NetSoc, LLC v. LinkedIn Corporation

Background

NetSoc, LLC sued LinkedIn Corp. for patent infringement. The complaint alleged that LinkedIn’s website and its Recruiter and ProFinder services infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 9,978,107 and 7,565,344. The patents generally concern methods and systems for establishing and using a social network to help people with life issues.

NetSoc’s action was one of four separate patent cases that had been consolidated through claim construction. The opinion states that the action against Quora Inc. had already been transferred to the Northern District of California and that the action against Chegg Inc. had been dismissed on collateral-estoppel grounds. LinkedIn also had a pending motion to dismiss, but the court addressed the transfer motion first.

Legal standard

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a federal court may transfer a civil action to another district where the case could have been brought if the transfer would promote convenience and justice. The party seeking transfer must make a clear and convincing showing that transfer is appropriate. Courts consider factors including witness and party convenience, where the events occurred, the availability of compulsory process for unwilling witnesses, the location of documents, the parties’ relative resources, the forum’s familiarity with the law, the plaintiff’s choice of forum, trial efficiency, and the interests of justice.

Court’s analysis

The court first found that the case could have been brought in the Northern District of California. NetSoc did not dispute that point.

The convenience of witnesses strongly favored transfer. LinkedIn identified employees involved in development, engineering, and management who were most knowledgeable about the accused technologies and were located in Northern California. LinkedIn also identified Emily White, the inventor of the patents, and the patents’ prosecuting attorneys as relevant nonparty witnesses located in California. NetSoc did not identify any witness who would benefit from keeping the case in New York and did not dispute the likely inconvenience to LinkedIn’s witnesses. The court also found that the Northern District of California would have greater authority to compel unwilling witnesses to attend proceedings there.

The convenience of the parties also favored transfer. LinkedIn’s headquarters, employees working on the Recruiter and ProFinder services, and documents concerning those services were in Northern California. The court concluded that transferring the case would not add a burden to NetSoc because NetSoc was based in Texas and had already chosen to litigate outside Texas.

The location of the operative facts strongly favored California. The court found that White developed the inventions in Mountain View, California, and that LinkedIn developed and continued to manage the accused services in Northern California. The court rejected NetSoc’s argument that use of LinkedIn’s services in New York made New York a meaningful location of the operative facts. It reasoned that nationwide availability of the services and sales or use in New York were not enough to outweigh the California connections.

The location of relevant documents was neutral. Although LinkedIn said that documents and records concerning the accused services were located in or accessible from its Northern California offices, NetSoc argued that the documents could be produced electronically. The court treated technological portability as making this factor neutral.

The court gave NetSoc’s choice of New York less weight because the operative facts had little material connection to that district. The court also gave little weight to the forum’s familiarity with patent law, explaining that any district court could handle the patent case.

The court rejected NetSoc’s argument that transfer would reduce efficiency because the case had been consolidated with related actions. The court noted that the related cases involved different accused products and, in some instances, different patents. It also stated that only two of the original four consolidated cases remained pending and that the Southern District of New York had not made a significant investment in the case. The court further rejected NetSoc’s argument that LinkedIn had waived its venue objection by agreeing to consolidation, finding that LinkedIn had not participated in the discussions that led to consolidation and had later opposed continued consolidation.

Disposition

The court concluded that LinkedIn made the required clear and convincing showing that the relevant factors favored transfer. Judge Ronnie Abrams granted LinkedIn’s motion to transfer and directed the Clerk of Court to transfer action No. 18-CV-12215 to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The opinion did not decide LinkedIn’s separate pending motion to dismiss.