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

Valspar Corp. v. Ppg Indus.

United States District Court for the District of Minnesota

August 4, 2017, Decided; August 4, 2017, Filed

Case No. 16-cv-1429 (SRN/SER)

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue [Doc. No. 84]. For the reasons stated herein, Defendant's Motion is granted, and this case is transferred to the Western District of Pennsylvania.

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs The Valspar Corporation and Valspar Sourcing, Inc. (collectively, "Valspar") are, respectively, the exclusive licensee and owner of several patents relating to spray-applied bisphenol A ("BPA")-free coatings used on food and beverage cans. See Valspar Corp. [*2]  v. PPG Indus., Inc., No. 16-cv-1429 (SRN/SER), 2017 WL 6534414, at *1 (D. Minn. Nov. 3, 2016). Valspar alleges that Defendant PPG Industries, Inc. ("PPG") has developed and marketed a competing product, INNOVEL HPS ("Innovel") that infringes on these patents. See id. On the basis of those allegations, the present suit commenced on May 23, 2016. See id.

On September 9, 2016, PPG moved to transfer this case to the Western District of Pennsylvania, arguing that that district was a more convenient forum for the parties and witnesses, and that it would best serve the interests of justice. (See Def.'s Mot. to Transfer [Doc. No. 33] at 1.) See 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Notably, for purposes of the present motion, PPG did not contend that venue in Minnesota was improper. Indeed, at all times prior to filing this motion, it conceded that venue was technically proper in Minnesota under prevailing law. (See, e.g., Answer to Am. Compl. [Doc. No. 40] ¶ 15 ("PPG admits that venue for this action is proper in the District of Minnesota. . . .").) After careful consideration, this Court denied PPG's motion to transfer, finding that PPG had "failed to satisfy its heavy burden of demonstrating that the Western District of Pennsylvania is a more convenient forum for this case than [*3]  the District of Minnesota." Valspar, 2017 WL 6534414, at *6 (citing Datalink Corp. v. Perkins Eastman Architects, P.C., 33 F. Supp. 3d 1068, 1079 (D. Minn. 2014)).

On June 9, 2017, PPG filed the present motion to amend its answer to deny that venue is proper, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), and to dismiss this case (or in the alternative, to transfer it) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3). As justification for the untimeliness of the motion, PPG asserts that while venue had been proper in Minnesota under prevailing law at the time suit was filed, it was no longer in the wake of the Supreme Court's May 22, 2017 decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017). (See Def.'s Mem. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss [Doc. No. 85] ("Def.'s Mem. in Supp.") at 1-2.) In PPG's view, TC Heartland upended the law of venue in patent cases, should be applied retroactively, and represents an intervening change in the law such that any waiver of the improper venue argument should be excused. (See generally id.)

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.

2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123501 *

The Valspar Corporation and Valspar Sourcing, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. PPG Industries, Inc., Defendant.

CORE TERMS

venue, patent, district court, improper venue, infringement, amend, intervening change, parties, discovery, courts, overrule, regular, resides, waived