Case 1:22-cv-00304-RGA-JLH Document 37 Filed 12/06/22 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 1538
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`C.A. No. 22-304 (RGA)
`
`
`
`
`ROBOCAST, INC.
`a Delaware corporation,
`
`
`
`
`
`YOUTUBE, LLC, a Delaware limited
`liability company; and GOOGLE LLC,
`a Delaware limited liability company,
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THEIR
`MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Jordan R. Jaffe
`Amy H. Candido
`Catherine Lacey
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI,
`P.C.
`One Market Plaza, Suite 330
`San Francisco, CA 94105-1126
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Frederick L. Cottrell, III (#2555)
`Griffin A. Schoenbaum (#6915)
`RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.
`One Rodney Square
`920 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 651-7700
`cottrell@rlf.com
`schoenbaum@rlf.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants YouTube, LLC and
`Google LLC
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00304-RGA-JLH Document 37 Filed 12/06/22 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 1539
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`THE PRIVATE INTEREST FACTORS STRONGLY FAVOR TRANSFER .................. 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Robocast Incorrectly Treats Its Choice of Forum as Dispositive ........................... 1
`
`Defendants’ Preference to Litigate on Their Home Turf Should be Granted
`Substantial Weight .................................................................................................. 3
`
`Robocast’s Patent Infringement Claims Arose in the Northern District of
`California ................................................................................................................ 3
`
`The Northern District of California is More Convenient ........................................ 4
`
`Robocast Fails to Refute That Certain Witnesses Can Be Subpoenaed in
`the Northern District but not in Delaware............................................................... 5
`
`The Relevant Books and Records are Located in the Northern District of
`California ................................................................................................................ 6
`
`II.
`
`THE PUBLIC INTEREST FACTORS STRONGLY FAVOR TRANSFER .................... 7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Practical Considerations Favor the Northern District of California ....................... 7
`
`Court Congestion Favors Transfer .......................................................................... 9
`
`Robocast Fails to Rebut the Northern District’s Local Interest in the
`Litigation ............................................................................................................... 10
`
`Public Policy Is Neutral ........................................................................................ 10
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 10
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00304-RGA-JLH Document 37 Filed 12/06/22 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 1540
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Affymetrix, Inc. v. Synteni, Inc.,
`28 F. Supp. 2d 192 (D. Del. 1998) .......................................................................................2
`Applied Predictive Techs., Inc. v. MarketDial, Inc.,
`C.A. No. 18-963-CFC, 2019 WL 274524 (D. Del. July 1, 2019) ........................................3
`Audatex N. Am., Inc. v. Mitchell Int’l, Inc.,
`C.A. No. 12-139-GMS, 2013 WL 3293611 (D. Del. June 28, 2013) ..................................1
`Cisco Sys., Inc. Ramot at Tel Aviv University, Ltd., C.A. No. 21-1365-GBW, 2022
`WL 16921988 (D. Del. Nov. 14, 2022) ...............................................................................9
`Express Mobile, Inc. v. Web.com Grp., Inc.,
`C.A. No. 19-1936-RGA, 2020 WL 3971776 (D. Del. July 14, 2020) .................................4
`Gen. Sci. Corp. v. Den-Mat Holdings, LLC,
`2021 WL 4622548 (D. Del. Oct. 7, 2021) .........................................................................10
`Illumina, Inc. v. Complete Genomics, Inc.,
`C.A. No. 10-649, 2010 WL 4818083 (D. Del. Nov. 9, 2010) .............................................5
`In re DISH Network L.L.C.,
`No. 2021-182, 2021 WL 4911981 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 21, 2021)...............................................8
`In re Genentech, Inc.,
`566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009)............................................................................................7
`In re Google LLC,
`No. 2022-140, 2022 WL 1613192 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2022) ..............................................8
`In re Hoffman-La Roche Inc.,
`587 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..........................................................................................10
`In re Link_A_Media Devices Corp.,
`662 F.3d 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2011)........................................................................................1, 4
`In re Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.,
`2 F.4th 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ..............................................................................................8
