Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division
February 2, 2022, Decided; February 2, 2022, Filed
TRANSFER OPINION AND ORDER
Before the Court is Oracle Corporation's Motion to Transfer. After considering the parties' briefs (Dkt. Nos. 29, 33, 34), the Court GRANTS defendant's motion to transfer.
Plaintiff Sonrai Memory Limited filed this lawsuit on November 19, 2020, accusing Defendant Oracle Corporation of patent infringement. Dkt. No. 1. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,829,691 ("the '691 Patent" or "Asserted Patent") by Oracle's SPARC servers [*2] and SPARC processors. Id.
Sonrai is a company based in Ireland. Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 2. The inventors reside in California. Dkt. No. 1-1 (listing residences on patent cover).
Oracle has its principal place of business and world headquarters in Austin, with approximately 3,000 employees occupying roughly 900,000 square feet located at 2300 Oracle Way, just three miles from the Austin Courthouse. Dkt. No. 29-1 ¶ 3. Oracle has no relevant facilities, operations, or documents in Waco. Id. ¶ 8. Former Oracle engineer Christopher Olson has relevant knowledge of the accused products and resides in Austin. Id. ¶ 5. Other unidentified engineers worked in Northern California. Id. Current Oracle engineer Anne Powell has relevant knowledge and resides in British Columbia. Id. Oracle's Director of Sales Tania Bawa works in Austin, along with other regional managers and sales representatives, all of whom have relevant knowledge of sales of the accused SPARC product. Id. ¶ 6.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
In patent cases, motions to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) are governed by the law of the regional circuit. In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008). 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) provides that, "[f]or [*3] 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." "Section 1404(a) is intended to place discretion in the district court to adjudicate motions for transfer according to an 'individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.'" Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988) (quoting Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 622 (1964)).
The preliminary question under Section 1404(a) is whether a civil action might have been brought in the transfer destination venue. In re Volkswagen, Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 312 (5th Cir. 2008) ("Volkswagen II"). If the destination venue would have been a proper venue, then "[t]he determination of 'convenience' turns on a number of public and private interest factors, none of which can be said to be of dispositive weight." Action Indus., Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 358 F.3d 337, 340 (5th Cir. 2004). The private factors include: "(1) the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (2) the availability of compulsory process to secure [*4] the attendance of witnesses; (3) the cost of attendance for willing witnesses; and (4) all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive." In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201, 203 (5th Cir. 2004) ("Volkswagen I") (citing Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 241 n.6 (1981)). The public factors include: "(1) the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion; (2) the local interest in having localized interests decided at home; (3) the familiarity of the forum with the law that will govern the case; and (4) the avoidance of unnecessary problems of conflict of laws of the application of foreign law." Id. Courts evaluate these factors based on the situation which existed at the time of filing, rather than relying on the conduct of a defendant after suit has been instituted. Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 343 (1960).
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18588 *; 2022 WL 315023
SONRAI MEMORY LIMITED, Plaintiff -v- ORACLE CORPORATION, Defendant
Subsequent History: Related proceeding at Sonrai Memory Ltd. v. Amazon.Com, Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31416, 2022 WL 545058 (W.D. Tex., Feb. 23, 2022)
Related proceeding at Sonrai Memory Ltd. v. LG Elecs. Inc., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31423, 2022 WL 545051 (W.D. Tex., Feb. 23, 2022)
Related proceeding at Sonrai Memory Ltd. v. Oracle Corp., 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46372 (W.D. Tex., Mar. 16, 2022)
convenience, documents, witnesses, factors, patent, cases, favors, venue, electronic, infringement, ease, attendance, argues, weigh