Patent and Trademark – Patent suit against Amazon is transferred to Washington

Where a patent infringement suit could have been filed in the Western District of Washington and each of the four factors in the 28 U.S.C. § 1404 weighed in favor of transfer, the suit was transferred to the Western District of Washington.

Background

XTone, Inc. assert that defendants infringe on their patents in their design, creation and manufacture of Amazon Alexa or Amazon Alexa+ and related products. Defendants have filed a motion to transfer the case to the Western District of Washington, or WDWA, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404.

There is a two-part inquiry when considering whether to transfer venue: “(1) whether the claims might have been brought in the transferee forum, and (2) whether the interest of justice and convenience of the parties and witnesses justify transfer to that forum.”

Analysis

The first step in the § 1404(a) inquiry is to determine whether venue would have been proper in the WDWA. This case is an action for patent infringement. Any civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where a defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business. Here, both parties agree that the case could have been brought in the WDWA because, as defendants assert, “Amazon has a regular and established place of business in the Western District of Washington – its longstanding Seattle headquarters.”

The second step of the § 1404(a) analysis considers whether the interest of justice and convenience of the parties and witnesses justify transfer to that forum. To make such a determination, the court typically considers: (1) plaintiff’s choice of forum, (2) convenience of the parties, (3) witness convenience and access and (4) the interest of justice.

Plaintiff’s choice

Plaintiff’s choice of forum is typically entitled to “substantial weight,” especially where the chosen forum is the plaintiff’s home forum or bears a substantial relation to the cause of action. Here, although plaintiff has been present in this district and in Virginia since its founding, plaintiff no longer appears to be an active business in its industry. Plaintiff seems to currently have no facilities, operations, offices or employees. Thus, as a non-practicing entity, plaintiff’s past ties to this district do not provide a strong tie now and, thus, do not entitle its choice of forum to substantial weight.

Convenience of the parties

Courts in this district have found that in a patent case, “as a general rule, the preferred forum is that which is the center of the accused activity.” Based on the declarations submitted by defendants, it appears that the vast majority of material witnesses and documents are located in WDWA. These declarations further support that no employees in Virginia were involved in the design or development of the accused products. Thus, the nucleus of the alleged infringing activities is WDWA.

By contrast, plaintiff relies on the existence of HQ2 in Virginia. Plaintiff notes that current employees in HQ2 support the operation of the accused products but does not explain the relevance of such employees to plaintiff’s theory of infringement.

In sum, plaintiff has not quantified what witnesses or evidence may be in this district. By contrast, defendants have put forward strong evidence regarding the magnitude of evidence and witnesses relevant to the alleged infringement that are located on the West Coast and, more specifically, in WDWA.

Because defendants have clearly demonstrated an inconvenience to litigating in this district as opposed to WDWA, and plaintiff has not produced any evidence that suggests a comparative inconvenience to litigating in WDWA, this factor weighs in favor of transfer.

Convenience of the witnesses

Plaintiff identifies only two material employee witnesses located close to this district and neither gives any indication of inconvenience to travel to WDWA. On the other hand, defendants identify more than 20 employees who could have material information that are located close to WDWA and another 16 third-party witnesses who would only be subject to the subpoena power of the WDWA. Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of defendants.

Interest of justice

The interest of justice “encompasses public interest factors aimed at ‘systemic integrity and fairness.’” The parties do not suggest that systemic integrity is an issue here. With respect to issues of fairness, district judges in this district have previously noted that “docket conditions in the Eastern District of Virginia and Western District of Washington appear similar.”

Defendant’s motion to transfer granted.

XTone Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., Case No. 1:25-cv-772, Feb. 19, 2026. EDVA at Alexandria (Alston). VLW 026-3-080. 15 pp.

Full-Text Opinion

VLW 026-3-077
Virginia Lawyers Weekly