OPINION AND ORDER
MARK S. DAVIS, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court on a motion to transfer venue filed by defendants S & N Locating Services, LLC, and S & N Communications, Inc. (collectively "Defendants" or "S & N"). Defendants' motion seeks transfer of this patent infringement action to Defendants' home forum of the Middle District of North Carolina. Plaintiff Certusview Technologies, LLC, ("Plaintiff" or "Certusview") opposes such transfer. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Defendants' motion to transfer venue.
I. Factual and Procedural Background
Plaintiff filed its complaint in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on May 29, 2013. After the Court granted Defendants' unopposed motion to extend the time to file pleadings or a motion in response to the Complaint, Defendants filed the instant motion to transfer venue. The parties again filed a motion requesting additional time, and this Court extended the briefing schedule on the instant motion. Nearly a month after this matter was fully briefed, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to file a surreply.
Defendants' motion for leave to file a surreply was fully briefed on November 4, 2013. On November 9, 2013, Magistrate Judge Lawrence Leonard issued an order denying Defendants' request to file a surreply. Accordingly, this matter is ripe for review.
II. Standard for Discretionary Transfer of Venue
Title 28 of the United States Code, Section 1404, establishes that, "[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Such statute "is intended to place discretion in the district court to adjudicate motions for transfer of venue according to an individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.'" Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp. , 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988) (quoting Van Dusen v. Barrack , 376 U.S. 612, 622 (1964)); see Brock v. Entre Computer Ctrs., Inc. , 933 F.2d 1253, 1257 (4th Cir. 1991) ("Decisions whether to transfer a case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404 are committed to the discretion of the transferring judge"). In a patent infringement action, such motions to transfer venue pursuant to Section 1404(a) are governed by the law of the regional circuit in which the Court sits. See Winner Int'l Royalty Corp. v. Wang , 202 F.3d 1340, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
To determine whether a transfer of venue to another district is appropriate under § 1404(a), "a district court must make two inquiries: (1) whether the claims might have been brought in the transferee forum, and (2) whether the interest of justice and convenience of the parties and witnesses justify transfer to that forum." Koh v. Microtek Int'1, Inc. , 250 F.Supp.2d 627, 630 (E.D. Va. 2003); see 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (a); TechnoSteel, LLC v. Beers Constr. Co. , 271 F.3d 151, 160 (4th Cir. 2001) (indicating that a § 1404(a) transfer is merely a "discretionary change to another district where the action could have been brought") (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). In conducting the second inquiry, the Court considers several factors to determine whether to transfer venue, including: "MD ease of access to sources of proof; (2) the convenience of the parties and witnesses; (3) the cost of obtaining the attendance of witnesses; (4) the availability of compulsory process; (5) the interest in having local controversies decided at home; (6) in diversity cases, the court's familiarity with the applicable law; and (7) the interest of justice.'" One Beacon Ins. Co. v. JNB Storage Trailer Rental Corp. , 312 F.Supp.2d 824, 828 (E.D. Va. 2004) (quoting BHP Int'l Inv., Inc. v. Online Exch., Inc. , 105 F.Supp.2d 493, 498 (E.D. Va. 2000)). The principal factors to consider, however, are: (1) Plaintiff's choice of forum; (2) witness convenience and access to sources of proof; (3) party convenience; and (4) the interest of justice. Koh , 250 F.Supp.2d at 633; see Praqmatus AV, LLC v. Facebook, Inc. , 769 F.Supp.2d 991, 994-95 (E.D. Va. 2011). Ultimately, the burden of proof is on the movant to show "that transfer does more than merely shift the inconvenience to the other party.'" JTH Tax, Inc. v. Lee , 482 F.Supp.2d 731, 736 (E.D. Va. 2007) (quoting DMP Corp. v. Fruehauf Corp. , 617 F.Supp. 76, 77 (W.D. N.C. 1985)).
A. Venue in Transferee Forum
"As an initial matter, the court must determine whether the proposed transferee court is one in which the action originally may have been brought." BHP Int'l Inv. , 105 F.Supp.2d at 498. If the claims could have been brought in the transferee court initially, the subsequent decision to transfer venue is within the discretion of the court. One Beacon Ins. Co. , 312 F.Supp.2d at 828 (citing Verosol B.V. v. Hunter Douglas, Inc. , 806 F.Supp. 582, 591 (E.D. Va. 1992)).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), venue in patent infringement lawsuits is proper in any "district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business." 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) (emphasis added). A corporate defendant resides in any district in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c).
In the instant matter, it is undisputed that Plaintiff's patent infringement action could have initially been filed in the Middle District of North Carolina as Defendants are residents of such district and their corporate headquarters are located therein. Accordingly, the Court ...