Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 14 Filed 01/10/13 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 412
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:12-CV-00799
`
`
`
`INVENSYS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EMERSON ELECTRIC CO. and
`MICRO MOTION INC., USA,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants,
`
`and
`
`MICRO MOTION INC., USA,
`
`
`
`Counterclaim-Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`INVENSYS SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`
`
`Counterclaim-Defendant.
`
`MICRO MOTION, INC.’S MOTION TO TRANSFER
`VENUE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)
`
`Micro Motion, Inc. (“Micro Motion”) respectfully moves to transfer this case to the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`District of Colorado because of its lack of connections, let alone meaningful connections, to the
`
`Eastern District of Texas. The facts and circumstances of this case demonstrate that the District
`
`of Colorado is a more convenient forum, and therefore strongly favor granting this Motion to
`
`Transfer.
`
`
`
`First, the District of Colorado is a more convenient forum than the Eastern District of
`
`Texas for Micro Motion and the vast majority of potential witnesses. Unlike the Eastern District
`
`of Texas, the District of Colorado’s connections to this case and Micro Motion are substantial:
`
`4849-8563-7394.1
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 14 Filed 01/10/13 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 413
`
`• Micro Motion’s headquarters and the great majority of its
`employees are located in Boulder, Colorado;
`
` •
`
` The conception, design, and development of the accused products
`occurred in Colorado;
`
` •
`
` •
`
` •
`
` All of the U.S. engineers responsible for the design and
`development of the accused products are located in Colorado;
`
`• All of Micro Motion’s core financial operations, marketing,
`design, and other business activities take place in its Boulder
`headquarters;
`
` Micro Motion’s document collection efforts will primarily take
`place in its Boulder headquarters; and
`
` All witnesses related to the above connections are based in
`Boulder, Colorado.
`
`Second, the Eastern District of Texas is not the home forum of any party in this suit. As
`
`
`
`such, this matter should be transferred to the District of Colorado.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`On October 22, 2012, Invensys filed suit against Emerson Electric Co. (“Emerson”) and
`
`Micro Motion in the Eastern District of Texas. The Complaint alleges that Emerson and Micro
`
`Motion infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 7,124,646, 7,136,761, 6,311,136, and 7,505,854 (collectively,
`
`the “patents-in-suit”), which involve digital Coriolis flowmeters. (See Dkt. No. 1.) According to
`
`the Complaint, Micro Motion’s flowmeters that contain Micro Motion transmitter Models
`
`2400S, 1700, 2700, and 3000 transmitters (the “Accused Products”) infringe the patents-in-suit.
`
`(Id. at 5-13.)
`
`
`
`Micro Motion was incorporated in Colorado in 1973, and is a wholly-owned subsidiary
`
`of Emerson.1 (Declaration of Andrew Dudiak (“Dudiak Decl.”) ¶ 3.) Micro Motion develops
`
`
`1 Emerson is also a named defendant in this matter. However, it is seeking to be
`dismissed as a party by stipulation or by motion. Emerson is headquartered in Saint Louis,
`
`
`4849-8563-7394.1
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 14 Filed 01/10/13 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 414
`
`and markets devices that measure the flow, mass, density, temperature, and viscosity of various
`
`materials. (Id. at ¶ 5.) Micro Motion’s products are sold nationwide. (Id. at ¶ 9.) Although
`
`Micro Motion has sold products in Texas, Micro Motion does not own or lease any offices,
`
`facilities, or land in the state, and its only presence here consists of routine sales and service
`
`personnel who know nothing about the facts of this case and so are not likely to be called as
`
`witnesses. (Id. at ¶¶ 11-12.) Micro Motion maintains its corporate headquarters and its sole
`
`domestic manufacturing facility in Boulder, and has other manufacturing facilities abroad. (Id. at
`
`¶¶ 2, 8.) Substantially all of Micro Motion’s operations and employees involved with the
`
`Accused Products are located in Boulder, Colorado. (Id. at ¶¶ 4, 6-7, 10.)
