Widevine Successfully Opposes Transfer Motion: Congestion in ED of Texas Cited

In a dispute between two competitors in the market for certain video encryption technology, Widevine v. Verimatrix (WDWA C08-1039 JLR), Judge Robart denied Verimatrix's motion to transfer the case to the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division, where Judge Ward is already prosiding over a case involving the same companies and a separate patent. Citing congestion in the ED of Texas as a legitimate reason for bringing suit in Seattle, Judge Robart declined to transfer the case.

From Judge Robart's Order:

A court will give the plaintiff’s choice of forum preference “to the extent that it was motivated by legitimate reasons, including the plaintiff's convenience.” Iragorri v. United Tech. Corp., 274 F.3d 65, 73 (2d Cir. 2001). Widevine explained that it chose the Western District of Washington because it is headquartered in the district and the docket calender is less congested here than in the Eastern District of Texas. (Resp. at 1, 3.) Given that it had legitimate reasons to file in Washington, Widevine’s choice of forum weighs in favor of maintaining the case in this district.
WVtransfer.pdf