[00:00:01] Speaker 03:
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

[00:00:04] Speaker 03:
We actually originally had five cases on the docket, two of which are submitted on the papers.

[00:00:13] Speaker 03:
There was yet, I'm sorry, six cases, and one of which has gone away.

[00:00:18] Speaker 03:
So we only have three argued cases today.

[00:00:21] Speaker 03:
That doesn't mean you're going to get all kinds of extra time.

[00:00:24] Speaker 03:
It just means that we're not in a rush.

[00:00:27] Speaker 03:
The first case before the court is Communications Test Design, Inc.

[00:00:31] Speaker 03:
versus Contact LLC.

[00:00:34] Speaker 03:
And that is case number 191672, an appeal from a decision of the district court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

[00:00:45] Speaker 03:
Mr. Miller, you want five minutes for rebuttal?

[00:00:48] Speaker 03:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:00:49] Speaker 03:
Okay, you may proceed.

[00:00:59] Speaker 02:
May it please the court.

[00:01:01] Speaker 02:
This case raises the issue of when a district court can properly exercise its discretion to decline to hear an otherwise proper first file declaratory judgment case.

[00:01:16] Speaker 02:
In this case, our view, Your Honors, is that the district court's decision to do so was not proper.

[00:01:22] Speaker 02:
Based on the portions of the record that the district court relied on and the logic that the district court used in rendering its decision, if its decision is affirmed, we believe that this will create a rule, or at least that the period.

[00:01:38] Speaker 01:
In the blue brief at 18, you make the argument that the district court made a finding that CTDI acted with a nefarious motive.

[00:01:48] Speaker 01:
And you cite to the court's decision

[00:01:51] Speaker 01:
at the appendix at 10 as support.

[00:01:57] Speaker 01:
But when I turn to the appendix at 10, nefarious motive is a quote from Sony Electronics versus Guardian Media text, right?

[00:02:07] Speaker 01:
Isn't the district court setting out a standard in using that quote?

[00:02:11] Speaker 01:
It seems to me that all the district court is stating is that Sony thus characterized

[00:02:17] Speaker 01:
a certain conduct.

[00:02:19] Speaker 02:
I think what the court is doing is attributing a nefarious motive, as was discussed in the Sony case, to CTDI's behavior.

[00:02:29] Speaker 01:
Well, I disagree with you.

[00:02:32] Speaker 01:
Because I think what they're saying is, here's this nefarious motive standard.

[00:02:36] Speaker 01:
And then what you did, your client did, fits within it.

[00:02:44] Speaker 01:
But I hesitate.

[00:02:45] Speaker 01:
I'm not comfortable with saying there was a finding of nefarious motive as opposed to.

[00:02:53] Speaker 01:
you're within the legal standard.

[00:02:55] Speaker 01:
You see what I'm saying?

[00:02:56] Speaker 02:
Well, in fact, Your Honor, I think what I would say is that the court is making an inference that, in fact, my client had a nefarious motive.

[00:03:05] Speaker 02:
An improper ulterior motive.

[00:03:07] Speaker 02:
Exactly.

[00:03:07] Speaker 02:
A motive to find in your mind.

[00:03:09] Speaker 02:
I would say that.

[00:03:10] Speaker 02:
I would say that.

[00:03:10] Speaker 02:
Yeah.

[00:03:11] Speaker 02:
I think that's probably the most fair characterization.

[00:03:13] Speaker 03:
But even if you debate that, or even if finding motive because there's aspects of intent would generally require some kind of a hearing,

[00:03:23] Speaker 03:
Is it really important to the court's decision?

[00:03:27] Speaker 03:
I mean, the court based its conclusion on about three or four factors.

[00:03:30] Speaker 03:
And I sort of read it as an offhand comment rather than a finding.

[00:03:36] Speaker 03:
But even if it was a finding, would it matter?

[00:03:39] Speaker 02:
Well, I think it would, Your Honor, for a couple of reasons.

