The opinion of the court was delivered by: Theodore H. Katz, United States Magistrate Judge.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This patent infringement action was referred to this Court for general pretrial supervision. Defendant Chicago Board Options Exchange, Inc. ("CBOE") has moved, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), to transfer this action, brought by Plaintiff International Securities Exchange, LLC ("ISE"), from the Southern District of New York to the Northern District of Illinois. CBOE argues, inter alia, that the events giving rise to the Complaint have no connection to the Southern District of New York, and that most of the relevant documents and witnesses are located in the Northern District of Illinois. (See Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Support of Motion to Transfer Venue to Northern District of Illinois, dated Feb. 5, 2007 ("Def.'s Mem."), at 2.) ISE contends that CBOE has failed to meet its burden justifying a change of venue, and that its choice of forum should not be disturbed. (See Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue to the Northern District of Illinois, dated Feb. 20, 2007 ("Pl.'s Mem."), at 5.) For the following reasons, Defendant's motion is granted.
ISE is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 60 Broad Street, New York, New York. CBOE is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business at 400 South LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois. (See Complaint, filed Nov. 22, 2006 ("Compl."), ¶¶ 2-3.)
ISE is the owner of United States Patent No. 6,618,707 ("the Patent"), which concerns "an automated exchange for trading a financial instrument and a process for trading a financial instrument on an automated exchange." (See Compl. ¶ 7.) ISE claims that CBOE "infringed, contributed to the infringement by others of, or actively induced infringement by others" the Patent by "making, using, selling, offering to sell, or causing to be sold" the CBOE Hybrid System, and its component, the Ultimate Matching Algorithm (collectively the "Hybrid System"), which concern an exchange for trading a financial instrument. (See id. ¶¶ 8, 10.)
II. Standard for Transfer of Venue
Motions for a change of venue are governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which provides: "For 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." If a court determines that the action could have been brought in the transferee court, it must then consider the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and the interests of justice, to resolve whether the transfer is warranted. See D.H. Blair & Co., Inc. v. Gottdiener, 462 F.3d 95, 106 (2d Cir. 2006); Laborers Local 100 and 397 Pension Fund v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., Nos. 06 Civ. 1942 (HB), 06 Civ. 2025 (HB), 06 Civ. 2659 (HB), 06 Civ. 2916 (HB), 06 Civ. 2918 (HB), 06 Civ. 3106 (HB), 06 Civ. 3653 (HB), 2006 WL 1524590, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. June 5, 2006)(citing Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. v. Lexar Media, Inc., 415 F. Supp. 2d 370, 373 (S.D.N.Y. 2006)).
A. The Action Could Have Been Brought in the Northern District of Illinois
CBOE's principal place of business is Chicago, Illinois (see Compl. ¶ 3; Def.'s Mem., at 2-3), thus it is subject to personal jurisdiction in the Northern District of Illinois and venue is proper there. See 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b); 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c);*fn1 see also Fuji Photo Film, 415 F. Supp. 2d at 373 (citing Walker v. Jon Renau Collection, Inc., 423 F. Supp. 2d 115, 117 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)); Aerotel, Ltd. v. Sprint Corp., 100 F. Supp. 2d 189, 194-95 (S.D.N.Y. 2000); Invivo Research, Inc. v. Magnetic Resonance Equip. Corp., 119 F. Supp. 2d 433, 437 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). Moreover, ISE does not dispute that this action could have been brought in the Northern District of Illinois. Thus, the remaining inquiry is whether the convenience of the witnesses and parties, and the interests of justice, weigh in favor of a change in venue.
