of New York v. Cyco.net, Inc., 383 F.Supp.2d 526, 543 (S.D.N.Y.2005). Thus, if, as the Plaintiff claims, this case should be treated as a contract dispute, the Court would consider where the entirety of the patent applications were discussed and drafted, and whether CSHL could be considered the location where the patent would be “performed.” Furthermore, courts have routinely held in the context of contract dispute cases that venue under § 1391(a)(2) “may be satisfied by a communication transmitted to or from the district in which the cause of action was filed, given a sufficient relationship between the communication and the cause of action.” Constitution Reins. Co. v. Stonewall Ins. Co., 872 F.Supp. 1247, 1249 (S.D.N.Y.1995) (internal quotations omitted); Sacody, 862 F.Supp. at 1157 (<HOLDING>); Sea Tow Servs. Intern., Inc. v. Pontin, 472
holding that venue for litigation was proper based on 28 usc  1441 even though forum selection clause provided that the courts of the commonwealth of massachusetts would be the exclusive forum recognizing that where plaintiff is from the forum state and defendant is from an alternate forum each forum can claim a connection to one of the parties holding that phone and facsimile communications to the forum purchase orders and payments sent to the forum a choice of law clause within the contract regarding the forum state and delivery of the product within the forum state were not enough to satisfy minimum contacts holding venue requirements satisfied by receipt of correspondence and telephone calls in forum district even though conduct constituting breach of confidentiality agreement occurred outside of forum state holding that a permissive forum selection clause containing a waiver of any claims of forum non conveniens amounts to a mandatory forum selection clause at least where the plaintiff chose the designated forum