[00:03:42] Speaker 02:
First of all, if we whittle it down to there are essentially three separate findings, I think that the district court adds up to its ultimate decision to dismiss the case.

[00:03:50] Speaker 02:
The first is that it finds the suit to have been anticipatory.

[00:03:53] Speaker 02:
The second is that it finds that there was a nefarious motive to interfere with negotiations, which goes to the decision in the EMC case.

[00:04:02] Speaker 02:
And then the third, I'm sorry.

[00:04:04] Speaker 03:
Objectively, putting aside motive,

[00:04:07] Speaker 03:
There was an interference with negotiations, right?

[00:04:14] Speaker 03:
You could make an objective finding that it interrupted a flow of negotiations.

[00:04:20] Speaker 03:
It interrupted an agreed time for purposes of a negotiation.

[00:04:24] Speaker 03:
So it doesn't matter whether that motive was nefarious or not.

[00:04:28] Speaker 03:
there was still an interruption of negotiations, which is an independent factor that the court can consider, right?

[00:04:34] Speaker 02:
Well, I think it does matter what the motive is under the Sony case, Your Honor, because in the Sony case, we know that, in fact, there were a series of actions that were done that did interfere with negotiations and did, in fact,

[00:04:49] Speaker 02:
changed the leverage position.

[00:04:50] Speaker 02:
But the Sony court said just because DJ action changes the leverage position between the parties, that is not a sufficient reason to decline jurisdiction.

[00:05:00] Speaker 02:
So I do believe it is relevant that motive was assigned in that instance.

[00:05:05] Speaker 03:
Well, you do have a bit of an uphill battle here.

[00:05:07] Speaker 03:
You've got a double dose of deference that you have to overcome.

[00:05:11] Speaker 03:
Because the first defile rule is itself equitable.

[00:05:14] Speaker 03:
And it's entirely within the court's discretion to decide

[00:05:18] Speaker 03:
as it deems fit, as long as it doesn't completely abuse its discretion.

[00:05:22] Speaker 03:
And then you've got the fact that we've got a declaratory judgment action that the court can just say, I decline to exercise jurisdiction over this particular case.

[00:05:31] Speaker 01:
And that's a uniquely deferential stand.

[00:05:35] Speaker 02:
We appreciate the standard, Your Honor.

[00:05:38] Speaker 02:
I think that, nevertheless, it still adds up to, if I think you can take the three independent points that the district court made, I think that, in fact, you can whittle them away and find out that, in fact, none of them support the decision.

[00:05:55] Speaker 01:
Supposing the court's finding on an improper motive, I'd rather characterize it that way,

[00:06:04] Speaker 01:
is supported by the underlying, is a factual determination.

[00:06:08] Speaker 01:
How is the underlying factual posture of the undisputed facts in the record not at least supportive under the standard of review?

[00:06:21] Speaker 02:
I believe, Your Honor, that the underlying facts with respect, so we were talking about the undisputed facts.

[00:06:26] Speaker 02:
And so it seems to me that the undisputed facts reflect only.

[00:06:31] Speaker 01:
The undisputed facts reflect that

[00:06:33] Speaker 01:
Your client is saying, hey, let's keep talking.

[00:06:37] Speaker 01:
At the same time, they're filing a suit.

[00:06:43] Speaker 02:
And I would say that there's nothing wrong with that.

[00:06:46] Speaker 02:
There's no reason that just because parties are negotiating, declaratory judgment actions should not be filed.

[00:06:53] Speaker 02:
The plaintiff could have filed an affirmative suit at that time.

[00:06:57] Speaker 02:
I don't think there's any dispute about that.

[00:07:00] Speaker 02:
Why is it?

[00:07:01] Speaker 02:
Could have.

[00:07:02] Speaker 02:
Could have.

[00:07:02] Speaker 02:
Didn't.

[00:07:03] Speaker 02:
But also didn't say, we won't.

