Case 1:16-cv-00290-SLR Document 30 Filed 03/29/17 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 1111
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`) Civ. No. 16-290-SLR
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`MEMORANDUM ORDER
`
`At Wilmington thisJ.CWciay of March, 2017, having reviewed the pending motion to
`
`transfer venue and the papers submitted in connection therewith;
`
`IT IS ORDERED that said motion (D. I. 10) is denied, for the reasons that follow:
`
`1. Background. Plaintiff Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 ("IP Bridge") is a Japanese
`
`corporation having its principal place of business in Tokyo, Japan. By complaint filed
`
`on April 22, 2016, IP Bridge sued defendant OmniVision Technologies, Inc.
`
`("OmniVision") for infringement of ten patents that relate to image sensor technology.
`
`(D.I. 1, exs. A-J) With its answer to the complaint, OmniVision filed the instant motion
`
`for transfer of venue to the Northern District of California.
`
`2. OmniVision is incorporated in the State of Delaware, with all of the attendant
`
`privileges and responsibilities of a citizen of this State (i.e., maintaining an agent,
`
`paying taxes, suing and being sued in the courts of this State, choosing Delaware law
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-SLR Document 30 Filed 03/29/17 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 1112
`
`as the governing law in contracts). 1 The headquarters for OmniVision are located in the
`
`Northern District of California and operate as its strategic center of business. Although
`
`the majority of the development of the accused image sensor products took place at
`
`OmniVision's headquarters, it outsources its wafer fabrication to manufacturers in
`
`Taiwan and China. According to its website, OmniVision was founded in 1995 and
`
`"develops and delivers advanced imaging solutions to a variety of industrial and
`
`consumer markets." OMN1V1s10N TECHNOLOGIES, http://www.ovt.com, (last visited Mar.
`
`28, 2017). A review of the website, along with the financial information provided in the
`
`record, 2 can leave no doubt that OmniVision is an international business, and that
`
`Delaware has not been excluded as a market. 3
`
`3. Standard. The analytical framework for motions to transfer pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1404(a) are well known and will not be repeated here. See, e.g., In re Link_A_
`
`Media Devices Corp., 662 F.3d 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co.,
`
`55 F.3d 873 (3d Cir. 1995); Helico Biosciences Corp. v. 11/umina, Inc., 858 F. Supp. 2d
`
`367 (D. Del. 2012). I have gleaned the following from the above case law: A plaintiff,
`
`as the injured party, has the privilege of initiating its litigation in the forum it chooses. A
`
`defendant's place of incorporation is always an appropriate forum in which to sue that
`
`defendant. The purpose of§ 1404(a) is not to usurp plaintiff's choice, but to give courts
`
`the discretion to transfer if the interests of justice so dictate. The Third Circuit in
`
`1See D.I. 23, ex. A.
`
`2See D.I. 23, ex. D, the cover letter accompanying the 2015 Annual Report,
`wherein it is reported that OmniVision had annual 2015 revenues of $1.4 billion and
`more than $520 million in cash or cash equivalents.
`
`3At the time of briefing, OmniVision did not know whether it had sold or offered
`the accused image sensor products for sale in Delaware. (D.I. 23, ex. A)
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-SLR Document 30 Filed 03/29/17 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 1113
`
`Jumara gave the courts some factors to balance in making their determination, keeping
`
`the above tenets in mind. As I have stated many times before, the Jumara factors must
`
`be viewed through a contemporary lens. In this regard, I have declined to transfer
`
`based on the location of potential witnesses and of books and records, as discovery is
`
`a local event4 and trial is a limited event. 5 With respect to the factor related to
`
`"administrative difficulty from court congestion," the case management orders always
`
`start with the schedules proposed by the litigants. It has been my experience that most
`
`litigators (especially those representing defendants) are in no hurry to resolve the
`
`dispute; if there is a need to expedite proceedings, that need is generally
`
`accommodated by the court. In sum, these factors are neutral.
`
`4. Analysis. It should be evident from my prior decisions that motions to
`
`transfer are generally denied in my cases, so long as at least two evidentiary bases are
`
`established: defendant is a Delaware corporation or limited liability company (i.e., it has
`
`accepted the benefits of organizing under the laws of the State of Delaware), and it
`
`does business on a national scale, including in Delaware. See, e.g., Cradle IP, LLC v.
`
`Tex. Instruments, Inc., 923 F. Supp. 2d 696 (D. Del. 2013); Scientific
`
`Telecommunications, LLC v. Adtran, Inc. 2016 WL 1650760 (D. Del. April 25, 2016).
`
`4Depositions generally are taken where the deponents reside, and books and
`records generally are kept in a digital format and easily transferable. To the extent that
`a defendant's books and records are still kept in "physical form" (hard to believe in this
`day and age}, it would be a plaintiff's burden to travel for an inspection and/or to pay for
`copies.
`
`5Not only are my trials timed events but, according to some scholars, "more than
`97% of patent suits are settled before trial," Morgan, Paul, Microsoft v. i4i - Is the Sky
`Really Falling?, PatentlyO (Jan. 9, 2011 ), a figure consistent with national statistics
`about civil suits in general, Denlow, Morton, Hon. Ret., Magistrate Judges' IMportant
`Role in Settling Cases, The Federal Lawyer, 101 (May/June 2014) ("In 2012, less than
`2 percent of federal civil cases went to trial.").
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-SLR Document 30 Filed 03/29/17 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 1114
`
`The instant case more than satisfies these two requirements. As a business player in
`
`the world's markets, there is no undue burden associated with litigating in Delaware.
`
`Moreover, given its international imprint and the national implications of patent litigation
`
`- constitutional rights reviewed first by a federal agency and ultimately by a national, not
`
`regional, court of appeals - there are no parochial interests that justify transfer.
`
`Transfer of the above-captioned case to the United States District Court for the
`
`Northern District of California, therefore, does not serve the interests of justice.
`
`OmniVision's motion to transfer is denied.
`
`