Federal Circuit: Transfer Appropriate Even When Most Evidence Located Abroad When Original Forum Has No Direct Connection to the Case

Sep 21, 2020

Reading Time : 2 min

Largan, a Taiwanese corporation, brought suit against Ability Opto-Electronics, Newmax Technology (also Taiwanese corporations) and HP, Inc. in the Eastern District of Texas. HP, joined by the other two defendants, moved to transfer the case to the Northern District of California, where HP is headquartered. The Northern District of California possessed some familiarity with the patented technology because Largan had previously filed suit in that district, asserting one of the patents-at-issue in this case. HP further noted that certain of its witnesses and relevant third-party corporations were located there.

The district court disagreed and found transfer inappropriate because it already had a familiarity with the issues in the case, the majority of the documents and witnesses were coming from Taiwan and Largan had identified specific third-party witnesses in Texas, whereas HP had not named any specific third-party witnesses in California.

In reversing the district court’s transfer denial, the Federal Circuit held that the district court put too much weight on the fact that the majority of evidence was coming from Taiwan and discounted the amount of evidence already located in the Northern District of California when little, if any, evidence was present in the Eastern District of Texas.

More specifically, the court found that the Northern District of California was most convenient to access key pieces of evidence and was already familiar with the technology at issue. Because HP was headquartered in the Northern District of California, many of its employee witnesses and document evidence were located there. The court also found no error in giving weight to the location of third-party corporations as opposed to specifically named witnesses, especially here, where the specifically named witnesses were located more than 100 miles from the Eastern District of Texas and not subject to its subpoena power. Furthermore, at the time the suit was filed, the Northern District of California was already familiar with one of the patents from Largan’s earlier suit while the Eastern District of Texas had no familiarity with any of the issues. The court, therefore, concluded that the Northern District of California was a less costly and more convenient forum for trial, and HP “established the right to a writ to direct transfer.”

Practice Tip: When a majority of evidence for a case comes from a foreign country, the most appropriate forum is likely to be that which has some connection to the case, regardless of how small. Parties may not go forum shopping simply because most of the evidence is located abroad.

In re: HP Inc., Case No. 20-140 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 15, 2020).

Share This Insight

Categories

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

October 1, 2025

In a recent final written decision, the PTAB determined that a reference patent was not prior art, despite the petitioner’s post‑filing attempt to correct its petition. While the petitioner argued that it intended to rely on the patent application’s earlier date of publication, both the corrected petition and the expert declaration continued to reference the issued patent rather than the published application.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 30, 2025

The USPTO Director recently granted a petitioner’s request for rehearing of the decision discretionarily denying institution of inter partes review, ultimately vacating the original decision, and referring the petition to the board for an institution decision.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 25, 2025

In considering claims to a method of reducing cardiovascular events, the Federal Circuit held that the term a “clinically proven effective” amount did not render the claims patentable over the prior art. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that the “clinically proven effective” amount, whether limiting or not, could not be used to distinguish the prior art because the claims also specified the exact amount of the drugs to be administered in the method. The Federal Circuit also rejected patentee’s evidence of unexpected results because that evidence was tied solely to the “clinically proven effective” limitation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law on non-infringement, thereby setting aside a $106 million jury verdict, after holding that prosecution history estoppel barred the patentee from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 17, 2025

A magistrate judge in the District of Delaware issued a Report and Recommendation, that found the sole asserted claim was a “single means” claim and therefore invalid for lack of enablement. In reaching that conclusion, the magistrate judge rejected the patentee’s argument that the preamble of the claim disclosed a second element that satisfied the combination requirement of Section 112, paragraph 6 because the preamble simply recited a descriptor of the very apparatus that was the subject of the means-plus-function limitation in the body of the claim. The district court judge presiding over this case has scheduled a hearing to review the magistrate’s ruling.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit has affirmed the PTAB’s determination that a patent challenger did not show the challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that substantial evidence, which included expert testimony, showed there was no motivation to combine the references.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

In a recent order addressing four IPR proceedings, the PTAB exercised its inherent authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) to sua sponte authorize post-hearing discovery on a potentially dispositive privity issue. The order followed a Director review decision that vacated and remanded earlier IPRs involving the same parties, patent family, and privity issue. 

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review petition in part because it determined that a patent reference was not prior art under the common ownership exception of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1).

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.