IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

)
LIFEPORT SCIENCES LLC )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) C.A. No. 12-1791-GMS
)
ENDOLOGIX, INC., )
)
Defendant. )
)
LIFEPORT SCIENCES LLC )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) C.A. No. 12-1792-GMS
)
W. L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC., )
)
Defendant. )
)
LIFEPORT SCIENCES LLC )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) C.A. No. 12-1793-GMS
)
MEDTRONIC, INC. and )
MEDTRONIC VASCULAR, INC., )
)
Defendants. )
)
LIFEPORT SCIENCES LLC, and )
LIFESCREEN SCIENCES LLC, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
V. ) C.A. No. 13-128-GMS
)
COOK IN CORPORA TED and )
COOK MEDICAL IN CORPORA TED, )
)
Defendants. )
)
LIFEPORT SCIENCES LLC, and )
LIFESCREEN SCIENCES LLC, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) C.A. No. 13-362-GMS
)
COOK IN CORPORA TED and )
COOK MEDICAL IN CORPORA TED, )
)
Defendants. )
)
LIFESCREEN SCIENCES LLC, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) C.A. No. 13-129-GMS
)
C.R. BARD, INC. and )
BARD PERIPHERAL VASCULAR, INC., )
)
Defendants. )
ORDER
Presently before the court in the above captioned patent infringement actions are four
motions to transfer to three different district courts.
1
"For the convenience of parties and
1
See LifePort Sciences LLC v. Endologix Inc., No. 12-1791-GMS, D.I. 12 (motion to transfer to
the Central District of California); LifePort Sciences LLC v. Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic Vascular,
Inc., No. 12-1793-GMS, D.I. 15 (motion to transfer to the Northern District of California); and LifePort
Sciences LLC and LifeScreen Sciences LLC v. Cook Incorporated and Cook Medical Incorporated, Nos.
13-128-GMS, D.I. 11 and 13-362-GMS, D.I. 6 (motions to transfer to the Southern District oflndiana).
2
/
witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other
district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all
parties have consented." 28 U.S.C. 1404(a). Under this provision, a district court may exercise
"broad discretion to determine, on an individualized, case-by-case basis, whether convenience
and fairness considerations weigh in favor of transfer." Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d
873, 883 (3d Cir. 1995). The defendant has the burden to demonstrate that a transfer is
appropriate, id. at 879-80, and "unless the balance of convenience of the parties is strongly in
favor of the defendant, the plaintiff's choice of forum should prevail." Shutte v. Armco Steel
Corp., 431 F .2d 22, 25 (3d Cir. 1970).
After considering the parties' positions as set forth in their papers, as well as the
applicable law, the court finds that transfer is not warranted. The interests of justice weigh
heavily against transfer, because the District of Delaware is uniquely positioned to resolve the
related patent infringement actions? Keeping the related cases in the same court will ease the
burden on the judiciary as a whole by allowing a single "court to develop some familiarity with
the patents and technology involved, thereby conserving judicial time and resources." Smart
2
There are currently six pending actions in the District of Delaware involving LifePort,
LifeScreen, or both. All of the infringement cases involve technology pertaining to the field of minimally
invasive vascular repair and many of the actions share overlapping patents-in-suit, which will require
claim construction. LifePort has asserted the most patents against the defendant W.L Gore & Associates,
Inc. ("Gore"), which must be litigated in this district because Gore is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Newark, Delaware. Five of the patents asserted against Gore overlap with
the defendant Endologix, Inc. ("Endologix"). LifePort has also asserted another patent against Gore that
overlaps with the defendants Medtronic, Inc. and Medtronic Vascular, Inc. (collectively, "Medtronic").
Similarly, LifeScreen has asserted a patent against C.R. Bard, Inc. and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc.
(collectively, "Bard"), and Cook Incorporated and Cook Medical Incorporated (collectively, "Cook"), but
Bard has not sought transfer. Accordingly, granting transfer to Endologix, Medtronic, or Cook would
require identical patents to be litigated in two separate courts, which would increase the burden on the
judiciary and relevant third-party witnesses. In addition, all the time and cost efficiencies of litigating
related actions together, such as coordinating discovery and depositions will be lost, and replaced with the
risk of inconsistent claim constructions, duplicative discovery, and duplicative costs.
3
Audio Techs., L.L.C. v. Apple, Inc., 910 F. Supp. 2d 718, 733 (D. Del. 2012). Further, "[t]o
permit a situation in which two cases involving precisely the same issues are simultaneously
pending in different [ d]istrict [ c ]ourts leads to the wastefulness of time, energy and money that
[section] 1404(a) was designed to prevent." !d. at 732-33 (quoting Cont'l Grain Co. v. The
Barge FBL-585, 364 U.S. 19, 26 (1960)). Accordingly, the court denies the motions to transfer.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. Endologix' s Motion to Transfer to the Central District of California (No. 12-1791,
D.l. 12) is DENIED;
2. Medtronic's Motion to Transfer to the Northern District of California (No. 12-
1793-GMS, D.l. 15) is DENIED; and
3. Cook's Motions to Transfer to the Southern District of Indiana (Nos. 13-128, D.l.
11 and 13-362, D.l. 6) are DENIED.
Dated: May ..l2::; 2014
4