Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Federal Judiciary Blogs -> Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice

Federal Judiciary

: Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice

Motion to transfer denied in infringement case

By Michael C. Smith

Brooks Instrument v. MKS Instrument, 6:10cv221/223 (2/14/11)

Judge: Leonard Davis

Holding: Motion to Transfer Venue DENIED  

Plaintiff in this case is a Pennsylvania company which has a facility in the Eastern District of Texas which manufactures products which practice the patents at issue in the case.  (I don't know that I've ever typed that sentence before).  The inventors live in Texas and some in the Eastern District, the products were developed and reduced to practice in the district, and the patents were prosecuted by attorneys from Austin.  The defendant is a Massachusetts company which has a facility in the Dallas area, a sales office in Austin, and one of its largest customers is in Texas.

Again, I won't take time to go through the analysis, but the Court eventually concluded that transfer was not warranted:

While there would be some convenience gained by transfer, MKS has not shown that Massachusetts is a clearly more convenient venue than this District. Third-party inventors and prosecuting attorneys of the Capacitance Manometer Patents and the Digital Control Patents reside in this District or elsewhere in Texas. The inventions were developed here and reduced to practice here. Documents and witnesses relating to the inventions? development, reduction to practice, and manufacture are located here. MKS?s third-party customer, Applied Materials, who may have evidence or witnesses relevant to indirect infringement is located in Texas. While transfer would certainly be more convenient for MKS, MKS has not shown that transfer would be clearly more convenient for the case as a whole.

Full post as published by Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice on February 19, 2011 (boomark / email).