Research Entity’s Choice of Venue Entitled to Deference

The court denied defendants' motion to transfer plaintiff's infringement action from the Eastern District of Virginia to the District of New Jersey and rejected defendants' argument that plaintiff was a nonpracticing entity whose choice of venue was entitled to less deference. "[Plaintiff] is a Virginia corporation that has continuously operated in this District since its formation [8 years ago]. . . . [T]he patented technologies at issue in this action were all researched and developed primarily in this District and that the patents-in-suit were prosecuted here. . . . [Plaintiff's sole employee] is actively engaged in [plaintiff's] research and development operations on a full-time basis. . . . [T]he fact that [plaintiff] does not manufacture products [does not] undermine [its] continuing research and development operations, as Defendants suggest. . . . A 'nonpracticing entity,' for purposes of a venue analysis, is an entity that 'does not research and develop new technology, but rather acquires patents, licenses the technology, and sues alleged infringers." . . . [Plaintiff's] ongoing research and development of technologies for patent distinguish it from those plaintiffs deemed non-practicing entities in the cases upon which Defendants seek to rely. . . . the Court finds that [plaintiff] is a practicing entity whose choice of its home forum is entitled to substantial weight in an enforcement action involving patented technologies that [plaintiff] researched, developed, and prosecuted here.”

Virginia Innovation Sciences, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et. al., 2-12-cv-00548 (VAED March 6, 2013, Order) (Davis, J.).