for trial in Delaware. Plaintiff, for its part, identifies no potential third-party witnesses closer to Delaware than to the Northern District of California. Absent some concrete evidentiary showing that third party witnesses (like the inventors) will be unlikely to testify, the Court cannot give Defendants’ argument as to their potential unavailability great weight. See Pragmatus I, 2012 WL 4889438, at *10 & n.9 (citing cases). But with some number of possible third-party trial witnesses located in the transferee district and none in Delaware, the Court finds that this factor should at least weigh slightly in favor of Defendants. See Pragmatus I, 2012 WL 4889438, at *10-11; see Graphics Properties Holdings Inc. v. Asus Computer Int’l, Inc., 964 F.Supp.2d 320, 329 (D.Del.2013) (<HOLDING>); cf. Round Rock Research LLC v. ASUSTeK
holding that when defendant failed to appear at scheduled suppression hearing the court could have decided the motion in defendants absence but it did not have the authority to refuse to consider it holding that an argument was barred where the movant could have but did not raise its argument before the district court ruled in the original motion holding that treating a defendants failure to appear as a waiver not only of the right to be present but of the right to have a hearing on the motion was error holding that this factor favors transfer but only slightly where all named inventors were located in the transferee district but the movant produced no evidence that they would refuse to appear in delaware holding that in order for the movant to prevail on a summary judgment motion movant must either factually refute the affirmative defenses or establish that they are legally insufficient