`
`
`
`Invensys Systems, Inc.’s (“Invensys”) is the assignee of the patents-in-suit. (Dkt. No. 1
`
`at 5, 7, 9, 11.) Invensys is a Massachusetts corporation, and its principal place of business is in
`
`Houston. (Id. at 1.) Invensys is an 8,000 employee corporation that maintains a headquarters in
`
`Houston, and an office with 60 employees in Plano. See Invensys Systems, Inc., Dun &
`
`Bradstreet Business Information Report (last updated Oct. 4, 2012). Invensys provides
`
`automation and information technologies for the manufacturing and infrastructure industries and
`
`markets products it identifies as Foxboro Coriolis flowmeters. (See Dkt. No. 1 at 4.)
`
`The only connection between this lawsuit and this District is the Plano office of Invensys.
`
`Micro Motion is not aware of any prospective Invensys witnesses or relevant documents in the
`
`Eastern District of Texas. The inventors identified on the patents-in-suit are located outside of
`
`the United States. One of the named inventors, Dr. Manus Henry, is the director of the
`
`University of Oxford Invensys University Technology Centre (“UTC”). According to its
`
`
`Missouri, and its only connection to this case is that it is the parent company of Micro Motion.
`All of the Accused Products are designed and sold by Micro Motion. (Dudiak Decl. ¶¶ 5-11.)
`
`4849-8563-7394.1
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 14 Filed 01/10/13 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 415
`
`website, the first instrument studied at the UTC was the Coriolis flowmeter.2 It is therefore
`
`likely that the conception, reduction to practice, and related documentation regarding the patents-
`
`in-suit is located at Oxford.
`
`A. Legal Standards
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Motions to transfer venue are governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which provides, “[f]or
`
`
`
`the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer
`
`any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1404(a). The moving party must show good cause for the transfer by demonstrating that the
`
`transferee venue is “clearly more convenient” than the transferor venue.3 In re Volkswagen of
`
`Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 315 (5th Cir. 2008) (“Volkswagen II”). “This ‘good cause’ burden
`
`reflects the appropriate deference to which the plaintiff’s choice of venue is entitled.” Id. at 315
`
`n.10 (quoting Humble Oil & Ref. Co. v. Bell Marine Serv., Inc., 321 F.2d 53, 56 (5th Cir. 1963)).
`
`
`
`In the Fifth Circuit, § 1404(a) motions to transfer are granted if (1) the suit could have
`
`been brought in the transferee district, and (2) if on balance of several private and public interest
`
`factors, the transferee forum is clearly more convenient than the transferor venue. In re
`
`Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201, 203 (5th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (“Volkswagen I”) (“In applying the
`
`provisions of § 1404(a), we have suggested that the first determination to be made is whether the
`
`judicial district to which transfer is sought would have been a district in which the claim could
`
`2 http://www.eng.ox.ac.uk/InvensysUTC/about.
`
`3 Because motions to transfer venue do not involve substantive patent law, the Federal
`Circuit applies the law of the regional circuit in which the district court sits. See Innovative
`Global Sys. LLC v. OnStar, LLC, No. 6:10-CV-574, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114504, at *27-28
`(E.D. Tex. Feb. 14, 2012) (applying regional circuit law when granting motion to transfer).
`Therefore, the law of the Fifth Circuit controls in this case. Id.
`
`4849-8563-7394.1
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 14 Filed 01/10/13 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 416
`
`have been filed.”); In re Nintendo, 589 F.3d 1194, 1198 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (applying Fifth Circuit
`
`law: “This court has held and holds again in this instance that in a case featuring most witnesses
`
`and evidence closer to the transferee venue with few or no convenience factors favoring the
`
`venue chosen by the plaintiff, the trial court should grant a motion to transfer.”). These factors
`
`are discussed at length below.
`
`B. This Case Could Have Been Brought in the District of Colorado
`
`The District of Colorado is a proper venue. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), an “action for
`
`
`
`patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where
`
`the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of
`
`business.” In the context of a corporate defendant, a corporation is deemed to reside in any
`
`judicial district in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced.
