Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 19 Filed 11/02/18 Page 1 of 27
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
`
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS
`
`INTERNATIONAL GMBH and
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`ELI LILLY AND COMPANY
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Case No. 1:18-cv-12029-ADB
`
`DEFENDANT ELI LILLY AND COMPANY’S MEMORANDUM
`IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO TRANSFER, OR, IF NOT TRANSFERRED,
`THEN TO STAY THIS LITIGATION PENDING INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 19 Filed 11/02/18 Page 2 of 27
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`Preliminary Statement ......................................................................................................... 1
`
`Background ......................................................................................................................... 3
`
`Both the Public and Private Interest Factors Favor Transfer To The Southern
`District Of Indiana .............................................................................................................. 5
`
`A.
`
`All the Private Interest Factors Weigh in Favor of Transfer to the
`Southern District of Indiana .................................................................................... 5
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Teva’s Choice of Forum Is Entitled to Little or No Deference
`Because Teva Has No Substantive Connection to the District
`of Massachusetts ......................................................................................... 5
`
`The Southern District of Indiana Is More Convenient for the
`Parties .......................................................................................................... 7
`
`The Southern District of Indiana Is More Convenient Based
`on the Location of the Expected Witnesses and Documents ...................... 8
`
`Teva Fails to Establish a Connection Between the Issues in
`the Case and Its Choice of Forum ............................................................. 11
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Public and State Interests Weigh in Favor of Transfer to the
`Southern District of Indiana .................................................................................. 14
`
`The Southern District of Indiana is a Proper Venue ............................................. 15
`
`IV.
`
`All Factors Favor Staying This Case Pending Inter Partes Review ................................. 15
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`The Early Stage of this Litigation Strongly Favors a Stay ................................... 17
`
`A Stay Will Simplify the Issues in This Case and Promote Judicial
`Economy ............................................................................................................... 17
`
`A Stay Will Neither Unduly Prejudice Nor Present a Clear Tactical
`Disadvantage to Teva ............................................................................................ 19
`
`In the Alternative, a Modest Stay Pending the Board’s Decision on
`Institution Is Appropriate ...................................................................................... 20
`
`V.
`
`Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 20
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 19 Filed 11/02/18 Page 3 of 27
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`
`ACQIS, LLC v. EMC Corp.,
`109 F. Supp. 3d 352 (D. Mass. 2015) .............................................................................. passim
`
`Affymetrix, Inc. v. Systeni, Inc.,
`28 F. Supp. 2d 192 (D. Del. 1998) ............................................................................................ 6
`
`Aplix IP Holdings Corp. v. Sony Comput. Entm’t, Inc.,
`137 F. Supp. 3d 3 (D. Mass. 2015) ................................................................................... 17, 19
`
`Audubon Real Estate Assocs., L.L.C. v. Audubon Realty, L.L.C.,
`No. 3:15-115-SDD-SCR, 2015 WL 4094235 (M.D. La. July 7, 2015) .................................... 7
`
`Avci v. Brennan,
`232 F. Supp. 3d 216 (D. Mass. 2017) ..................................................................................... 11
`
`Blackbird Tech LLC v. Cloudfare, Inc.,
`No. 1:17-cv-00283, 2017 WL 4543783 (D. Del. Oct. 11, 2017) ............................................ 12
`
`Boateng v. Gen. Dynamics Corp.,
`460 F. Supp. 2d 270 (D. Mass. 2006) ....................................................................................... 8
`
`Bowen v. Elanes N.H. Holdings, LLC,
`166 F. Supp. 3d 104 (D. Mass. 2015) ..................................................................................... 14
`
`Brant Point Corp. v. Poetzsch,
`671 F. Supp. 2 (D. Mass. 1987) ................................................................................................ 6
`
`Codex Corp. v. Milgo Elec. Corp.,
`553 F.2d 735 (1st Cir. 1977) ..................................................................................................... 5
`
`Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg,
`849 F.2d 1422 (Fed. Cir. 1988)............................................................................................... 15
`
`Falafel Republic Mediterranean Foods, Inc. v. Tarazi Specialty Foods, Inc.,
`No. 1:12-cv-10551-NMG, 2012 WL 12941889 (D. Mass. Sept. 28, 2012) ............................. 8
`
`Fed. Ins. Co. v. XTRA Intermodal, Inc.,
`No. 1:14-cv-14010-ADB, 2015 WL 4275181 (D. Mass. July 15, 2015) ............................. 5, 6
`
`Fisher-Price, Inc. et al v. Dynacraft BSC, Inc.,
`No. 4:17-cv-03745 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2017) ......................................................................... 16
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 19 Filed 11/02/18 Page 4 of 27
`
`Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. Intel Corp.,
`No. 17-00676 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 28, 2012) ................................................................................. 9
`
`Gryphon Networks Corp. v. Contact Ctr. Compliance Corp.,
`792 F. Supp. 2d 87 (D. Mass. 2011) ....................................................................................... 18