`In re Toyota Motor Corp.,
`747 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2014)............................................................................................8
`In re Vistaprint Ltd.,
`628 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 15, 2010) .........................................................................8, 9
`In re Zimmer Holdings, Inc.,
`609 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2010)............................................................................................8
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00304-RGA-JLH Document 37 Filed 12/06/22 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 1541
`
`
`
`
`Linex Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`C.A. No. 2013 WL 105323 (D. Del. Jan. 7, 2013) ..............................................................4
`Microsoft Corp. v. Geotag Inc.,
`847 F. Supp. 2d 675 (D. Del. 2012) .................................................................................4, 9
`MoneyCat Ltd. v. PayPal Inc.,
`C.A. No. 13-1358, 2014 WL 2042699 (D. Del. May 15, 2014) ..........................................7
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v. Lattice Semiconductor Corp.,
`126 F. Supp. 3d 430 (D. Del. 2015) ...............................................................................3, 10
`Robocast, Inc. v. Netflix, Inc.,
`C.A. No. 22-305 (RGA) ...................................................................................................7, 9
`Signal Tech, LLC v. Analog Devices, Inc.,
`Civil Action No. 11-1073-RGA, 2012 WL 1134723 (D. Del. Apr. 3, 2012) ......................8
`Symantec Corp. v. Zscaler, Inc.,
`2017 WL 3262246 (D. Del. July 31, 2017) .......................................................................10
`Teleconference Sys. v. Proctor & Gamble Pharm., Inc.,
`676 F. Supp. 2d 321 (D. Del. 2009) .................................................................................6, 9
`Wacoh Co. v. Kionix Inc.,
`845 F. Supp. 2d 597 (D. Del. 2012) .................................................................................6, 8
`Williamson v. Google Inc.,
`C.A. No. 12-216-GMS, 2015 WL 13311284 (D. Del. Mar. 2, 2015)..................................5
`MISCELLANEOUS
`15 Wright, Miller & Cooper, Fed. Prac. & Proc. Juris. § 3848 (2d ed. 1986) .................................2
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00304-RGA-JLH Document 37 Filed 12/06/22 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 1542
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Robocast, Inc. (“Plaintiff” or “Robocast”) fails to rebut Defendants’ YouTube,
`
`LLC and Google LLC’s (collectively, “Defendants”) showing (D.I. 24) that transfer of this action
`
`to the Northern District of California is appropriate. It is undisputed there are no witnesses or
`
`evidence in this District. Unable to contest these facts, Robocast relies primarily on its choice to
`
`sue multiple defendants in this forum and the parties’ incorporation here as effectively dispositive.
`
`But neither changes the transfer calculus under Federal Circuit law. Robocast’s additional
`
`statements about its own evidence and witnesses are misleading at best and support transfer even
`
`if considered. Unmentioned in Robocast’s opposition is that Robocast’s “principal office” is in
`
`Idaho—not New York. Idaho is also where its CEO and the sole inventor of the Patents-in-Suit
`
`resides. Idaho is of course closer to California than Delaware, negating Robocast’s arguments
`
`about its alleged proximity to Delaware. Transfer is appropriate.
`
`I.
`
`THE PRIVATE INTEREST FACTORS STRONGLY FAVOR TRANSFER
`
`A.
`
`Robocast’s Choice of Forum Does Not Outweigh Defendants’ Showing that
`Transfer is Appropriate
`
`Robocast incorrectly treats its choice of forum as dispositive, despite the Federal Circuit’s
`
`guidance that doing so is a “fundamental error.” In re Link_A_Media Devices Corp., 662 F.3d
`
`1221, 1223 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (noting that the “district court’s fundamental error was making
`
`[plaintiff’s] choice of forum and the fact of [defendant’s] incorporation in Delaware effectively
`
`dispositive”). Indeed, numerous decisions from courts in this District reduce the weight given to
`
`this factor when, as here, it reflects a mere litigation choice, rather than a plaintiff’s active
`
`participation in the Delaware business community. This includes cases, like this one, brought by
`
`a Delaware corporation. See, e.g., Audatex N. Am., Inc. v. Mitchell Int’l, Inc., C.A. No. 12-139-
`
`GMS, 2013 WL 3293611, at *2-3 (D. Del. June 28, 2013). Moreover, labeling a factor
`
`“paramount” does not imply it outweighs other considerations, but instead represents “an attempt
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00304-RGA-JLH Document 37 Filed 12/06/22 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 1543
`
`
`to verbalize the burden that defendants must carry in order to persuade the court that transfer should
`
`
`
`be granted.” Affymetrix, Inc. v. Synteni, Inc., 28 F. Supp. 2d 192, 197-98 (D. Del. 1998) (quoting
`
`15 Wright, Miller & Cooper, Fed. Prac. & Proc. Juris. § 3848, at 383 (2d ed. 1986)). Defendants
`
`have met this burden here as the Jumara factors weigh strongly in favor of transfer. See generally
`
`D.I. 24; see also infra Sections I.B-I.F, II.A-II.D.
