Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 13 Filed 05/16/16 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 581
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:16-cv-00290-SLR
`
`DECLARATION OF RAY CISNEROS IN SUPPORT OF
`DEFENDANT OMNIVISION TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S
`MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`I, Ray Cisneros, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`I am a resident of San Jose, California. I am over the age of eighteen (18) years.
`
`Based on my personal knowledge and investigation, I provide this declaration in
`
`support of OmniVision Technologies, Inc.’s (“OmniVision”) motion to transfer this action to the
`
`United States District Court for the Northern District of California and could competently testify
`
`to the facts hereto.
`
`3.
`
`I have been working at OmniVision in Santa Clara, California, since 2002, and I
`
`currently hold the position of Senior Vice President of Worldwide Sales and Sales Operations.
`
`My office is located at 4275 Burton Drive, Santa Clara, California. As the Senior Vice President
`
`of Worldwide Sales and Sales Operations, I am responsible for sales and for fulfillment of orders
`
`for OmniVision products.
`
`4.
`
`OmniVision is incorporated in the State of Delaware, with its headquarters and
`
`principal place of business at 4275 Burton Drive, Santa Clara, California, which is in the
`
`Northern District of California. Since I joined the company in 2002, OmniVision has always
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 13 Filed 05/16/16 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 582
`
`been located in the Northern District of California, now with over 400 employees in California.
`
`OmniVision’s headquarters are the strategic center of OmniVision’s business.
`
`5.
`
`As one of the managers at OmniVision, I have personal knowledge of
`
`OmniVision’s high level business plans and operations. The main operations of OmniVision
`
`involve designing and developing digital imaging products.
`
`6.
`
`OmniVision engages Original Equipment Manufacturers in Taiwan and China for
`
`manufacturing its image sensor products.
`
`7.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 1, on information and belief, is OmniVision’s 2015
`
`Annual Report showing that OmniVision outsources wafer fabrication and packaging of its
`
`image sensor products to third parties Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd.
`
`(“TSMC”) and Shanghai Huali Microelectronics Corporation (“HLMC”).
`
`8.
`
`According
`
`to
`
`information
`
`available
`
`at
`
`the
`
`online
`
`website
`
`http://wwvv.tsmc.com/english/aboutTSMC/business_contacts.htm,
`
`TSMC’s
`
`American
`
`subsidiary, TSMC North America, is located in San Jose, California.
`
`9.
`
`According
`
`to
`
`information
`
`available
`
`at
`
`the
`
`online websites
`
`http://www.huahong.com.cn/2011/en/About/ContactUs.aspx
`
`and
`
`http://www.hlmc.cn/en/ContactUs.aspx, on information and belief, the U.S. Office of HLMC is
`
`located in Fremont, California.
`
`10.
`
`I understand that Plaintiff Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1’s (“IP Bridge”) Complaint
`
`alleges infringement by OmniVision and certain OmniVision image sensors.
`
` I am
`
`knowledgeable about the location of persons with relevant technical knowledge about these
`
`products, as well as the location of persons with relevant business and financial information. I
`
`am knowledgeable about the location of documents and other evidence potentially relevant to
`
`this action. As discussed below, the Northern District of California is a significantly more
`
`convenient forum than this Court for OmniVision witnesses likely to testify in this action, and all
`
`relevant documents and evidence are accessible from OmniVision’s headquarters in the Northern
`
`District of California.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 13 Filed 05/16/16 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 583
`
`11.
`
`The design, development, and engineering of the image sensor products accused
`
`by IP Bridge takes place at OmniVision’s Santa Clara, California offices.
`
`12.
`
`The creation and dissemination of promotional and instructional materials related
`
`to the image sensor products accused by IP Bridge takes place at OmniVision’s Santa Clara,
`
`California offices.
`
`13.
`
`The finance and sales operations related to the image sensor products accused by
`
`IP Bridge takes place at OmniVision’s Santa Clara, California offices.
`
`14. Where they exist, OmniVision’s corporate documents likely to be relevant to this
`
`litigation, including any records pertaining to the research, development, design, manufacture,
`
`testing, support, and use of image sensor products, any records pertaining to its marketing and
`
`promotion of image sensor products, any records pertaining to any commercial relationships
`
`concerning image sensor products, and any records pertaining to the sale, offer for sale, and
`
`importation into the United States of and profits from image sensor products, are located at
`
`OmniVision’s Santa Clara, California offices.
`
`15.
`
`OmniVision witnesses likely to testify regarding OmniVision’s knowledge of the
`
`information recorded in its documents work at OmniVision’s Santa Clara, California offices. No
`
`known witnesses are located in Delaware.
`
`16.
`
`OmniVision witnesses likely to testify regarding OmniVision’s knowledge of any
`
`research, development, design, manufacture, testing, marketing, use, support, sale, offer for sale,
`
`and importation into the United States of any image sensor products work at OmniVision’s Santa
`
`Clara, California offices. No known witnesses are located in Delaware.
`
`17.
`
`Former OmniVision employees that worked at OmniVision’s Santa Clara,
`
`California, offices may have relevant information because of their involvement in the
`
`development of the accused OmniVision image sensor products and prior art products.
`
`18.
`
`Any OmniVision officers and managers responsible for any manufacture, use,
`
`sale, offer for sale, and importation into the United States of any image sensor products live
`
`outside the District of Delaware.
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 13 Filed 05/16/16 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 584
`Case 1:16-cv-00290-MN Document 13 Filed 05/16/16 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 584
`
`19.
`
`If this case proceeds in the District of Delaware, the travel time and costs for
`
`OmniVision witnesses traveling from the vicinity of Santa Clara, California, will be far more
`
`burdensome than if the case were to proceed in the Northern District of California. Numerous
`
`OmniVision employee-witnesses would be forced to incur major travel expenses and would
`
`suffer from lost productivity due to the extended travel required.
`
`20.
`
`OmniVision’s computers and servers are either located in, or can be most easily
`
`accessed from OmniVision’s Santa Clara, California offices.
`
`21.
`
`OmniVision does not have any offices or business locations in the District of
`
`Delaware.
`
`22.
`
`23.
`
`OmniVision does not have any employees in the District of Delaware.
`
`OmniVision does not own or lease property or otherwise own any assets in the
`
`District of Delaware.
`
`24.
`
`OmniVision does not have any resellers or distributors located in the District of
`
`Delaware.
`
`25.
`
`OmniVision maintains no documents in the District of Delaware.
`
`26.
`
`No OmniVision image sensor products are designed or manufactured in the
`
`District of Delaware.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is
`
`true and correct.
`
`Executed at Santa Clara, California, on May 1_1_, 2016.
`
`
`
`11
`
`