "[a]ny civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business." Id. A motion to transfer pursuant to § 1404(a) in a patent case requires application of the law of the regional circuit. In re Link A Media Devices Corp., 662 F.3d 1221, 1222-23 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

Upon a motion to transfer, the moving party carries a heavy burden. Duke Energy Florida, Inc. v. Westinghouse Elec. Co., No. 3:14-CV-00141-MOC, 2014 WL 2572960, at *5 (W.D. N.C. June 9, 2014) (citing Datasouth Computer Corp. v. Three Dimensional Technologies, Inc., 719 F.Supp. 446, 451 (W.D. N.C. 1989)). A court's decision to grant a motion to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is largely discretionary. 3A Composites USA, Inc. v. United Indus., Inc., No. 5:13CV83-RLV, 2014 WL 1471075, at *1 (W.D. N.C. Apr. 15, 2014) (citing Landers v. Dawson Const. Plant Ltd., 201 F.3d 436, 1999 WL 991419, *2 (4th Cir. 1999)). In exercising such discretion, the court applies a balancing test and considers various factors in deciding whether transfer is appropriate. Jim Crockett Promotions, Inc. v. Action Media Grp., Inc., 751 F.Supp. 93 (W.D. N.C. 1990). The factors to be considered include:

1. The plaintiff's initial choice of forum;
2. The residence of the parties;
3. The relative ease of access of proof;
4. The availability of compulsory process for attendance of witnesses and the costs of obtaining attendance of willing witnesses;
5. The possibility of a view by the jury;
6. The enforceability of a judgment, if obtained;
7. The relative advantages and obstacles to a fair trial;
8. Other practical problems that make a trial easy, expeditious, and inexpensive;
9. The administrative difficulties of court congestion;
10. The interest in having localized controversies settled at home and the appropriateness in having the trial of a diversity case in a forum that is at home with state law that must govern the action; and
11. The avoidance of unnecessary problems with conflict of laws.

Id. "The above factors fall into three categories: (1) factors that favor neither party, (2) factors that favor Defendant, and (3) factors that favor Plaintiff." Cohen v. ZL Technologies, Inc., No. 3:14-CV-00377-FDW, 2015 WL 93732, at *2 (W.D. N.C. Jan. 7, 2015) (citing Crockett, 751 F.Supp. at 98). The court must analyze the eleven factors based on quality, not just quantity. Id. (citing Crockett, 751 F.Supp. at 96). In most cases, the plaintiff's choice of forum should be given significant weight, and should not be disturbed unless the balance is strongly in favor of transfer. Collins v. Straight, Inc., 748 F.2d 916, 921 (4th Cir. 1984) (citing Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947)). A motion should not be granted if transfer "would merely shift the inconvenience from the defendant to the plaintiff, or if the equities lean but slightly in favor of the movant after all factors are considered." Jim Crockett Promotions, Inc. v. Action Media Grp., Inc., 751 F.Supp. 93, 95 (W.D. N.C. 1990).

On a motion to transfer, the facts as alleged in the complaint are accepted as true and all reasonable inferences are drawn in the plaintiff's favor. Century Furniture, LLC v. C & C Imps., Inc., No. 1:07cv179, 2007 WL 2712955, at *2 (W.D. N.C. Sept. 14, 2007).

As noted by Judge Keesler, "While a court typically decides the question of personal jurisdiction over a defendant before considering venue, the Supreme Court has held that when there is a sound prudential justification for doing so, ... a court may reverse the normal order of considering personal jurisdiction and venue.'" BSN Medical, Inc. v. American Medical Products, LLC, 3:11cv092-GCM-DSC, 2012 WL 171269, at *2 (W.D. N.C. Jan. 20, 2012) (citing Leroy v. Great W. United Corp., 443 U.S. 173, 180 (1979)). "A court need not have personal jurisdiction over a defendant to transfer a case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) or 1406(a)." Id.