`
`See 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
`
`
`
`Micro Motion is subject to personal jurisdiction in Colorado. Micro Motion is
`
`headquartered in – and therefore resides in – Boulder, Colorado, where it maintains an
`
`established and regular place of business. Because Colorado is an appropriate venue,4 the
`
`outcome of this Motion turns on the private and public factors discussed below.
`
`The Private Interest Factors Favor Transfer to the District of Colorado
`
`
`
`The private interest factors considered in a motion to transfer venue are: “(1) the relative
`
`ease of access to sources of proof; (2) the availability of compulsory process to secure the
`
`attendance of witnesses; (3) the cost of attendance for willing witnesses; and (4) all other
`
`
`4 Emerson is also subject to personal jurisdiction in Colorado as it does business and
`maintains facilities nationwide. As a result, Emerson has similarly regular and systematic
`contacts with the District of Colorado as it does with the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`4849-8563-7394.1
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 14 Filed 01/10/13 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 417
`
`practical problems that make a trial easy, expeditious and inexpensive.” In re Nintendo Co., 589
`
`F.3d at 1198.
`
`
`
`The private factors heavily favor transfer to the District of Colorado because: (1) the
`
`transferee venue is significantly more convenient and less costly to a substantial number of
`
`witnesses; (2) unlike the transferor venue, the transferee venue will have compulsory process of
`
`substantially all witnesses related to the Accused Products at its disposal; and (3) access to
`
`relevant evidence will be considerably easier in the transferee venue.5
`
`1. The District of Colorado is more convenient and less costly for the
`majority of relevant witnesses.
`
`Because Micro Motion and the engineers who designed the Accused Products are all in
`
`
`
`Colorado, the transferee venue is significantly more convenient and less costly for a substantial
`
`number of relevant witnesses to attend. This is an important factor in considering whether to
`
`transfer venue. In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[A]n important
`
`factor, [is] the convenience for and cost of attendance of witnesses.”). The costs and
`
`inconveniences of attending trial in an unnecessarily distant district entails “‘additional travel
`
`time; additional travel time increases the probability for meal and lodging expenses; and
`
`additional travel time with overnight stays increases the time which these fact witnesses must be
`
`
`5 The fourth factor regarding “practical problems” is neutral in this case. “Practical
`problems” often relate to specific aspects of judicial economy. Rembrandt Vision Techs., Ltd. v.
`Johnson & Johnson Vision Care, Inc., No. 2:09-cv-200-TJW, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78312, at
`*6 (E.D. Tex. July 19, 2011). In the context of private interests, judicial economy considers
`whether the transferor or transferee court is already familiar with highly technical issues
`involved, or whether other cases involving the same subject matter are currently pending. Zoltar
`Satellite Sys. v. LG Elecs. Mobile Commc’ns. Co., 402 F. Supp. 2d 731, 735 (E.D. Tex. 2005)
`(“In cases that involve a highly technical subject matter, such as patent litigation, judicial
`economy may favor transfer to a court that is already familiar with the issues involved in the
`case.”). Here, no court is familiar with the issues involved as this is the only pending case
`concerning the patents-in-suit, and as an Answer is being filed with this Motion, it is in the very
`beginning stages of litigation.
`
`4849-8563-7394.1
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 14 Filed 01/10/13 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 418
`
`away from their regular employment.’” In re TS Tech U.S. Corp., 551 F.3d 1315, 1320 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2008) (applying Fifth Circuit law and quoting Volkswagen I, 371 F.3d at 205). While this
`
`factor must consider all parties and witnesses, Volkswagen I, 371 F.3d at 204, convenience and
`
`cost to non-party witness are afforded greater weight than party witnesses. Zoltar Satellite Sys.,
`
`402 F. Supp. 2d at 739.
