SUE ROBINSON, District Judge
At Wilmington this 6th day of April, 2010, having reviewed defendants motion to transfer or dismiss, plaintiff's motion to stay, and the papers submitted in connection therewith;
The motion was filed by defendant NVIDIA Corporation (D.I. 18); defendant Dell, Inc. joined in the motion. (D.I. 23)
IT IS ORDERED that defendants' motion to transfer (D.I. 18) is granted and plaintiff's motion to stay (D.I. 16) is denied, for the reasons that follow:
1. Plaintiff is a Nevada corporation which, at the time the instant lawsuit was initiated, had previously filed seven separate cases alleging infringement of the patents-in-suit against multiple defendants that competed in the graphics processing technology business. All of these cases were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California ("the California cases").
The patents-in-suit relate to calculations used to generate ("render") 3-D computer graphics images.
These related actions are: Fuzzysharp Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., Case No. 3:01-cv-04915 (N.D. Cal. filed Dec. 14, 2001); Fuzzysharp Techs., Inc. v. Silicon Graphics, Inc., Case No. 4:03-cv-04404 (N.D. Cal. filed Sep. 30, 2003); Fuzzysharp Techs., Inc., v. I-O Data Device USA., Inc., Case No. 3:04-cv-02640 (N.D. Cal. filed June. 30, 2004); Fuzzysharp Techs., Inc. v. ATI Techs., Inc., Case No. 4:05-cv-01318 (N.D. Cal. filed Mar. 31, 2005); Fuzzysharp Techs., Inc. v. S3 Graphics Co., Case No. 4:07-cv-02262 (N.D. Cal. filed Apr. 25, 2007); Fuzzysharp Techs., Inc. v. 3DLabs Inc., Case No. 4:07-cv-05948 (N.D. Cal. filed Nov. 26, 2007); Fuzzysharp Techs., Inc. v. Sun Microsystems, Inc., Case No. 4:08-cv-04284 (N.D. Cal. filed Sep. 11, 2008).
2. The instant lawsuit was filed on November 16, 2009. On December 11, 2009, the judge presiding over one of the California cases issued a decision on summary judgment invalidating the patents-in-suit under In re Bilski, 545 F.3d 943 (Fed. Cir. 2009). See Fuzzysharp Techs., Inc. v. 3D Labs Inc., 2009 WL 4899215 (N.D. Cal. December 11, 2009). That decision is on appeal.
3. Generally, the fact that another court has some familiarity with the technology at issue or the patents-in-suit is not dispositive of a motion to transfer. The question presented by the unusual facts of record, however, is whether it makes sense for this court to keep the case at bar, necessarily imposing a stay pending the Supreme Court's review of In re Bilski and/or the Federal Circuit's review of the 3D Labs Inc. decision. I conclude that these unusual circumstances warrant the transfer of the case to the Northern District of California, in order to promote judicial economy, efficiency and fairness. Given the plaintiff's prior filings in the Northern District of California, any further consideration of the Jurmara factors is not necessary.
55 F.3d 873, 879 (3d Cir. 1995).