Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 74 Filed 03/14/22 Page 1 of 17
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`LYFT, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 21-cv-04653-BLF
`
`
`ORDER DENYING MOTION TO
`TRANSFER TO THE UNITED STATES
`DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. 1404(A)
`
`[Re: ECF No. 34]
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before the Court is AGIS Software Development LLC’s (“AGIS Software”) Motion to
`
`Transfer to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1404(a) in this declaratory judgment action brought by Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”) regarding various AGIS
`
`Software patents. Lyft seeks declaratory judgment of non-infringement as to five AGIS Software
`
`patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,031,728 (“’728 Patent”); 7,630,724 (“’724 Patent”); 8,213,970
`
`(“’970 Patent”); 10,299,100 (“’100 Patent”); and 10,341,838 (“’838 Patent”) (collectively, the
`
`“Asserted Patents” or “Patents-in-Suit”). The Patents-in-Suit generally pertain to mobile
`
`applications. AGIS Software previously sued Lyft for infringement of these patents in the Eastern
`
`District of Texas, but the suit was dismissed for improper venue. Now AGIS Software seeks to
`
`transfer this case to the Eastern District of Texas, citing convenience of witnesses, the familiarity of
`
`the Eastern District of Texas court with these patents, AGIS Software’s incorporation and
`
`headquarters in the Eastern District of Texas, among other factors. Lyft opposes, citing, inter alia,
`
`its headquarters in the Northern District of California, its own choice to sue in this forum, and the
`
`Eastern District of Texas’s dismissal of AGIS Software’s Texas case.
`
`Based on the below reasoning, the Court DENIES AGIS Software’s motion. The Court
`
`notes, however, that this ruling is made without regard to whether this Court has personal
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 74 Filed 03/14/22 Page 2 of 17
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`jurisdiction over AGIS Software. In a separate ruling, the Complaint was dismissed with leave to
`
`amend to allow Lyft the further opportunity to plead facts sufficient to demonstrate specific
`
`jurisdiction. See Order, ECF No. 61. Absent such pleading, this case will be dismissed.
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`Lyft is a Delaware limited liability corporation with its principal place of business in
`
`California that provides rideshare services through its software applications. See Complaint,
`
`ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 1, 4; id., Ex. A ¶ 11. AGIS Software is a Texas limited liability company with its
`
`principal place of business in Texas. See Complaint, ECF No. 1 ¶ 2. Lyft alleges that AGIS
`
`Software is an “agent and alter ego” of Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc. (“AGIS, Inc.”),
`
`a Florida corporation with its principal place of business in Florida. See id. Lyft further alleges that
`
`the sole member of AGIS Software is AGIS Holdings, Inc. (“AGIS Holdings”), a Florida
`
`corporation with its principal place of business at the same Florida location as AGIS, Inc. See id.
`
`On January 29, 2021, AGIS Software filed a patent infringement action against Lyft in the
`
`Eastern District of Texas regarding the Asserted Patents based on “the Lyft and Lyft Driver
`
`applications and the related services and/or servers for the applications.” See id. ¶ 4. The case was
`
`consolidated with AGIS Software’s cases against T-Mobile US, Inc., T-Mobile USA, Inc.
`
`(collectively, “T-Mobile”), Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”), and WhatsApp, Inc. (“WhatsApp”)
`
`before Judge Gilstrap under the caption AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No.
`
`2:21–cv–00072–JRG–RSP (E.D. Tex.) (“T-Mobile Texas Case”). On January 19, 2022, Judge
`
`Gilstrap dismissed Lyft from the case for improper venue. See T-Mobile Texas Case, ECF No. 334.
`
`AGIS Software’s claims against T-Mobile and WhatsApp in the Eastern District of Texas have been
`
`dismissed. See id., ECF Nos. 169, 220. Further, AGIS Software’s case against Uber has been stayed
`
`pending dismissal following settlement. See id., ECF No. 355.
