Judge Robinson Denies Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue and Motion to Dismiss
February 3, 2016
Publication| Intellectual Property
In CR Bard Inc. et al v. AngioDynamics Inc., C.A. No. 1-15-cv-00218 (D. Del. Jan. 12, 2016), Judge Robinson denied the defendant’s motion to transfer to the District of Utah. Even though the defendant was incorporated in Delaware, the defendant argued that Delaware was not “home turf” for either party, and that the District of Utah should be the preferred forum for the lawsuit in light of a similar case already pending there. The defendant also asserted that the relative finances of each party favored transfer, as well as the amount of product sold in Utah and the location of the witnesses and evidence.
Upon review of the defendant’s arguments, Judge Robinson held that the defendant failed to establish that transfer was warranted. While acknowledging the overlap with the pending litigation in Utah, the Court noted that the respective patents-in-suit were different, and that the Utah case was stayed “before any substantive action took place.” Judge Robinson also rejected the defendant’s other arguments favoring transfer, finding that any administrative challenges could be addressed in the scheduling order, and the defendant failed to identify any witness who would be unwilling to testify in Delaware.
Judge Robinson also denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss and held that the parties’ 35 U.S.C. § 101 arguments intersected with arguments regarding anticipation and obviousness and required a more fulsome record to resolve.
Analysis: Delaware courts are reluctant to transfer cases to other jurisdictions when the defendant is a Delaware entity and there are no compelling reasons favoring transfer.