TechCorp, headquartered in Center City, sues Innovate LLC in federal court in the North District of State A for patent infringement. TechCorp has a regular and established place of business in the North District, making venue proper there under 28 U.S.C. section 1400(b). Innovate LLC is incorporated and has its principal place of business in the Central District of State B, which is where the alleged infringement occurred and where most key witnesses are located. Innovate LLC files a motion to transfer the case to the federal court in the Central District of State B. What is the most likely outcome of this motion?
Dismiss the case under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
Grant the motion to transfer the case.
Dismiss the case for improper venue.
Deny the motion because venue is proper in the North District.
Under 28 U.S.C. section 1404(a), when venue is proper, a federal court may still transfer a case to any other district where it might have been brought for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. In this case, the original venue in the North District of State A is proper. However, the defendant's home district in the Central District of State B is clearly more convenient because the defendant is located there, the alleged infringing activities occurred there, and the key witnesses are located there. Therefore, the court is very likely to grant the transfer. Dismissal is improper because the original venue is proper. Retaining the case would ignore the significant inconvenience to the defendant and witnesses.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is the forum non conveniens doctrine?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What factors do courts consider when deciding a transfer of venue?