`
`AGIS Software’s patent infringement actions filed in 2021 were the third in a series of patent
`
`infringement litigation campaigns it has brought in the Eastern District of Texas. See AGIS Software
`
`Dev. LLC v. Apple, Inc., No. 2:17–cv–516 (E.D. Tex.); AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. HTC Corp.,
`
`No. 2:17–cv–514 (E.D. Tex.); AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Huawei Device USA Inc., et al.,
`
`No. 2:17–cv–513 (E.D. Tex.); AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. ZTE Corp. et al., No. 2:17–cv–517
`
`2
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 74 Filed 03/14/22 Page 3 of 17
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`(E.D. Tex.); and AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. LG Elecs., Inc., No. 2:17–cv–515 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`(collectively, “AGIS I Cases”); see also AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2:19–cv–361
`
`(E.D. Tex.); AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:19–cv–362
`
`(E.D. Tex.); and AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Waze Mobile Limited, No. 2:19–cv–359 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`(collectively, “AGIS II Cases”). AGIS Software asserted the’970 Patent in some of its prior Eastern
`
`District of Texas lawsuits. The AGIS II Cases, which AGIS Software filed in 2019 and one of
`
`which (No. 2:19–cv–361) involves the ’970 Patent, are still pending in the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`On June 16, 2021, while AGIS Software’s Eastern District of Texas action against Lyft was
`
`still pending, Lyft filed the present action for declaratory judgment of noninfringement of the same
`
`patents asserted against it in the Texas case. See Complaint, ECF No. 1. On September 27, 2021,
`
`AGIS Software moved to dismiss this action under Rule 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction,
`
`which the Court granted with leave to amend. See ECF Nos. 32, 61. On October 5, 2021, AGIS
`
`Software moved to transfer this action to the Eastern District of Texas. See Motion, ECF No. 34.
`
`AGIS Software argues that this case should be transferred to the Eastern District of Texas
`
`because (1) this action could have been brought there; (2) judicial economy favors transfer because
`
`Judge Gilstrap is familiar with the Asserted Patents; (3) the Eastern District of Texas is more
`
`convenient for the parties, party witnesses, and third-party witnesses; (4) sources of proof are located
`
`in both the Northern District of California and the Eastern District of Texas and can easily be
`
`transferred electronically; (5) Northern District of California courts are more congested than Eastern
`
`District of Texas courts; and (6) Texas has a substantial local interest in adjudicating a case involving
`
`a Texas corporation like AGIS Software. See Motion, ECF No. 34; Reply, ECF No. 50. In response,
`
`Lyft argues that transfer is unwarranted since (1) the interest of justice weighs against transferring
`
`to the Eastern District of Texas since Judge Gilstrap already dismissed the patent infringement
`
`action in that district; (2) Lyft’s choice of forum takes precedence; (3) the convenience of the parties,
`
`party witnesses, and third-party witnesses weighs against transfer; (4) the bulk of relevant evidence
`
`is in the Northern District of California where the Accused Products were developed; and (5) the
`
`Northern District of California has a substantial interest in a controversy involving a resident
`
`company like Lyft. See Opposition, ECF No. 49.
`
`3
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 74 Filed 03/14/22 Page 4 of 17
`
`
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A district court may transfer a case in the interest of justice for the convenience of the parties
`
`and of the witnesses. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). In a case not involving a forum-selection clause, a
`
`district court considering a § 1404(a) motion “must evaluate both the convenience of the parties and
`
`various public-interest considerations.” Atl. Marine Const. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for W. Dist. of
`
`Texas, 571 U.S. 49, 62 (2013). The parties’ convenience and other private interests entail
`
`consideration of a number of factors including the plaintiff’s choice of forum, the parties’ contacts
`
`with the forum, the contacts relating to the plaintiff’s claims in the chosen forum, the “relative ease
`
`of access to sources of proof; availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling, and
`
`the cost of obtaining attendance of willing, witnesses; . . . and all other practical problems that make
`
`trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive.” Id. at 62 n.6 (quoting Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno,
`
`454 U.S. 235, 241 n.6 (1981)); Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498–99 (9th Cir.
`
`2000). “Public-interest factors may include ‘the administrative difficulties flowing from court
`
`congestion; the local interest in having localized controversies decided at home; [and] the interest
`
`in having the trial of a diversity case in a forum that is at home with the law.’” Atl. Marine, 571 U.S.
`
`at 62 n.6 (quoting Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 241 n.6) (alteration in original).
`
`A transfer is not appropriate if it “merely shift[s] rather than eliminate[s] the inconvenience.”
