D. Mass. Patent Litigation Update: January 2026

This is part of a series of articles discussing recent orders of interest issued in patent cases by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

In Cogmedia LLC v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 25-12127-BEM, Judge Murphy denied Defendant’s motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), finding Defendant had not overcome the strong presumption favoring the plaintiff’s chosen forum. In reaching this conclusion, the Court examined the six factors set out in Avci v. Brennan: (1) Plaintiff’s choice of forum, (2) the relative convenience of the parties, (3) the convenience of witnesses and location of documents, (4) any connection between the forum and the issues, (5) the law to be applied, and (6) the state or public interest at stake.

First and most importantly, Plaintiff’s choice of forum is “entitled to considerable weight,” and here Plaintiff resides and developed disputed technology in Massachusetts.

Second, the Court found that the relative convenience of parties disfavored transfer because the effect of transfer is merely to shift the inconvenience from Defendant to Plaintiff.

Third, the Court found that convenience of witness and location of documents only slightly favored transfer. Although many witnesses and documents are based in California, this factor is entitled to less weight because witnesses are Defendant’s employees and documents can be transferred electronically.

Fourth, the Court found the connection between the forum and issues modestly favored transfer. The Court acknowledged that California has a stronger interest in the dispute because accused products were developed there, while also recognizing Massachusetts’s connection as the site of invention and Plaintiff’s principal place of business.

Fifth, the Court found the law to be applied is neutral as either district is equipped to apply the relevant law.

Finally, the Court found public interest considerations slightly favored transfer. The Court rejected Defendant’s argument relying on marginally faster time-to-trial statistics for its preferred forum and noted judicial economy slightly disfavored transfer as the Court is already familiar with the issues in the case.

Balancing all factors, the Court held that “Meta’s arguments in favor of transfer are insufficient to outweigh the substantial weight to which Cogmedia’s choice of forum is entitled.” Accordingly, the Court denied the motion to transfer.