`
`
`
`In assessing witnesses’ convenience and costs related to being haled into court, the Fifth
`
`Circuit has adopted the “100-mile” rule, which states that “[w]hen the distance between an
`
`existing venue for trial of a matter and a proposed venue under § 1404(a) is more than 100 miles,
`
`the factor of inconvenience to witnesses increases in direct relationship to the additional distance
`
`to be traveled.” Volkswagen I, 371 F.3d at 204-05.
`
`
`
`The majority of relevant witnesses reside in the District of Colorado, making it a clearly
`
`more convenient venue that the Eastern District of Texas, which is over 700 miles away. Phil-
`
`Insul Corp. v. Reward Wall Sys., No. 6:11cv53 LED-JDL, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114493, at *9
`
`(E.D. Tex. Feb. 10, 2012) (granting motion to transfer to Nebraska when the majority of
`
`witnesses would have had to travel “an additional 700 miles compared to . . . Nebraska.”). The
`
`Complaint alleges patent infringement by a product that was designed, developed, marketed, and
`
`manufactured in Boulder, Colorado. (Dudiak Decl. ¶¶ 4-5, 8.) Granting this Motion will save
`
`every Micro Motion witness needed to testify about every aspect of the Accused Products from
`
`the burden of travelling more than 700 miles each way to testify in Tyler, Texas.6
`
`
`6 Among many relevant witnesses that are affiliated with Micro Motion, Richard
`Maginnis and Craig McAnally are two Micro Motion engineers who are involved with the
`Accused Products. (Dudiak Decl. ¶ 6.) Both gentlemen currently reside in Boulder, Colorado.
`(Id.) No Micro Motion engineers or any other current or former Micro Motion employees that
`worked on the Accused Products are located in Texas. (Id. at ¶¶ 5-6, 12.)
`
`4849-8563-7394.1
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 14 Filed 01/10/13 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 419
`
`
`
`Moreover, the substantial burden that the Colorado witnesses will otherwise have to
`
`endure will not be offset by a corresponding convenience to other witnesses. Id. (“This factor
`
`heavily favors transfer when a ‘substantial number of material witnesses reside in the transferee
`
`venue’ and no witnesses reside in the transferor venue.”) (quoting In re Genentech, 566 F.3d at
`
`1344-45). Plaintiff has not yet identified any witnesses from the Eastern District of Texas, and
`
`there is no evidence that any Invensys witness resides in the Eastern District of Texas. On the
`
`contrary, it appears that all Invensys party witnesses will have to travel in order to testify
`
`regardless of the outcome of this Motion because Invensys is a Massachusetts company with a
`
`principal place of business in the Southern District of Texas.
`
`
`
`Additionally, a change in venue will have little effect on the named inventors of the
`
`patents-in-suit. All but one of the listed inventors apparently reside in Europe – three in the
`
`United Kingdom and one in Spain. (See Dkt. No. 1, Exs. A-D.) The remaining named inventor,
`
`John Vignos, appears to reside in Massachusetts. (Id. at Exs. B-C.) All of the listed inventors
`
`will thus have to travel approximately the same distance regardless of whether the case continues
`
`in this District or is transferred to the District of Colorado.
`
`In this respect, this case aligns with the facts of In re Genentech, as:
`
`The witnesses from Europe will be required to travel a significant
`distance no matter where they testify. In contrast to the foreign
`witnesses, there are a substantial number of witnesses residing
`within
`the
`transferee venue who would be unnecessarily
`inconvenienced by having to travel away from home to testify in
`the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`566 F.3d at 1344 (granting motion to transfer from the Eastern District of Texas to the Northern
`
`District of California). Thus, given the undue burden of trying this case in the Eastern District of
`
`Texas for all witnesses related to the Accused Products, with no countervailing benefit to any
`
`other witnesses, the facts of this case clearly favors a transfer to the District of Colorado.
`
`4849-8563-7394.1
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 14 Filed 01/10/13 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 420
`
`2. Compulsory process is available for all witnesses related to the accused
`products.
