THERMAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

v.

DADE SERVICE CORP.

and Defendant has replied (DE # 21). On August 8, 2003, 'a hearing was held on this motion. All oral rulings made at the hearing are incorporated into this Order. After the hearing, Plaintiffs filed a supplemental response to a question posed by the Court at the hearing (DE # 33). For the reasons stated below, Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue is granted.

I. Background,

On May 15, 2003, Plaintiffs Leavens (the assignee of legal title in the patent) and Thermal Tech (the exclusive licensee of Leavens under the patent) filed a two-count Amended Complaint, alleging that Defendant Dade Service directly infringes (Count I) and induces infringement of (Count II) U.S. Patent No. 5,778,557 (hereafter the 557 patent), in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(a, b). Plaintiffs allege that Defendant makes, uses, sells, or offers to sell in the United States, Including in the Southern District of Florida, ripening rooms which are encompassed by one or more claims of the 557 patent. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant reconstructed a ripening room initially made by Thermal Tech pursuant to its exclusive license under the 557 patent, and that Defendant knowingly and willfully provides customer support which induces and enables customers to directly infringe one or more claims of the 557 patent by using infringing ripening rooms made or sold by Defendant. Plaintiffs allege that Defendant has committed acts of infringement within the Southern District of Florida and that Defendant, within the Southern District of Florida, has knowingly induced persons to directly infringe the 557 patent (DE # 14).

II. Defendant’s Motion

Defendant moves to transfer this case to the Middle District of Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). 2 In support of this *1375 motion, Defendant states that 1) it has never committed an alleged act of infringement in the Southern District of Florida; 2) its principal place of business is in Day-tona Beach, Florida, which is within the Middle District of Florida; B) it constructs produce storage, ripening and cooling facilities, and the design and bidding for these products is entirely conducted and maintained through the Daytona Beach office;⁴) all relevant documents are located in Daytona Beach;⁵) Defendant maintains a branch office for sales and export services in Miami, Florida, where it employs three individuals who make sales calls to customers in Central and South America; 6) Defendant’s Miami employees have never offered for sale or bid on a project for the sale of a pressurized ripening room in the United States, and they have never been provided with advertising materials for the pressurized ripening rooms at issue in this case;⁷) that witnesses who are not parties to this lawsuit who have knowledge of facts relevant to the 557 patent do not live in Florida; and 8) that Plaintiff Thermal Tech’s principal place of business in located in South Carolina, no officers or directors of Thermal Tech reside in Florida, and Thermal Tech does not have an office in Florida or have any employees who live in Florida (DE # 7).

Defendant also alleges that this case only involves three-tier pressurized ripening rooms, which Defendant states that it constructed in 2002 for clients in Birmingham, Alabama; Dunn, North Carolina; and Salisbury, North Carolina (DE # 7 at p. 5., ¶¶ 17, 18). Defendant states that it constructed two-tier pressurized ripening rooms in Plant City, Florida in 1997 and 1998 and in Hollywood, Florida, in 1998 and 2002, but alleges that these do not violate the 557 patent (DE #7 at p. 4., ¶¶ 12-16). However, both at the hearing and in a supplemental pleading, Plaintiffs averred that they were alleging that the two-tiered pressurized ripening rooms constructed by Defendant violated the 557 patent (DE # 33).

III. Analysis

Defendant seeks to transfer Plaintiffs’ Complaint to the Middle District of Florida pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which states, “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other division or district where it might have been brought.” This section is the statutory codification of the common law doctrine of forum non conveniens. Once this Court decides that transfer of venue is justified for the convenience of parties and witnesses and that the transfer is in the interest of justice, the ruling can only be overturned for a clear abuse of discretion. Thus, there is a heavy presumption in favor of the District Court’s decision. See Brown v. Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. Co., 934 F. 2d 1193, 1197 (11th Cir.1991) (holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in transferring a case that would impose financial hardship on a party no matter where heard).

Congress has authorized the court to transfer the venue of a case in order to avoid unnecessary inconvenience to the litigants, witnesses and the public, and to conserve time, energy and money. See Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616, 84 S.Ct. 805, 11 L.Ed.2d 945 (1964). Defendant here, as movant, has the burden of persuading this Court that the transfer is appropriate and should be granted. See Factors, Etc., Inc. v. Pro Arts, Inc., 579 F. 2d 215, 218 (2d Cir.1978), cert. denied, 440 U.S. 908, 99 S.Ct. 1215, 59 L.Ed.2d 455 (1979). Initially, Plaintiffs’ choice of forum should rarely be disturbed. See Doe v. Sun Int’l Hotels, Ltd., 20 F. Supp. 2d 1328, 1329 (S.D.Fla.1998). However, Plaintiffs’ chosen venue will receive less deference because Plaintiffs have selected a forum *1376 which is not their home forum, as Plaintiff Thermal Tech’s principal place of business is in South Carolina and Plaintiff Leavens is a resident of Washington State. La Seguridad v. Transytur Line, 707 F. 2d 1304, 1307 (11th Cir.1983). Moreover, the greater the Plaintiffs’ or this lawsuit’s connection to the forum they have chosen, the Southern District, the more deference the choice will receive. One factor which will result in less deference is the inconvenience and expense to Defendant in litigating in the forum chosen by Plaintiffs. See Iragorri v. United Technologies Corp., 274 F. 3d 65, 71-72 (2d Cir.2001) (en banc).

