Case 1:17-cv-01692-CFC-SRF Document 44 Filed 10/12/18 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 1427
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELA WARE
`
`REAL TIME ADAPTIVE STREAMING
`LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`~
`
`NETFLIX, INC., and NETFLIX
`STREAMING SERVICES, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Civil Action No. 17-1692-JFB-SRF
`
`REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Presently before the court in this patent infringement action is defendants' Netflix, Inc.
`
`and Netflix Streaming Services, Inc. 's (collectively, "Netflix") motion to transfer pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1404(a). 1 (D.I. 20) For the following reasons, I recommend that the court deny
`
`Netflix's motion to transfer.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`On November 21, 2017, Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC ("Realtime") originally filed
`
`this patent infringement action against Netflix, asserting infringement of United States Patent
`
`Numbers 8,934,535 ("the '535 patent"), 9,769,477 ("the '477 patent"), 9,762,907 ("the '907
`
`patent"), and 7,386,046 ("the '046 patent") ( collectively, the "Fallon patents"). (D.1. 1 at ,r 8)
`
`Additionally, Realtime asserts Netflix's infringement of United States Patent Numbers 8,634,462
`
`("the '462 patent") and 9,578,298 ("the '298 patent") (collectively, the "Non-Fallon patents").
`
`(Id) Realtime is the owner by assignment of the patents-in-suit, which relate to the concept of
`
`1 All briefing associated with this motion may be found at D.I. 21; D.I. 29; D.I. 33.
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01692-CFC-SRF Document 44 Filed 10/12/18 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 1428
`
`encoding and decoding data, and the digital compression of data. (Jd. at ,i,i 9-14; D.I. 21 at 1;
`
`D.I. 29 at 2)
`
`Netflix has both its principal place of business and headquarters in Los Gatos, California,
`
`which is within the Northern District of California. (Id. at ,i,i 2-3) Netflix is a Delaware
`
`corporation and offers services and products in the District of Delaware. (Id. at ,i,i 2-4)
`
`Realtime, a Texas limited liability company, maintains its principal place of business in Tyler,
`
`Texas. (Id. at ,i 1)
`
`On February 5, 2018, Netflix filed a motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal
`
`Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b )( 6), arguing that Realtime failed to allege plausible claims of
`
`infringement as to the Non-Fallon patents and challenging the patentability of the Fallon patents
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 101. (D.I. 11; D.I. 13) As of the date of this Report and Recommendation,
`
`Netflix's motion to dismiss remains pending.2
`
`On April 10, 2018, Realtime filed a motion to transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 with
`
`the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("the Panel") to consolidate in the
`
`District of Colorado actions it originally brought in Delaware, California, Texas, Massachusetts,
`
`and Colorado. (D.I. 19, Ex. A) On May 1, 2018, Netflix filed this pending motion to transfer the
`
`case to the Northern District of California. (D.1. 20) On August 1, 2018, the Panel denied
`
`Realtime's motion due to the need for defendant-by-defendant analysis of individual design
`
`elements. (D.I. 37)
`
`2 Oral argument on Netflix's motion to dismiss, D.I. 11, and the motion to dismiss in the related
`case against Haivision Network Video Inc. ("Haivision"), C.A. No. 17-1520 D.I. 23, was held on
`October 2, 2018.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01692-CFC-SRF Document 44 Filed 10/12/18 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 1429
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Section 1404(a) of Title 28 of the United States Code grants district courts the authority
`
`to transfer venue "[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interests of justice ... to
`
`any other district or division where it might have been brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). In
`
`accordance with the analytical framework described in Helicos Biosciences Corp. v. Illumina,
`
`Inc., 858 F. Supp. 2d 367 (D. Del. 2012), the court starts with the premise that a defendant's state
`
`of incorporation has always been "a predictable, legitimate venue for bringing suit" and that "a
`
`plaintiff, as the injured party, generally ha[s] been 'accorded [the] privilege of bringing an action
`
`where he chooses."' 858 F. Supp. 2d at 371 (quotingNorwoodv. Kirkpatrick, 349 U.S. 29, 31
`
`(1955)). The Third Circuit in Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co. reminds the reader that "[t]he
`
`burden of establishing the need for transfer ... rests with the movant" and that, "in ruling on
`
`defendants' motion, the plaintiffs choice of venue should not be lightly disturbed." 55 F.3d 873,
`
`879 (3d Cir. 1995) ( citation omitted).
