Separated At Adolescence: Eastern District of Texas Transfers Venue in One Case, But Retains Venue in Twin Case Filed the Same Day

Both Cases Involving the Same Parties and Same Technology

In the first case, Magistrate Judge Love determined the relevant public and private factors did not warrant a transfer of venue. "[Because] only two factors weigh slightly in favor of transfer -- the convenience of witnesses, and the potential need for compulsory process with regard to three nonparty witnesses -- all other factors are neutral . . . Defendant has failed to show that transfer to the District of Maryland would be clearly more convenient."
Invitrogen Corporation v. General Electric Co., 6-08-cv-00113 (TXED February 9, 2009, Memorandum Opinion & Order)


In the second case, Magistrate Judge Love granted a transfer because "a Maryland court has had extensive involvement with three of the six patents at issue and a settlement agreement was entered into in the Maryland litigation that forms the basis of Defendant’s patent exhaustion defense. Based on this analysis, the Court finds that Defendant has shown that transfer to the District of Maryland would be clearly more convenient."
Invitrogen Corporation v. General Electric Co., 6-08-cv-00112 (TXED February 9, 2009, Memorandum Opinion & Order)