Robocast v. Apple/Microsoft: Transfer Motion Denied Where Plaintiff's Choice Of Forum Was Given Deference And The Relative Size And Strength Of The Parties Weighed Against Transfer

In two separate actions, Robocast sued Apple and Microsoft for patent infringement. Apple responded by filing a motion to transfer and Microsoft subsequently filed a similar motion to transfer. Both complaints are centered on U.S. Patent No. 7,155,451 (the "'451 Patent"), which is directed toward an "Automated Browsing System for Publishers and Users on Networks Serving Internet and Remote Devices," which was invented by the president of Robocast. Robocast accused AppleTV, Front Row, iTunes, Bing and Windows Vista of infringing the patent.

In analyzing the motion to transfer, the district court reviewed the statutory basis for a motion to transfer, including quoting from the private and public interest factors, which are:

The private interests have included: (1) plaintiff's forum preference as manifested in the original choice; (2) the defendant's preference; (3) whether the claim arose elsewhere; (4) the convenience of the parties as indicated by their relative physical and financial condition; (5) the convenience of the witnesses-but only to the extent that the witnesses may actually be unavailable for trial in one of the fora; and (6) the location of books and records (similarly limited to the extent that the files could not be produced in the alternative forum).

The public interests have included: (7) the enforceability of the judgment; (8) practical considerations that could make the trial easy, expeditious, or inexpensive; (9) the relative administrative difficulty in the two fora resulting from court congestion; (10) the local interest in deciding local controversies at home; (11) the public policies of the fora; and (12) the familiarity of the trial judge with the applicable state law in diversity cases.

See Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 879-80 (3d Cir. 1995).

The district court found that certain factors, including plaintiff' choice of forum and convenience of the parties favored the plaintiff, while other factors supported Apple. "In my view, interests (1) and (4) support the plaintiff's position that the case should not be transferred. Interests (2), (5), (6), and (8) support the defendant's request to transfer the case. Interests (3), (7), (10) and (12) do not add much to the balancing, as they are either inapplicable or marginally applicable to this case. Interest (9) is applicable but does not favor one side or the other."

The district court particularly focused on the...