Defendant's motion to transfer venue was denied. "The Court finds there will be significant overlap [with a co-pending case in this court] among the issues of claim validity, claim construction, and claim scope. This weighs against granting Defendant’s motion, as transfer would create duplicative proceedings on the same patent, unnecessarily wasting judicial resources and creating the possibility of inconsistent results. Although this fact may not be dispositive, it is 'a paramount consideration' for the Court. . . . [T]he only defendant in this case is headquartered within two hours of this courthouse, residing just miles from the bounds of this district. Although access to some third-party sources of proof would be more convenient in the District of Massachusetts, transfer would make access to Defendant’s sources of proof [in Dallas] more difficult. The Court also notes transfer would ease the burden of travel for several witnesses, notably several non-party witnesses located in the proposed transferee district. These gains in convenience do not, however, outweigh the substantial loss of judicial efficiency transferring this case would cause."
Colorquick, LLC v. Fedex Office and Print Services, Inc., 6-09-cv-00572 (TXED June 17, 2010, Order) (Love, M.J.)