`
`The Third Circuit goes on to recognize that,
`
`[i]n ruling on§ 1404(a) motions, courts have not limited their consideration to the
`three enumerated factors in§ 1404(a) (convenience of parties, convenience of
`witnesses, or interests of justice), and, indeed, commentators have called on the
`courts to "consider all relevant factors to determine whether on balance the
`litigation would more conveniently proceed and the interests of justice be better
`served by transfer to a different forum."
`
`Id. ( citation omitted). The Court then describes some of the "many variants of the private and
`
`public interests protected by the language of§ 1404(a)." Id.
`
`The private interests have included: plaintiffs forum of preference as
`manifested in the original choice; the defendant's preference; whether the claim
`arose elsewhere; the convenience of the parties as indicated by their relative
`physical and financial condition; the convenience of the witnesses - but only to
`the extent that the witnesses may actually be unavailable for trial in one of the
`fora; and the location of books and records (similarly limited to the extent that
`the files could not be produced in the alternative forum).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01692-CFC-SRF Document 44 Filed 10/12/18 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 1430
`
`The public interests have included: the enforceability of the judgment; practical
`considerations that could make the trial easy, expeditious, or inexpensive; the
`relative administrative difficulty in the two fora resulting from court congestion;
`the local interest in deciding local controversies at home; the public policies of
`the fora; and the familiarity of the trial judge with the applicable state law in
`diversity cases.
`
`Id ( citations omitted).
`
`IV.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`Netflix moves to transfer this case, under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), to the United States
`
`District Court for the Northern District of California. (D.I. 20) Realtime opposes Netflix's
`
`motion arguing that that the Jumara factors weigh against granting the transfer. (D.I. 29) After
`
`considering the Jumara factors, I recommend that the court deny Netflix's motion to transfer.
`
`A. Whether the Case Could Have Been Brought in the Northern District of
`
`California
`
`It is undisputed that Realtime could have originally filed this case in the Northern District
`
`of California. (D.I. 21 at 7; D.I. 29 at 1-4) Venue, personal jurisdiction, and subject matter
`
`jurisdiction requirements would all be satisfied in the Northern District of California. See
`
`Blackbird Tech. LLC v. Cloudfare, Inc., C.A. No. 17-283, 2017 WL 4543783, at *3 (D. Del. Oct.
`
`11, 2017) (quoting Smart Auidio Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc., 910 F. Supp. 2d 718, 728 (D. Del.
`
`2012)). Netflix offers the allegedly infringing services worldwide and maintains a principal
`
`place of business in Los Gatos, California, within the transferee district. (D.I. 21 at 4-5; D.I. 29
`
`at 7) Therefore, venue would have been proper in the Northern District of California according
`
`to the second part of§ 1400(b). Finally, the parties do not dispute that the proposed transferee
`
`district meets the personal and subject matter jurisdictional requirements. See 28 U.S.C. §§
`
`1331, 1338(a). Having found no dispute that the case could have been brought in the Northern
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01692-CFC-SRF Document 44 Filed 10/12/18 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 1431
`
`District of California, the court now turns to analyze the Jumara private and public interest
`
`factors.
`
`B.
