Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-ADM Document 83 Filed 04/07/20 Page 1 of 8
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
`
`
`
`
`LOGANTREE LP,
`
`
`
`
` vs.
`
`GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC. and
`GARMIN USA, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
` Case No. 17-1217-EFM-ADM
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
`
`This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Garmin International, Inc., and Garmin
`
`
`
`USA, Inc.’s (collectively “Garmin’s”) Motion for Intra-District Transfer for Trial (Doc. 71). In
`
`its Complaint, Plaintiff LoganTree LP (“LoganTree”) designated Wichita, Kansas, as the place of
`
`trial. Garmin asks the Court to transfer the place of trial to Kanas City, Kansas. For the reasons
`
`discussed below, the Court grants Garmin’s motion.
`
`I.
`
`Factual and Procedural Background
`
`
`
`LoganTree filed this patent infringement suit in August 2017 alleging that Garmin’s
`
`accelerometer-based activity trackers infringe its U.S. Patent No. 6,059,576 (the ‘576 Patent).
`
`LoganTree designated Wichita as the place of trial. In February 2018, Garmin filed two petitions
`
`for inter partes review (“IPR”) with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board covering multiple claims
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-ADM Document 83 Filed 04/07/20 Page 2 of 8
`
`of the ‘576 Patent. In August 2018, the PTAB instituted the IPRs on all grounds. Garmin then
`
`filed a Motion to Stay Litigation pending the outcome of the IPRs.
`
`
`
`Shortly before Garmin moved for a stay, it filed its first Motion for Intra-District Transfer
`
`of Trial. The Court addressed this motion, along with the Motion to Stay, in one Order issued in
`
`February 2019. The Court granted the stay pending the outcome of the IPRs. It also denied
`
`Garmin’s motion to transfer the place of trial without prejudice reasoning that the PTAB’s
`
`decisions could simplify the case such that LoganTree would no longer have a claim for
`
`infringement.
`
`
`
`On August 28, 2019, the PTAB issued two decisions on the IPRs upholding the validity of
`
`the challenged claims. Upon the joint motion of the parties, the Court lifted the stay on the case.
`
`Garmin now moves again to transfer the trial forum from Wichita to Kansas City.
`
`II.
`
`Legal Standard
`
`
`
`Under D. Kan. Rule 40.2, “[t]he court is not bound by the requests for place of trial. It may
`
`determine the place of trial upon motion or in its discretion.”1 When analyzing such motion, “the
`
`courts of this district generally look to the same factors relevant to motions for change of venue
`
`under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).”2 These factors include: “(1) [the] plaintiff’s choice of forum, (2) the
`
`convenience of the witnesses, (3) the accessibility of witnesses and other sources of proof, (4) the
`
`possibility of obtaining a fair trial, and (5) all other practical considerations that make a trial easy,
`
`
`1 D. Kan. Rule 40.2(e).
`
`2 McDermed v. Marian Clinic, Inc., 2014 WL 6819407, at *1 (D. Kan. 2014) (quoting Twigg v. Hawker
`Beechcraft Corp., 2009 WL 1044942, at *1 (D. Kan. 2009)).
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-ADM Document 83 Filed 04/07/20 Page 3 of 8
`
`expeditious, and economical.”3 The district court has “broad discretion in deciding a motion to
`
`transfer base on a case-by-case review of convenience and fairness.”4
`
`
`
`The Court will apply the § 1404 factors below to determine whether the trial of this case
`
`III. Analysis
`
`should be transferred from Wichita to Kansas City.
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiff’s Choice of Forum
`
`
`
`“Generally, the plaintiff’s choice of forum is not disturbed unless the balance weighs
`
`strongly in favor of transfer.”5 But, “a plaintiff’s choice of forum receives less deference when
`
`the plaintiff does not reside there.”6 “Additionally, courts have given little weight to a plaintiff’s
`
`choice of forum ‘where the facts giving rise to the lawsuit have no material relation or significant
`
`connection to the plaintiff’s choice of forum.’ ”7 Here, LoganTree is a partnership organized under
`
`the laws of Nevada, and its managing members, Theodore and Anne Brann, reside in Boerne,
`
`Texas. Furthermore, the facts giving rise to this lawsuit have no connection to Wichita. Garmin
`
`resides in Olathe, Kansas, which is within the Kansas City metropolitan area. LoganTree has not
`
`asserted that any significant events related to the alleged infringement occurred in Wichita.