B. The Balancing of Factors Weigh in Favor of Transfer
When considering a motion for transfer, a court must balance "private interest factors," including the convenience of the litigants and "all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive," and "public interest factors," which include the administrative and jurisdictional interests of the districts involved. See Iragorri v. United Technologies Corp., 274 F .3d 65, 74 (2d Cir. 2001)(en banc). In analyzing the balance of conveniences, a court should consider: "(1) the plaintiff's choice of forum, (2) the convenience of witnesses, (3) the location of relevant documents and relative ease of access to sources of proof, (4) the convenience of parties, (5) the locus of operative facts, (6) the availability of process to compel the attendance of unwilling witnesses, [and] (7) the relative means of the parties." D.H. Blair & Co., 462 F.3d at 106-07 (quoting Albert Fadem Trust v. Duke Energy Corp., 214 F. Supp. 2d 341, 343 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)). As to the public interest factors, a court should consider the transferee court's familiarity with the governing law, as well as trial efficiency and the interests of justice. See Hummingbird USA, Inc. v. Texas Guaranteed Student Loan Corp., No. 06 Civ. 7672 (LTS)(GWG), 2007 WL 163111, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2007) (citing Pilates, Inc. v. Pilates Instit., Inc., 891 F. Supp. 175, 183 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)); accord Cook v. UBS Financial Servs., Inc., No. 05 Civ. 8842 (SHS), 2006 WL 760284, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2006); Mears v. Montgomery, No. 02 Civ. 0407 (BSJ) (MHD), 2004 WL 964093, at *8 (S.D.N.Y. May 5, 2004). These factors need not be accorded equal weight, and a court may consider other factors as well. Hummingbird USA, 2007 WL 163111, at *2 (citing Malone v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 2 F. Supp. 2d 545, 547 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)). The burden is on the movant to make a "clear and convincing showing" that there should be a change in forum. Montgomery v. Tap Enterp., Inc., No. 06 Civ. 5799 (HB), 2007 WL 576128, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2007) (quoting Editorial Musical Latino Americana, S.A. v. Mar Int'l Records, 829 F. Supp. 62, 66 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)); see also Wildwood Imports v. M/V ZIM SHANGHAI, No. 04 Civ. 5538 (MBM), 2005 WL 425490, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2005). "Unless the balance is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiff's choice of forum should rarely be disturbed." DiRienzo v. Philip Servs. Corp., 294 F.3d 21, 28 (2d Cir.), cert. denied 537 U.S. 1028, 123 S.Ct. 556 (2002) (quoting Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508, 67 S.Ct. 839, 843 (1947)).
1. Convenience of Witnesses
Convenience of witnesses "is probably the single-most important factor in the analysis of whether transfer should be granted." Cower v. Albany Law School of Union Univ., No. 04 Civ. 0643 (DAB), 2005 WL 1606057, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord Houlihan Lokey Howard & Zukin Capital, Inc. v. Protective Group, Inc., No. 05 Civ. 4741 (DC), 2005 WL 3367044, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 12, 2005). In considering the convenience of the witnesses, a court "must consider the materiality, nature, and quality of each witness, not merely the number of witnesses in each district." Houlihan Lokey Howard & Zukin Capital, Inc., 2006 WL 2927176, at *4 (citing Royal & Sunalliance v. British Airways, 167 F. Supp. 2d 573, 577 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)). In the context of a patent infringement suit, a court should give particular consideration to individuals who can testify about the technology of the allegedly infringing inventions. Cf. Kwik Goal, Ltd. v. Youth Sports Pub., Inc., No. 06 Civ. 395 (HB), 2006 WL 1517598, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. May 31, 2006) (citing AEC One Stop Group, Inc. v. CD Listening Bar, Inc., 326 F. Supp. 2d 525, 529 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (stating that in a copyright infringement action, "the key witnesses, . . . , are those officers and employees who were involved in the design, production, and sale" of the allegedly infringing products)); Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd., 415 F. Supp. 2d at 373 ("The key issues in a patent infringement suit involve the technology of the inventions claimed in the patents-in-suit.").
ISE has identified two witnesses who it intends to call: Gary Katz, the Chief Operating Officer of ISE, who is the sole inventor named on the Patent, and Stephen J. Lieb, Esq., who "assisted with preparation and prosecution of the applications that led to the Patent." (See Pl.'s Mem., at 8; Declaration of Gary Katz, dated Feb. 20, 2007 ("Katz Decl."), ...