Sassy, Inc. v. Berry, 04 C 7219.
| Decision Date | 21 July 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 04 C 7219.,04 C 7219. |
| Citation | 406 F.Supp.2d 874 |
| Parties | SASSY, INC., Plaintiff, v. Donald P. BERRY, Sr., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Richard Daniel Harris, Jordan Herzog, Greenberg Traurig LLP, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiff.
Michael J. Abernathy, Wendy J. Sawyer, Bell Boyd & Lloyd, Chicago, IL, for Defendant.
Plaintiff Sassy, Inc. ("Sassy"), an Illinois corporation, filed this complaint for declaratory judgment against defendant Donald P. Berry, Sr., a Florida resident. Sassy produces and sells products for infants and young children, including a product known as the "Sassy Teething Feeder." The "Sassy Teething Feeder" consists of a mesh bag in which solid food can be placed, allowing young children to safely consume the food. Mr. Berry also sells an infant-feeding product known as the "Baby Safe Feeder." Mr. Berry holds a patent on his product, U.S. Patent 6,524,272 ("the '272 Patent"). In August 2004, Mr. Berry's attorney sent Sassy a letter claiming that the "Sassy Teething Feeder" infringed on the '272 Patent, and demanding that Sassy cease production and marketing of the product. Sassy alleges that the '272 Patent is invalid on a number of grounds and seeks a declaratory judgment to that effect. Mr. Berry moves to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and for improper venue, pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(3). In the alternative, Mr. Berry moves to transfer venue, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). I grant the motion to transfer and deny the motion to dismiss as moot, for the reasons stated below.
Section 1404(a) provides for the transfer of an action to any district where it might have been brought "for the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interests of justice." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Transfer is appropriate when venue is proper in both the transferor and transferee districts, when the transfer is for the convenience of parties and witnesses, and when the transfer serves the interests of justice. Law Bulletin Publishing Co. v. LRP Publications, Inc., 992 F.Supp. 1014, 1017 (N.D.Ill.1998). The decision to transfer is left to the sound discretion of the trial court. Id. (citing Heller Fin., Inc. v. Midwhey Powder Co., 883 F.2d 1286, 1293 (7th Cir.1989)).
The parties agree, for the purposes of the motion to transfer, that venue is proper in both this district and in the Middle District of Florida.1 I therefore consider the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and the interests of justice. When evaluating the convenience factor, I should consider: "(1) the plaintiff's choice of forum; (2) the situs of material events; (3) the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (4) the convenience of the witnesses; (5) the convenience to the parties of litigating in the respective forums." Law Bulletin, 992 F.Supp. at 1017.
Plaintiff's choice of forum deserves deference, but that deference is lessened when the forum is not the situs of material events. Id. (citing Heller Fin., 883 F.2d at 1289). Sassy states that Illinois is its home forum, as it is both incorporated here and has its headquarters within the state. However, the situs of material events is not within Illinois. The determination of patent infringement does not implicate a specific location. Holley Perf. Products, Inc. v. Barry Grant, Inc., No. 04-C-5758, 2004 WL 3119017, at *6 (N.D.Ill. Dec. 20, 2004). Thus the first factor weighs slightly against transfer, and the second is neutral.
The third factor weighs slightly in favor of transfer. The documents relating to the prosecution of Mr. Berry's patent are located in Florida. However, documents can fairly easily be transported from one location to another. See Hanley v. Omarc, Inc., 6 F.Supp.2d 770, 775 (N.D.Ill.1998). The location of witnesses is more neutral. Mr. Berry names several witnesses located in Florida, the most relevant of which is himself. Sassy names several potential witnesses in Illinois, all employees. Sassy also names several potentially important witnesses — the alleged co-inventors of its product — who are located in Ohio or Michigan. All non-party witnesses appear to live outside both districts — this factor is a wash.
I also consider the convenience of the parties in litigating this action. Sassy, which describes itself as a small company, has 115 employees and has experienced modest sales growth, by its own account.2 Mr. Berry is an individual...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Thompson v. Fairfax County Department of Family Services
...elderly and suffered from serious health problems, and there was no countervailing difficulty for the plaintiff); Sassy, Inc. v. Berry, 406 F.Supp.2d 874, 876–77 (N.D.Ill.2005) (transferring case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), in part because the defendant suffered from health problems an......
-
Research Automation, Inc. v. Schrader-Bridgeport Intern., Inc.
...factors include the location of material events and the relative ease of access to sources of proof. See, e.g., Sassy, Inc. v. Berry, 406 F.Supp.2d 874, 876-77 (N.D.Ill.2005); Brandon Apparel Group, Inc. v. Quitman Manufacturing Co., 42 F.Supp.2d 821, 833-34 (N.D.Ill.1999). The "interest of......
-
Caterpillar, Inc. v. Esco Corp.
...665 F.Supp.2d 970, 977 (N.D.Ind.2009); Jaramillo v. DineEquity, Inc., 664 F.Supp.2d 908, 913–15 (N.D.Ill.2009); Sassy, Inc. v. Berry, 406 F.Supp.2d 874, 876–77 (N.D.Ill.2005); Brandon Apparel Group, Inc. v. Quitman Manufacturing Co., 42 F.Supp.2d 821, 833–34 (N.D.Ill.1999)). The importance ......
-
Board of Trustees v. Sullivant Ave.
...district court cases which have considered this factor relevant in determining convenience of the parties. See Sassy, Inc. v. Berry, 406 F.Supp.2d 874, 876 (N.D.Ill.2005). However, none of these cases involved ERISA actions brought in the home state of the fund, where Plaintiff's choice of ......