`
`Habitat Wallpaper & Blinds, Inc. v. K.T. Scott Ltd. P’ship,
`807 F. Supp. 470 (N.D. Ill. 1992) ............................................................................................. 7
`
`Health Diagnostic Lab., Inc. v. Bos. Heart Diagnostics Corp.,
`No. 3:14-cv-00796 (E.D. Va. Feb. 4, 2015) ........................................................................... 16
`
`In re Acer Am. Corp.,
`626 F.3d 1252 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................... 12, 13, 14
`
`In re Genentech, Inc.,
`566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009)............................................................................................... 10
`
`In re Hoffman-La Roche Inc.,
`587 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2009)............................................................................................... 14
`
`Karmaloop, Inc. v. ODW Logistics, Inc.,
`931 F. Supp. 2d 288 (D. Mass. 2013) ..................................................................................... 11
`
`Kaufmann v. Prudential Ins. Co.,
`667 F. Supp. 2d 205 (D. Mass. 2009) ....................................................................................... 7
`
`Landis v. N. Am. Co.,
`299 U.S. 248 (1936) ................................................................................................................ 15
`
`Lando & Anastasi, LLP v. Innovention Toys, L.L.C.,
`79 F. Supp. 3d 375 (D. Mass. 2015) ......................................................................................... 6
`
`McEvily v. Sunbeam-Oster Co.,
`878 F. Supp. 337 (D.R.I. 1994)............................................................................................... 14
`
`Medline Indus., Inc. v. C.R. Bard, Inc.,
`No. 1:14-cv-03618 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 11, 2015) .......................................................................... 16
`
`Momenta Pharm., Inc. v. Amphastar Pharm., Inc.,
`841 F. Supp. 2d 514 (D. Mass. 2012) ....................................................................................... 5
`
`Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno,
`454 U.S. 235 (1981) .................................................................................................................. 6
`
`Princess House, Inc. v. Lindsey,
`136 F.R.D. 16 (D. Mass. 1991) ................................................................................................. 8
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 19 Filed 11/02/18 Page 5 of 27
`
`Reckitt Benckiser Pharm., Inc. v. Biodelivery Sci. Int’l, Inc.,
`No. 3:14-cv-05892-MAS-TJB, 2015 WL 4461511 (D.N.J. July 21, 2015) ........................... 11
`
`Reiser v. RTI Int’l Metals, Inc.,
`No. 1:08-cv-0729, 2009 WL 1097250 (S.D. Ohio April 22, 2009) .......................................... 6
`
`Roche Molecular Sys., Inc. v. Cepheid,
`No. 3:14-cv-03228-EDL, 2015 WL 124523 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2015) ................................... 16
`
`Ross v. Institutional Longevity Assets LLC,
`No. 1:12-cv-00102-LPS-CJB, 2013 WL 5299171 (D. Del. Sept. 20, 2013) ............................ 6
`
`Sec. People, Inc. v. Ojmar US, LLC,
`No. 4:14-cv-04968, 2015 WL 3453780 (N.D. Cal. May 29, 2015)........................................ 16
`
`Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp.,
`487 U.S. 22 (1988) .................................................................................................................... 5
`
`Studer Prof’l Audio GmbH v. Calrec Audio Ltd.,
`No. 2:12-cv-02278, 2012 WL 3061495 (D.N.J. July 25, 2012) ............................................. 19
`
`TAS Energy, Inc. v. San Diego Gas & Elec. Co.,
`No. 3:12-cv-2777, 2014 WL 794215 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 26, 2014)............................................. 16
`
`TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Group Brands LLC,
`137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017) ............................................................................................................ 15
`
`W. Marine Prods., Inc. v. Dolphinite, Inc.,
`No. 1:04-cv-10251-PBS, 2005 WL 1000259 (D. Mass. Apr. 6, 2005) .................................... 9
`
`Wonderland NurseryGoods Co. v. Baby Trend, Inc.,
`No. 5:14-cv-01153, 2015 WL 1809309 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 20, 2015) ........................................ 16
`
`Zond, Inc. v. Toshiba Am. Elec. Components, Inc.,
`No. 1:13-cv-11581 (D. Mass. Sept. 30, 2014) ........................................................................ 16
`
`Federal Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) .............................................................................................................. 1, 5, 20
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(a) .......................................................................................................................... 4
`
`35 U.S.C. § 314(b) ........................................................................................................................ 19
`
`35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11) .................................................................................................................... 4
`
`35 U.S.C. §§ 311-319 ............................................................................................................... 4, 17
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 19 Filed 11/02/18 Page 6 of 27
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ............................................................................................................................ 17
`
`Federal Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) .................................................................................................................. 4
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 19 Filed 11/02/18 Page 7 of 27
`
`Defendant Eli Lilly and Company (“Lilly”) submits this memorandum in support of its
`
`motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), to transfer this action to the United States District Court
`
`for the Southern District of Indiana or, if not transferred, to stay this litigation.
