Summary
ordering transfer of a licensing dispute case to another district where the technology was already at issue in another case
Summary of this case from SCHOTT v. IVY ASSET MANAGEMENT CORPOpinion
No. C 03-02197 CRB
August 8, 2003
ORDER
This lawsuit arises out of a break down in negotiations between the parties over patent licensing agreements. After the negotiations failed, Broadcom Corporation ("Broadcom") filed this action in the Northern District of California and one week later Agere Systems, Inc. ("Agere") filed an action in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Broadcom then moved to transfer the Pennsylvania action to this District. The district court denied Broadcom's motion and concluded that the patents in the two cases were not sufficiently related to warrant transferring Agere's action to California.
Broadcom subsequently amended its answer in the Pennsylvania action to include nearly all of the claims it asserts in this case. It now moves to dismiss its claims here so that all of the parties' dispute can be litigated in Philadelphia. Agere opposes having all of the parties' dispute in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania even though it had previously argued that Philadelphia is its "home jurisdiction, " most of the witnesses and evidence are in Philadelphia, the Northern District is slow to resolve cases, and the parties have little connection to the Northern District of California.
Having reviewed the parties' papers, and having had the benefit of oral argument, the Court concludes that it is in the interests of justice and judicial economy for all of the parties' litigation to be heard by the same court. As the general technology will be the same for all patents, having all the patents before a single judge will obviate the need for duplicative time-consuming tutorials. Moreover, a single judge can more effectively coordinate the scheduling of discovery, motions, and hearings, as well as determine the proper grouping of patents for trial. Finally, having all of the parties' dispute before a single court will facilitate settlement.
For all of these reasons the Court grants Broadcom's motion to dismiss without prejudice its entire complaint and Agere's counterclaims for declaratory relief. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (a) the Court transfers to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Agere's claim for patent infringement.