By Report and Recommendation entered on October 13, 2010, The Honorable Mary Pat Thynge, in Carl Zeiss Meditec, Inc., et al. v. Xoft, Inc., C.A. No. 10-308-LPS-MPT, analyzed the motion of defendant Xoft, Inc. ("Xoft") to transfer the case from the United States District Court for the District of Delaware to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and recommended that Xoft's motion be denied. A copy of the Report and Recommendation is attached.
In analyzing Xoft’s motion, the Court recognized that it has the authority to transfer the action to the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Id. at 2. The Court noted, however, that (1) the plaintiff’s choice of forum should not be lightly disturbed; (2) the plaintiff’s chosen forum is a paramount consideration even where the forum is not the plaintiff’s “home turf” or where the alleged wrongful conduct occurred; (3) the moving party has the burden to establish that the transferee forum is proper and that the balancing of the relevant private and public interests weighs heavily in favor of transfer; and (4) transfer should be denied if the parties’ interests, as applied, are evenly balanced or only slightly favor transfer. Id.
The Court set forth the relevant private and public interests that must be weighed in determining whether a motion to transfer should be granted. Id. at 3. The Court noted that the relevant private interests include: (1) plaintiff’s forum preference; (2) defendant’s forum preference; (3) whether the claims arose elsewhere; (4) the convenience of the parties; (5) convenience of witnesses to the extent that they may be unavailable for trial in a certain forum, and; (6) the location of sources of proof to the extent production may be unavailable in a certain forum. Id. at 3-4. The Court noted that the relevant public interests include: (1) the enforceability of the judgment; (2) practical considerations that could make the trial easy, expeditious, or inexpensive; (3) administrative difficulties in each forum resulting from court congestion; (4) local interest in deciding the dispute; and (5) public policies of the forum. Id. at 4.
After weighing the private and public interest factors, the Court concluded that such factors do not weigh in favor of transfer or only weigh slightly in favor of transfer in this action. Id. at 4-9. Thus, the Court found that Xoft failed to carry its burden of proving that the private and public interest factors strongly favor transfer. Id. at 9.