Defendant's convenience is not elevated over plaintiffs' in venue analysis

Versata Software, Inc., et al. v. Callidus Software Inc., C.A. No. 12-931-SLR, May 16, 2013

Robinson, J. Defendant’s motion to transfer is denied. Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is denied.

Defendant moved to transfer the case to the Northern District of California. The motion was denied. The parties are all incorporated in Delaware. Although the case could have been brought in California, the court declined to elevate the defendant’s choice of venue over that of the plaintiffs’ based solely on the defendant’s convenience. Defendant’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is denied. The complaint identifies the accused software to support a claim for direct infringement. Indirect infringement is also sufficiently pled. The complaint need not identify a particular customer to support a claim for indirect infringement.

Trackbacks (0) Links to blogs that reference this article Trackback URL
http://depatentlaw.morrisjames.com/admin/trackback/300829
Comments (0) Read through and enter the discussion with the form at the end
Post A Comment / Question Use this form to add a comment to this entry.







Remember personal info?
Send To A Friend Use this form to send this entry to a friend via email.