Internap Corp. v. Noction Inc.

Citations: 114 F. Supp. 3d 1336; 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94438; 2015 WL 4459035Docket: Civil Action No. 1:14-CV-03872-AT

Court: District Court, N.D. Georgia; June 29, 2015; Federal District Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Court, presided over by District Judge Amy Totenberg, has granted Defendant Noction’s Motion to Transfer Venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) in a patent infringement case initiated in the Northern District of Georgia. The plaintiff, Internap, holds two patents related to network routing technology and claims that Noction’s Intelligent Routing Platform infringes on one of these patents. Internap seeks to determine if the platform also infringes the second patent. 

Internap, a Delaware corporation headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, has offices nationwide, including one in Santa Clara, California, which is within the Northern District of California. Noction, also a Delaware corporation, operates from Sunnyvale, California, located in the same district. 

The legal standard for transferring a civil action requires that the Court first verify if the case could have been initiated in the proposed transfer venue, which is confirmed as possible since Noction resides in the Northern District of California. The Court then assessed nine factors to evaluate the appropriateness of the transfer, including convenience for witnesses and parties, evidence access, the relevance of the venue to the case facts, and judicial familiarity with the law. 

The analysis concluded that since Noction's principal place of business is in the Northern District of California, personal jurisdiction exists there, allowing for the transfer of the case per the relevant statutes governing patent infringement venue.

The Court evaluates whether transferring the case from the Northern District of Georgia to the Northern District of California is warranted based on convenience. The burden is on the Defendant to demonstrate that a transfer is justified. Key considerations include:

1. **Witness Convenience**: Witness convenience is a critical factor, particularly regarding non-party witnesses. The Defendant, Noction, has identified several non-party witnesses residing in or near the Northern District of California, including the inventors of the relevant patents and employees from RouteScience and Avaya, both headquartered in that district. In contrast, the Plaintiff, Internap, has only identified one non-party witness in Georgia, with unclear implications regarding their convenience. This factor favors transfer due to the concentration of non-party witnesses in California.

2. **Location of Relevant Documents**: The primary evidence, typically held by the accused infringer, is largely located in California at Noction’s facilities. However, given the prevalence of electronic document production, this factor weighs only slightly in favor of transfer.

3. **Convenience of the Parties**: The presence of Defendant Noction’s office in California contrasts with its absence in Georgia. Although the Plaintiff has offices in both districts, all key witnesses are located in Georgia. Transferring the case would merely shift the inconvenience from the Defendant to the Plaintiff, rendering this factor neutral.

Overall, the analysis indicates that the convenience of witnesses and the location of documents support transfer to California, while the convenience of the parties does not favor a transfer due to the neutral impact on inconvenience.

The location of operative facts is crucial in determining the appropriate venue for patent infringement cases. In this instance, the patent-in-suit's development, including design, marketing, and manufacture, primarily occurred in the Northern District of California, where both the patents and the accused product's domestic sales were concentrated. Internap's claims against IRP focus on potential infringement related to its '190 and '966 patents. Although Internap notes that Noction sold the accused product to customers nationwide, including in the Northern District of Georgia, this does not significantly alter the venue's relevance, as the majority of connections lie in California.

Regarding the availability of witnesses, key non-party witnesses, the inventors, are located in California, making them subject to that court's subpoena power. Internap points to a customer, Hivelocity, in Atlanta, but the nature of its presence there—physical or digital—remains ambiguous, complicating its subpoena status. This factor also favors transfer to California.

The means of the parties and the forum’s familiarity with governing law are considered neutral, with neither party asserting a strong argument for or against transfer based on these factors. 

Finally, while the Eleventh Circuit generally respects a plaintiff’s choice of forum, that choice is less influential when the locus of operative facts is outside that forum. Given that the key activities relevant to the case are centered in the Northern District of California, this factor weighs against transfer but is somewhat diminished in its impact. Overall, the analysis supports a transfer to California due to the preponderance of relevant connections.

Trial efficiency and the interests of justice favor transferring the venue to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Key factors influencing this decision include ease of access to evidence, availability and cost of witnesses, and practical issues that promote a more efficient trial process. The Northern District of Georgia lacks a strong local interest in the case, and no substantive rulings have been made by the Court. There are no concerns raised about potential delays, administrative difficulties, or prejudice in either venue. Consequently, the Court grants Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue, directing the Clerk to facilitate this transfer. Additionally, while there are concerns regarding the viability of Count 2 under Rule 12(b)(6), the decision to transfer remains unchanged, as witness convenience is a significant consideration. Dismissal of Count 2 could be without prejudice, allowing for a potential repleading if relevant facts emerge during discovery.