1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 XIAOHUA HUANG, Case No. 21-cv-04721-TSH

9 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 10 v. TRANSFER

11 TRIFECTA NETWORKS LLC, Re: Dkt. No. 7 12 Defendant.

13 14 I. INTRODUCTION 15 Plaintiff Xiaohua Huang brings this patent infringement suit against Defendant Trifecta 16 Networks LLC, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No. RE45259. Trifecta moves to dismiss the 17 case pursuant to

(b) for improper venue or, in the alternative, to transfer it to the 18 United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. ECF No. 7. Huang filed an 19 Opposition (ECF No. 10) and Trifecta filed a Reply (ECF No. 12). The Court finds this matter 20 suitable for disposition without oral argument and VACATES the August 26, 2021 hearing. See 21 Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Having considered the parties’ positions, relevant legal authority, and the record 22 in this case, the Court GRANTS Trifecta’s motion to transfer for the following reasons.1 23 24 25

26 1 Because an order transferring venue does not address the merits of the case, “it is a nondispositive matter that is within the province of a magistrate judge’s authority under 28 U.S.C. 27 § 636(b)(1)(A).” Pavao v. Unifund CCR Partners,

(S.D. Cal. 2013) 1 II. BACKGROUND 2 Huang resides in Los Gatos, California. Compl. ¶ 2, ECF No. 1. According to his 3 complaint, he “has developed the state of the art high speed and low power U.S. patented TCAM 4 designs to build IC chips used inside of Internet IP Routers [], Wireless routers, Ethernet Switches 5 [] and Data Center Switches etc. since the year of 2000.”

He is the owner of the ‘RE259 6 patent.

¶ 5 7 Trifecta is an electronics reselling and recycling company incorporated in the State of 8 Florida, headquartered in the State of Florida, and residing in the State of Florida. Toepke Decl. 9 ¶¶ 3-7, ECF No. 7-1. Trifecta has its principal place of business at 4027 Tampa Road, Oldsmar,

and regularly conducts business there.

. It has no offices and no 11 employees in California.

. Trifecta is registered with the Florida Department of State as 12 a Florida Limited Liability Company and maintains active registration. Stroy Decl., Ex. 1, ECF 13 No. 7-3. The registered office identified on the Florida Department of State website lists 14 Trifecta’s 4027 Tampa Road, Oldsmar, Florida 34677 location. Id.; Toepke Decl. ¶¶ 3-4. 15 Huang originally sued Trifecta in the United States District Court for the Middle District of 16 Florida on March 23, 2021, asserting infringement of the ‘RE259 patent. See Xiaohua Huang v. 17 Trifecta Networks LLC, Case No. 8:21-cv-00698-CEH-JSS (M.D. Fla.). In the Florida complaint, 18 Huang alleged that “Venue is proper in this District pursuant to

(b)-(c) and 19 1400(b) in that Defendant [Trifecta] has its operation office to do business daily and regularly in 20 this District.”

ECF No. 1 ¶ 4. Huang voluntarily dismissed his case against Trifecta in Florida 21 a month later, on April 22, 2021, before Trifecta had an opportunity to respond.

ECF No. 9. 22 On June 21, 2021, Huang refiled his complaint in this District, revising his venue 23 allegations to read: “Venue is proper in this district pursuant to

(b)-(c) and 24 1400(b) in that Defendant has done business on the products which are made in this District. The 25 potential witness and evidence are also in this District.” Compl. ¶ 4. Huang does not allege that 26 Trifecta is incorporated in the State of California or that it has a regular and established place of 27 business here. 1 III. LEGAL STANDARD 2 “The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in the wrong division 3 or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district or 4 division in which it could have been brought.”

(a). The patent venue statute 5 provides that venue is proper “in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the 6 defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.” 7

(b). “Whether venue is proper under § 1400(b) is an issue unique to patent law 8 and is governed by Federal Circuit law.” In re ZTE (USA) Inc.,

(Fed. Cir. 9 2018). Section 1400(b) “is intended to be restrictive of venue in patent cases compared with the 10 broad general venue provision.”