`
`I.
`
`PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
`
`Every one of the relevant public and private interest factors favor transfer of this case to
`
`the Southern District of Indiana. No party is incorporated or has its principal place of business in
`
`Massachusetts, a forum Teva seems to have chosen arbitrarily. Instead, Teva Pharmaceuticals
`
`International GmbH (“Teva GmbH”) and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (“Teva USA”)
`
`(collectively, “Teva”), are incorporated in Switzerland and Delaware, respectively. Teva USA is
`
`headquartered in Pennsylvania. Lilly is incorporated and headquartered in Indiana. Teva’s choice
`
`of a forum where no party is headquartered or incorporated is entitled to little or no deference.
`
`The issues in this case also have a far stronger connection to the Southern District of
`
`Indiana than to Massachusetts because the vast majority of the production, management of sales
`
`and marketing, drug-development, and regulatory work for the accused drug product was done by
`
`Lilly in Indiana. In contrast, Teva’s Complaint fails to identify any particular connection between
`
`Massachusetts and the issues in the case. For example, although Teva points to a Lilly site in
`
`Massachusetts, that site has no connection to the events at issue in this case. This factor thus
`
`strongly favors transfer to Indiana—the center of gravity of the alleged infringing activity.
`
`This district is also far less convenient than the Southern District of Indiana for both the
`
`parties and the expected witnesses in this patent infringement suit. The vast majority of Lilly
`
`employees who performed the production, drug-development, and regulatory work on the accused
`
`drug product, as well as Lilly’s corporate witnesses and the employees primarily responsible for
`
`marketing any Lilly drug or building a sales force, are based in Lilly’s Indianapolis headquarters.
`
`(Ex. A (“Conley Decl.”) ¶¶ 4, 6, 8, 10.) Meanwhile, Teva identifies no expected witnesses residing
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 19 Filed 11/02/18 Page 8 of 27
`
`in Massachusetts, and the named inventors of Teva’s patents reside elsewhere (and, notably, closer
`
`to Indiana than Massachusetts). Similarly, no relevant documents (or at least no significant
`
`number) are located in Massachusetts. (Id.) Indiana is thus a far more convenient forum.
`
`Finally, the public interest factors also favor transfer. Indiana has a compelling state interest
`
`in adjudicating a case involving a large local pharmaceutical company that employs nearly 10,000
`
`people in the state. (Conley Decl. ¶ 4.) Massachusetts, on the other hand, has little interest in
`
`hearing a suit involving out-of-state (or foreign) companies regarding a product for which the
`
`majority of the accused activity was performed in Indiana by Lilly employees who live in Indiana.
`
`As a whole, these factors weigh heavily in favor of transfer to the Southern District of
`
`Indiana. Lilly thus respectfully requests that the Court grant its motion to transfer this case.
`
`Should the Court decide against transferring this case to the Southern District of Indiana,
`
`it should be stayed pending the resolution of inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings. All factors
`
`weigh heavily in favor of granting a stay.
`
`First, the litigation is in its infancy: the Court has not yet conducted a case management
`
`conference or set a case schedule. Therefore, a stay will conserve judicial resources without
`
`impeding the due administration of justice.
`
`Second, a stay will simplify the central issues in this case and reduce the cost and burden
`
`on the Court and the parties. If the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) determines that some
`
`or all of the patent claims at issue in this case are unpatentable, it will significantly streamline this
`
`litigation.