`
`Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986). The party
`
`seeking to transfer a case bears the burden of demonstrating that the balance of convenience and
`
`interests of justice factors “clearly favor transfer.” Lax v. Toyota Motor Corp., 65 F.Supp.3d 772,
`
`781 (N.D. Cal. 2014).
`
`III. DISCUSSION
`
`The parties dispute whether two categories of factors favor transfer to the Eastern District of
`
`Texas: (1) private interest factors and (2) public interest factors. The Court considers each category
`
`of factors in turn.
`
`A. Private Interest Factors
`
`The Court first considers the “private interest factors” disputed by the parties. Atl. Marine,
`
`571 U.S. at 62 n.6. The parties dispute whether (1) Lyft’s choice of forum; (2) convenience for the
`
`4
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 74 Filed 03/14/22 Page 5 of 17
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`parties and party witnesses; (3) convenience for third-party witnesses; (4) the relative ease of access
`
`to sources of proof favor transfer to the Eastern District of Texas; and (5) the cost of litigation. The
`
`Court considers each factor in turn.
`
`i. Plaintiff’s Choice of Forum
`
`The parties dispute whether Lyft’s choice of the Northern District of California in filing this
`
`declaratory judgment action weighs against transfer. A plaintiff’s choice of forum is normally
`
`entitled to “substantial weight.” See Fitbit, Inc. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., 336 F.R.D. 574, 588
`
`(N.D. Cal. Aug. 26, 2020) (citing Williams v. Bowman, 157 F.Supp.2d 1103 (N.D. Cal. 2001)); Lou
`
`v. Belzberg, 834 F.2d 730, 739 (9th Cir. 1987). In patent actions, courts generally discount a
`
`plaintiff’s choice of forum when “the central facts of the lawsuit occur[red] outside the plaintiff’s
`
`chosen forum.” See id. (quoting Sorensen v. Daimler Chrysler AG, No. C 02–4752 MMC,
`
`2003 WL 1888866, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 11, 2003)). A defendant must make a “strong showing of
`
`inconvenience to warrant upsetting the plaintiff’s choice of forum.” Decker Coal, 805 F.2d at 843.
`
`AGIS Software argues that Lyft’s choice of forum should be accorded no weight because
`
`Lyft filed this duplicative declaratory judgment case nearly five months after AGIS Software filed
`
`its infringement suit in the Eastern District of Texas. See Motion, ECF No. 34 at 6–7. Lyft argues
`
`that courts give deference to a plaintiff’s choice of forum unless the operative facts did not occur
`
`there and the forum has no interest in the parties or the subject matter. See Opposition, ECF No. 49
`
`at 4–5. Lyft argues that no such exception applies here, given that Lyft is based in and developed
`
`the Accused Products in the Northern District of California. See id.
`
`The Court agrees with Lyft. AGIS Software’s Texas suit against Lyft has been dismissed,
`
`and AGIS Software fails to point to any authority that first-to-file considerations should outweigh
`
`Lyft’s choice of forum in such a circumstance. Lyft provides ample authority that a plaintiff’s
`
`choice of forum is generally afforded deference, particularly in this case where Lyft is at home in
`
`the forum and the accused products were developed here. See Rare Breed Distilling v. Heaven Hill
`
`Distilleries, No. C–09–04728 EDL, 2010 WL 335658, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 22, 2010) (“Plaintiff’s
`
`choice of forum weighs heavily against transfer. This is especially true when a plaintiff chooses to
`
`sue in its home state.”); Fitbit, 336 F.R.D. at 580; Pacific Car and Foundry Co. v. Pence,
`
`5
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 74 Filed 03/14/22 Page 6 of 17
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`403 F.2d 949, 954 (9th Cir.1968) (“If the operative facts have not occurred within the forum of
`
`original selection and that forum has no particular interest in the parties or the subject matter, the
`
`plaintiff's choice is entitled only to minimal consideration.”).
`
`Accordingly, the Court finds that Lyft’s choice of forum weighs strongly against transferring
`
`this case to the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`ii. Convenience for Parties and Party Witnesses
`
`The parties dispute whether the convenience for the parties and party witnesses favors
`
`transfer of this case to the Eastern District of Texas. Courts consider both the convenience to the
`
`parties and the convenience to witnesses, including party witnesses, in the § 1404 inquiry. See Rare
`
`Breed, 2010 WL 335658, at *2. The parties brief these issues together, arguing based on
`
`convenience to both the parties and party witnesses. See Motion, ECF No. 34 at 7–8; Opposition,
`
`ECF No. 49 at 5.
