## Facts

- Meteoro Amusement Corp. (Meteoro) was incorporated in New Mexico, with its principal place of business in Lansing, New York (within the Northern District of New York).
- Six Flags, Inc. (SFI) was a Delaware corporation with corporate offices in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (within the Western District of Oklahoma).
- Meteoro owned patents covering a modular amusement-ride and training-simulation device: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,386,115 and 6,477,961. The technology involved a rider pod that spins about a horizontal axis under passenger control and could be used with amusement devices, including roller coasters.
- Between 1997 and 1998, Meteoro sought to sell or license its technology to amusement-ride companies, including SFI and other industry participants, and distributed a video demonstrating the technology.
- The video was distributed in 1998 and later made publicly available on Meteoro’s website in 1999.
- In December 2000, SFI announced a new roller coaster called “X” for its Magic Mountain park in Valencia, California (Central District of California).
- Meteoro alleged SFI’s “X” ride used technology that infringed Meteoro’s patents and sued SFI in the Northern District of New York, seeking injunctive relief and damages under the patent laws.
- SFI moved to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to (1) the Western District of Oklahoma (SFI’s corporate offices and many employees), (2) the Central District of California (location of the ride), or (3) the Southern District of New York.
- Meteoro opposed transfer, stressing deference to its forum choice and pointing to its key witness—its CEO and the inventor, John Mares—who resided in the Northern District of New York; Meteoro also identified another witness in New Mexico.
- SFI represented it would call numerous witnesses on the design and manufacture of the coaster technology, located primarily in Oklahoma or Utah; the parties disputed whether the jury would need to view the coaster in person or could rely on photos and video.
- Meteoro also argued SFI had greater financial resources and could better bear litigation costs in New York.

## Issues

1. Whether the action “might have been brought” in one or more of the proposed transferee districts, satisfying the threshold requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
2. If so, whether the balance of convenience and the interest of justice warranted transfer from the Northern District of New York, and to which of the proposed transferee districts (W.D. Okla., C.D. Cal., or S.D.N.Y.).

## Decision

- The court granted SFI’s motion to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
- The court ordered the case transferred to the Western District of Oklahoma.
- The court concluded the Western District of Oklahoma satisfied the threshold requirement that the case could have been filed there.
- The court gave weight to Meteoro’s choice of forum and its local inventor-witness, but found that witness convenience—especially the concentration of SFI’s expected design/manufacture witnesses in or near Oklahoma—favored transfer.
- The court declined to transfer the case to the Central District of California, reasoning that the coaster’s location there did not outweigh the witness and records considerations favoring Oklahoma, particularly given uncertainty over whether a jury view was necessary.
- The court also declined to transfer the case to the Southern District of New York.

## Legal Principles

- Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a federal court may transfer a civil action to any district where it might have been brought, for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice.
- The moving party must first show the proposed transferee forum is one in which the action could originally have been filed (a proper court with jurisdiction and venue).
- A plaintiff’s choice of forum is generally entitled to deference, but it is not controlling and may carry less weight when the chosen forum’s connection to the dispute is limited compared with the proposed transferee forum.
- Witness convenience is often the most important factor in the § 1404(a) analysis; courts look to the number of likely witnesses, the importance of their testimony, and the burden of travel.
- Courts also consider the location of relevant events, access to sources of proof (including documents and physical evidence), availability of compulsory process for nonparty witnesses, and overall fairness and efficiency (including the parties’ relative ability to absorb litigation burdens).

## Conclusion

In Meteoro Amusement Corp. v. Six Flags, the Northern District of New York transferred a patent infringement action to the Western District of Oklahoma under § 1404(a) because the case could have been brought there and the convenience factors—most notably the concentration of SFI’s anticipated design and manufacturing witnesses and related evidence near its Oklahoma corporate offices—outweighed Meteoro’s preference to litigate in its home district, while California’s connection as the ride’s location did not justify choosing that forum given uncertainty that an on-site jury view would be needed.


Meteoro Amusement Corp. v. Six Flags, 267 F. Supp. 2d 263 (2003)