Transfer of Venue

IN RE LINK_A_MEDIA DEVICES CORP. [ORDER]

• Writ of mandamus granted and district court ordered to transfer case.


• "[T]he district court placed far too much weight on the plaintiff’s choice of forum.... When a plaintiff brings its charges in a venue that is not its home forum ... that choice of forum is entitled to less deference."


• "Neither § 1404 nor [3rd Circuit case] list a party’s state of incorporation as a factor for a venue inquiry. It is certainly not a dispositive fact in the venue transfer analysis, as the district court in this case seemed to believe."


• "While advances in technology may alter the weight given to these factors [the convenience of the witnesses and the location of the books and records], it is improper to ignore them entirely."




• For similar cases, see In Re Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., 587 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009); and In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 .3d 1315, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

Prior Invention Under 102(g)(2)

TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS INDUSTRIES LTD. V. ASTRAZENECA PHARMACEUTICALS LP

• Prior invention under 102(g)(2) can be established by showing that the invention was first reduced to practice by another or that the invention was first conceived by another who then exercised reasonable diligence in reducing that invention to practice.




• Dow, Mycogen Plant Sciences, and Invitrogen are consistent applications of the same rule. To establish prior invention, the party asserting it must prove that it appreciated what it had made. The prior inventor does not need to know everything about how or why its invention worked. Nor must it conceive of its invention using the same words as the patentee would later use to claim it.