Lyden v. Turtle Beach Corporation et alDO NOT DOCKET. CASE HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED OUT.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
ROBERT MICHAEL LYDEN, an individual,
Plaintiff,
v.
TURTLE BEACH CORPORATION, a
Nevada Corporation; VOYETRA TURTLE
BEACH, INC., a Delaware Corporation;
and PERFORMANCE DESIGNED
PRODUCTS, LLC, a California Limited
Liability Corporation,
Defendants.
Case No. 25‐CV‐3843 (PJS/DLM)
ORDER
Robert Michael Lyden, pro se.
Brandon Smith, Ali Razai, and Jacob Grotenrath, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS
LLP; and Kelly J. Fermoyle, FAEGRE DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP, for
defendants.
Plaintiff Robert Michael Lyden brings this patent‐infringement action against
defendants Turtle Beach Corporation, Voyetra Turtle Beach, Inc., and Performance
Designed Products, LLC (collectively, “Turtle Beach”). This matter is before the Court
on Turtle Beach’s motion to dismiss for improper venue or, in the alternative, to
transfer. ECF No. 14.
In patent‐infringement actions, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) “is the sole and exclusive
provision controlling venue.” TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands, LLC, 581 U.S.
CASE 0:25-cv-03843-PJS-DLM Doc. 39 Filed 03/19/26 Page 1 of 3

258, 266 (2017) (quotation omitted). Under § 1400(b), venue is proper only in the
judicial district (1) “where the defendant resides” or (2) “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). For purposes of § 1400(b), “a domestic
corporation ‘resides’ only in its State of incorporation.” TC Heartland, 581 U.S. at 262.
The parties agree that Turtle Beach does not reside in Minnesota, and, for
purposes of this motion only, the Court assumes that Turtle Beach committed acts of
infringement in Minnesota. See Compl. ¶¶ 3–5, 9, ECF No. 1; ECF No. 16. The issue,
then, is whether Turtle Beach “has a regular and established place of business” in the
District of Minnesota. 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).
For the reasons explained by the Court at the March 3, 2026 hearing, the Court
thinks it highly unlikely that Turtle Beach has a “regular and established place of
business” in Minnesota. But after the hearing, Lyden informed the Court that he does
not object to the transfer of this matter to the Southern District of California—a district
in which (as Turtle Beach conceded at the hearing) all three defendants have a regular
and established place of business. The Court therefore grants Turtle Beach’s motion in
part and orders this case to be transferred to the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California.
-2-
CASE 0:25-cv-03843-PJS-DLM Doc. 39 Filed 03/19/26 Page 2 of 3

ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. 	Defendants’ motion to dismiss [ECF No. 14] is GRANTED IN PART; and
2. 	The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to transfer this case to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California.
Dated: March 19, 2026 	/s/ Patrick J. Schiltz
Patrick J. Schiltz, Chief Judge
United States District Court
-3-
CASE 0:25-cv-03843-PJS-DLM Doc. 39 Filed 03/19/26 Page 3 of 3