The opinion of the court was delivered by: William J. Martini, U.S.D.J.:
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant DATATRAK International, Inc.'s ("DATATRAK's") motion to dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), or in the alternative, to transfer this matter to the Northern District of Ohio pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404. Plaintiff Medidata Solutions Inc. ("Medidata") opposes the motion. For the reasons set forth below, DATATRAK's motion is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The facts relevant to resolution of this motion are largely undisputed: Medidata is a Delaware corporation whose corporate headquarters are located in New York. DATATRAK is an Ohio corporation with a place of business in Ohio. Both parties conduct business in New Jersey.
At the outset, it is important to note that presently, Defendant DATATRAK owns the rights to two United States patents: (1) U.S. Patent No. 7,464,087, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (the "USPTO") on December 9, 2008 (the "'087 Patent"); and U.S. Patent No. 8,234,294, issued by the USPTO on July 31, 2012 (the "'294 Patent").
As explained by Medidata, "[the '294 Patent] is a 'continuation' of
the '087 Patent, meaning that it shares the same specification and
pertains to the same subject matter and technology as the '087
Patent." (Def.'s Opp. Br. 4, ECF No. 28.) For purposes of the present
Opinion, it is sufficient to further note: (1) that Medidata asserts
that the '087 and '294 Patents are "very closely related" *fn1
(Id.); (2) that DATATRAK does not challenge -- and in fact
appears to agree with -- that statement; *fn2 and (3)
that the Court's independent review of both patents further confirms
that Medidata's characterization is accurate.
The Parties' Prior Patent Infringement Litigation as to the '087 Patent
Bearing that in mind, on March 4, 2011, DATATRAK initiated a patent infringement action against Medidata in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio at No. 1:11-cv-458, DATATRAK International, Inc. v. Medidata Solutions, Inc., stemming from Medidata's alleged infringement of DATATRAK's rights in the earlier-issued '087 Patent (the "Ohio Litigation"). The Ohio Litigation was stayed on December 16, 2011, pending an ex parte reexamination of the '087 Patent (the "Reexamination Process").
Subsequently, on December 31, 2011 and March 31, 2012, DATATRAK made public statements evincing its intent to resume vigorous prosecution of its claims against Medidata at the conclusion of the Reexamination Process. (Compl. ¶¶ 18-20.)
The Parties' Present Patent Infringement Litigation as to the '294 Patent Thereafter, on July 31, 2012 -- during the pendency of the Reexamination Process and the presently-stayed Ohio Litigation -- the USPTO issued the '294 Patent. On that same day, *fn3 Medidata initiated the present action pursuant to the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201, seeking declarations: (1) that Medidata "has not infringed and does not infringe any valid claim of the '294 [P]atent" (Compl., First Count); and (2) that the claims of the '294 Patent are invalid "for failure to comply with one or more of the requirements of patentability . . . , including without limitation, the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, 103 and/or 112." (Compl., Second Count).
In response, DATATRAK filed the present motion, asserting that Medidata's Complaint should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, and, alternatively, that this matter should be transferred to the Northern District of Ohio pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404.
A.Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction
DATATRAK first moves to dismiss Medidata's Complaint under Rule 12(b)(1), based on its assertion that Medidata has failed to establish the existence of an actual case or controversy sufficient to confer this Court with jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution. (Def.'s Br. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss 5, ECF No. 27.)
As an initial matter, the Court notes, first, that because DATATRAK's motion "calls into question the essential facts underlying a claim of subject matter jurisdiction," Med. Soc'y of N.J. v. Herr, 191 F.Supp.2d 574, 578 (D.N.J. 2002), the Court "may consider evidence outside the ...