United States District Court, D. Colorado
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO TRANSFER
William J. Martínez United States District Judge
a patent infringement action brought by Plaintiff Anza
Technology, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) against Defendant
Xilinx, Inc. (“Defendant”). Currently before the
Court is Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue Under 28
U.S.C. § 1404(a), seeking to transfer this case to the
Northern District of California (“Motion to
Transfer”). (ECF No. 31.) For the reasons set forth
below, Defendant's Motion to Transfer is granted.
filed its Complaint on March 17, 2017 (ECF No. 1), and filed
a subsequent First Amended Complaint on May 9, 2017 (ECF No.
27). Plaintiff alleges that it is a “designer,
manufacturer and seller of products directed to the
manufacture and assembly of electronics including the bonding
of electrostatic-discharge-sensitive devices.”
(Id. ¶ 5.) Plaintiff is incorporated in
California and has its principal place of business in
Rocklin, California. (Id.) Defendant is incorporated
in Delaware and has its principal place of business in San
Jose, California. (Id. ¶ 6.) Defendant alleges
that it is “the global leader in all programmable
semiconductor technologies, ” and further, that it is a
fabless company, meaning that it does not manufacture its own
products, but rather “contracts with third-party
semiconductor manufacturing companies in Asia . . . to
manufacture [integrated circuits], which in turn are
transferred to other third parties in Asia for
packaging.” (ECF No. 31 at 1-2.)
seeks damages for Defendant's alleged infringement on
Plaintiff's patents Nos. 7, 389, 905 (issued for a
“Flip Chip Bonding Tool Tip” (“905
patent”)), 6, 935, 548 (issued for a “Dissipative
Ceramic Bonding Tool Tip” (“548 patent”)),
and 6, 354, 479 (issued for a “Dissipative Ceramic
Bonding Tool Tip” (“479 patent”)). (ECF No.
27 ¶¶ 31-33.) According to Plaintiff, Defendant
“designs, imports, [and] sells . . . products with
electrostatic-discharge-sensitive integrated circuit chips
that are assembled . . . in a manner that infringes
the” 479, 548, and 905 patents. (Id. ¶
9, 2017, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Transfer
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). (ECF No. 31.) Plaintiff
filed a Response on June 30, 2017 (ECF No. 41), and Defendant
replied on July 14, 2017 (ECF No. 42). Accordingly, the
Motion to Transfer is now ripe for resolution.
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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The party seeking
to transfer a case bears the burden of establishing that the
existing forum is inconvenient. See Chrysler Credit Corp.
v. Country Chrysler, Inc., 928 F.2d 1509, 1515 (10th
ruling on a motion to transfer venue, district courts must
assess two issues:
whether the case might have been brought in the proposed
transferee district, and (2) whether the “competing
equities” weigh in favor of adjudicating the case in
that district. See Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. U.S. Dist.
Court for the Dist. of Wyo., 790 F.2d 69, 71 (10th Cir.
the decision to transfer venue lies in the sole discretion of
the district court and should be based on an
“individualized, case-by-case consideration of
convenience and fairness.” Stewart Org., Inc. v.
Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988) (internal quotation
party disputes that this lawsuit could have been originally
filed in the Northern District of California. (ECF No. 31 at
6; see generally ECF No. 41); see also 28
U.S.C. § 1400(b) (“[A]ny civil action for patent
infringement may be brought in the judicial district where .
. . the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has
a regular and established place of business.”). The
Court therefore moves directly to the “competing
equities.” See Hustler, 790 F.2d at 71.
defined in Tenth Circuit case law, the competing equities
that must be weighed in a motion to transfer venue under 28
U.S.C. § 1404(a) include the following factors:
(1) plaintiff's choice of forum; (2) the accessibility of
witnesses and other sources of proof, including the
availability of compulsory process to insure attendance of
witnesses; (3) the cost of making the necessary proof; (4)
questions as to the enforceability of a judgment if one is
obtained; (5) relative advantages and obstacles to a fair
trial; (6) difficulties that may arise from congested
dockets; (7) the possibility of the existence of questions
arising in the area of conflict of laws; (8) the advantage of
having a local court determine questions of local law; and
(9) all other considerations of a practical nature that make
a trial easy, expeditious and economical.
Chrysler Credit Corp., 928 F.2d at 1516 (quoting
Tex. Gulf Sulphur Co. v. Ritter, 371 F.2d 145, 147
(10th Cir. 1967)). The Court will discuss each factor below.