Kaufman v. Salesforce.com, Inc.

Background

Michael Philip Kaufman sued Salesforce.com, Inc., alleging that Salesforce’s Sales Cloud, Service Cloud, and Marketing Cloud services infringed claims in two patents concerning processes for generating user interfaces for large relational computer databases. Kaufman resides and works in New York, and the opinion states that the patents were invented in New York. Salesforce is incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in San Francisco, California. It moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a federal law allowing a court to transfer a civil case for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice.

Transfer analysis

The court first determined that the action could have been brought in the Northern District of California. The parties did not dispute that point, and Salesforce’s headquarters and offices in Northern California supported personal jurisdiction and patent venue there.

The court then weighed the relevant convenience and justice factors. Kaufman’s choice of New York counted against transfer because he lived there and the patents were developed there. The convenience of witnesses weighed significantly in favor of transfer because Salesforce identified former employees involved in developing the accused products, as well as prior-art witnesses, who were primarily in the San Francisco Bay Area or elsewhere on the West Coast. The court also gave greater weight to the convenience of non-party witnesses.

The location of relevant documents weighed slightly in favor of transfer because Salesforce’s technical and product documents were in San Francisco, although the evidence was electronic and could be transmitted. The convenience of the parties was neutral because transfer would make the case more convenient for Salesforce but less convenient for Kaufman. The locus of operative facts—the place where events underlying the claims occurred—was San Francisco because most development of Sales Cloud and Service Cloud occurred there, while Marketing Cloud was primarily developed in Indianapolis. The patents, however, were developed in New York.

The ability to compel unwilling witnesses weighed strongly in favor of transfer. The Northern District of California could subpoena Salesforce’s former employees and many prior-art witnesses located there, while the Southern District of New York could not. The parties’ relative financial means, the forum’s familiarity with patent law, and trial efficiency were treated as neutral, neutral, and slightly favoring keeping the case in New York, respectively.

Disposition

The court concluded that the factors favoring transfer—especially the location and convenience of witnesses, the location of operative facts, the ability to compel testimony, and the location of relevant documents—outweighed Kaufman’s interest in litigating in New York. The court found clear and convincing evidence that transfer was appropriate.

The court granted Salesforce’s motion to transfer at ECF No. 27 and directed the Clerk to transfer the action to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. It also denied as moot the motion at ECF No. 70. The opinion addressed the location of the case, not the merits of Kaufman’s patent-infringement allegations.