[00:07:07] Speaker 03:
You don't dispute that it was anticipatory by definition, right?

[00:07:11] Speaker 02:
We do, in fact, dispute that it was anticipatory.

[00:07:13] Speaker 03:
Well, you didn't dispute that to your reply brief.

[00:07:15] Speaker 02:
That's right, Your Honor.

[00:07:17] Speaker 02:
That is fair.

[00:07:19] Speaker 03:
OK.

[00:07:20] Speaker 03:
And I mean, it's kind of hard to dispute that it was anticipatory.

[00:07:25] Speaker 03:
They say, we're going to file a lawsuit.

[00:07:27] Speaker 03:
They show you a sample complaint.

[00:07:31] Speaker 03:
You say, let's wait till Monday and we'll talk.

[00:07:33] Speaker 03:
And then on Thursday or Friday, you file a lawsuit.

[00:07:35] Speaker 03:
How is that not anticipatory?

[00:07:37] Speaker 02:
Well, as I understand this court's prior anticipatory cases, they involve a situation where the patent owner has made some kind of agreement.

[00:07:46] Speaker 02:
We will not sue.

[00:07:48] Speaker 02:
Or unless you talk to us by this date, we will not sue.

[00:07:52] Speaker 02:
Or we will sue on this date.

[00:07:54] Speaker 02:
And the filing comes sometime prior to that date.

[00:07:56] Speaker 02:
That is what happened in Circo.

[00:08:00] Speaker 02:
That also happened in...

[00:08:04] Speaker 02:
one of the other cases which escapes me as I stand here, but there is some kind of date certain by which the plaintiff has made very clear that they are waiting to file suit.

[00:08:13] Speaker 02:
Our view, Your Honor, of this record is that the only date certain in this case was September 19th, by which the plaintiff had given a deadline, or patent owner, excuse me, had given a deadline by which to affirm that

[00:08:26] Speaker 02:
we were interested in still negotiating.

[00:08:28] Speaker 02:
And in fact, we did affirm on that day.

[00:08:31] Speaker 02:
The suit was filed after that, Your Honor.

[00:08:33] Speaker 03:
So in fact, the parties were just- But you affirmed your interest in negotiation and said, please wait until the 24th so we can have a conversation on the 24th.

[00:08:43] Speaker 03:
And then the other side said, OK, I'll wait till the 24th.

[00:08:47] Speaker 02:
I don't believe the record supports that, Your Honor.

[00:08:50] Speaker 02:
I don't think the record says, please wait until- Maybe didn't use the word please.

[00:08:55] Speaker 03:
But you proposed the 24th.

[00:08:58] Speaker 02:
I think, actually, Contec proposed the 24th, and we accepted that date to talk.

[00:09:03] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:09:04] Speaker 02:
But I don't believe anyone said at all, at least on the undisputed record, that we won't file suit until that time.

[00:09:14] Speaker 03:
OK.

[00:09:16] Speaker 03:
What about the fact that the court made some findings about witnesses and documents and convenience for purposes of adjudication?

[00:09:25] Speaker 03:
It's not the same standard that you would be.

[00:09:30] Speaker 03:
We are not applying the same standard that we would be looking at if there had been a motion to transfer for purposes of convenience of witnesses, et cetera.

[00:09:40] Speaker 03:
This is simply, is it a more convenient rather than a less convenient forum?

[00:09:44] Speaker 03:
And there's no obligation on the court at this point to honor the chosen forum of the plaintiff.

[00:09:54] Speaker 01:
But we do believe, Your Honor, that the court gave too much weight to the patent owner's choice of form and the convenience of the patent owner over the- But the court made factual determinations about location of witnesses, about your client having a company up there and a place to work out of, and so on.

[00:10:18] Speaker 01:
It made those factual findings.

[00:10:19] Speaker 01:
You don't dispute them, do you?