`
`The availability of compulsory process in the transferee district strongly favors transfer as
`
`
`
`well. See In re Acer, 626 F.3d 1252, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“The venue’s ability to compel
`
`testimony through subpoena power is also an important factor in the § 1404(a) calculus.”).
`
`Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(b)(2)(C), a district court can compel the attendance of witnesses that
`
`are located within 100 miles of where the deposition, trial, or hearing is to be held. In re
`
`Genentech, 566 F.3d at 1345. However, “trial subpoenas for these witnesses to travel more than
`
`100 miles would be subject to motions to quash under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3).” Volkswagen I,
`
`371 F.3d at 205 n.4.
`
`
`
`As discussed above, the Accused Products were designed, developed, marketed, and
`
`manufactured in Boulder, Colorado. Boulder is only thirty miles from the District of Colorado’s
`
`courthouse. In contrast, the distance between Tyler and Houston, Texas is nearly 200 miles –
`
`outside the subpoena range of this Court.
`
`Accordingly, it appears that no witnesses will be within the subpoena power of this
`
`Court, whereas many witnesses should be within the subpoena power of the District of Colorado.
`
`(See Dudiak Decl. ¶¶ 4, 6-7.) As stated by the Federal Circuit, “[t]he fact that the transferee
`
`venue is a venue with usable subpoena power here weighs in favor of transfer, and not only
`
`slightly.” In re Genentech, 566 F.3d at 1345 (applying Fifth Circuit law).
`
`3. Access to evidence is substantially easier in the District of Colorado.
`
`Another reason to transfer venue in this case is that access to sources of proof is clearly
`
`
`
`
`
`more convenient in the District of Colorado. Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 316 (“[T]he sources of
`
`proof requirement is a meaningful factor in [venue transfer] analysis. That access to some
`
`sources of proof presents a lesser inconvenience now that it might have absent recent
`
`4849-8563-7394.1
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 14 Filed 01/10/13 Page 10 of 15 PageID #: 421
`
`developments does not render this factor superfluous.”) (internal citation omitted); Phil-Insul,
`
`2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114493, at *6-7 (“Even if these documents . . . are to be produced
`
`electronically . . . such a consideration cannot lessen the significance of the volume of physical
`
`evidence located in, or closer to, the transferee forum . . . .”). In patent cases, the Federal Circuit
`
`assumes that most of the relevant evidence will come from the accused infringer, and “the place
`
`where the defendant’s documents are kept weighs in favor of transfer to that location.” In re
`
`Genentech, 566 F.3d at 1345. Additionally, “[t]he Court further presumes that parties’
`
`documents will be located at their principal place of business unless demonstrated otherwise.”
`
`Innovative Global Sys., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114504, at *10 (citing Guardian Media Techs. v.
`
`Acer Amer. Corp., No. 6:10-CV-597 PATENT CASE, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155928, at *15-16
`
`(E.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2011)).
`
`
`
`Here, Micro Motion’s principal place of business and all of its documents relevant to this
`
`case are located in Boulder, Colorado. (Dudiak Decl. ¶¶ 2, 4, 7, 10, 13.) The Accused Products
`
`were designed, developed, and manufactured in Boulder, and substantially all documents and
`
`evidence related to those activities are kept there as well. (Id.) Further, Boulder is where all
`
`decisions pertaining to the pricing, marketing, and sales of Accused Products occur. See In re
`
`Acer, 626 F.3d at 1256 (finding sources of evidence factor in favor of transfer when all research,
`
`design, development, testing, and marketing, sales, and pricing decisions occurred in transferee
`
`venue).
`
`
`
`On the other hand, Invensys’s evidence is not located in either the transferor or the
`
`transferee district. For the purposes of a motion to transfer venue, less weight is given to
`
`evidence that is not located in the transferor or transferee districts because it needs to be
`
`transported regardless of the outcome of a motion to transfer. In re Genentech, 566 F.3d at 1346.