`
`Third, a stay will not cause any unfair prejudice to Teva. Indeed, any delay resulting from
`
`a stay will be relatively short in light of the expedited IPR process mandated by statute.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 19 Filed 11/02/18 Page 9 of 27
`
`Accordingly, if the Court determines that transfer is not appropriate, Lilly respectfully
`
`requests that the Court stay the case pending IPR proceedings, or in the alternative, grant a modest
`
`stay until the Patent Office issues its institution decisions over the next few months.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Lilly was founded in Indianapolis, Indiana in 1876. (Conley Decl. ¶ 4.) Over 140 years
`
`later, Lilly employs nearly 10,000 employees at its headquarters in Indiana. (Id.) Lilly is a
`
`healthcare leader and has invented numerous drugs that improve people’s lives by treating
`
`conditions ranging from cancer to depression.
`
`For more than a quarter of a century, Lilly has been committed to helping people suffering
`
`from migraine, a debilitating neurologic disorder that affects one in seven Americans annually.
`
`(Ex. B at 1, 3 (June 10, 2017, Lilly Press Release); Conley Decl. ¶ 6.) Lilly’s research has both
`
`accelerated the understanding of migraine and advanced development of therapeutic agents to treat
`
`migraine. (Ex. B at 3.) Lilly has investigated more than a dozen different compounds for the
`
`treatment of migraine and disabling headache disorders. (Id.; Conley Decl. ¶ 7.) One such
`
`compound is galcanezumab, the novel humanized monoclonal antibody in the FDA-approved
`
`biologic drug Emgality™. (Ex. C at 1 (Jan. 18, 2017, Lilly Press Release); Conley Decl. ¶¶ 7-9.)
`
`Teva entered the migraine space much more recently. In 2014, Teva acquired
`
`fremanezumab, a biologic drug to treat migraine, by purchasing a California company called
`
`Labrys, which had acquired its product from Pfizer/Rinat Neuroscience. (Ex. D.) In an effort to
`
`keep the market clear of potential competition, Teva brought two suits seeking declaratory
`
`judgment of infringement against Lilly for its galcanezumab product. (Compl., Teva Pharms. Int’l
`
`GmbH v. Eli Lilly & Co., No. 17-12087 (D. Mass. Oct. 24, 2017) (“Teva I”); Compl., Teva Pharms.
`
`Int’l GmbH v. Eli Lilly & Co., No. 18-10242 (D. Mass. Feb. 6, 2018) (“Teva II”).) In the two suits,
`
`Teva asserted a total of nine U.S. Patents, which broadly claim compositions and methods of
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 19 Filed 11/02/18 Page 10 of 27
`
`treating migraine: 8,586,045; 8,597,649; 9,266,951; 9,340,614; 9,346,881; 9,884,907; 9,884,908;
`
`9,890,210; and 9,890,211. (See First Am. Compl., Teva I, Dkt. 21, at 10-12; First Am. Compl.,
`
`Teva II, Dkt. 10, at 10-12.) On September 27, 2018, this Court dismissed both suits under Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (See Teva I, Dkt. 42; Teva II, Dkt. 23.) Just
`
`a few hours later, Teva filed the current suit against Lilly on the same nine patents.
`
`Two Teva entities are named in the Complaint: Teva GmbH, a Swiss company with a
`
`principal place of business in Switzerland; and Teva USA, a Delaware corporation with a principle
`
`place of business in Pennsylvania. (Dkt. 1, ¶¶ 8-9.) Teva filed this suit in the District of
`
`Massachusetts even though Lilly is an Indiana company and the two Teva plaintiffs also are
`
`incorporated and headquartered outside the district.
`
`On August 8, 2018, Lilly filed IPR petitions1 challenging the patentability of claims 1-7
`
`and 15-20 of the ’614 patent, claims 1-6 and 14-19 of the ’951 patent, claims 1-6 and 14-19 of the
`
`’881 patent, as well as every claim of the ’210, ’211 and ’649 patents. On September 28, 2018,
`
`Lilly filed an IPR petition challenging the patentability of claims 1, 3, 4, 8-17, 19, 20 and 24-31 of
`
`the ’045 patent, and on October 1, 2018, Lilly filed IPR petitions challenging the patentability of
`
`every claim of the ’907 and ’908 patents.2
`
`1 IPR is an expedited procedure for challenging patentability before the Board. 35 U.S.C.