`
`The convenience of witnesses is often the most important factor in deciding whether to
`
`transfer venue.
`
` BioSpyder Techs.,
`
`Inc.
`
`v. HTG Molecular Diagnostics,
`
`Inc.,
`
`No. 5:20–cv–05607–EJD, 2021 WL 242866, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 25, 2021). Consideration of
`
`inconvenience to party witnesses (as compared to third-party witnesses) is discounted since they
`
`can be compelled to testify as part of their employment. See id. at *4 (citing STX, Inc. v. Trik Stik,
`
`Inc., 708 F.Supp. 1551, 1556 (N.D. Cal. 1988)).
`
`AGIS Software argues that the following party witnesses favor transfer:
`
`• Malcolm K. Beyer, Jr., AGIS Software’s Chief Executive Officer and a named inventor on
`
`the Patents-in-Suit, who resides in Florida, see Motion, ECF No. 34 at 8 (citing Beyer Decl.,
`
`ECF No. 32-1 ¶¶ 2, 4);
`
`• David Sietsema, a former AGIS Software employee who was responsible for monitoring and
`
`overseeing licensing activities, who previously worked from the Austin, Texas office, see
`
`id. (citing Reply, ECF No. 50, Ex. A, Beyer Decl. ¶ 15);
`
`• Ronald Wisneski, Margaret Beyer, and George Barros, potential AGIS Software witnesses
`
`who live and work in Jupiter, Florida and Vienna, Virginia, see id. (citing Reply,
`
`ECF No. 50, Ex. A, Beyer Decl. ¶ 19); and
`
`6
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 74 Filed 03/14/22 Page 7 of 17
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`• Max Loosen, Lyft’s Regional Director in Dallas, Texas, who was deposed in the T-Mobile
`
`Texas Case, see id. (citing Motion, ECF No. 34, Ex. 1 ¶ 3); see also Reply, ECF No. 50,
`
`Ex. A, Beyer Decl. ¶¶ 8–21.
`
`Further, AGIS Software argues that its connections to Texas—AGIS Software is incorporated and
`
`headquartered there, and it maintains an office and documents there—and its lack of connections to
`
`California—it is not registered to conduct business there, it does not have a registered agent for
`
`service of process there, it does not have offices or employees there, and it does not recruit there—
`
`weigh in favor of the convenience of the Eastern District of Texas. See Reply, ECF No. 50 at 3
`
`(citing Beyer Decl., ECF No. 32-1 ¶¶ 10–19). In response, Lyft argues that (1) none of the AGIS
`
`Software party witnesses identified live in Texas and (2) all of the relevant Lyft party witnesses
`
`deposed in the T-Mobile Texas Case live in the Northern District of California. See Opposition,
`
`ECF No. 49 at 5. Lyft argues that its Regional Director Mr. Loosen was only deposed in the
`
`T-Mobile Texas Case with respect to Lyft’s improper venue allegations, so he is irrelevant to this
`
`case. See id.
`
`The Court finds that this factor weighs against transfer. AGIS Software can identify no
`
`witnesses in the Eastern District of Texas, and the Court declines to weigh heavily the location of
`
`witnesses who will be required to travel for a significant amount of time regardless of whether or
`
`not the case is transferred. See Barnes & Noble, Inc. v. LSI Corp., 823 F.Supp.2d 980, 994
`
`(N.D. Cal. 2011) (finding transfer inappropriate where “either forum would offer some
`
`conveniences and inconveniences to both the parties and witnesses”); Decker, 805 F.2d at 843; see
`
`also In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Google LLC, No. 2021–171,
`
`2021 WL 4592280, at *5 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 6, 2021) (“[T]he difference in distance is not as important
`
`as the difference in travel time and the fact that the witness would be required to be away from home
`
`for several days in any event.”). Further, AGIS Software has not demonstrated the relevance of Lyft
`
`Regional Director Mr. Loosen’s testimony to this case. See Gates Learjet Corp. v. Jensen,
`
`743 F.2d 1325, 1335–36 (9th Cir. 1984); see also Genentech, 566 F.3d at 1343. And AGIS
`
`Software provides no indication of where former AGIS Software employee Mr. Sietsema lives or
`
`works now, so it is not clear how he factors into the convenience inquiry. Otherwise, the only party
`
`7
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 74 Filed 03/14/22 Page 8 of 17
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`witnesses identified are those in the Northern District of California raised by Lyft. See Opposition,
`
`ECF No. 49 at 5. The other considerations AGIS Software raises—its contacts with Texas and its
`
`lack of contacts with California—fail to move the needle here. See Rare Breed, 2010 WL 335658,
`
`at *5 (convenience of parties weighs in favor of Northern District of California where company
`
`based there “performs all the work . . . that is relevant to the trademark infringement suit”);
`
`BioSpyder, 2021 WL 242866, at *3 (“The convenience of the witnesses is often the most important
`
`factor in deciding whether to transfer venues.”).