`
`All of the listed inventors of Invensys’s patents live abroad, with one exception that lives in
`
`4849-8563-7394.1
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 14 Filed 01/10/13 Page 11 of 15 PageID #: 422
`
`Massachusetts. Consequently, all relevant evidence in their possession is likely to be abroad or
`
`in Massachusetts as well. Therefore, a change in venue would entail little, if any, additional
`
`inconvenience for Invensys’s evidence, as all the listed inventors would have to send whatever
`
`related documents they have a considerable distance, regardless of venue.
`
`C. The Public Interest Factors Weigh in Favor of Transfer to the District of
`Colorado
`
`The public interest factors considered in a motion to transfer venue are: “(1) the
`
`
`
`administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion; (2) the local interest in having
`
`localized interests decided at home; (3) the familiarity of the forum with the law that will govern
`
`the case; and (4) the avoidance of unnecessary problems of conflicts of law [in] the application
`
`of foreign law.” In re Nintendo, 589 F.3d at 1198 (internal quotation marks and quoting citation
`
`omitted).
`
`
`
`Public interest factors (3) and (4) are neutral in this case. This case arises from federal
`
`patent law, which will not pose a conflict of laws issue, and is familiar to both the transferor and
`
`the transferee venues. Sonix Tech. Co. v. VTech Elecs. N. Am., LLC, No. 6:10-CV-68, 2010 U.S.
`
`Dist. LEXIS 130414, at *10 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 9, 2010) (“Moreover, as in most patent cases, the
`
`avoidance of unnecessary problems of conflict of laws factor is neutral.”); Odom v. Microsoft
`
`Corp., 596 F. Supp. 2d 995, 1004 (E.D. Tex. 2009) (“[a forum’s familiarity of law] factor is
`
`neutral when the predominant issues in the case involve federal law”). However, as discussed
`
`below, public interest factors (1) and (2) strongly favor transfer.
`
`
`
`1. Colorado has a strong local interest in resolving this case.
`
`
`Colorado has a considerably greater local interest in resolving this case than does the
`
`
`
`
`Eastern District of Texas. This weighs heavily in favor of transfer. In re Hoffman-La Roche,
`
`Inc., 587 F.3d 1333, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[I]f there are significant connections between a
`
`4849-8563-7394.1
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 14 Filed 01/10/13 Page 12 of 15 PageID #: 423
`
`particular venue and the events that gave rise to a suit, this factor should be weighed in that
`
`venue’s favor.”). As discussed above, design and development of the Accused Products was
`
`performed by individuals in facilities located in the transferee district. Indeed, Micro Motion’s
`
`headquarters and the great majority of its employees and facilities involved with the Accused
`
`Products are located in Boulder, Colorado. Given that Invensys is alleging patent infringement
`
`by Micro Motion and its employees, the “local interest in this case remains strong because the
`
`cause of action calls into question the work and reputation of several individuals residing in or
`
`near that district and who presumably conduct business in that community.” Id. at 1336.
`
`
`
`In stark contrast, there are no significant connections between the transferor venue and
`
`events giving rise to this suit. The Eastern District of Texas has little interest in resolving this
`
`case because upon information and belief, the design and development of the technologies taught
`
`by the patents-in-suit occurred while all of the listed inventors were outside the Eastern District
`
`of Texas. The named inventors have no connection to the Eastern District of Texas, and
`
`Invensys has not alleged that the purported inventions themselves have any connection with the
`
`Eastern District of Texas.
`
`
`
`In addition, Texas’s local interest is minimal because Micro Motion sells the Accused
`
`Products nationwide, and only has a small number of sales agents operating in Texas. See In re
`
`TS Tech, 551 F.3d at 1321 (“Here, [the accused products] were sold throughout the United
`
`States, and thus the citizens of the Eastern District of Texas have no more or less of a meaningful
`
`connection to this case than any other venue.”); Odom, 596 F. Supp. 2d at 1003 (dismissing local
`
`interest in Texas argument when defendant sold the accused products all over the country).
