BioSpyder Technologies, Inc. v. HTG Molecular Diagnostics, Inc.

Background

BioSpyder brought a patent declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that its TempO-Seq gene-expression technology did not infringe HTG’s U.S. Patent No. 8,741,564. HTG moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer the case from the Northern District of California to the District of Arizona. BioSpyder opposed the transfer and objected to statements in declarations supporting HTG’s motion.

BioSpyder is headquartered in Carlsbad, California. HTG is headquartered in Tucson, Arizona, and has a facility in San Carlos, California. The court noted that BioSpyder’s relevant documents were largely in Carlsbad, while documents and things related to HTG’s patented technology were in Tucson. The court also discussed Bruce Seligmann, BioSpyder’s chief scientific officer, who resides in Tucson and whom HTG described as a central figure because of his affiliations with both companies.

Legal Standard

Section 1404(a) permits a court to transfer a case to another district where it could have been brought when transfer would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of justice. The parties did not dispute that the case could properly have been brought in the District of Arizona. The court therefore weighed factors including the plaintiff’s choice of forum, party and witness convenience, access to evidence, familiarity with applicable law, local interest, litigation costs, court congestion, and the feasibility of considering other claims.

Court’s Analysis

The court gave BioSpyder’s choice of the Northern District of California reduced weight because BioSpyder was headquartered in the Southern District of California, not in the chosen district, and the operative facts did not arise there. The court found that the dispute’s “center of gravity” was in Arizona because significant work, documents, witnesses, and events connected to the patent and the accused technology were located there.

The convenience-of-parties factor favored transfer. The court found no evidence that significant work on either technology occurred in the Northern District of California. BioSpyder’s sales and collaborations with local educational institutions did not establish that the district was the center of the accused activity, and HTG was closing its San Carlos laboratory and moving equipment and materials to Tucson.

The convenience-of-witnesses factors also favored transfer. HTG identified party witnesses in Arizona, while BioSpyder identified party witnesses mainly in the Southern District of California. The court found that travel from the Southern District of California would be comparable to Tucson and that Bruce Seligmann’s location in Tucson supported transfer. Five identified non-party witnesses were within the District of Arizona’s subpoena power, while BioSpyder specifically identified only one non-party witness in the Northern District of California and provided no supporting declaration about that witness’s convenience.

The court found that the two districts were equally familiar with federal patent law, making that factor neutral. Court congestion did not affect the analysis because the difference in reported median times to trial was not significant enough. Local interest slightly favored Arizona. Litigation costs weighed against transfer because moving the case would reduce HTG’s travel costs but similarly burden BioSpyder. Access to evidence was neutral because BioSpyder’s technology documents were likely in the Southern District of California and HTG’s patent documents were likely in Arizona.

The court also struck the challenged declaration statements because they speculated about the extent of future testimony by third-party witnesses rather than relying on personal knowledge.

Disposition

For the stated reasons, Judge Edward J. Davila granted HTG’s Motion to Transfer Venue. The clerk was directed to transfer the matter to the District of Arizona and close the file.