`
`Based on the above reasoning, the Court finds that the convenience for the parties and party
`
`witnesses weighs against transfer.
`
`iii. Convenience for Third-Party Witnesses
`
`Courts give particular consideration to non-party witnesses, especially when they are not
`
`subject to subpoena power in the forum where the case is litigated. See Orange Cty. IBEW-NECA
`
`Labor Mgmt. Cooperation Comm. v. Pro Tech Eng’g Corp., No. 14–CV–04225–LHK,
`
`2015 WL 5591113, at *2 (N.D Cal. Sep. 23, 2015); Decker Coal, 805 F.2d at 843; Jones, 211 F.3d
`
`at 498–99. Third-party witnesses are only subject to a court’s subpoena power when the court is (1)
`
`“within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in
`
`person” or (2) “within the state where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business
`
`in person” and “is commanded to attend a trial and would not incur substantial expense.”
`
`Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 45(c)(1).
`
`AGIS argues that the Eastern District of Texas is a more convenient forum for the following
`
`“key” third-party witnesses:
`
`• Eric Armstrong, a full-time consultant for AGIS, Inc., who lives and works in Allen, Texas,
`
`see Motion, ECF No. 34 at 7 (citing Reply, ECF No. 50, Ex. A, Beyer Decl. ¶¶ 13–14);
`
`• Joseph C. McAlexander III, AGIS Software’s technical expert, who is based in Richardson,
`
`Texas, see id. at 7–8; and
`
`• Christopher Rice, a consultant of AGIS, Inc., who is located in Superior, Colorado and has
`
`indicated that the Eastern District of Texas is more convenient than the Northern District of
`
`California, see id. at 8 (citing Reply, ECF No. 50, Ex. A, Beyer Decl. ¶ 18).
`
`8
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 74 Filed 03/14/22 Page 9 of 17
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`In response, Lyft argues that compulsory process would likely not be needed for AGIS, Inc.
`
`consultant Mr. Armstrong, since he is a full-time consultant for AGIS, Inc. See Opposition,
`
`ECF No. 49 at 6. Further, Lyft argues that the Court should confer little weight to AGIS Software
`
`technical expert Mr. McAlexander, since courts consider expert witnesses of little importance to the
`
`§ 1404 inquiry. See id. And Lyft argues AGIS, Inc. consultant Mr. Rice’s statement that the Eastern
`
`District of Texas is more convenient should be given little weight, since Mr. Rice’s flight options
`
`between his location in Colorado and the Northern District of California are more plentiful, cheaper,
`
`and of similar travel time compared to the flight options between his location and the Eastern District
`
`of Texas. See id. at 7 (citing Taylor Decl., ECF No. 49-1 ¶¶ 6–8; id., Exs. B–G).1
`
`Lyft also argues that the following third-party witnesses weigh against transfer:
`
`• At least nine inventors of prior art patents and publications—U.S. Patent Nos. 7,383,316;
`
`7,330,112; 6,853,849; 7,831,917; and 7,450,003 and Publication Nos. 2004/0148090 and
`
`2005/0228860—reside in the Northern District of California. See Opposition, ECF No. 49
`
`at 6.
`
`• Neil Seigel, who developed a “key piece of prior art” and submitted an expert report
`
`concerning that system in the T-Mobile Texas Case, resides in southern California. See id.
`
`at 7–8.
`
`• AGIS Software’s current damages expert, Jim Bergman, and source code expert, Dan
`
`Manheim, reside in southern California. See id. at 8.