`
`Further, Micro Motion does not own or lease any offices, facilities, or land in Texas. On the
`
`whole, the balance of local interests in resolving this case strongly weighs in favor of transfer to
`
`the District of Colorado.
`
`4849-8563-7394.1
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 14 Filed 01/10/13 Page 13 of 15 PageID #: 424
`
`2. The speed of proceedings favors transfer to Colorado.
`
`
`
`The speed at which matters are resolved in the District of Colorado and the corresponding
`
`relief of court congestion in the Eastern District of Texas favors transfer. According to 2011
`
`court statistics, although matters tend to reach trial in a similar timeframe between the two
`
`districts,7 the median time between filing and disposition over all cases is notably faster in the
`
`District of Colorado. In Colorado, matters reach disposition after a median time period of 5.7
`
`months for all cases, while cases in the Eastern District of Texas take a median time of 8.6
`
`months. Id. On balance, this factor also weighs in favor of transfer.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`Good cause warrants the transfer of this case to the District of Colorado because it is a
`
`more convenient forum. The additional burden that Micro Motion and the majority of relevant
`
`witnesses will avoid by transferring this case is considerable. Furthermore, granting this Motion
`
`will not deprive the parties of any significant countervailing benefits as there is no reasonable
`
`basis for trying this case in the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`The facts of this case demonstrate that the District of Colorado is a clearly more
`
`convenient forum. Three private interest factors and two public interest factors significantly
`
`support granting this Motion to Transfer, with the remaining factors being neutral. Thus, given
`
`the stark disparity in convenience for all parties and witnesses involved, Micro Motion
`
`respectfully requests that the Court grant this Motion and transfer venue to the District of
`
`Colorado.
`
`
`7 The District of Colorado’s median time interval from filing to trial is 27.2 months; the
`Eastern District of Texas’s time is 26.1 months. See Administrative Office of the United States
`Courts, 2011 Annual Report of the Director: Judicial Business of the United States Courts, avail.
`at http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/Statistics/JudicialBusiness/2011/JudicialBusiness2011.pdf.
`
`4849-8563-7394.1
`
`13
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 14 Filed 01/10/13 Page 14 of 15 PageID #: 425
`
`Dated: January 10, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/s/ Guy N. Harrison
`Guy N. Harrison
`State Bar No. 00000077
`Harrison Law Firm
`217 N. Center Street
`Longview, Texas 75606
`Phone: (903) 758-7361
`Fax: (903) 753-9557
`Email: guy@gnhlaw.com and
`
`cj-gnharrison@att.net
`
`Attorney for Defendant and
`Counterclaim-Plaintiff Micro
`Motion, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL
`Linda E.B. Hansen, Wisconsin Bar No. 1000660
`Richard S. Florsheim, Wisconsin Bar No. 1015905
`Jeffrey N. Costakos, Wisconsin Bar No. 1008225
`Kadie M. Jelenchick, Wisconsin Bar No. 1056506
`Matthew J. Shin, Wisconsin Bar No. 1090096
`Foley & Lardner LLP
`777 East Wisconsin Avenue
`Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53202
`Phone: (414) 271-2400
`Fax: (414) 297-4900
`Email: lhansen@foley.com
`
`rflorsheim@foley.com
`
`jcostakos@foley.com
`
`kjelenchick@foley.com
`
`mshin@foley.com
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
`
`I hereby certify that pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(h) that counsel for the moving
`
`defendant conferred with plaintiff Invensys Systems, Inc.’s counsel regarding the subject matter
`
`of this Motion to Transfer. The discussion ended at an impasse, leaving open issues for the court
`
`/s/ Guy N. Harrison
`Guy N. Harrison
`
`to resolve.
`
`
`
`4849-8563-7394.1
`
`14
`
`

`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 14 Filed 01/10/13 Page 15 of 15 PageID #: 426
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on January 10, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing document
`
`
`
`with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing via
`
`electronic mail to all counsel of record.
`
`
`
`/s/ Guy N. Harrison
`Guy N. Harrison
`
`4849-8563-7394.1
`
`15