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.

Shaw v. Apple, Inc.

United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina

January 12, 2018

VENSON M. SHAW and STEVEN M. SHAW, Plaintiffs,
v.
APPLE, INC., Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          David S. Cayer United States Magistrate Judge

         THIS MATTER is before the Court on “Defendant Apple Inc.'s Motion to Transfer to the Northern District of California” (document #46), as well as the parties' associated briefs and exhibits.

         This matter has been referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and is now ripe for consideration. Having fully considered the arguments, the record, and the applicable authority, the Court grants Defendant's Motion as discussed below.

         I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         Plaintiffs Venson M. Shaw and Steven M. Shaw allege that Defendant Apple, Inc. infringed their patent (“the '241 patent”). The accused products are those “incorporating CCD [Charge-Coupled Device] and/or CMOS [Complementary Metal-Oxide-Semiconductor] imaging sensors, ” including iPhone models, iPod Nano, iPod Touch, iMac models with iSight or Facetime cameras, MacBook and MacBook Air models with iSight or Facetime cameras, and iPad models with front and/or rear cameras (collectively, “the accused products”). Plaintiffs initially alleged infringement by certain Sony products, but have now voluntarily dismissed the Sony Defendants. See documents ## 12, 21 and 57.

         Defendant has moved pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer this matter to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice. In support of its Motion, Defendant credibly states that all research, design, and development of the accused products took place at or near its headquarters in the Northern District of California. Defendant's witnesses and all business records relating to the research, design, development, marketing and sales of the accused products are also located there. Relevant evidence in the possession of third parties is located in the Northern District of California and Colorado, but not in North Carolina.

         It is undisputed that Plaintiffs have no ties to North Carolina. Plaintiffs Venson M. Shaw and Steven M. Shaw reside in Kirkland, Washington and Leonia, New Jersey respectively. Plaintiffs do not allege that they have any relevant evidence in this District. Nor do they allege that they have developed, marketed, or otherwise licensed any products claimed by the '241 patent here.

         In their brief in opposition, Plaintiffs state that they selected this venue “purposefully … for counsel licensure and for proper venue based on [the presence in this District of] multiple [Apple] stores and a data center.” Document #59 at 10. In essence, Plaintiffs chose this forum because their attorney is licensed here. Plaintiffs also argue that they may retain expert witnesses here.

         Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue has been fully briefed and is ripe for determination.

         II. DISCUSSION

         Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a district court may “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, ... transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.” The question of transfer under section 1404(a) is committed to the sound discretion of the district court. See Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988); Brock v. Entre Computer Ctrs., Inc., 933 F.2d 1253, 1257 (4th Cir.1991).

         The Court must first determine whether the case could have been brought in the transferee district. Venue is proper in a patent infringement action “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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). Venue is proper in the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) because Defendant's headquarters is located there and the sensors which are the subject of this infringement action were designed there.

         If venue in the transferee court is proper, as it is here, the Court must then consider the following factors in deciding whether the matter should be transferred:

(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; (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 ...

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.