`
`• AGIS Software’s source code expert, William Wong, resides in the Northern District of
`
`California. See id. at 8.
`
`The Court finds that this factor is neutral or somewhat in favor of transfer. AGIS, Inc.
`
`consultant Mr. Armstrong’s location in the Eastern District of Texas weighs in favor of transfer, and
`
`
`1 Lyft requests that the Court take judicial notice of Google results regarding flights between Denver
`and San Francisco, flights between Denver and Shreveport, driving distance between the San
`Francisco International Airport and the federal courthouse in San Francisco, and driving distance
`between the Shreveport Regional Airport and the federal courthouse in Marshall, Texas. See Taylor
`Decl., ECF No. 49-1, Exs. B–G; Opposition, ECF No. 49 at 7. AGIS Software does not oppose
`Lyft’s request. See Reply, ECF No. 50 at 1–2. The Court GRANTS Lyft’s request. See, e.g., United
`States v. Perea-Rey, 680 F.3d 1179, 1182 n.1 (9th Cir. 2012); Perkins v. LinkedIn Corp.,
`No. 13–CV–04303–LHK, 53 F.Supp.3d 1190, 1204 (N.D. Cal. June 12, 2014).
`9
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 74 Filed 03/14/22 Page 10 of 17
`
`
`
`the Court finds that Lyft has not adequately shown that he would be subject to this Court’s
`
`compulsory process. But the other third-party witnesses AGIS Software identifies have little impact
`
`on the transfer determination. Expert witnesses do not weigh heavily in the § 1404 inquiry, so the
`
`Court gives little weight to AGIS Software expert Mr. McAlexander’s location in the Eastern
`
`District of Texas. See Williams, 157 F.Supp.2d at 1108. And Lyft provides evidence that AGIS,
`
`Inc. consultant Mr. Rice is likely to have similar travel time whether the case is in the Northern
`
`District of California or the Eastern District of Texas, so the Court finds that Mr. Rice has no impact
`
`on the transfer determination. AGIS Software can only point to out-of-district cases that counsel
`
`otherwise. See Motion, ECF No. 34 at 8; Reply, ECF No. 50 at 2.
`
`Regarding the third-party witnesses Lyft identifies, the Court finds that they weigh slightly
`
`against transfer. While AGIS Software points to caselaw indicating that prior art inventor testimony
`
`has been found to be irrelevant to invalidity, the Court finds that it cannot say that such testimony
`
`is categorically irrelevant, particularly at this early stage in the case. See Eclipse IP LLC v.
`
`Volkswagen Grp. of Amer., Inc., No. EDCV 12–2087 PSG (SPx), 2013 WL 9935572, at *5
`
`(C.D. Cal. May 10, 2013) (“[T]he location of witnesses who would testify about prior art is relevant
`
`to a transfer motion when patent validity may be an issue at trial.”). AGIS Software argues that Lyft
`
`has not identified any witnesses who will not testify in the Eastern District of Texas, see Reply, ECF
`
`No. 50 at 4, but the same can be said of AGIS Software as to the Northern District of California.
`
`Accordingly, the Court confers some—although little—weight to the fact that several prior art
`
`inventors reside in the Northern District of California or elsewhere in the state. Otherwise, Lyft can
`
`only identify third-party AGIS Software experts that AGIS Software says are not involved in this
`
`case. See Reply, ECF No. 50 at 3.
`
`Accordingly, the Court finds that the relevant third-party witnesses are AGIS, Inc. consultant
`
`Mr. Armstrong, whose location in the Eastern District of Texas weighs in favor of transfer, and the
`
`prior art inventors, whose location in the Northern District of California weighs somewhat against
`
`transfer. Therefore, the Court concludes that the convenience for third-party witnesses factor is
`
`neutral or somewhat in favor of transfer.
`
`10
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 74 Filed 03/14/22 Page 11 of 17
`
`
`
`iv. Ease of Access to Sources of Proof
`
`The parties dispute whether ease of access to documentary evidence supports transferring
`
`the case. As part of the convenience inquiry under § 1404(a), courts consider the “relative ease of
`
`access to sources of proof.” Decker Coal, 805 F.2d at 843 (quoting Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert,
`
`330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947)).