[00:10:21] Speaker 02:
Don't dispute the findings, Your Honor, but do dispute the conclusion that they demonstrate that the Northern District of New York is in fact a more convenient forum overall.

[00:10:32] Speaker 03:
Well, one of the co-inventors works for you up there in the Northern District of New York, right?

[00:10:38] Speaker 02:
That's right.

[00:10:39] Speaker 02:
And I would say a couple of things about that.

[00:10:40] Speaker 02:
First of all,

[00:10:41] Speaker 02:
The relevance of inventor testimony, I think, generally is being massively overweighted by the court.

[00:10:48] Speaker 02:
But I also acknowledge that that is what the court had before it to decide on was, where do the named inventors live at that time?

[00:10:57] Speaker 03:
So you've been sitting in the Northern District of New York, all of you, collectively for a year and a half, or a year and a couple months.

[00:11:06] Speaker 03:
We looked at the DACA, and you've got a settlement conference, what, next week or something, right?

[00:11:10] Speaker 02:
We're having a mediation, yes, Your Honor.

[00:11:12] Speaker 02:
I guess settlement conferences is the right way to put it.

[00:11:14] Speaker 02:
We're having it hosted by the Magistrate Judge, yes, Your Honor.

[00:11:17] Speaker 03:
So I mean, you're moving forward.

[00:11:19] Speaker 03:
Negotiations are still continuing.

[00:11:21] Speaker 03:
Why is this such a big deal?

[00:11:23] Speaker 03:
Why can't you just go forward where you've been for the last year and plus months?

[00:11:28] Speaker 02:
Well, a couple of reasons, Your Honor.

[00:11:30] Speaker 02:
First of all, we do believe that the District Court decision below was not correct, and so we think that that should be addressed.

[00:11:39] Speaker 02:
Second of all, there is a motion for sanctions pending that I think the outcome of this appeal may impact.

[00:11:47] Speaker 02:
That's going to be relevant to us.

[00:11:50] Speaker 03:
Motion for sanctions against you?

[00:11:52] Speaker 02:
Yes, that's correct, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

[00:11:55] Speaker 03:
Because of the nefarious motive comment?

[00:11:57] Speaker 02:
That is it.

[00:11:58] Speaker 02:
Well, I mean, because of the result of the case.

[00:12:03] Speaker 03:
I get it.

[00:12:06] Speaker 03:
OK, you want to save the rest of your time for rebuttal?

[00:12:10] Speaker 02:
Yes, Your Honor.

[00:12:11] Speaker 03:
OK.

[00:12:37] Speaker 03:
OK, so why isn't it a problem that the court used the nefarious motive language and that if you're going to determine motive, you generally need to have a hearing and consider live witnesses?

[00:12:51] Speaker 01:
Yes, John?

[00:12:51] Speaker 01:
And I'll throw into that.

[00:12:53] Speaker 01:
I noticed you characterized what the district court did as a determination, which implies to me something other than finding a fact.

[00:13:07] Speaker 01:
Why isn't it also a finding effect?

[00:13:10] Speaker 00:
Well, and I think, Judge Wallach, when you were pointing to the decision, and the nefarious motive reference is in quotes.

[00:13:18] Speaker 00:
And it's clear that the court was quoting this court's decision in Sony.

[00:13:22] Speaker 00:
And what the court is doing here is giving its conclusion up front.

[00:13:29] Speaker 00:
It's sort of setting the stage.

[00:13:30] Speaker 00:
Here's what I found.

[00:13:31] Speaker 00:
and then proceeds to go through its analysis of reaching that conclusion.

[00:13:37] Speaker 00:
So I think it is more of a conclusion and a determination of the circumstances.

[00:13:43] Speaker 00:
That it fits within Sony.

[00:13:44] Speaker 00:
That was my read.

[00:13:45] Speaker 00:
Right.

[00:13:46] Speaker 00:
So in Sony, this court said on that record, there were insufficient facts to infer a nefarious motive.

