Forum Non Conveniens

Subscribe to Forum Non Conveniens via RSS

Abbott Labs. V. Church & Dwight, Inc., No. 07 C 3428, 2007 WL 3120007 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 23, 2007) (Kennelly, J.).
Judge Kennelly denied defendant Church & Dwight’s (“C&D”) 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a) motion to transfer this patent case to the District of New Jersey, where a related case between the parties was pending, and granted C&D’s motion to dismiss a claim that the New Jersey Court previously dismissed for lack of standing. In New Jersey, C&D sued plaintiff Abbott Laboratories (“Abbott”) alleging infringement of patents covering lateral flow immunology devices, and pregnancy and ovulation testing methods. Abbott counterclaimed alleging infringement of three patents, including U.S. Patent No. 6,534,320 (the “‘320 patent”). The New Jersey Court ultimately dismissed Abbott’s counterclaim, holding that Abbott was a nonexclusive licensee of the ‘320 patent and, therefore, lacked standing. The New Jersey Court also held that standing could not be cured by Abbott’s effort to involuntarily join its licensor Inverness pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 19. Based upon the New Jersey Court’s ruling, this Court held that issue preclusion prevented Abbott from re-litigating its standing to sue. Unless Abbott revised its license agreement with Inverness, giving Abbott additional rights, the New Jersey Court’s ruling was preclusive. The Court, therefore, dismissed Abbott’s ‘320 patent infringement claim.
The Court denied C&D’s motion to transfer the case to New Jersey. The Court gave Abbott’s choice of forum deference. And the Court gave little weight to the parties’ ongoing New Jersey patent suit because the New Jersey Court dismissed Abbott’s counterclaims before making any substantive rulings. The New Jersey Court, therefore, would not have been in a better position to decide any issues in the case.
…
Continue Reading Prior Standing Ruling is Preclusive Absent License Revisions

Kammin v. Smartpros, Ltd., No. 07 C 2665, 2007 WL 3046128 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 9, 2007) (Guzman, J.)
Judge Guzman transferred this copyright case to the Southern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404. While plaintiff’s choice of forum is usually given significant weight, no party was a resident of the Northern District – both parties were New York residents. Furthermore, the non-party witnesses were closer to New York. And New York had a significant interest in deciding a case between its citizens regarding a dispute arising within New York.
…
Continue Reading Case Transferred for Lack of Illinois Ties

Mitchell v. First Northern Credit Union, No. 07 C 1891, 2007 WL 2948374 (N.D. Ill. October 4, 2007) (Norgle, J.)
Judge Norgle granted defendant Arizona State Credit Union’s (“ASCU”) motion to transfer to the District of Arizona pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404 in this patent dispute. The Court acknowledged that plaintiff’s chosen forum was given significant weight. But the ease of access to the evidence in Arizona dictated that the case be transferred. Plaintiff was an Arizona resident, at least as of his filing date. And ASCU, all of its documents and all of its employees were in Arizona.
…
Continue Reading Choice of Forum Outweighed Where All Parties and Documents are in Arizona

Varitalk, LLC v. Lahoti, No. 07 C 1771, 2007 WL 1576127 (N.D. Ill. May 30, 2007) (Conlon, J.).
Judge Conlon denied defendant Dave Lahoti’s (“Lahoti”) Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the Court’s previous opinion denying Lahoti’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue and forum non conveniens (you can read more about the previous decision in the Blog’s archives). Lahoti, a California resident, operated a website from California using the domain name www.veritalk.com. Lahoti’s site was an internet portal which allowed visitors to his site to click through links to buy various products or services. The Court held that Lahoti’s website fell in the gray area between active websites (which create specific jurisdiction) and passive websites (which do not create specific jurisdiction). But the portal’s interactive and commercial nature combined with plaintiff Varitalk’s evidence that some consumers were confused and erroneously visited Lahoti’s website created personal jurisdiction. Lahoti argued for reconsideration because he contends that his website did not link to businesses located in or doing business in Illinois, and that a third party puts the content on his website. The Court denied both of these arguments, explaining that Varitalk had put presented evidence that Lahoti’s website included links to business with substantial Illinois operations and that whether Lahoti or an agent of his placed the content on his website did not change the Court’s analysis. But the Court’s procedural analysis may be the most useful part of this case for litigators. The Court notes that Lahoti styled his motion as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration, but that it is actually a Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) motion. Rule 60(b) is for reconsideration of final judgments, where as Rule 54(b) is for interlocutory decisions. A denial of a motion to dismiss is necessarily interlocutory.
…
Continue Reading Interlocutory Motions for Reconsideration are Brought Pursuant to FRCP 54(b)