where information about witnesses was unknown and merely shifted inconvenience). Accordingly,

the court finds these factors weigh against transfer.

7. judicial economy

Considering the interests of justice favor denying ASM' s motion to transfer. Because this

case involves different patents with different claims and different inventors, its is not clear that

enough judicial efficiencies are gained to require the court to transfer. The court finds that discovery

can be structured in a way to avoid duplication and any inconsistent rulings.

Overall, considering the factors set forth in Jones, a transfer to NDCA is not warranted.

Accordingly, the court recommends that ASM' s motion to transfer be denied.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated above, the court recommends that ASM's Motion to Dismiss, Stay or

Transfer (ECF No. 19) be DENIED.

Scheduling Order

The Findings and Recommendation will be referred to a district judge. Objections, if any,

are due within fourteen (14) days. If no objections are filed, then the Findings and

Recommendation will go under advisement on that date. If objections are filed, then a response is

due within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy of the objections. When the response

is due or filed, whichever date is earlier, the Findings and Recommendation will go under

advisement. DATED thiUO� of JANUARY, 2019.

"

't d States Magistrate Judge

23 - FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION