Chief United States District Judge Laura Taylor Swain (S.D.N.Y.) recently transferred an action for patent infringement brought pro se by Rachel Ohana (“Ohana”) against Mars Petcare US, Inc. (“Mars Petcare”) to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Slip Op. at 1.
The “original complaint in th[e] action took the form of a document bearing the caption of th[e] case and a case number from a previous action Plaintiff brought against Defendant Mars Petcare in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.” Id. While the Court noted that “Plaintiff’s submission was confusing” it “appeared to include, among other factual information, allegations that Mars Petcare had infringed on Plaintiff’s patented design for a cat food container.” Id. On April 22, 2024, the Court found that “the complaint did not comply with Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because it did not indicate what claims Plaintiff was bringing or include a short and plain statement that she was entitled to relief.” Id. The Court also “noted that Plaintiff had previously brought a patent infringement action against Mars Petcare in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, which appeared [to] be based on the same factual allegations” and was dismissed for “fail[ure] to ‘meet the prima facie elements necessary to establish proper venue in the Eastern District of New York.’” Id. at 1-2 (quoting Ohana v. Mars Petcare US Inc., No. 21-CV-1019; ECF 22, at 4 (LDH) (RER) (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 29, 2022)). The Court also informed Plaintiff that “she must allege facts demonstrating that venue is proper in the Southern District of New York.” Id. at 2.
On June 5, 2024, Ohana filed an amended complaint “asserting the same patent infringement claims that she brought [in] the Eastern District of New York.” Id. Plaintiff did “not provide an address for any of the defendants.” Id. As the Court explained “a federal civil action for patent infringement may be brought ‘in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.” Id. It further noted that “a domestic corporation resides only in its State of incorporation.” Id. Plaintiff did “not allege where Defendant is incorporated” and did “not allege that any of the acts of infringement occurred” in the Southern District of New York. Id. Plaintiff also “allege[d] no facts suggesting that Mars Petcare ‘has a regular and established place of business’” in the district. Id. Rather than dismiss the action, the Court noted that “other courts have recognized that Mars Petcare is incorporated in the State of Delaware.” Id. at 3. It found that “[b]ecause Mars Petcare is incorporated, and therefore resides in, the State of Delaware . . . venue for Plaintiff’s patent infringement claims appears proper” there and transferred the action in “the interest of justice.” Id. at 3.
The case is Ohana v. Mars Petcare US, Inc. et al., No. 24-cv-1316 (LTS) (S.D.N.Y. July 3, 2024).