This Court must consider two factors to determine whether transferring venue is appropriate; 1) whether the action might have been brought in the Middle District of Florida; and 2) whether various factors are satisfied as to determine if a transfer to a more convenient forum is justified. See Miot v. Kechijian, 830 F.Supp. 1460, 1465-66 (S.D.Fla.1993).

A. Whether This Case Might Have Been Brought In The Middle District of Florida

The parties do not dispute that this case could have been brought in the Middle District of Florida. Defendant has its principal place of business in the Middle District, and Plaintiffs contend that some of the infringing acts and/or solicitation of infringing acts took place in the Middle District. Thus, as Defendant is subject to jurisdiction, venue and service of process in the Middle District, this case might have been brought there. See Jewelmasters, Inc. v. May Dept. Stores, Co., 840 F.Supp. 893, 894-95 (S.D.Fla.1993) (holding that action could have been brought in the Central District of California where venue, process and personal jurisdiction existed in that district).

B. The Application of the Several Factors

The next consideration is whether the transfer would be for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and would be in the interest of justice. This, in turn, depends upon Defendant’s ability to satisfy the following factors: 1) the convenience of the parties; 2) the convenience of the witnesses; 3) the relative case of access to sources of proof;⁴) the availability of process to the presence of unwilling witnesses;⁵) the cost of obtaining the presence of witnesses; and 6) the public interest. See Jewelmasters, 840 F.Supp. at 895 (listing factors); Miot v. Kechijian, 830 F.Supp. at 1460 (same).

Defendant has shown that it will be greatly inconvenienced by trying this case in the Southern District. Plaintiffs have not either contended or shown that they will be any more inconvenienced by having the case tried in the Middle District than in the Southern District.

1. The Convenience of The Parties

The undersigned finds that it will be more convenient for the parties if the case is transferred to the Middle District. It is undisputed that it will be significantly more convenient for Defendant to defend the case in the Middle District. Defendant’s principal place of business is located in Daytona Beach, Florida, in the Middle District, and a one-hour drive from the Orlando federal courthouse. Daytona Beach is roughly a five hour drive from the Miami federal courthouse. All documents in Defendant’s possession and control concerning the design and development, sale or offer to sell its pressurized ripening rooms, sold and constructed in the United States, are located in Daytona Beach. The witnesses who have knowledge of Defendant’s activities which appear to be the subject of this litigation reside in the Mid- *1377 die District. Defendant will be greatly inconvenienced if Owen Perryman, David Perryman, and Shirley Morley, its president, vice president and office manager, are absent from work to attend a two-week trial in Miami. Defendant has asserted that it has only seventeen employees, ten in the Daytona Beach office, three in Miami and four employees working at various places in the United States at ongoing projects.

It will be equally inconvenient for Plaintiffs to prosecute the case in either the Southern or the Middle Districts of Florida. Plaintiff Thermal Tech’s principal place of business is in South Carolina, Plaintiff Leavens lives in Washington State, none of Plaintiffs’ likely witnesses reside in Florida and all relevant documents under Plaintiffs’ control or in Plaintiffs’ possession are located outside of Florida.

2. The Convenience of The Witnesses

The undersigned also finds that it will be also more convenient for the witnesses if the case is transferred to the Middle District of Florida.

Again, it will be a great inconvenience for Defendant’s president, vice president and office manager, Owen Perryman, David Perryman, and Shirley Morley to have to be present in Miami, roughly five hours away from Defendant’s primary office in Daytona Beach, for a two-week trial. Defendant further contends that its Daytona Beach office is approximately one hour’s drive from the federal courthouse in Orlando, in the Middle District. This will make it more convenient for all of Defendant’s Daytona Beach employees who may be witnesses to attend a trial in the Middle District.

Plaintiffs do not dispute that it is equally inconvenient for their employees and officers to attend a trial in either district. Plaintiffs assert, however, that it will be more convenient for the potential witnesses who work in Defendant’s Miami office to have the case tried in the Southern District. However, Defendant agreed at the hearing to make these potential witnesses available for deposition and/or trial in the Middle District. Furthermore, Plaintiffs have not named any of Defendant’s Miami employees as prospective witnesses nor proffered what knowledge these individuals may possess which is relevant to the issues in this case, although these persons likely have knowledge concerning whether infringing activities occurred in the Southern District and it is certainly reasonable for Plaintiffs to seek their testimony. Neither party has identified any other potential witnesses who are located within the Southern District of Florida.

3. The Relative Ease Of Access To Sources of Proof

The undersigned further finds that the parties’ access to sources of proof will be slightly easier if the case is transferred to the Middle District of Florida.

At the hearing, the parties informed the Court that they have agreed to produce documents requested in discovery at the offices of the counsel for each party. Therefore, insofar as discovery is concerned, the ease of access to sources of proof is the same whether the case remains in the Southern District or is transferred to the Middle District.

However, Defendant noted that at trial or in key depositions, original documents in Defendant’s possession might well be needed, particularly original drawings that may not copy well, that those documents are located in Daytona Beach, and that it would be more convenient to have those documents at a one hour driving distance from a trial in the Middle District than a five hour driving distance away from a *1378 trial in the Southern District. It will also be easier for Defendant to continue doing business if the trial is held in the Middle District and any of the documents needed for the trial are also needed in the ordinary course of business.

It is undisputed that the sources of proof within Plaintiffs’ control are equally accessible to either the Southern or the Middle District, as none of them appear to be located in either district.

In addition, if there is a need to view a sample ripening room, Defendant stated at the hearing that the viewing will need to occur at Defendant’s facilities in the Middle District of Florida, and Plaintiffs did not dispute this.