Hanna v. cab Technology, Inc.

Background

Milad A. Hanna, proceeding without a lawyer, brought a patent-infringement action against Cab Technology Inc., which the opinion says is stylized as “cab Technology.” Hanna alleged that Cab Technology infringed a patent she owns. She provided one address for Cab Technology in Chelmsford, Massachusetts, and another in Karlsruhe, Germany.

Venue analysis

Patent-infringement venue is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). The opinion explains that venue may be proper where the defendant resides or where the alleged infringement occurred and the defendant has a regular and established place of business. Hanna did not allege that the infringement occurred in the Southern District of New York or that Cab Technology had a regular and established place of business there.

Hanna also did not allege whether Cab Technology was a domestic or foreign corporation, or, if domestic, where it was incorporated. The court stated that if Cab Technology were foreign, venue could be proper in any federal district. In either event, the District of Massachusetts was a possible venue because Chelmsford is there, and it was the only domestic location Hanna provided for Cab Technology.

Transfer and disposition

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a court may transfer a case to another district where it could have been brought for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. The court concluded that transfer appeared appropriate because Hanna alleged no facts suggesting that the Southern District of New York was convenient, while Cab Technology was located in Chelmsford and relevant documents and witnesses could reasonably be expected to be in Massachusetts.

The court therefore transferred the action to the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The Clerk was directed to make the transfer, and the court stated that whether Hanna could proceed without prepaying fees would be decided by the Massachusetts court. No summons would issue from the Southern District of New York, and the order closed the case in that court. The court also certified that any appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for an appeal.