Berle M. Schiller: Explaining The “Home Turf” Concept of Venue

Visiting judge Berle M. Schiller recently issued a venue decision notable for its analysis of the concept of “home turf.” Defendant CardioMEMS, a Delaware entity, had no offices, employees, or records in the state. Plaintiff LUMC, a non-U.S. entity, had even less of a connection. Nonetheless, LUMC brought its infringement action in Delaware. CardioMEMS cried foul, and sought to move the litigation to its principal place of business.

The Court declined to transfer the action. Specifically, the Court was not persuaded by CardioMEMS’s argument that LUMC had no legitimate reason to file in Delaware:

“CardioMEMS has overstated its case . . . . LUMC is a Dutch company and has no ‘home turf’ in this country. Defendant’s argument, taken to its logical conclusion, would never afford deference to the choice of venue of a foreign plaintiff and leave the choice of venue largely in the control of the defendant. Additionally, it is not correct that LUMC has no reason to litigate this action here. [Among other reasons,] CardioMEMS is incorporated in Delaware.”

In a field frequently litigated, this decision provides context to what it means, at least for foreign entities, to litigate on “home turf” for purposes of assessing a transfer motion.

Academisch Ziekenhuis Leiden v. CardioMEMS, Inc., C.A. No. 10-1127-BMS (D. Del. Mar. 9, 2011) (Schiller, J.).

%d bloggers like this: