Name of Assigned Judge Sitting Judge if Other or Magistrate Judge Virginia M. Kendall than Assigned Judge
As deference to the plaintiff's forum, the residence of three out of four defendants, and the location of a specific key witness all merit denial of transfer, the Court denies Defendants' motion to transfer and the case will remain in the Northern District of Illinois. Any arguments regarding severance and/or dismissal of the Customer Defendants, including with respect to the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act and/or forum nonconveniens, will be addressed subsequently as part of any motion to dismiss.
O[ For further details see text below.] Docketing to mail notices.
Radiation Stabilization Solutions, LLC ("RSS") sued Varian Medical Systems, Inc. ("Varian"), Loyola University Medical Center, Cancer Treatment Centers of America, and UroPartners LLC (together, the "Customer Defendants") for infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,118,848 (the "'848 Patent"). Defendants move jointly for transfer to the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a). For the reasons stated herein, Defendants' motion is denied.
On September 15, 2011, RSS sued Varian in this district, together with co-defendants Brainlab AG, Brainlab, Inc. (together, "Brainlab"), Elekta AB, Elekta, Inc., and Accuray, Inc (the "First Action'), for indirect infringement of the '848 Patent. On October 27, 2011, prior to RSS having completed service on all defendants, the judge assigned to the First Action dismissed the complaint sua sponte as to certain defendants, without prejudice to refile, on grounds that certain non-resident defendants had been improperly joined in the First Action. The First Action continues, solely against the Illinois-based Brainlab defendants.
On October 28, 2011, RSS filed the present action for direct infringement against the Customer Defendants, together with Varian as the defendant supplier. RSS has its principal place of business in Texas, Varian in Palo Alto, California. The Customer Defendants have their principal places of business in the Northern District of Illinois.
Section 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."
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). In deciding a motion to transfer venue in a patent case under Section 1404, the law of the regional circuit applies. In re Link_A_Media Devices Corp., 662 F.3d 1221, 1223 (Fed Cir. 2011); accord Vanguard Research, Inc. v. PEAT, Inc., 304 F.3d 1249, 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2002). In the Seventh Circuit, the party moving for a transfer of venue "has the burden of establishing, by reference to particular circumstances, that the transferee forum is clearly more convenient." See Coffey v. Van Dorn Iron Works, 796 F.2d 217, 219-220 (7th Cir. 1986). District courts have broad discretion to grant or deny a motion to transfer. See Heller Financial, Inc. v. Midwhey Powder Co., Inc., 883 F.2d 1286, 1293 (7th Cir. 1989). In ruling on a motion for transfer under Section 1404, the court considers the 1404(a) factors "in light of all the circumstances of the case", an analysis that "necessarily involves a large degree of subtlety and latitude" including the relative weight to give to each of the factors relative to the others. Coffey, 796 F.2d at 219.
Convenience of the Parties and ...