October 28, 2021

Volume XI, Number 301

Advertisement
Advertisement

October 27, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

October 26, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

October 25, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Judicial Economy Is Not a Trump Factor in Deciding Transfer Motions

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit granted a petition for writ of mandamus and ordered a suit to be transferred out of the Eastern District of Texas to the Northern District of Texas.  The panel concluded that all parties would experience greater convenience in that forum when litigating the plaintiff’s claims.  In re Verizon Business Network Services, Inc., Misc. Order 956, 2011 WL 1026623 (Fed. Cir., Mar. 23, 2011) (Linn, J.).

Applying Fifth Circuit law, the Federal Circuit reviewed the district court’s balancing of public and private convenience factors under 28 U.S.C. §1404(a).  Notably, the presiding magistrate Judge had also found that Dallas (in the Northern District of Texas) would be a more convenient venue than Marshall (in the Eastern District of Texas), but nevertheless ordered that the case remain in Marshall as a result of a previous lawsuit brought in the same court, by the same plaintiff, roughly five years earlier.  The district court emphasized that keeping the case in Marshall would enhance judicial economy because the court had developed an in-depth understanding of the claimed technology by construing 25 terms in the earlier case.  Thus, the district court concluded that the identified “built-in efficiencies” were not outweighed by the facts relevant to the private interest factors and the issuance of a reexamination certificate years after the earlier case had settled. Verizon sought mandamus at the Federal Circuit.

The Federal Circuit’s precedential order departed from the district court’s reasoning most significantly on the issue of judicial economy.   The Court found the connection with the earlier suit against Level 3 Communications, Inc. (settling in 2003) to be “distant” and “too tenuous a reason” to keep the case in Marshall.   The panel also reversed on the relevance of the reexamination certificate, noting that this portion of the file history was not part of the record when the patent was construed in 2003 and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas would have to not only familiarize itself with the reexamination materials, but also relearn the underlying technology. 

As the Court noted in the order, this case is distinguishable from another recent decision weighing the influence of judicial economy in a transfer analysis.  In In re Vistaprint Ltd., (see IP Update, Vol. 13, No. 12) the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision to keep the case in the Eastern District of Texas where the district court had already construed the asserted patent and was also presiding over co-pending litigation involving the same plaintiff and the same claims.  Here, the Federal Circuit makes clear that claim construction will not afford a patent owner a “free pass” to maintain all future litigation in the venue where the first claim construction issued, especially if there are not related cases before the same judge.

Practice Note:   The Federal Circuit analogized the facts in this case to the facts presented in In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc.   (see IP Update, Vol. 11, No. 11)  As in Volkswagen, the panel noted that many of the witnesses reside within 100 miles of the Dallas courthouse and that the plaintiff, Red River Fiber Optic Corp., had no legitimate connection to Marshall.  (The plaintiff conceded it operated from Oklahoma.)  The reasoning in this case, however, goes a step farther in offering specific guidance that the efficiencies gained through adjudication of a previous suit must still be appropriately weighed against other competing considerations such as cost, time, and travel for identified witnesses.

© 2021 McDermott Will & EmeryNational Law Review, Volume I, Number 125
Advertisement

About this Author

McDermott Will & Emery is a premier international law firm with a diversified business practice. Numbering more than 1,100 lawyers, we have offices in Boston, Brussels, Chicago, Düsseldorf, Frankfurt, Houston,...

+1 312 372 2000
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement