IP in brief: In re TS Tech USA At issue in this case was a patent for headrests used in Honda vehicles. The plaintiff was based in Michigan and the defendants in Ohio and Canada. Yet the plaintiff filed suit in the Eastern District of Texas, often regarded as a favorable forum for patent holders. The defendants sought a transfer to Ohio because the evidence was mainly located in Ohio, and the key witnesses lived in Ohio, Michigan and Canada. The plaintiff claimed venue in Texas based on the sale of several Hondas with allegedly infringing headrests there. The district court denied the transfer. On appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found the district court’s analysis contained several key errors related to the: Plaintiff’s choice of venue. The district court improperly treated the plaintiff’s choice as a distinct factor in its venue analysis, but it’s not a separate factor under the applicable Fifth Circuit law. Witnesses’ cost of attendance. The district court disregarded the Fifth Circuit’s “100-mile rule,” which requires that, “when the distance between an existing venue … and a proposed venue … is more than 100 miles, the factor of inconvenience to witnesses increases in direct relationship to the additional distance ….” Relative ease of access to evidence. The district court found this factor neutral as to transfer, but all of the physical evidence was far more conveniently located near the Ohio venue. Local interest in having localized interests decided at home. Hondas with the headrests were sold throughout the country, giving Texas citizens no more interest than others. The Federal Circuit decision in this case may have long-lasting effects on where patent cases are heard. The decision is particularly encouraging for defendants in cases in the Eastern District of Texas. Motions for transfer should enjoy a greater likelihood of success — especially if the only connection to the district is sales of an accused product. • |