`
`Private Interests
`
`a. Plaintiff's Forum Preference
`
`Plaintiffs have historically been accorded the privilege of choosing their preferred venue
`
`for pursuing their claims. See C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Angiodynamics, Inc., 156 F. Supp. 3d 540, 545
`
`(D. Del. 2016). "It is black letter law that a plaintiffs choice of a proper forum is a paramount
`
`consideration in any determination of a transfer request, and that choice should not be lightly
`
`disturbed." Shutte v. Armco Steel Corp., 431 F.2d 22, 25 (3d Cir. 1970) (internal citation and
`
`quotation marks omitted). However, the Federal Circuit has accorded less deference to a
`
`plaintiffs choice of forum when the plaintiff is not physically located in the chosen forum and
`
`the forum is therefore not inherently more convenient for the plaintiff. See In re Link_ A_ Media
`
`Devices Corp., 662 F.3d 1221, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Mite! Networks Corp. v. Facebook, Inc.,
`
`943 F. Supp. 2d 463, 469-70 (D. Del. 2013).
`
`In the present action, Realtime does not allege that it has facilities, employees, or
`
`operations in Delaware. However, this court has found that it is legitimate and rational for a
`
`plaintiff to file suit in the defendant's state of incorporation, and N etflix is incorporated in
`
`Delaware. See Genentech, Inc. v. Amgen Inc., C.A. No. 17-1407-GMS, 2018 WL 503253, at *3
`
`(D. Del. Jan. 22, 2018); Elm JDS Innovations LLC v. SK Hynix Inc., C.A. No. 14-1432-LPS(cid:173)
`
`CJB, 2015 WL 4967139, at *4 (D. Del. Aug. 20, 2015). Realtime's choice of Delaware as a
`
`forum weighs in its favor, but not as strongly as it would if Realtime had a place of business in
`
`Delaware. See IpVenture, Inc. v. Acer, Inc., 879 F. Supp. 2d 426,431 (D. Del. 2012); Memory
`
`Integrity, LLC v. Intel Corp., C.A. No. 13-1804-GMS, 2015 WL 632026, at *3 (D. Del. Feb. 13,
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01692-CFC-SRF Document 44 Filed 10/12/18 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 1432
`
`2015) (concluding that a non-practicing entity's choice of forum should receive limited
`
`deference because it had no physical presence in Delaware). Accordingly, Realtime's forum
`
`preference weighs slightly against transfer.
`
`b. Defendant's Forum Preference
`
`Netflix's preference to litigate in the Northern District of California, where Netflix
`
`maintains its principal place of business, weighs slightly in favor of transfer. Despite its
`
`incorporation and offering of services within the District of Delaware, Netflix argues that it does
`
`not have relevant connections to this district and that the majority of its relevant witnesses and
`
`evidence are located in the transferee district. (Jd.) However, Netflix's preference is accorded
`
`less weight than Realtime's preference. See Stephenson v. Game Show Network, LLC, 933 F.
`
`Supp. 2d 674,678 (D. Del. 2013) (citing Cradle IP, LLC v. Texas Instruments, Inc., 923 F. Supp.
`
`2d 696, 699-700 (D. Del. 2013)). This factor weighs slightly in favor of transfer.
`
`c. Where the Claims Arose
`
`A claim for patent infringement arises wherever someone has committed acts of
`
`infringement. See generally 35 U.S.C. § 271(a); Red Wing Shoe Co., Inc. v. Hockerson(cid:173)
`
`Halberstadt, Inc., 148 F.3d 1355, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (an infringement claim "arises out of
`
`instances of making, using, or selling the patented invention"). Where the infringement claim
`
`arose is a neutral factor in the transfer analysis when "the defendant operates on a national or
`
`global scale." Genentech, 2018 WL 503253, at *4.
`
`Netflix argues that because the development of the accused functionality occurred in the
`
`Northern District of California, this factor weighs in favor of transfer. (D.I. 21 at 10) However,
`
`Netflix's allegedly infringing products are sold and used nationwide and globally, and therefore
`
`the asserted patent claims may be said to arise in Delaware. See C.R. Bard, 156 F. Supp. 3d at
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01692-CFC-SRF Document 44 Filed 10/12/18 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 1433
`
`547 (finding that a patent claim arose in Delaware when the defendant sold products there);
`
`Scientific Telecomm., LLC v. Adtran, Inc., C.A. No. 15-647-SLR, 2016 WL 1650760, at *1 (D.
