IP News

In September 2020, WSOU Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development (Brazos) sued Defendant Juniper Networks, Inc. (Juniper) for patent infringement in the Western District of Texas. Juniper sought to transfer the case to the Northern District of California, arguing that "whatever ties Brazos has to this District appear to have been created for the purpose of its patent litigation activities in this District." Slip op. at 2. Juniper argued that Brazos' only business in the district is filing patent lawsuits, and that Brazos' offices and officers are primarily in California. Id. at 3. Juniper argued that the Northern District of California was a more convenient forum, as "the accused products were primarily designed, developed, marketed, and sold from Juniper's Sunnyvale headquarters within the Northern District of California." Id. Brazos argued that venue is proper in the Western District of Texas, as both parties maintain offices in the district. Id.

The district court denied Juniper's motion to transfer. Id. While the case could have been brought in the Northern District of California, the district court weighed both private interest and public interest factors in denying the motion to transfer. Id. at 3-4. The district court addressed the private factors of: 1) ease of access to sources of proof; 2) availability of process to secure nonparty witnesses; 3) convenience of the forums for witnesses; and 4) practical problems that make trial easy, expeditious and inexpensive. Id. at 4. The district court also addressed the public factors of: 1) administrative difficulties from court congestion; 2) local interest in having disputes occurring principally within the district decided in that forum; 3) familiarity of forum with law that will govern the case; and 4) avoidance of unnecessary conflicts of law. Id.