Ohana v. Mars Petcare US Inc.
- Laura Swain
- 1:24-cv-01316
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 5
In Ohana v. Mars Petcare, Judge Swain transferred the action to Delaware because patent venue was not adequately alleged in New York.
Rachel Ohana’s patent-infringement action was moved from the Southern District of New York to the District of Delaware; the opinion does not decide the infringement claims.
What happened
Ohana v. Mars Petcare US, Inc. concerns Rachel Ohana’s pro se patent-infringement claims about a cat-food container design. She sued Mars Petcare and two employees in the Southern District of New York after an earlier related case was dismissed for improper venue.
The court found that Ohana did not allege where Mars Petcare was incorporated, where the alleged infringement occurred, or that Mars Petcare had a regular and established place of business in the Southern District of New York. The court noted that other courts had identified Delaware as Mars Petcare’s state of incorporation.
Judge Laura Taylor Swain transferred the action to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in the interest of justice. The Southern District case was closed, and the court directed that no summons issue from that court; it also denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
The detailed version
- Ohana v. Mars Petcare US Inc. · No. 1:24-cv-01316
- Laura Swain
- July 3, 2024
Background
Rachel Ohana brought this action without a lawyer. The court understood her amended complaint to assert patent-infringement claims concerning an alleged patented design for a cat-food container. She named Mars Petcare US, Inc., “Anna Consumer Relations,” and “Sheri Consumer Relations” as defendants. The opinion states that she provided only first names for the two individual defendants, no addresses for any defendant, and a telephone number for the individuals.
Ohana had previously brought an action against Mars Petcare in the Eastern District of New York based on the same factual allegations. In that earlier related proceeding, the court dismissed the case because Ohana had not adequately alleged that venue was proper there. The Southern District of New York then gave her an opportunity to amend her complaint and directed her to allege facts showing that venue was proper in the Southern District.
Venue analysis
Patent-infringement actions are governed by a special venue rule, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). Under that rule, the action may be brought where the defendant resides or where the defendant committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business. For a domestic corporation, residence under this rule is the corporation’s state of incorporation.
The court found that Ohana did not allege Mars Petcare’s state of incorporation. She also did not allege that infringement occurred in the Southern District of New York or facts showing that Mars Petcare had a regular and established place of business there. The court therefore concluded that venue was not proper in the Southern District.
The court explained that when a case is filed in the wrong venue, 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) allows dismissal or, when justice requires, transfer to a district where the case could have been brought. Although Ohana’s complaint did not identify a proper district, the court relied on decisions from other courts stating that Mars Petcare is incorporated in Delaware. The court therefore concluded that venue appeared proper in the District of Delaware.
Disposition
The court transferred the action to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware under § 1406(a), rather than dismissing it. The Clerk was directed to transfer the case, no summons was to issue from the Southern District of New York, and the order closed the case in that court. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
The opinion resolves venue and transfer only. It does not decide whether Mars Petcare or the other defendants infringed Ohana’s alleged patent.
Read the full 5-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.