`
`Del. Apr. 25, 2016) (holding that, despite ties to Alabama, the defendant operated on a global
`
`basis, and its incorporation in Delaware precluded arguments that the forum was inconvenient
`
`absent a showing of a unique or unexpected burden). This factor is neutral.
`
`d. Convenience of the Parties
`
`In evaluating the convenience of the parties, a district court should focus on the parties'
`
`relative physical and financial condition. See C.R. Bard, 156 F. Supp. 3d at 546 (citing Jumara,
`
`55 F .3d at 879). When a party "accept[ s] the benefits of incorporation under the laws of the
`
`State of Delaware, 'a company should not be successful in arguing that litigation' in Delaware in
`
`'inconvenient,' 'absent some showing of unique or unexpected burden."' Scientific Telecomm.,
`
`LLCv. Adtran, Inc., C.A. No. 15-647-SLR, 2016 WL 1650760, at *1 (D. Del. Apr. 25, 2016)
`
`(quoting ADE Corp. v. KLA-Tencor Corp., 138 F. Supp. 2d 565, 573 (D. Del. 2001)). "Unless
`
`the defendant is truly regional in character-that is, it operates essentially exclusively in a region
`
`that does not include Delaware-transfer is almost always inappropriate." Intellectual Ventures
`
`I LLC v. Checkpoint Software Techs. Ltd, 797 F. Supp. 2d 472, 477 (D. Del 2011).
`
`Netflix argues that because its relevant employees and technology are primarily located
`
`in the Northern District of California, this factor should weigh in favor of transfer. (D.I. 21 at
`
`11) Netflix also argues that the court should view any relative financial condition between the
`
`parties neutrally because Realtime, being in the business of litigation, should bear the litigation
`
`costs of filing a lawsuit. (D.I. 33 at 5)
`
`The record before the court reveals that Netflix is a global corporation engaging in
`
`business throughout the United States. (D.I. 29 at 2) However, Netflix has not shown a unique
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01692-CFC-SRF Document 44 Filed 10/12/18 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 1434
`
`or unexpected burden as required to support transfer under the relevant standard. See Bistol(cid:173)
`
`Myers Squibb Co. v. Merck & Co., C.A. No. 14-1131-GMS, 2015 WL 13683600, at *1 n.l (D.
`
`Del. Apr. 29, 2015) (finding no undue financial burden on a defendant corporation "with global
`
`reach and annual revenues in the billions."). Moreover, Netflix's claims of inconvenience are
`
`contradicted by its choice to incorporate in Delaware. See Genentech, 2018 WL 503253, at *4.
`
`This factor is neutral.
`
`e. Location of Books and Records
`
`The Third Circuit in Jumara advised that the location of books and records is only
`
`determinative if "the files c[an] not be produced in the alternative forum." 55 F.3d at 879.
`
`However, the Federal Circuit has explained that "[i]n patent infringement cases, the bulk of the
`
`relevant evidence usually comes from the accused infringer. Consequently, the place where the
`
`defendant's documents are kept weighs in favor of transfer to that location." In re Genentech,
`
`Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Nevertheless, courts within the District of Delaware
`
`have repeatedly recognized that technological advances have reduced the weight of this factor.
`
`See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Checkpoint Software Techs. Ltd., 797 F. Supp. 2d at 485;
`
`Afjymetrix, Inc. v. Synteni, Inc., 28 F. Supp. 2d 192, 208 (D. Del. 1998); Nihon Tsushin
`
`Kabushiki Kaisha v. Davidson, 595 F. Supp. 2d 363, 372 (D. Del. 2009). Today, "virtually all
`
`businesses maintain their books and records in electronic format readily available for review and
`
`use at any location." C.R. Bard, 156 F. Supp. 3d at 546; see also Quest Integrity USA, LLC v.
