Free Order on Motion to Transfer Case - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv—O0O38-SLR Document 27 Filed O9/10/2007 Paget of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
SYNGENTA BIOTECHNOLOGY, INC. )
GARWOOD SEED CO., )
GOLDEN SEED COMPANY, L.L.C. and )
THORP SEED CO., )
Plaintiffs, )
v. g Civ. N0. 07-038-SLR
DEKALB GENETICS CORPORATION )
and NIONSANTO COMPANY, )
Defendants. g
MEMORANDUM ORDER
At Wilmington this I0`*"` day of September, 2007, having reviewed defendants
motion to transfer and the papers filed in connection therewith;
IT IS ORDERED that said motion (D.l. 7) is granted, for the reasons that follow:
1. Standard of Review. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a district court may
transfer any civil action to any other district where the action might have been brought
for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interests ofjustice. Congress
intended through § 1404 to place discretion in the district court to adjudicate motions to
transfer according to an individualized, case—by-case consideration of convenience and
the interests ofjustice. Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988);
Affymetrix, Inc. v. Synteni, Inc., 28 F. Supp.2d 192, 208 (D. Del. 1998).
2. The burden of establishing the need to transfer rests with the movant "to
establish that the balance of convenience of the parties and witnesses strongly favors

Case 1:07-cv—00O38-SLR Document 27 Filed 09/10/2007 Page 2 of 3
the defendants." Bergman v. Brainin, 512 F. Supp. 972, 973 (D. Del. 1981) (citing
Shutte v. Armco Steel Corp., 431 F.2d 22, 25 (3d Cir. 1970). "Unless the balance is
strongly in favor of a transfer, the plaintiff's choice of forum should prevail". ADE Corp.
v. KLA-Tencor Corp., 138 F. Supp.2d 565, 567 (D. Del. 2001); , 431 F.2d at 25.
3. The deference afforded plaintiff's choice of forum will apply so long as plaintiff
has selected the forum for some legitimate reason. CR. Bard, Inc. v. Guidant Corp.,
997 F. Supp. 556, 562 (D. Del 1998); Cypress Semiconductor Corp. v. Integrated
Circuit Systems, Inc., 2001 WL 1617186 (D. Del. Nov. 28, 2001); Continental Cas. Co.
v. American Home Assurance Co., 61 F. Supp.2d 128, 131 (D. Del. 1999). Although
transfer of an action is usually considered as less inconvenient to a plaintiff if the
plaintiff has not chosen its "‘home turf' or a forum where the alleged wrongful activity
occurred, the p|aintiff’s choice of forum is still of paramount consideration, and the
burden remains at all times on the defendants to show that the balance of convenience
and the interests ofjustice weigh strongly in favor oftransfer." In re M.L.-Lee
Acguisition Fund Il, L.P., 816 F. Supp. 973, 976 (D. Del. 1993).
4. Analysis. Defendants filed a patent infringement case against some or all of
the plaintiffs at bar in the Eastern District of Missouri on August 9, 2006 (Monsanto v.
Syngenta, Civ. No. 4:06CV01191-ERW (E.D. Mo.)) ("the Missouri litigation"). The
instant declaratory judgment action was not filed by plaintiffs at bar until January 19,
2007. This court generally honors the first-filed rule, which directs that a later-filed case
be stayed or transferred to the court in which the first case was filed. E.E.O.C. v.
University of Pennsylvania, 850 F.2d 969, 971-977 (3d Cir. 1988).
5. Plaintiff argues that several factors militate against following the first-filed rule
2

Case 1:07-cv—O0O38-SLR Document 27 Filed O9/10/2007 Page 3 of 3
instantly. First, the Eastern District of Missouri does not have personal jurisdiction over
all of the plaintiffs at bar (who are the defendants in the Missouri litigation). (D.I. 24, ex.
A) Second, this court has experience with pIaintiffs’ GA 21 corn product. In this regard,
the court granted summary judgment in favor of Syngenta Seeds, lnc. and Syngenta
Biotechnology (and others) against Monsanto Company (and others) in Monsanto v.
Syngenta, Civ. No. 04-305-SLR (D. Del.), which judgment is on appeal to the Federal
Circuit (Civ. No. O4-305-SLR, D.I. 375, 376, 411, 414) ("the first Delaware action")?
6. Although plaintiffs have identified appropriate and persuasive reasons for
keeping the instant litigation here in Delaware, it is a waste of scarce judicial resources
(if not unseemly) for two district courts to be working on essentially the same case at
the same time. Especially in light of this court's general respect for a plaintiffs choice
of forum, the court declines to maintain the instant litigation in Delaware.
lT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to transfer this
action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
‘lndeed, the patents at issue in the Missouri litigation, the first Delaware action,
and the instant litigation are related, sharing almost identical specifications and portions
ofthe same prosecution history. To the extent, if at all, the Federal Circuit’s decision in
the first Delaware action is relevant to issues in the instant litigation, so too will the
Missouri litigation be affected.
3