[00:13:54] Speaker 00:
And so what the court's doing here is distinguishing that.

[00:13:56] Speaker 00:
He's saying on this record, however,

[00:13:59] Speaker 00:
There are undisputed facts that support that conclusion and goes through in detail talking about the objective conduct of CTDI and CONTEC.

[00:14:08] Speaker 03:
But isn't there a big distinction between behaving in a way that, as a matter of fact, does disrupt negotiations and having a nefarious motive for the purpose of disrupting negotiations or being mean to your opponent?

[00:14:26] Speaker 03:
I mean, that's a big difference, right?

[00:14:29] Speaker 00:
There is a difference, but here I think what the court is trying to do is look and see, do the circumstances fit the proper use of the Declaratory Judgment Act?

[00:14:40] Speaker 00:
And I think perhaps the true intent of the party could be irrelevant.

[00:14:47] Speaker 00:
It's really, does the conduct, does the circumstances, do those fit to where the DJ Act is used as it should be as a remedy?

[00:14:56] Speaker 00:
Is the alleged infringer in this position where it's helpless and immobile?

[00:15:00] Speaker 01:
When you say that, you're not saying that the true intent was not, I'm making air quotes, nefarious.

[00:15:06] Speaker 01:
That was a double negative.

[00:15:08] Speaker 00:
True, true.

[00:15:10] Speaker 00:
In the briefing, we do take the position that CTI acted in bad faith, that it had bad faith intent.

[00:15:17] Speaker 00:
I don't think that, if there's a factual finding of that, I don't think that's necessary to the decision.

[00:15:21] Speaker 03:
I mean, if every time you race to the courthouse,

[00:15:23] Speaker 03:
it's a nefarious motive, then there's an awful lot of parties and lawyers that are in trouble.

[00:15:29] Speaker 03:
Because it happens all the time, Sherman.

[00:15:32] Speaker 00:
But it doesn't happen all the time when you're negotiating.

[00:15:34] Speaker 00:
This is a very unique circumstance where CONTEC stated unexplosively it was willing to file suit.

[00:15:41] Speaker 00:
So if CTDI needed a judicial resolution, CONTEC was willing to provide it.

[00:15:46] Speaker 00:
And instead, CTDI lured CONTEC from deferring that into deferring that filing.

[00:15:53] Speaker 00:
The cases that the district court relies on that are cited in EMC have similar facts where the party lodges a settlement proposal and then files suit.

[00:16:06] Speaker 00:
And that's not a proper use.

[00:16:09] Speaker 00:
It discourages the public policy of pursuing extrajudicial.

[00:16:13] Speaker 03:
Well, your proposal for a suit was to file in California.

[00:16:17] Speaker 03:
I mean, I can understand that maybe if he thought it was going to be New York,

[00:16:23] Speaker 03:
He might not be as shocked by that.

[00:16:25] Speaker 03:
But to be dragged all the way out to California, that might have prompted.

[00:16:29] Speaker 03:
It might have been the fact that you proposed a California lawsuit that actually prompted this filing.

[00:16:35] Speaker 00:
So a couple things on that, Your Honor.

[00:16:36] Speaker 00:
One, there's no evidence that that did motivate CTTI.

[00:16:41] Speaker 00:
In fact, that complaint is not in the record.

[00:16:43] Speaker 00:
The district court did not see it, did not rely on it.

[00:16:46] Speaker 00:
CTTI never put that in the record and never made that argument.

[00:16:49] Speaker 00:
And in Mr. Parsons' declaration, he never says that part of the motivation for filing suit was not to be in California.

[00:16:56] Speaker 00:
And Context had good reasons to draft it that way.

[00:17:00] Speaker 00:
At that time when we sent the letter, when Context sent the letter threatening suit, it was considering the possibility of filing there because Context's CEO at that time, now former CEO,

[00:17:13] Speaker 00:
And VP of Engineering, that's where their office and their facility, it's the current research and development arm of the company.

