Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Uni-Sys., LLC v. United States Tennis Ass'n Nat'l Tennis Ctr.

United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York

April 7, 2020, Decided; April 7, 2020, Filed

17-CV-147(KAM)(CLP)

Opinion

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

KIYO A. MATSUMOTO, United States District Judge:

Plaintiff Uni-Systems, LLC ("Uni-Systems") brings this action against Defendants United States Tennis Association National Tennis Center ("USTA"), Rossetti Inc. and Matthew L. Rossetti Architect, P.C. ("Rossetti P.C.") (collectively, "Rossetti"), Hunt Construction Group, Inc. ("Hunt"), Hardesty & Hanover, LLC and Hardesty & Hanover, LLP (collectively, "Hardesty & Hanover"), Morgan Engineering Systems, Inc. ("Morgan Engineering") and its subsidiaries, Morgan Kinetic Structures, Inc. ("Morgan Kinetic"), and Morgan Automation, Inc. ("Morgan Automation") (collectively, "Morgan"), and Geiger Campbell Engineers, P.C., ("Geiger") (collectively, "Defendants"), alleging patent infringement and trade secret appropriation in connection with Defendants' design, manufacture, and operation of the retractable roofs at the Arthur Ashe Stadium (the "Ashe Retractable Roof") and the Louis Armstrong Stadium (the "Armstrong Retractable Roof") in Queens, New York.

Pending before [*6]  the Court are the renewed motions of Rossetti and Morgan to dismiss this action for improper venue pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (the "Rules") or, in the alternative, to transfer this action to the districts in which each group resides in the interests of justice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). This court, by order dated October 5, 2018, had ruled that venue was improper as to the claims against Rossetti and Morgan and granted leave to replead after venue-focused discovery. (ECF No. 265, Memorandum & Order ("M&O").) Both Rossetti and Morgan again argue that venue is improper in this district under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), the exclusive patent venue statute, because neither defendant "reside[s]" or has a "regular and established place of business" in this judicial district. For the reasons set forth below, the Court hereby GRANTS both motions and transfers Uni-Systems' claims to the appropriate venues.

Background1

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61122 *

UNI-SYSTEMS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES TENNIS ASSOCIATION NATIONAL TENNIS CENTER INCORPORATED, ROSSETTI INC., MATTHEW L. ROSSETTI ARCHITECT, P.C., HUNT CONSTRUCTION GROUP, INC., HARDESTY & HANOVER, LLC, HARDESTY & HANOVER, LLP, MORGAN ENGINEERING SYSTEMS, INC., MORGAN KINETIC STRUCTURES, INC., MORGAN AUTOMATION, INC., and GEIGER GOSSEN CAMPBELL ENGINEERS, P.C., DBA GEIGER ENGINEERS, Defendants.

Prior History: Uni-Systems, LLC v. U.S. Tennis Ass'n, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 148680 (E.D.N.Y., Sept. 13, 2017)

CORE TERMS

regular, venue, place of business, employees, roof, patent, established place of business, retractable, Stadium, visits, venue statute, construction site, permanent, projects, customer's, site, amended complaint, phase, allegations, courts, infringement, ratified, installation, resides, argues, improper venue, do business, manufacture, contracted, designing