Patent Litigation Alert - In re Link_A_Media Devices Corp.

On December 2, 2011, the Federal Circuit in In re Link_A_Media Devices made a significant ruling affecting the District of Delaware's hold on suits filed against Delaware corporations that operate outside of the District. In particular, the Federal Circuit held that the District of Delaware erroneously denied defendant Link_A_Media Devices Corp.'s (hereinafter "LAMD") motion to transfer a patent infringement action from the District of Delaware to the Northern District of California where the only reasons for not transferring the case were the defendant's incorporation in the forum and the plaintiff decision to file suit there.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

In Link_A_Media, the plaintiff, Marvell International Ltd. ("Marvell"), asserted four patents against LAMD in the District of Delaware. LAMD is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in the Northern District of California that makes, sells and distributes microchips for data storage devices. Nearly all of LAMD's employees work at its corporate location in the Northern District of California. Marvell is a holding company headquartered in Bermuda that is the assignee and sole owner of the four asserted patents. An entity related to Marvell, Marvell Semiconductor, Inc., is headquartered in the Northern District of California. LAMD moved to transfer the case to the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), and Marvell opposed. The district court denied the motion to transfer.

The district court reasoned that because LAMD was incorporated in Delaware, it had no reason to complain about being sued in that forum. It distinguished LAMD from other cases in which transfers were granted where the defendant was a "regional entity," noting "LAMD has offices not only in California, but also in Minnesota, the United Kingdom, and Japan" and therefore is "not only a national player, but more of an international one, displacing it from regional enterprise status."

The district court was also unpersuaded by LAMD's arguments that it would have been more convenient to litigate the case in California because LAMD's witnesses and records were located there. The district court reasoned: "[i]n this electronic age, there are no substantial burdens associated with discovery or witness availability that support the need for transfer" because "documents are generally stored, transferred and reviewed electronically," and because depositions are generally taken where witnesses are located and only a...