`
`Clean Harbors Indus. Servs., Inc., 114 F. Supp. 3d 187, 191 (D. Del. 2015).
`
`Netflix argues that most of the relevant evidence in this case will come from the Northern
`
`District of California. (D.I. 21 at 13-15) However, Netflix admits that this evidence is
`
`"accessible electronically in the Northern District of California." (Id. at 14) N etflix did not
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01692-CFC-SRF Document 44 Filed 10/12/18 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 1435
`
`explain why it could not produce or transport relevant evidence to Delaware. See Cruise Control
`
`Techs. LLC v. Chrysler Grp. LLC, C.A. No. 12-1755-GMS, 2014 WL 1304820, at *4 (D. Del.
`
`Mar. 31, 2014) ( concluding that location of books and records is only relevant "where the
`
`Defendants show that there are books and records that cannot be transported or transmitted to
`
`Delaware."). This factor weighs slightly in favor of transfer.
`
`f. Convenience of the Witnesses
`
`The relevant inquiry with respect to convenience of the witnesses is not whether
`
`witnesses are inconvenienced by litigation, but rather, whether witnesses "may actually be
`
`unavailable for trial in one of the fora." Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879. The inconvenience of travel
`
`does not demonstrate that witnesses would "actually be unavailable for trial," as required by
`
`Jumara. Id The court has previously found that
`
`travel expenses and inconveniences incurred for that purpose, by a Delaware
`defendant, [are] not overly burdensome. From a practical standpoint, much of the
`testimony presented at trial these days is presented via recorded depositions, as
`opposed to witnesses traveling and appearing live. There certainly is no obstacle
`to [ a party] embracing this routine trial practice.
`
`Oracle Corp. v. epicRealm Licensing, LP., No. Civ. 06-414-SLR, 2007 WL 901543, at *4 (D.
`
`Del. Mar. 26, 2007). The party seeking transfer must provide specificity regarding "(1) the
`
`particular witness to whom it is referring; (2) what that person's testimony might have to do with
`
`a trial in this case; and (3) what reason there is to think that the person will 'actually' be
`
`unavailable for trial (as opposed to the proffer of a guess or speculation on that front)."
`
`Genedics, LLC v. Meta Company, C.A. No. 17-1062-CJB, 2018 WL 417950, at *7 (D. Del. Jan.
`
`12, 2018) (citing Elm 3DS, 2015 WL 4967139, at *8).
`
`Netflix has not specifically identified any material witness who could not be subpoenaed
`
`or would not voluntarily come to Delaware to testify. (D.I. 21 at 13) Instead, Netflix asserts that
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01692-CFC-SRF Document 44 Filed 10/12/18 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 1436
`
`there are "no known party or third-party witnesses in Delaware." (Id.) This is not the proper
`
`inquiry and is insufficient for this factor to weigh in favor of transfer. See Endeavor MeshTech,
`
`Inc. v. Aclara Techs. LLC, C.A. No. 13-1618-GMS, 2015 WL 849211, at *4 (D. Del. Feb. 25,
`
`2015). Additionally, inventors of the Fallon patents live in New York, which is closer to
`
`Delaware than California. (D.I. 29 at 12) Although Netflix notes that these inventors previously
`
`preferred litigating in Texas, this does not alter the analysis. Because Netflix has not identified
`
`any specific witnesses who cannot appear in Delaware for trial, this factor is neutral.
`
`C.