`
`Accordingly, Plaintiff’s choice of forum is given reduced weight.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3 Id. at *1 (citing Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Country Chrysler, Inc., 928 F.2d 1509, 1516 (10th Cir. 1991)).
`
`4 Id.
`
`5 Id. at *2 (citing Scheidt v. Klein, 956 F.2d 963, 965 (10th Cir. 1992)).
`
`6 Id. (citing Vanmeveren v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 2005 WL 3543179, at *2 (D. Kan. 2005)).
`
`7 Id. (quoting Cook v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co., 816 F. Supp. 667, 669 (D. Kan.1993)).
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-ADM Document 83 Filed 04/07/20 Page 4 of 8
`
`B.
`
`
`
`The Convenience and Accessibility of Witnesses and Other Sources of Proof
`
`When the plaintiff’s choice of forum is given reduced weight, “the ‘relative convenience
`
`of the forum is a primary, if not the most important, factor to consider in deciding a motion to
`
`transfer.’ ”8 The plaintiff’s proposed forum must be “substantially inconvenient” to warrant a
`
`change in the place of trial.9 A forum is “substantially inconvenient” when a majority of the
`
`witnesses must travel from a different forum, creating a substantial burden for those witnesses.10
`
`
`
`Garmin argues that Wichita is a substantially inconvenient forum for Garmin’s witnesses.
`
`Garmin has put forward evidence that the accused products fall within the Fitness and Outdoor
`
`business segments of Garmin, which is located in Olathe, and the employees who will testify about
`
`the accused products work in Olathe. According to Garmin, if trial were held in Wichita, its
`
`witnesses would be forced to travel two and half hours to Wichita, each way, and incur hotel costs,
`
`while witnesses could travel from Olathe to Kansas City in thirty minutes. Rather than missing a
`
`full day of work to attend trial in Wichita, Garmin’s witnesses would only have to miss a portion
`
`of the work day to attend trial in Kansas City.
`
`
`
`Garmin also contends that Wichita is a substantially inconvenient forum for LoganTree’s
`
`witnesses. Garmin has submitted a detailed list of possible witnesses from a prior action regarding
`
`the ‘576 Patent, and this list shows that none of LoganTree’s witnesses are located in Wichita.11
`
`Instead, they all reside near San Antonio, Texas. Garmin has produced evidence showing that
`
`
`8 Bright v. BHCMC, LLC, 2018 WL 398450, at *3 (D. Kan. 2018) (quoting McIntosh v. City of Wichita, 2015
`WL 1646402, at *2 (D. Kan. 2015)).
`
`9 Id.
`
`10 Id.
`
`11 LoganTree does not dispute that this list of witnesses is applicable to this case.
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-ADM Document 83 Filed 04/07/20 Page 5 of 8
`
`flights from San Antonio to Kansas City are cheaper and shorter than flights to Wichita.
`
`Furthermore, Theodore Brann, who is the ‘576 Patent’s sole inventor and co-owner of LoganTree,
`
`will likely be unable to travel to Kansas City or Wichita for trial. Thus, the place of trial, whether
`
`it is Wichita or Kansas City, is irrelevant to him.
`
`
`
`
`
`In response, LoganTree relies on case law from Connecticut and the Second Circuit arguing
`
`that the increased distance to Wichita is irrelevant with “modern transportation and technology”
`
`where the forum “can be reached in a few hours of air travel.”12 This Court is not bound by the
`
`law of the District of Connecticut or the Second Circuit. Furthermore, as Garmin asserts in its
`
`reply brief, even if the Court did apply this law, transfer would never be warranted because every
`
`available forum is only a few hours away from Kansas.
`
`
`
`Overall, the Court finds that this factor weighs in favor of changing the trial location.
`
`LoganTree’s principal, Brann, will not be appearing at trial, and therefore, the location of trial is
`
`irrelevant to him. As for LoganTree’s witnesses, they will be inconvenienced by travel to either
`
`Kansas City or Wichita. Normally, this Court would not consider flying into Wichita to be any
`
`more inconvenient than flying into Kansas City. But, Garmin has introduced evidence showing
`
`that there is a significant price and time difference between flying from San Antonio to Wichita
`
`than flying from San Antonio to Kansas City. Thus, the Court considers this evidence to be
`
`persuasive when analyzing this factor. Moreover, all of Garmin’s witnesses are located in Kansas
`
`City. Therefore, the Court concludes that Kansas City is a more convenient location for trial than
`
`Wichita.
`
`
`12 Freedom v. Am. Online, Inc., 294 F. Supp. 2d 238, 243 (D. Conn. 2003); Effron v. Sunline Cruises, Inc.,
`67 F.3d 7, 10 (2d Cir. 1995).
