Dropbox’s Novel Argument for Transferring to N.D. California Fails to Persuade Judge Albright

In its opposed motion, Defendant Dropbox argued the Northern District of California was a proper and more convenient venue for the action. The Court analyzed the four private and public factors laid out by the Fifth Circuit to determine whether transfer was appropriate.

Private Interest Factors. First, Dropbox maintained the bulk of relevant evidence and sources of proof, such as documents describing the design and operation of the accused products, in NDCA or Seattle. Notably, the Court stated, “although begrudgingly, it must follow Fifth Circuit precedent” that location of documents is an important consideration to this factor. But because there were several party witnesses both within WDTX and NDCA, the Court found that this first factor only weighed slightly in favor of transfer. Second, as to the availability of compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses, the factor weighed neutrally, because there were potential third-party witnesses in both WDTX and NDCA, and because there may be some Dropbox employees within the district with relevant information that were identified by Plaintiff (even though Dropbox adamantly argued that it would not call those WDTX witnesses to trial). Third, the cost of attendance for willing witnesses also weighed neutrally because there appeared to be several potential witnesses in both WDTX and NDCA, and the parties identified potential Dropbox witnesses within WDTX. Finally, as to the fourth factor, those that make trial easy, expeditious, and inexpensive, the Court found it weighed against transfer because there was a parallel action within WDTX involving the same patent against another defendant.

Public Interest Factors. First, Dropbox argued that the first factor, administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion, was neutral because “neither this Court nor NDCA suffers from judge shortage or backlog of civil matters.” The Court was not persuaded, finding that it would reach trial within 21 months of filing, which would be faster than NDCA; thus, this factor weighed against transfer. Second, the Court found both WDTX and NDCA had localized interests, making this factor neutral because Dropbox had offices in both districts and there were potential witnesses within WDTX. Third, the parties and the Court agreed that the familiarity of the forum with the law that would govern the case was a neutral factor. Fourth, the parties and the Court agreed that avoiding conflict of laws and application of foreign laws was a neutral factor.

Judge Albright mentions, again, that the first private interest factor is at odds with the realities with modern patent litigation, seemingly pleading to the Fifth Circuit to change its view regarding importance of the physical location of documents. Further, as previously shown in other orders denying interdistrict transfer, there is a high bar to meet in order to transfer to a different venue. Judge Albright still seems to find the time to trial the most important factor, and was not persuaded by Dropbox’s novel argument that both NDCA and WDTX do not suffer from judge shortages or backlog of civil matters. This order continues Judge Albright’s streak of denying every motion for interdistrict transfer.

SynKloud Techs., LLC v. Dropbox Inc., 6:19-CV-00525 (Order Denying Defendant’s Motion to Transfer)