By Memorandum Opinion entered by The Honorable Sue L. Robinson in Helicos Biosciences Corporation v. Illumina, Inc., Civil Action No. 10-735-SLR (D.Del., May 3, 2012), the Court denied the motion of defendants, Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. (“PacBio”), Life Technologies Corporation (“Life”) and Illumina, Inc. (“Illumina”) to transfer venue of the patent infringement action filed by plaintiff Helicos Biosciences Corporation to the Northern District of California. In denying the motion to transfer, the Court noted that defendants had the burden of persuading the court, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Jumara factors warranted transfer. Id. at 14. In weighing the Jumara factors, the Court found that plaintiff’s choice of forum and the convenience of the parties both weighed against transfer. Id. at 9-10. The Court also found that where the claims arose, the convenience of the witnesses, the location of books and records, relative administrative difficulty, local interest in deciding local controversies, the enforceability of a judgment, the public policies of the fora, and the familiarity of the judge with state law were all neutral as to transfer in its weighing of the Jumara factors. Id. at 9-14. Notably, Helicos, PacBio, Life and Illumina are all corporations incorporated in Delaware and it was alleged in the complaint that Illumina and PacBio sold allegedly infringing products in Delaware. Id.
A complete copy of the Memorandum Opinion is attached.