One important factor in a § 1404(a) calculus is the
convenience of the witnesses. A substantial number of
party witnesses, in addition to the inventor and prosecut-
ing attorneys, reside in or close to the Northern District of
California.2 If all of these witnesses were required to
travel to the Eastern District of Texas, the parties would
likely incur significant expenses for airfare, meals, and
lodging, as well as losses in productivity from time spent
away from work. See Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 317.
The venue’s ability to compel testimony through sub-
poena power is also an important factor in the § 1404(a)
calculus. To the extent, if any, that the subpoena powers
of the Eastern District of Texas pursuant to Rule 45(b)(2)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure may be invoked
with respect to Dell employees, those powers will be of
little other use in this case. By comparison, the subpoena
powers of the Northern District of California may be
expected to be invaluable, in the event process is required
to hale relevant witnesses into court. This factor surely
tips in favor of transfer.
The local interest factor also strongly favors transfer.
While the sale of an accused product offered nationwide
does not give rise to a substantial interest in any single
venue, if there are significant connections between a
particular venue and the events that gave rise to a suit,
this factor should be weighed in that venue’s favor.
Hoffmann, 587 F.3d at 1338. Here, unlike the Eastern
District of Texas, the Northern District of California has a
localized interest in this matter.