ii. The Magistrate Judge's Order

Judge Keesler found good cause to allow Defendants' motion to transfer to the Eastern District of Michigan and, citing BSN Medical, declined to make any recommendation as to the pending dispositive motions, including the motion pertaining to personal jurisdiction. Judge Keesler found that the question of personal jurisdiction over Defendants in North Carolina presented a "close call upon which reasonable minds could differ, " and that the issue remained uncertain even after a round of briefing, oral arguments, and a jurisdictional discovery period prior to the filing of an Amended Complaint and renewed motions. (Document No. 262, p. 7). Judge Keesler also noted that this court recently rejected many of the same jurisdictional arguments that Plaintiff made in this case in a different patent infringement lawsuit filed by Plaintiff against a different defendant. See (Document No. 262, p. 7) (citing Celgard, LLC v. SK Innovation, Co., Ltd., 3:13cv254-MOC-DSC, 2014 WL 5430993 (W.D. N.C. Aug. 29, 2014)). He noted that he found it doubtful that this court has personal jurisdiction over both Defendants with regard to all the claims asserted against them, but that Defendants admit to jurisdiction in Michigan.[2] Id.

In making the decision to grant transfer in light of what he found to be "doubtful" jurisdiction over both Defendants in North Carolina and Defendants' concessions that they are subject to jurisdiction in Michigan, Judge Keesler cited several decisions from district courts in this circuit doing the same. See (Document No. 262, pp.8-9 (citing La Casa Real Estate & Inv., LLC v. KB Home of S.C., Inc., No. 1:09CV895, 2010 WL 2649867, at *2 (M.D. N.C. June 30, 2010) ("in the interests of convenience, fairness and judicial economy, the Court elects to consider Defendant's Motion to Transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) before reaching any issues related to the Court's jurisdiction."); Nacco Materials Handling Grp., Inc. v. Lilly Co., 2011 WL 2119097, at *4 (E.D. N.C. May 25, 2011) (granting motion to transfer when personal jurisdiction over defendant remained "in serious doubt"); Waldron v. Atradius Collections, Inc., 2010 WL 2367392, at *3 (D.Md. June 9, 2010) ("[T]he constitutional question of personal jurisdiction is a close one upon which reasonable minds could differ. There is no reason to inject such a question into the case unnecessarily."); Jenkins v. Albuquerque Lonestar Freightliner, LLC, 464 F.Supp.2d 491, 494 (E.D. N.C. 2006) (granting motion to transfer in part because "the absence of personal jurisdiction over the defendant" in the original forum but not the transferee forum is an "impediment to a decision on the merits"); Tyler v. Gaines Motor Lines, Inc., 245 F.Supp.2d 730, 734 (D.Md. 2003) (transferring case in interest of justice because the question of personal jurisdiction was a "close one" and "would inject into the case an unnecessary legal issue that would render the entire litigation null and void, if, on appeal, jurisdiction were found to be lacking")). While the court agrees that the issue of personal jurisdiction presents a "close call" in this case, it also believes that the parties deserve a thorough analysis of the dispositive question of personal jurisdiction before this matter is transferred to another district.

iii. Review of Crockett Analysis

Plaintiff argues that Judge Keesler's Order should be set aside as clearly erroneous and contrary to law based on his analysis of the Crockett factors. Judge Keesler found that five factors-residence of the parties, access to proof, attendance of witnesses, fair trial, and practical problems affecting trial expediency and efficiency-weighed in favor of transfer, while the remaining factors were neutral. (Document No. 262, pp.9-14). Plaintiff argues that each of these factors, as well as its choice of forum and local resolution factors, weigh against transfer or, at a minimum, are neutral, and that none of the Crockett factors weigh in favor of transfer. Judge Keesler found the following factors to be neutral: the possibility of a view by the jury; the enforceability of a judgment; the relative court congestion between the districts; and the avoidance of conflict of laws. Plaintiff does not challenge the venue order based on these factors and the court will therefore not disturb Judge Keesler's determinations on those factors.

The court is mindful of the discretion to the magistrate judge in analyzing a motion to transfer, 3A Composites USA, Inc. v. United Indus., Inc., No. 5:13CV83-RLV, 2014 WL 1471075, at *1 (W.D. N.C. Apr. 15, 2014), and will only disturb his decision where clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Fed.R.Civ.P. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.