`§§ 311-319. The Board may institute an IPR only if it determines that “there is a reasonable
`likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least one of the claims challenged in
`the petition.” 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). If the Board institutes an IPR, it must issue a final written
`decision within one year from the date of institution. 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11).
`2 The nine IPR petitions pending before the Board are as follows: IPR2018-01422, IPR2018-
`01423, IPR2018-01424, IPR2018-01425, IPR2018-01426, IPR2018-01427, IPR2018-01710,
`IPR2018-01711 and IPR2018-01712. Institution decisions will be issued from February to April
`of 2019. Upon request, Lilly can provide the Court with copies of these IPR petitions.
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 19 Filed 11/02/18 Page 11 of 27
`
`III.
`
`BOTH THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INTEREST FACTORS FAVOR TRANSFER
`TO THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
`
`A district court has discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer a civil action to any
`
`other district where it might have been brought, “for the convenience of parties and witnesses, in
`
`the interest of justice.” Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988); Codex Corp. v.
`
`Milgo Elec. Corp., 553 F.2d 735, 737 (1st Cir. 1977). The purpose of § 1404(a) “is to prevent the
`
`waste of time, energy and money and to protect litigants, witnesses and the public against
`
`unnecessary inconvenience and expense.” Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964)
`
`(internal citations and quotation marks omitted).
`
`To determine whether a transfer is appropriate, the court should consider: “1) the plaintiff's
`
`choice of forum, 2) the relative convenience of the parties, 3) the convenience of the witnesses and
`
`location of documents, 4) any connection between the forum and the issues, 5) the law to be
`
`applied, and 6) the state or public interests at stake.” Fed. Ins. Co. v. XTRA Intermodal, Inc., No.
`
`1:14-cv-14010-ADB, 2015 WL 4275181, at *4 (D. Mass. July 15, 2015) (citing Momenta Pharm.,
`
`Inc. v. Amphastar Pharm., Inc., 841 F. Supp. 2d 514, 522 (D. Mass. 2012)). Here, five of the six
`
`factors strongly favor transfer to the Southern District of Indiana, while one of the factors (the law
`
`to be applied) is neutral.
`
`A.
`
`All the Private Interest Factors Weigh in Favor of Transfer to the Southern
`District of Indiana
`
`1.
`
`Teva’s Choice of Forum Is Entitled to Little or No Deference Because
`Teva Has No Substantive Connection to the District of Massachusetts
`
`Although a plaintiff’s choice of forum may be entitled to deference in some circumstances,
`
`such as when the plaintiff choses its home forum, little or no deference is appropriate here because
`
`Teva lacks any substantive connection to the District of Massachusetts. Courts in this district have
`
`recognized that, when a plaintiff has no material connection to the district, its choice of forum
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 19 Filed 11/02/18 Page 12 of 27
`
`carries less weight. See, e.g., Brant Point Corp. v. Poetzsch, 671 F. Supp. 2, 5 (D. Mass. 1987).
`
`Teva USA is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Pennsylvania and Teva GmbH is a Swiss
`
`company with a principal place of business in Switzerland. (Dkt. 1, ¶¶ 8-9.) Neither Teva entity
`
`can claim Massachusetts as its home forum or establish any substantive connection to the district,
`
`which weighs against venue in this district. See Fed. Ins. Co., 2015 WL 4275181, at *4 (giving a
`
`plaintiff's choice of forum less weight because it was not its home forum). Moreover, Teva’s choice
`
`deserves even less deference because Teva GmbH is a foreign plaintiff. See Piper Aircraft Co. v.
`
`Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 256 (1981) (explaining that a foreign plaintiff “deserves less deference”).
`
`Teva’s choice of forum is not entitled to deference for the additional reason that its
`
`selection of the District of Massachusetts appears to be arbitrary. Courts look not only to the
`
`plaintiff’s choice of forum, but also to the reasons behind the choice. See, e.g., Affymetrix, Inc. v.
