Adnexus Incorporated, LLC v. LinkedIn Corporation

Background

Adnexus brought a patent case against LinkedIn in the Western District of Texas. Adnexus alleged that LinkedIn had a regular and established place of business in that district. LinkedIn moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) to dismiss for improper venue or transfer the case to the Northern District of California. LinkedIn also sought dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Adnexus moved to strike LinkedIn’s motion based on the court’s standing order. Alternatively, it asked for discovery about venue and more time to respond to LinkedIn’s motion.

Motion to Strike

The court held that the relevant part of its standing order applied only to Rule 12(b)(6) motions, not to motions challenging venue under Rule 12(b)(3) or seeking transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1406. The court stated that LinkedIn had abandoned its alternative Rule 12(b)(6) request. Because that portion could be separated from the venue-related requests, the court denied Adnexus’s motion to strike in its entirety.

Venue Discovery

The court denied Adnexus’s request for venue-related discovery. It explained that Adnexus had to identify specific facts showing why discovery was needed and how discovery could support keeping the case in the Western District of Texas. The court found that Adnexus had not met that burden.

The court considered LinkedIn’s declarations stating that LinkedIn had no office, owned or leased property, or other business location in the district. The declarations also stated that LinkedIn’s remote Texas employees were not located in the Western District of Texas. Adnexus offered no evidence contradicting those statements and relied instead on an address associated with LinkedIn’s parent company.

Venue Ruling

For patent cases, venue is governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). A corporation resides only in its state of incorporation for this purpose. If it does not reside in the district, venue requires both acts of infringement there and a physical place that is the defendant’s regular and established place of business.

The court found that Adnexus’s own allegations showed LinkedIn did not reside in the Western District of Texas. Based on LinkedIn’s declarations, the court also found that LinkedIn did not maintain a regular and established place of business there. Adnexus therefore did not establish that venue was proper.

The court granted LinkedIn’s motion concerning improper venue. Rather than dismissing the patent case, it transferred the case to the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), finding that transfer was in the interest of justice and that Adnexus could have brought the case there.

Disposition

The court granted LinkedIn’s motion to dismiss for improper venue, or alternatively to transfer or dismiss for failure to state a claim, and transferred the case to the Northern District of California. It denied Adnexus’s motion to strike or alternatively to conduct venue-related discovery.