Patent and trademark – Amazon patent infringement suit transferred to New Jersey

Where a majority of the relevant factors warranted transferring a patent infringement lawsuit against Amazon entities to the New Jersey federal district court, the defendants’ motion to transfer was granted.

Background

AudioPod IP, LLC sued Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, Amazon Web Services, Inc., or AWS, asserting claims for patent infringement. The matter is before the court on defendants’ motion to dismiss with respect to Amazon.com and defendants’ separate motion to transfer.

Amazon.com

Defendants argue that plaintiff has failed to sufficiently plead direct infringement by Amazon.com because plaintiff failed to allege that Amazon.com practiced every step of the alleged infringing method or that actions by subsidiaries at those steps were attributable to Amazon.com. The court finds defendants’ argument persuasive.

Plaintiff does not allege that Amazon.com individually performed all steps of the claimed methods, such that Amazon.com, on its own, directly infringed on the patents in suit. Instead, plaintiff attributes infringement to defendants as a group.

An entity is responsible for the acts of another only “(1) where that entity directs or controls others’ performance, and (2) where the actors form a joint enterprise.” Plaintiff’s allegations do not support either theory of responsibility.

Because plaintiff fails to allege anything more than a parent-subsidiary relationship in their amended complaints, plaintiff has failed to plausibly allege that Amazon.com controlled Amazon Services or AWS with respect the alleged infringement, and therefore plaintiff has failed to state a claim against Amazon.com for divided—and thus direct—infringement. And because plaintiff has not stated a claim against Amazon.com for direct infringement, its enhanced claim of willful infringement necessarily fails as well. The court accordingly grants the motion to dismiss.

Transfer

The first step in the § 1404(a) inquiry is to assess whether this case “might have been brought” in the DNJ; the court concludes in the affirmative. Because this is an action for patent infringement, it may be brought in the judicial district where a defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular place of business. It is undisputed that the alleged acts of infringement occurred, among other places, in the DNJ.

Thus, venue is proper in the DNJ if the defendants maintain a regular place of business in New Jersey. On this record, defendants have sufficiently demonstrated that venue would have been proper in the District of New Jersey as to AWS and Amazon Services at the time this action was filed.

At the second and final step of the § 1404(a) analysis, the court must consider four factors: (1) the plaintiff’s choice of forum; (2) the convenience of the parties; (3) witness convenience and access and (4) the interest of justice. Considered together, these factors weigh strongly in favor of transfer, compelling the court to grant defendants’ motion. Because transferring this action does not rob this court of a local controversy and will otherwise promote judicial economy, reduce the risk of inconsistent judgments and consolidate related patent disputes before a single court, the court concludes that the interests-of-justice factor weighs in favor of transfer.

Amazon.com’s motion to dismiss granted. Remaining defendants’ motion to transfer granted.

Audio Pod IP, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., Case Nos. 3:24-cv-406, 3:24-cv-407, June 18, 2026. EDVA at Richmond (Young). VLW 026-3-265. 32 pp.

Full-Text Opinion
VLW 026-3-265