MEMORANDUM & ORDER Plaintiff Zaxcom, Inc. brings this action against Defendant Lextrosonics, Inc. alleging patent infringement of three Zaxcom patents: U.S. Patent No. 7, 929, 902, U.S. Patent No. 8, 385, 814, and U.S. Patent No. 9, 336, 307 (collectively, the “Patents-In-Suit”). (Am. Compl. (Dkt. 33).)Before the court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint for improper venue pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3), or, in the alternative, to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1406(a) (the “Motion”). (Mot. to Dismiss (“Mot.”) (Dkt. 41); Mem. in Supp. of Mot. (“Def. Mem.”) (Dkt. 41-1).) For the following reasons, the court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion and ORDERS the case transferred to the District of New Mexico.I. BACKGROUNDA. FactsThe court takes the following statement of facts largely from Plaintiff’s amended complaint, the well-pleaded allegations of which the court generally accepts as true. See 5B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure §1352 (3d ed. 2018). A district court considering a Rule 12(b)(3) motion to dismiss for improper venue may also examine facts outside the complaint to determine whether its venue is proper. See id.; Uni-Sys., LLC v. U.S. Tennis Ass’n, No. 17-CV-147 (KAM), 2018 WL 4863589, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Oct. 5, 2018) (observing that if the court chooses to rely on pleadings and affidavits instead of an evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of venue). Specifically, the court considers the Declarations of Gordon Moore, Howard Kaufman, and Jerry Cudmore in support of Defendant’s motion to dismiss (see Decl. of Gordon Moore (“Moore Decl.”) (Dkt. 41-2); Decl. of Howard Kaufman (“Kaufinan Decl.”) (Dkt. 41-3); Decl. of Jerry Cudmore (“Cudmore Decl.”) (Dkt. 41-4); Suppl. Decl. of Gordon Moore (“Suppl. Moore Decl.”) (Dkt. 44)), as well as the exhibits attached to Plaintiff’s memorandum of law, which include depositions of the same three individuals (see Pl. Mem. in Opp. (“Pl. Opp’n”) (Dkt. 42)).Plaintiff, the owner of the Patents-In-Suit, is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of New Jersey, with its principal place of business in Pompton Plains, New Jersey. (Am. Compl. 1, 78.) Plaintiff is a “leading designer and manufacturer of professional audio equipment for the television and film industries.” (Id. 73.)Defendant is a corporation organized and existing in New Mexico, with its principal place of business in Rio Rancho, New Mexico. (Id. 2; Moore Decl. 3.) Defendant is engaged in the business of designing and manufacturing a variety of electronics devices, including wireless microphone systems and related accessories. (Am. Compl.
80-81; Moore Decl. 3.) One of these wireless microphone systems is the Portable Digital Audio Recorder (“PDR”). (Am. Compl.