. 11 “As applied to domestic corporations, ‘reside[nce]’ in [section] 1400(b) refers only to the 12 State of incorporation.” TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC,

, 13 1521 (2017). When determining whether a defendant has a regular and established place of 14 business in the district, three general requirements are relevant: “(1) there must be a physical place 15 in the district; (2) it must be a regular and established place of business; and (3) it must be the 16 place of the defendant. If any statutory requirement is not satisfied, venue is improper under 17 [section] 1400(b).” In re Cray Inc.,

(Fed. Cir. 2017). 18 “[U]pon motion by the [d]efendant challenging venue in a patent case, the [p]laintiff bears 19 the burden of establishing proper venue.” In re ZTE (USA) Inc.,

. “In ruling on a 20 motion to dismiss for improper venue, the plaintiff’s allegations in the complaint need not be 21 accepted as true, and the court may consider evidence outside the pleadings.” Argueta v. Banco 22 Mexicano, S.A.,

(9th Cir. 1996). The “trial court must draw all reasonable 23 inferences in favor of the non-moving party and resolve all factual conflicts in favor of the non- 24 moving party.” Murphy v. Schneider Nat’l, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2004). 25 IV. DISCUSSION 26 Trifecta argues venue is improper in this District because it is neither incorporated in nor 27 has a regular and established place of business in the State of California. The Court agrees. 1 of business there. Toepke Decl. ¶¶ 3-4. This principal place of business is within the Middle 2 District of Florida. Likewise, Trifecta’s registered office on the Florida Department of State 3 website reflects the same location in the Middle District of Florida. Stroy Decl., Ex. 1. As such, 4 for purposes of

(b), it is indisputable that Trifecta both “resides” and “has a 5 regular and established place of business” in the Middle District of Florida. 6 It appears that Huang is aware of this fact, having alleged in the prior Florida action that 7 venue was proper in the Middle District of Florida because Trifecta “has its operation office to do 8 business daily and regularly[sic]”. However, he argues venue is proper here because

9 (1) Most of the devices (products) accused in the complaint were manufactured in this district (N.D. California). 10 (2) Most of the Witness are resided in this District. 11 (3) All the data to prove the case are stored in this District[; and] 12 (4) This Court has experience in the patent cases related to chips 13 while the District in Florida has no experience in chips. 14 Opp’n at 1-2. Huang also argues he “prefer[s] this District Court” because it “allow[s] Pro Se 15 Plaintiff to access ECF system for filing while the District Court in middle Florida does not allow 16 pro se Plaintiff to access ECF for filing.”

. While these arguments might be useful in a 17 motion for a convenience transfer under

, none establish proper venue under § 18 1400(b). Indeed, courts have found that a corporate defendant “must have more contact with [a 19 venue] than simply doing business there.” FOX Factory, Inc. v. SRAM, LLC,

, at 20 *4 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 8, 2018); Westech Aerosol Corp. v. 3M Co.,

, at *3 (W.D. 21 Wash. Aug. 7, 2017); Boston Sci. Corp. v. Cook Grp. Inc.,

, at *14 (D. Del. 22 Sept. 11, 2017). Trifecta has no offices and no employees in California, and it does not design or 23 make any of the products it sells. Toepke Decl. ¶¶ 5-7. Accordingly, the Court finds Huang has 24 failed to meet his burden of showing that venue is proper in this District. 25 Having concluded that venue is not proper here, the Court finds that it is in the interests of 26 justice to transfer the case, rather than dismiss it. See

(a). Under the statute, a 27 case may be transferred to “any district or division in which it could have been brought.”

1 filed his complaint. Given that Trifecta is located in and maintains its principal place of business 2 there, the Court agrees. 3 Trifecta also requests attorney’s fees “incurred in responding to Mr. Huang’s latest 4 || frivolous filing,” arguing “it is clear that [his] filing of this action in an improper venue is not 5 simply a mistake that can be attributed to his pro se status or a misunderstanding of venue law.” 6 || Mot. at 8. However, the Court has made no finding as to the merits of Huang’s allegations, and, 7 based on the arguments made in his opposition, the Court cannot say there was no 8 misunderstanding of venue law. Further, it is undisputed that Huang voluntarily dismissed his 9 || case against Trifecta in Florida before Trifecta had an opportunity to respond to his complaint. 10 || Thus, it incurred no more expense than if Huang had originally filed here. Accordingly, the Court 11 declines to award attorney’s fees. %L Vv. CONCLUSION 5 13 For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Trifecta’s motion to transfer. The Clerk 14 || of Court is directed to transfer this case to the Middle District of Florida. 3 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16

= 17 Dated: July 28, 2021 18 AY \ - Lj, □ THOMAS S. HIXSON 19 United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28