Federal Judiciary

Patent case transferred to Delaware

By Michael Smith

Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation v. LG Phillips LCD Co., LTD et al, 2:07-cv-176 (March 31, 2008)
Judge: T. John Ward
Holding: Motion to Transfer Venue GRANTED
This is a patent case in which Judge Ward earlier today transferred the case to the location of a prior-filed action in Delaware.  I'll go through the procedural history briefly, as it explains the ruling.
On December 1, 2006, LG Philips LCD Co., Ltd. (?LPL?) filed an action in the District of Delaware alleging infringement of patents directed at various aspects of liquid crystal display (?LCD?) technology,. The first-named defendant in the Delaware action is the plaintiff here, Chi Mei Optoelectronics Corporation (?CMO?). On March 8, 2007, one of the defendants in the Delaware action, AUO filed an infringement action regarding patents directed at LCD technology in the Western District of Wisconsin against the two defendants here, LPL and LPL?s subsidiary, LG Philips LCD America, Inc. (?LPLA?). LPL amended its Delaware complaint against AUO to add declaratory judgment counts of invalidity and non-infringement relating to the patents asserted by AUO.
LPL then filed a motion to transfer the Wisconsin court to Delaware.  Judge Shabaz granted the motion, concluding that ?[t]he interest of justice overwhelmingly favors transfer to Delaware for consolidation with the first filed case presently pending in that Court.? AU Optronics Corp. v. LG.Philips LCD Co., Ltd., No. 07-C-137-S, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39340, at *13 (W.D.Wis. 2007).
CMO filed this action on May 4, 2007, against LPL and LPLA accusing them of infringing patents related to LCD technology. As it had done after AUO filed the Wisconsin complaint, LPL amended its Delaware complaint against CMO to add declaratory judgment counts of invalidity and non-infringement for the patents asserted by CMO in this action.
Judge Ward held that although the private interest factors in this case were neutral, the public interest factors overwhelmingly favored a transfer. The accused technology in this case is similar to the accused technology in the Delaware action: all patents involved relate to LCD display technology. Moreover, Judge Shabaz has already addressed a nearly-identical issue with respect to CMO?s co-defendant in the Delaware case, AUO. Accordingly Judge Ward declined to allow CMO, by filing this case, to "circumvent the intention of Judge Shabaz?s order relating to AUO?s case." The interest of justice factor weighs in favor of having the parties resolve their related disputes in one forum, the District of Delaware.

Full post as published by Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice on March 31, 2008 (boomark / email).