`
`AGIS Software argues that since (1) it is incorporated and headquartered in the Eastern
`
`District of Texas, (2) sister entity AGIS maintains a data center in the Eastern District of Texas, and
`
`(3) AGIS consultant Mr. Armstrong lives and works in the Eastern District of Texas, access to
`
`relevant, tangible evidence is easier in Texas, including patents, corporate records, emails, and other
`
`documents. See Motion, ECF No. 34 at 9 (citing Reply, ECF No. 50, Ex. A, Beyer Decl. ¶ 8); Reply,
`
`ECF No. 50 at 4. Further, AGIS Software argues that this factor has “diminished importance,”
`
`because Lyft cannot identify sources of proof that cannot be transferred electronically. See Motion,
`
`ECF No. 34 at 8–9. In response, Lyft argues that in a patent infringement case, the predominant
`
`sources of proof are from the alleged infringer. See Opposition, ECF No. 49 at 8. Since Lyft is
`
`based in the Northern District of California, where the Accused Products were developed, and it has
`
`no regular established place of business in the Eastern District of Texas according to Judge Gilstrap,
`
`Lyft argues that the Northern District of California has the greater ease of access to the evidence.
`
`See id.
`
`The Court finds this factor weighs slightly against transfer. The bulk of sources of proof is
`
`likely to be located in the Northern District of California, since Lyft, the accused infringer, is
`
`headquartered there, and the Accused Products were developed there. See Apple Inc. v.
`
`VoIP-Pal.com, Inc., 506 F.Supp.3d 947, 959 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 2020) (finding it would be more
`
`efficient for case to be heard in transferor district where “a significant amount of evidence relevant
`
`to potentially infringing conduct is located in this district, where one of the Plaintiffs . . . is
`
`incorporated and has its principal place of business”); see also Genentech, 566 F.3d at 1345 (“In
`
`patent infringement cases, the bulk of the relevant evidence usually comes from the accused
`
`infringer. Consequently, the place where the [accused infringer’s] documents are kept weighs in
`
`favor of transfer to that location.”). But Courts generally find the ease of electronic transfer of
`
`11
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-04653-BLF Document 74 Filed 03/14/22 Page 12 of 17
`
`
`
`documents to attenuate the weight of this factor. See Hansell v. TracFone Wireless Inc.,
`
`No. C–13–3440–EMC, 2013 WL 6155618, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2013).
`
`Based on the above reasoning, the Court finds that the ease of access to sources of proof
`
`weighs slightly against transferring this case to the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`v. Cost of Litigation
`
`AGIS Software also argues that the difference in cost of litigation between California and
`
`Texas weighs in favor of transfer, because both parties should be prepared to litigate in either state
`
`and AGIS Software has identified specific relevant witnesses living outside of California. See
`
`Reply, ECF No. 50 at 4. Lyft does not specifically address the cost of litigation in its briefing, but
`
`there is substantial overlap between this issue and the convenience of the parties and their witnesses.
`
`Since both parties have identified witnesses living outside of both the Northern District of California
`
`and the Eastern District of Texas, and several witnesses will have to travel a significant distance
`
`regardless of which venue in which this case is tried, the Court finds that the cost of litigation is a
`
`neutral factor in the § 1404 inquiry. See Barnes & Noble, 823 F.Supp.2d at 994; Decker, 805 F.2d
`
`at 843.
`
`B. Public Interest Factors
`
`The Court next considers the “public interest” factors disputed by the parties. Atl. Marine,
`
`571 U.S. at 62 n.6. The parties dispute whether (1) the dismissal of AGIS Software’s case against
`
`Lyft in the Eastern District of Texas; (2) the interest in judicial economy; (3) the relevant districts’
`
`familiarity with the applicable law; (4) the interest in expeditious litigation; and (5) the relevant
`
`districts’ local interests in the controversy favor transfer to the Eastern District of Texas. The Court
`
`considers each factor in turn.
`
`i. Dismissal of Lyft Texas Case for Lack of Improper Venue
`
`The parties dispute whether Judge Gilstrap’s dismissal of AGIS Software’s case against Lyft
`
`in the Eastern District of Texas for improper venue weighs against transferring this case to the
`
`Eastern District of Texas. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404, “a district court may transfer any civil action to
`
`any other district or division where it might have been brought[.]”
`
`Lyft argues that it would be unjust to transfer this case to the Eastern District of Texas,
`
`12
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11