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-ADM Document 83 Filed 04/07/20 Page 6 of 8
`
`C.
`
`Fair Trial
`
`
`
`LoganTree’s primary argument in response to Garmin’s motion is that it would be unfair
`
`to hold trial in Kansas City, where LoganTree would be “forced to try [its] case before a jury
`
`sympathetic to hometown tech hero Garmin.” LoganTree relies on Morgan v. Christman, a 1988
`
`case where the District of Kansas denied a defendant’s motion to transfer to Wichita from Kansas
`
`City, based in part on bias concerns.13 LoganTree’s argument, however, has been rejected in more
`
`recent cases decided by this Court.
`
`
`
`In Aramburu v. The Boeing Company,14 the plaintiff designated Topeka as the place for
`
`trial instead of Wichita, despite the fact that all of the witnesses were located in Wichita, including
`
`the defendant—who was a large employer of individuals in Wichita.15 The plaintiff argued that it
`
`would be difficult to empanel a fair and impartial jury in the hometown of Wichita’s largest
`
`employer.16 The Court, however, disagreed explaining that it was “confident that the plaintiff’s
`
`concerns that Wichita residents will be reluctant to hold against [the defendant] will be adequately
`
`addressed during voir dire of the prospective jurors.”17
`
`
`
`Similarly, in Callahan v. Bledsoe,18 the plaintiff, a Colorado resident, argued that Wichita
`
`would be an unfair place for trial because one of the defendants was a Wichita hospital that
`
`
`13 1988 WL 243382, at *1 (D. Kan. 1988).
`
`14 896 F. Supp. 1063 (D. Kan. 1995).
`
`15 Id. at 1064.
`
`16 Id. at 1064-65.
`
`17 Id. at 1065.
`
`18 2017 WL 1303269 (D. Kan. 2017).
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-ADM Document 83 Filed 04/07/20 Page 7 of 8
`
`employed a number of individuals.19 The plaintiff argued that Wichita residents would be unlikely
`
`to award a large judgement against a Wichita employer.20 The Court, however, found this
`
`argument to be speculative because “fair trials may be conducted with businesses who have
`
`headquarters and employ residents in the place of trial.”21 The Court further found that voir dire
`
`would eliminate the plaintiff’s concerns about bias.22
`
`
`
`The Court is not persuaded that it would be unfair to LoganTree to hold the trial in Kansas
`
`City simply because Garmin is a large employer in the Kansas City metropolitan area. This Court
`
`has rejected this argument in two cases decided since Morgan v. Christman. Any issues of bias in
`
`favor of Garmin may be resolved in voir dire. Thus, this factor weighs in favor of transferring the
`
`trial to Kansas City.
`
`D.
`
`
`
`Other Considerations
`
`The Court may consider “costs in the form of mileage, meals, and hotel expenses” incurred
`
`by holding the trial in Wichita as opposed to Kansas City.23 As noted above, LoganTree’s
`
`witnesses are located in Texas will be required to incur travel expenses regardless of whether the
`
`trial is in Wichita or Kansas City. Garmin’s witnesses, however, are located at or near Olathe, and
`
`thus will incur travel, meal, and potentially hotel costs in coming to Wichita. Thus, this factor
`
`weighs slightly in favor of transferring the trial to Kansas City.
`
`
`
`
`19 Id. at *5.
`
`20 Id.
`
`21 Id.
`
`22 Id.
`
`23 Hughes v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Kan., Inc., 2012 WL 3644845, at *4 (D. Kan. 2012).
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 6:17-cv-01217-EFM-ADM Document 83 Filed 04/07/20 Page 8 of 8
`
`V.
`
`Conclusion
`
`
`
`Based on a review of the § 1404 factors, the Court concludes that the trial of this case
`
`should be transferred to Kansas City. Plaintiff has no connection to Wichita, and none of the
`
`infringement allegations have any relation to Wichita. It would be substantially inconvenient for
`
`most of the witnesses to travel to Wichita for trial. Furthermore, despite LoganTree’s protests to
`
`the contrary, transfer of the trial to Kansas City will not result in an unfair trial. Accordingly, the
`
`Court grants Garmin’s motion.
`
`
`
`IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Garmin’s Motion for Intra-District Transfer for
`
`Trial (Doc. 71) is GRANTED. The trial of this matter shall be held in Kansas City, Kansas.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated this 7th day of April, 2020.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ERIC F. MELGREN
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`