[00:17:20] Speaker 00:
That's where they're located.

[00:17:22] Speaker 00:
And CTDI has a facility there in that district that Contact believes is using the accused systems.

[00:17:28] Speaker 00:
So it was another district where both parties had contacts.

[00:17:32] Speaker 00:
By the time Contact filed its suit, it came to the judgment that filing in New York was the more appropriate forum and filed there.

[00:17:43] Speaker 00:
But even if the district court had considered that, I think that there's still overwhelming evidence to support the conclusion that he did.

[00:17:52] Speaker 03:
And what about the fact of the witnesses?

[00:17:55] Speaker 03:
I mean, the CTDI does have a facility up there, but it's not their primary place of business, right?

[00:18:03] Speaker 00:
It's not their primary place of business, but it's not like just one of all the rest of their facilities.

[00:18:09] Speaker 00:
It is unique.

[00:18:12] Speaker 00:
There's evidence in the record that this is a regional distribution center for the entire northeast of the United States.

[00:18:19] Speaker 00:
It was developed using local grants.

[00:18:23] Speaker 00:
They get state tax credits.

[00:18:25] Speaker 00:
Employees over 350 people, 15,000 devices are processed there every day.

[00:18:31] Speaker 00:
So it is a large presence in Albany, right near the courthouse.

[00:18:37] Speaker 00:
So the fact that CONTEC has such

[00:18:42] Speaker 00:
It's based there.

[00:18:43] Speaker 00:
It has enormous contacts there in that district.

[00:18:46] Speaker 00:
And it would not be unfair.

[00:18:48] Speaker 00:
CTDI has contacts in that district.

[00:18:50] Speaker 00:
It would not be inconvenient for them to litigate there.

[00:18:53] Speaker 00:
And you have an inventor there, as I understand the record.

[00:18:58] Speaker 00:
Both employees that are currently employees of the companies are located in the New York district in Albany, one for CTDI and one for CONTAC.

[00:19:07] Speaker 00:
There's a former employee inventor who's still in Albany.

[00:19:11] Speaker 00:
And then the rest are outside.

[00:19:14] Speaker 03:
The motion for sanctions seems to be a bit of an overkill here I mean you I obviously can't rule on the motions for sanctions, but I'm trying to understand why that snappy of a number When you had the burden to overcome the first to file rule it makes any sense It's amply supported by the case law we found numerous cases where when the there's an anticipatory filing of

[00:19:40] Speaker 00:
And I think the conclusion is that there was a nefarious motive there.

[00:19:46] Speaker 00:
The sanctions can be appropriate.

[00:19:47] Speaker 00:
One, it slowed down the New York case for a year.

[00:19:53] Speaker 00:
So to the extent CCTDI wanted judicial resolution, it caused this delay in the procedure in the New York case.

[00:20:03] Speaker 00:
But it caused motion practice in both courts, just a lot more work, a lot more attorney's fees than should have been necessary.

[00:20:14] Speaker 00:
After context said, if you want a lawsuit, we'll file one.

[00:20:21] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:20:23] Speaker 03:
Anything else?

[00:20:25] Speaker ?:
No.

[00:20:25] Speaker 03:
Okay.

[00:20:25] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:20:38] Speaker 02:
Your honor, just a few brief points.

[00:20:41] Speaker 02:
I think just to further address the location, I think the issue is

[00:20:53] Speaker 02:
as we know from Genentech that it's usually the bulk of the discovery, the bulk of the work on that side in a patent case, and certainly in this one where the assertions are only going one way, come from the accused infringer.

[00:21:08] Speaker 02:
And that's going to come from CTDI's headquarters in Pennsylvania.

[00:21:12] Speaker 02:
That's where the systems were designed.

[00:21:14] Speaker 02:
That's where all the lead engineers who know how all these things really work and how they function are located.

[00:21:21] Speaker 02:
I think that

[00:21:22] Speaker 02:
I think to give so much weight both to inventors.

