Plaintiff's Choice of Forum for False Marking Claims Given Little Weight Where Plaintiff was Formed Specifically to Pursue Litigation

In granting defendant's motion to transfer venue of plaintiff's qui tam false marking action, the court rejected plaintiff's arguments that convenience factors favored retaining jurisdiction. "[I]t is clear that [plaintiff] anticipated that a motion to transfer these types of cases would be filed. As a result, [plaintiff] created a litigation strategy to bolster its argument that the matter should remain in Ohio. However, its primary arguments revolve around expert witnesses, largely irrelevant fact witnesses, and its own choice of forum. As [plaintiff] was created for the express purpose of pursuing litigation and is largely comprised of local attorneys, the weight given to its litigation strategy is minimal. This Court will not permit the system to be gamed."

Unique Product Solutions, Ltd. v. Otis Products, Inc., 5-10-cv-01471 (OHND September 22, 2010, Order) (Adams, J.)