Middle District of Tennessee Orders BenedorTSE's Patent Suit Against Wells Fargo Transferred to the Northern District of California.

The order

The case is BenedorTSE, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. 3:25-cv-01335 (M.D. Tenn.), assigned to Judge Eli J. Richardson. In a memorandum order entered October 27, 2026 (Doc. No. 36), Magistrate Judge Luke A. Evans granted Wells Fargo's motion to change venue (Doc. No. 14) and directed the Clerk to transfer the case to the Northern District of California. The order treats a motion to transfer venue as a non-dispositive pretrial matter that a magistrate judge may decide under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A).

The suit

According to the order, BenedorTSE alleges that Wells Fargo infringed three patents it holds on methods for securing online commercial transactions through the development of Wells Fargo's mobile banking application. The patents issued in 2012, 2013, and 2016. The order recounts that between 2009 and 2013, while the applications were pending, the parties discussed BenedorTSE's proposal to license the patents for use in Wells Fargo's online banking software, and that Wells Fargo declined to enter into any agreement. BenedorTSE filed the original complaint on November 17, 2025 and an amended complaint on January 14, 2026 that contains one count of infringement for each of the three patents.

The venue arguments

Wells Fargo argued that several important witnesses are in California, including former employees involved in the licensing discussions, that most design and development of the accused application took place in California, and that BenedorTSE's choice of forum deserves no deference because BenedorTSE is a Delaware entity that is neither located nor registered in Tennessee. BenedorTSE responded that its principal place of business is in Franklin, Tennessee, where its managing member lives and conducts business from his home, that the witnesses it identified are spread across the country, and that the location of evidence is neutral because the evidence will be electronic. It also argued that Tennessee has an interest in the case, pointing to its managing member's location, to a related case it has against another company in the district, and to the district's lighter docket.

Why the court ordered transfer

The court found that the totality of the private-interest and public-interest factors weighs in favor of transfer. It wrote that the accused application "appears to have been developed wholly or substantially within the borders of the Northern District of California," so most document discovery and depositions of software developers would take place in California. The parties agreed that BenedorTSE's managing member is the only witness in the Middle District of Tennessee and that at least some witnesses are in the Northern District of California. The court said court-administration factors tip mildly in favor of transfer, citing federal court management statistics on time to disposition and intellectual property filings in the two districts, and concluded that the factors outweigh BenedorTSE's original choice of forum.

The stay and the motion to dismiss

Because the transfer order is a non-dispositive order from a magistrate judge, the court stayed the transfer for 14 days after entry in case BenedorTSE seeks review from the District Judge under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a). If BenedorTSE seeks review, the transfer remains stayed until the District Judge rules on the objections. Wells Fargo's pending motion to dismiss (Doc. No. 15) is preserved for decision by the transferee court.

What to watch next

Watch for any objection to the District Judge within 14 days of the October 27, 2026 order and, if the transfer goes forward, for the case to open in the Northern District of California.