Patent and trademark – Patent infringement suits to remain in EDVA

Where the defendants in two patent infringement suits moved to transfer them to an Illinois federal court, their motion was denied. The existence of a similar patent infringement action between the same parties and involving the same products strongly supports keeping the cases together in this district.

Background

Fleet Connect Solutions LLC and OBD Sensor Solutions filed these patent infringement suits on Nov. 3, 2025. Defendants Xirgo Technologies LLC and Xirgo Holdings Inc. move to transfer to the Northern District of Illinois and to stay the cases pending determination of the motions.

Standard

To determine whether transfer of venue is appropriate, a district court must consider: (1) whether the claims might have been brought in the transferee forum and (2) whether the case should ultimately be transferred to the transferee forum. As part of the second inquiry, district courts in this circuit consider: the weight accorded to plaintiff’s choice of venue, witness convenience and access, convenience of the parties, and the interest of justice.

Forum

Venue in patent infringement lawsuits is proper in any district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business. Xirgo’s principal place of business is located outside of Chicago in Rolling Meadows, Illinois, so it is clear that this patent infringement action might have been brought in the Northern District of Illinois.

Plaintiff’s venue

The plaintiffs’ choice of this district is afforded minimal weight. The plaintiffs were founded under the laws of Texas with registered office addresses in Texas and do not allege that they conduct any business in this district. The allegation that the defendants merely have a place of business in Virginia is not enough to establish relevance to this district without an indication of whether any of the accused products were designed or manufactured here.

The plaintiffs argue that the defendants’ Reston office was the former headquarters of Elastic M2M, a software company acquired by Xirgo’s predecessor. However, past activities may be insufficient to establish a plaintiff’s connection to a forum if such activities do not constitute conditions that existed when the suit was instituted. Elastic M2M’s headquarters are now in Rolling Meadows, Illinois.

The plaintiffs identify eight employees listed on Elastic M2M’s LinkedIn page as employees of the defendants in the Reston area. But LinkedIn pages are not enough to establish relevance, as the profiles do not reveal whether the employees worked on the accused products.

Finally, the plaintiffs argue that third-party company u-blox is a main Xirgo supplier for wireless chips and is located in this District. However, the defendants explain that Quectel is in fact the dominant chip manufacturer for the accused products, not u-blox.

Witness/party convenience

Because neither party has provided the court with evidence as to the specific relevance of any witness, and the defendants have not demonstrated that this district would be an inconvenient forum for potential witnesses, this factor is neutral. The party convenience factor is likewise neutral.

Interest of justice

The existence of a similar patent infringement action between the same parties and involving the same products strongly supports keeping the cases together in this district. Courts in this district have repeatedly stressed that judicial economy and the avoidance of inconsistent judgments counsels keeping related patent cases together. On balance the § 1404(a) factors weigh in the plaintiffs’ favor.

Defendants’ motions to stay and transfer denied.

Fleet Connect Solutions LLC v. Xirgo Technologies LLC, Case Nos. 2:25-cv-712, 2:25-cv-713, June 1, 2026. EDVA at Norfolk (Walker). VLW 026-3-244. 14 pp.

Full-Text Opinion
VLW 026-3-244