`
`Public Interests3
`
`a. Practical Considerations
`
`In its analysis of the public interest factors, the court weighs practical considerations that
`
`"make the trial easy, expeditious, or inexpensive." Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879. Netflix argues that ·
`
`this factor favors transfer because litigating in the Northern District of California eliminates the
`
`need for its witnesses and attorneys to travel from coast to coast. (D.I. 21 at 15) Netflix also
`
`argues that transfer will not overly inconvenience the court because this case, like the other cases
`
`filed by Realtime for the infringement of the same patents, is in a very early stage. (Id. at 16)
`
`Realtime argues that there are other pending cases in the District of Delaware concerning these
`
`same patents, compared to none existing in the Northern District of California. (D.I. 29 at 13)
`
`Realtime argues that keeping these related cases in the District of Delaware facilitates judicial
`
`economy and that litigating in the transferee district would require greater expense for its
`
`witnesses in New York and Texas. (Id. at 13 n.3)
`
`3 The court notes that the parties do not dispute two of the public interest factors: (1) the
`enforceability of the judgment; and (2) the familiarity of the trial judge with the applicable state
`law in diversity cases. (D.I. 21 at 15-17; D.I. 29 at 12-16) These factors are therefore neutral.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01692-CFC-SRF Document 44 Filed 10/12/18 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 1437
`
`Although Netflix may be correct that transfer might decrease expenses incurred through
`
`travel, the fact remains that other related cases are before this court.4 This court has held that in
`
`such cases, denying the motion to transfer is in the best interest of judicial economy. See
`
`Schubert v. Cree, Inc., C.A. No. 12-922-GMS, 2013 WL 550192, at *5 (D. Del. Feb. 14, 2013)
`
`(citingAIP Acquisition LLC v. iBasis, Inc., C.A. No. 12-616-GMS, 2012 WL 5199118, at *5 (D.
`
`Del. Oct. 19, 2012)) ("the fact that related cases are currently pending before the court suggests
`
`that denying this motion would best serve the interests of judicial economy."); Smart Audio
`
`Techs. LLC v. Apple, Inc., 910 F. Supp. 2d 718, 732-33 (D. Del. 2012). While Netflix argues
`
`that this factor could weigh in favor of transfer when a case is in its infancy, this court has also
`
`recognized that "a trial judge may develop a familiarity or expertise over a given patented
`
`technology over time." Endeavor, 2015 WL 849211, at *5. This factor weighs slightly against
`
`transfer.
`
`b. Court Congestion
`
`Netflix avers that this factor weighs in favor of transfer due to the judicial vacancies5 on
`
`this court, citing statistics6 regarding the current caseload in this district. (D .I. 21 at 1 7)
`
`Realtime argues that the relative difference in congestion between the two districts is
`
`4 There are three other related cases currently pending before this court. First, Realtime filed suit
`against Brightcove Inc. and Brightcove Holdings, Inc. on October 26, 201 7, asserting
`infringement of the Fallon patents. (C.A. No. 17-1519-CFC-SRF, D.I. 1) Second, Realtime filed
`suit against Haivision on October 26, 2017, asserting infringement of the Fallon patents. (C.A.
`No. 17-1520-CFC-SRF, D.I. 1) Finally, Realtime filed a patent infringement suit against Sony
`Electronics, Inc. on November 21, 2017, asserting infringement of the Fallon patents and Non(cid:173)
`Fallon patents. (C.A. No. 17-1693-CFC-SRF, D.I. 1)
`5 Since the completion of briefing on the motion to transfer, the judicial vacancies have been
`filled.
`6 Netflix avers that the District of Delaware's median time to termination of trial is 345 days
`compared to 287 days in the Northern District of California. (D.I. 21 at 17) Further, Netflix
`asserts the median time to trial is 37.8 months in the District of Delaware compared to 32.8
`months in the Northern District of California. (Id.)
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01692-CFC-SRF Document 44 Filed 10/12/18 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 1438
`
`inconsequential. (D.I. 29 at 15) "[T]he case management orders [in this district] always start
`
`with the schedules proposed by the litigants .... [I]f there is a need to expedite proceedings,
`
`that need is generally accommodated by the court." Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. OmniVision
`
`Techs., Inc., 246 F. Supp. 3d 1001, 1003-04 (D. Del. 2017). Additionally, this court has
`
`previously found similar differentials in time to trial between districts inconsequential. See
`
`Intellectual Ventures I, 797 F. Supp. 2d at 486 (finding a 3.7 month differential in time to trial
`
`was "inconsequential"). This factor is neutral.