`
`Systeni, Inc., 28 F. Supp. 2d 192, 200 (D. Del. 1998); see also Ross v. Institutional Longevity Assets
`
`LLC, No. 1:12-cv-00102-LPS-CJB, 2013 WL 5299171, at *6 (D. Del. Sept. 20, 2013). District
`
`courts have recognized, for example, that a plaintiff’s choice of venue is not be given substantial
`
`weight if it is arbitrary and the plaintiff has no material connection with the chosen district. See,
`
`e.g., Lando & Anastasi, LLP v. Innovention Toys, L.L.C., 79 F. Supp. 3d 375, 376 (D. Mass. 2015);
`
`see also Affymetrix, 28 F. Supp. 2d at 200. Courts have also stated that, if it appears that forum
`
`shopping motivated a plaintiff’s choice of venue, it weighs in favor of transferring to a more
`
`appropriate venue. See, e.g., Ross, 2013 WL 5299171, at *9; Reiser v. RTI Int’l Metals, Inc., No.
`
`1:08-cv-0729, 2009 WL 1097250, at *1 (S.D. Ohio April 22, 2009).
`
`Teva’s Complaint does not set out any facts supporting a material connection between
`
`either of the two Teva entities and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Because the Teva entities
`
`are based in another state and another country, and because Teva’s selection of the District of
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 19 Filed 11/02/18 Page 13 of 27
`
`Massachusetts appears to be arbitrary, Teva’s choice is not entitled to any deference. Rather, this
`
`factor weighs in favor of transferring the case to a more appropriate venue.
`
`2.
`
`The Southern District of Indiana Is More Convenient for the Parties
`
`Massachusetts is not a convenient forum for the parties. None of the parties in the case is
`
`incorporated in Massachusetts or has its principal place of business in this district. See Kaufmann
`
`v. Prudential Ins. Co., 667 F. Supp. 2d 205, 208 (D. Mass. 2009) (transferring case because, inter
`
`alia, neither party resides in Massachusetts).
`
`District courts have long recognized that the location of a defendant’s principal place of
`
`business “is often the critical and controlling consideration in adjudicating transfer of venue
`
`motions.” Audubon Real Estate Assocs., L.L.C. v. Audubon Realty, L.L.C., No. 3:15-115-SDD-
`
`SCR, 2015 WL 4094235, at *3 (M.D. La. July 7, 2015). This factor is critical in patent
`
`infringement suits because an alleged infringer’s activities, employees, and documents are
`
`typically a central aspect of the issues in the case and are tied to that party’s principal place of
`
`business. See, e.g., Habitat Wallpaper & Blinds, Inc. v. K.T. Scott Ltd. P’ship, 807 F. Supp. 470,
`
`474 (N.D. Ill. 1992).
`
`Here, although Lilly has a site in Massachusetts, that site has no connection to the events
`
`at issue in this case. Instead, nearly all the marketing, regulatory, and technical work relevant to
`
`this case occurred in Lilly’s principal place of business at its Indiana headquarters. The Lilly
`
`personnel involved with that work are also predominantly based at Lilly’s Indiana headquarters.
`
`(Conley Decl. ¶¶ 4, 6, 8-10.) The Southern District of Indiana therefore would be substantially
`
`more convenient for Lilly.
`
`Transferring this case to the Southern District of Indiana would not pose any greater burden
`
`on Teva given that neither Teva entity is based in Massachusetts. This case thus does not involve
`
`a situation where “transfer would merely shift the inconvenience from one party to the other.”
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 19 Filed 11/02/18 Page 14 of 27
`
`Falafel Republic Mediterranean Foods, Inc. v. Tarazi Specialty Foods, Inc., No. 1:12-cv-10551-
`
`NMG, 2012 WL 12941889, at *9 (D. Mass. Sept. 28, 2012) (citations omitted). To the contrary,
`
`nothing in Teva’s Complaint suggests that companies based in Switzerland, Delaware, and
`
`Pennsylvania will be inconvenienced by litigating in Indiana instead of Massachusetts.
`
`Because neither party is domiciled in Massachusetts and Lilly—the accused infringer—
`
`has its principle place of business in Indiana, the greater convenience for the parties to litigate in
`
`the Southern District of Indiana weighs in favor of transfer to that district.
`
`3.
`
`The Southern District of Indiana Is More Convenient Based on the
`Location of the Expected Witnesses and Documents
`
`a.
`
`Lilly’s Potential Witnesses Are Predominantly Located in
`Indiana, Not in Massachusetts
`
`The Southern District of Indiana would be a substantially more convenient forum for the
`
`expected witnesses in this case, which weighs heavily in favor of transfer. Indeed, courts in this
`
`district have explained that the convenience of a forum for the expected witnesses is “‘probably
`
`the most important factor, and the factor most frequently mentioned.’” Boateng v. Gen. Dynamics
`
`Corp., 460 F. Supp. 2d 270, 275 (D. Mass. 2006) (quoting Princess House, Inc. v. Lindsey, 136
`
`F.R.D. 16, 18 (D. Mass. 1991)).