[00:21:27] Speaker 01:
But again, our standard of review, it's not like the court didn't have a factual basis for making the determination.

[00:21:36] Speaker 01:
You have to agree with that.

[00:21:37] Speaker 02:
I agree that the court had facts on both sides.

[00:21:41] Speaker 02:
They made a determination.

[00:21:42] Speaker 02:
And I'm aware of the standard.

[00:21:45] Speaker 02:
I recognize that it's troublesome for us in this situation.

[00:21:49] Speaker 02:
But I think that in this case, if you look at it, I think it grossly overweights the convenience to a party who's probably not going to be producing that much information in this case and is really going to be on our side of the table.

[00:22:06] Speaker 03:
Are you saying that that facility up there doesn't

[00:22:11] Speaker 03:
present an opportunity for you to produce documents or, I mean, obviously the volume of your production at that facility is going to be entirely relevant.

[00:22:21] Speaker 02:
Well, I think that the volume of our production, if we get that far in this case, with respect to all of our, we have facilities all over the world.

[00:22:29] Speaker 02:
The notions of the size of that facility, I mean, it's an okay size facility, but we have

[00:22:34] Speaker 02:
many more, and that's just kind of another place.

[00:22:39] Speaker 02:
Maybe you can settle on Paris, France.

[00:22:42] Speaker 02:
It would be warmer, I hope.

[00:22:46] Speaker 02:
But in any event, I think that that's the point that I want to make there.

[00:22:50] Speaker 02:
Mr. Nixon makes the point that by filing the DJ action, we slow down the New York case for years, the competing motions.

[00:23:01] Speaker 02:
Well, at the same time,

[00:23:03] Speaker 02:
Contact has been arguing.

[00:23:05] Speaker 02:
Well, we could have just allowed the contact to file its suit wherever it wanted and proceed their way Well there they could have done that too.

[00:23:12] Speaker 02:
They could have let this this suit proceed and he's just a Pennsylvania No one's contending that it's not a proper jurisdiction to have this suit proceed they just wanted to do it in their home court and Frankly, so did we and I think that's not in that's not an improper motive for choosing a place nobody's choosing a form that is a

[00:23:29] Speaker 02:
that is known to be more friendly to one type of party or another, there's a sound reason for choosing the forum.

[00:23:38] Speaker 02:
And it's where our home base is.

[00:23:40] Speaker 02:
And I actually think the Genentech case talks about that and notes that it's not forum chopping when you have a logical reason to choose the place that you've filed the suit.

[00:23:54] Speaker 02:
In fact, I do want to make one point, Your Honor, is I think there's sort of a common thread underlying this Court's cases that have affirmed decisions to decline, to otherwise keep a case that's proper.

[00:24:11] Speaker 02:
And those are the EMC and the

[00:24:14] Speaker 02:
and the Circo case, is that in both of those cases, there was a something more.

[00:24:21] Speaker 02:
The parties were in some kind of negotiation.

[00:24:24] Speaker 02:
They were in some sort of discussion back and forth.

[00:24:27] Speaker 02:
But there was a something more.

[00:24:28] Speaker 02:
There was, in both of those cases, an express statement of the purpose of filing the declaratory judgment action.

[00:24:37] Speaker 02:
So in both Circo and EMC,

[00:24:42] Speaker 02:
that DJ Plaintiff said, and it is in the record, we filed this for defensive purposes.

[00:24:49] Speaker 02:
We filed this to protect our rights.

[00:24:53] Speaker 02:
Now let's keep talking.

[00:24:54] Speaker 02:
And this case doesn't have an analog to that, Your Honors, in the record.

[00:24:58] Speaker 02:
And I think that's an important point and something worth considering as you render your decision with respect to this.

[00:25:05] Speaker 03:
All right.

[00:25:06] Speaker 03:
Thank you.

[00:25:06] Speaker 02:
Thank you, Your Honor.