`
`c. Local Interest
`
`The local interest factor is generally neutral in patent litigation because patent cases
`
`"implicate[] constitutionally protected property rights, [are] governed by federal law reviewed by
`
`a court of appeals of national (as opposed to regional) stature, and affect[] national (if not global)
`
`markets." C.R. Bard, 156 F. Supp. 3d at 547 (citing Cradle IP v. Texas Instruments, Inc., 923 F.
`
`Supp. 2d 696, 700-01 (D. Del. 2013)); see also Tessera, Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., C.A. No. 16-
`
`379-LPS-CJB, 2017 WL 1065865, at *11 (D. Del. Mar. 21, 2017). However, Netflix argues that
`
`the Northern District of California has a local interest in this litigation because this dispute
`
`involves California witnesses, services designed in California, and evidence located in
`
`California. (D.I. 21 at 16) Because Realtime brings only a federal patent law claim, the local
`
`interest factor is neutral.
`
`d. Public Policy
`
`"The public policy of Delaware encourages the use by Delaware corporations of
`
`Delaware as a forum for resolution of business disputes." Graphics Props. Holdings Inc. v.
`
`ASUS Comput. Int 'l, Inc., 964 F. Supp. 2d 320, 331 (D. Del. 2013) ( quoting Wacoh Co. v. Kionix
`
`Inc., 845 F. Supp. 2d 597,604 n.9 (D. Del. 2012)). "Delaware promotes itself as a place that
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01692-CFC-SRF Document 44 Filed 10/12/18 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 1439
`
`entities should choose as their corporate home, and in doing so, touts itself as a forum well(cid:173)
`
`positioned to help resolve business disputes." Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC v. TC Heartland,
`
`LLC, C.A. No. 14-28-LPS, 2015 WL 4778828, at *15 (D. Del. Aug. 13, 2015) (citing Wacoh,
`
`845 F. Supp. 2d at 604 n.9 (D. Del. 2012)). Because Netflix is a Delaware corporation, this
`
`factor weighs against transfer.
`
`e. Transfer Analysis Summary
`
`As a whole, the Jumara factors weigh against transfer. Although Real time's forum
`
`preference is given slightly less deference because Realtime does not maintain a place of
`
`business in Delaware, it is accorded more weight than Netflix's choice of forum. Netflix has
`
`noted that some of the relevant evidence and witnesses are located in the Northern District of
`
`California. However, Netflix has not shown that the evidence and witnesses would be
`
`unavailable if the case is not transferred. Practical considerations slightly weigh against transfer
`
`because of other related cases pending before this court. Public policy considerations weigh
`
`against transfer because Netflix is a Delaware corporation. The remaining factors are neutral.
`
`For these reasons, I recommend that the court deny Netflix's motion to transfer venue.
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, I recommend that the court deny Netflix's motion to transfer.
`
`(D.I. 20)
`
`This Report and Recommendation is filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(B), Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 72(b)(l), and D. Del. LR 72.1. The parties may serve and file specific written objections
`
`within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of this Report and Recommendation.
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). The objections and responses to the objections are limited to ten (10)
`
`pages each. The failure of a party to object to legal conclusions may result in the loss of the right
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01692-CFC-SRF Document 44 Filed 10/12/18 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 1440
`
`to de novo review in the District Court. See Sincavage v. Barnhart, 171 F. App'x 924, 925 n.1
`
`(3d Cir. 2006); Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878-79 (3d Cir. 1987).
`
`The parties are directed to the court's Standing Order For Objections Filed Under Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 72, dated October 9, 2013, a copy of which is available on the court's website,
`
`http://www.ded.uscourts.gov.
`
`Dated: October 12..._, 2018
`
`14
`
`