`
`Here, Lilly’s corporate witnesses (e.g., senior or executive-level corporate officers) and the
`
`employees primarily responsible for marketing any Lilly drug or building a sales force maintain
`
`their offices in Lilly’s Indianapolis headquarters. (Conley Decl. ¶ 4.) For example, Teva’s
`
`Complaint cites various Lilly press releases discussing Lilly’s galcanezumab product, but the Lilly
`
`employees referred to as contacts in those press releases work in Indiana. (Dkt. 1, ¶¶ 6, 20, 21, 25.)
`
`Teva’s Complaint also identifies a Lilly Twitter account as allegedly establishing Lilly’s
`
`connection to Massachusetts, (id., ¶ 23), but the employees with primary responsibility for
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 19 Filed 11/02/18 Page 15 of 27
`
`establishing and managing that Twitter account are in Lilly’s Indianapolis facility, (Conley Decl.
`
`¶ 6).
`
`Similarly, the vast majority of current Lilly employees who had primary responsibility for
`
`the scientific and regulatory work on Lilly’s galcanezumab drug product are located in Indiana.
`
`(Id. ¶ 8.) Three of the four named inventors on Lilly’s patent that discloses and claims
`
`galcanezumab are located in Indiana, while the fourth is in California. See U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,073,991. Further, Lilly manufactures and distributes the accused Emgality™ (galcanezumb-
`
`gnlm) product from Indianapolis. (Id. ¶ 10.) Lilly’s Indianapolis-based Pharmaceutical Delivery
`
`Systems division is responsible for development of the autoinjector used to inject the product. (Id.)
`
`The galcanezumab antibody (active pharmaceutical ingredient (“API”)) itself is not made in
`
`Massachusetts. (Id.) Thus, neither Emgality™ (galcanezumb-gnlm) nor its API is manufactured in
`
`or distributed by Lilly from its Cambridge Innovation Center, or anywhere in Massachusetts. (Id.)
`
`Thus, the vast majority of likely Lilly witnesses in this case are employees based in Lilly’s
`
`Indianapolis headquarters. In contrast, it is highly unlikely that any of the expected Lilly witnesses
`
`are located in Massachusetts. (Conley Decl. ¶¶ 4, 6, 8-10.) Indeed, Teva’s Complaint identifies no
`
`expected Lilly witnesses based in Massachusetts and instead refers only to a 2017 Lilly job posting
`
`seeking a single sales representative to be based in Massachusetts. (Dkt. 1, ¶ 24.)
`
`The cost and time required for the expected witnesses to travel from Indiana to
`
`Massachusetts will impose a substantial burden on those witnesses. This factor thus weighs heavily
`
`in favor of transfer to the Southern District of Indiana. See, e.g., W. Marine Prods., Inc. v.
`
`Dolphinite, Inc., No. 1:04-cv-10251-PBS, 2005 WL 1000259, at *10 (D. Mass. Apr. 6, 2005)
`
`(recommending transfer to Florida as a more convenient forum where one likely witness resided
`
`in Massachusetts but the rest were located in Florida); Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. Intel Corp.,
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 19 Filed 11/02/18 Page 16 of 27
`
`No. 17-00676 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 28, 2012) (stating that the geographical proximity of witnesses
`
`weighs in favor of transfer).
`
`b.
`
`The Named Inventors of the Patents-in-Suit Reside in California
`and Michigan, Not Massachusetts
`
`Teva’s likely witnesses include the named inventors of the patents-in-suit, none of whom
`
`is located in Massachusetts and none of whom appear to be Teva employees. Rather, the patents-
`
`in-suit list five of the six named inventors as residing in California and the sixth as residing in
`
`Michigan. Further, Labrys Biologics, Inc., the company from which Teva acquired its
`
`fremanezumab drug product, was located in California. The company from which Labrys acquired
`
`the drug product, Rinat Neuroscience, was also a California company. (Ex. D.)
`
`Both California and Michigan are closer to Indiana than to Massachusetts. Indeed, Indiana
`
`and Michigan are neighboring states. Thus, a trial in Massachusetts imposes a greater burden even
`
`on Teva’s likely witnesses. This is an additional factor in favor of transfer to Indiana. See, e.g., In
`
`re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“Because a substantial number o