`
`To be clear, Robocast does not contend that it has any presence in or connection to
`
`Delaware beyond its incorporation and strategic litigation choices. In light of these minimal
`
`connections to this District, Robocast attempts to tie itself to New York City or “the Northeast,”
`
`and in turn tie that location to this District via its “reasonable proximity to Delaware.” D.I. 32 at
`
`7-8. Robocast fails to cite any authority that witnesses or evidence outside this District but
`
`“reasonably” proximate turn a company based elsewhere into one based in Delaware for purposes
`
`of having brought suit on its “home turf” for this factor.
`
`Even if considered, Robocast’s proffered evidence of its location, witnesses, and
`
`documents appears suspect at best. Robocast states it “has been historically headquartered in New
`
`York City” but omits any time frame for that “history” or where Robocast is currently
`
`headquartered. Robocast’s business registration in New York lapsed in 2003. Ex. A. Further, a
`
`May 2022 filing with the Idaho Secretary of State lists Robocast’s “principal office” as in Idaho,
`
`not New York. See Ex. B. While Robocast has two employees that reside in New York and New
`
`Jersey, half of Robocast’s four employees, including its CEO and VP of operations, reside in Idaho.
`
`None reside in Delaware. See D.I. 33, ¶¶ 4, 8. Idaho is significantly closer to the Northern District
`
`of California than to Delaware.
`
`Mr. Torres contends Robocast “has no physical office or other physical presence in Idaho”
`
`but does not identify any such presence in New York, either; only a mailing address. Torres Decl.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00304-RGA-JLH Document 37 Filed 12/06/22 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 1544
`
`
`¶ 4. Mr. Torres’ declaration also refers to “corporate documents” and documents “from the Prior
`
`
`
`Related Cases” being maintained in New York and Connecticut. Id. ¶¶ 3, 12-13. However, (1)
`
`this is still not evidence maintained in this District, and (2) the “maintenance” of this evidence is
`
`apparently by Robocast’s counsel, largely, and untethered to any ongoing operations or operational
`
`employees, and therefore appears to be little more than another litigation choice. See id.
`
`Robocast’s proximity argument does nothing to help its case. All Robocast employees
`
`would need to travel for the litigation, with half residing closer to California than Delaware.
`
`Robocast fails to establish that its choice to litigate in this District is anything more than another
`
`in a series of litigation choices. It is thus entitled to no more weight than the ordinary burden to
`
`show transfer is warranted, which Defendants have more than met.
`
`B.
`
`Defendants’ Preference to Litigate on Their Home Turf Should be Granted
`Substantial Weight
`
` Unlike Robocast, the “rational, legitimate reasons” Defendants have articulated “to
`
`support [their] preferences” actually bear on fairness, efficiency, and convenience. Papst
`
`Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v. Lattice Semiconductor Corp., 126 F. Supp. 3d 430, 438 (D. Del.
`
`2015). Not only did Defendants design and develop the accused technology in the Northern
`
`District of California, the bulk of the relevant witnesses and evidence are there, while none are
`
`located in Delaware. Given the rational and legitimate reasons Defendants have for wanting to
`
`litigate in the Northern District of California, this factor weighs in favor of transfer.
`
`C.
`
`Robocast’s Patent Infringement Claims Arose in the Northern District of
`California
`
`Although Robocast argues that Defendants’ infringement is nationwide, it offers no
`
`persuasive reason to depart from the well-developed precedent that, in patent litigation, this factor
`
`“typically focuses on the location of the production, design and manufacture of the accused
`
`instrumentalities.” Papst, 126 F. Supp. 3d at 439; see also Applied Predictive Techs., Inc. v.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00304-RGA-JLH Document 37 Filed 12/06/22 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 1545
`
`
`MarketDial, Inc., C.A. No. 18-963-CFC, 2019 WL 274524, at *4 (D. Del. July 1, 2019) (“The
`
`
`
`connection between those [research and development] efforts and the District of Utah favors
`
`transfer.”); Linex Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., C.A. No. 2013 WL 105323, at *3-4 (D. Del.
`
`Jan. 7, 2013) (“[I]nfringement claims have even deeper roots in the forum where the accused
`
`products were developed.”). Here, Robocast does not—and cannot—dispute that the design and
`
`the development of accused products largely occurred in the Northern District of California, not
`
`Delaware. This factor weighs in favor of transfer.
`
`D.
`
`The Northern District of California is More Convenient
`
`Although Defendants are organized under Delaware law and are large corporations,
`
`transfer remains warranted. D.I. 32 at 12-13. First, the Federal Circuit has held that “heavy
`
`reliance” on a defendant’s place of incorporation is “inappropriate.” Link_A_Media, 662 at F.3d
`
`at 1223-24. Second, even if Defendants have the financial capability to litigate in Delaware, it is
`
`contrary to section 1404(a)’s plain meaning to disregard the inconvenience to Defendants simply
`
`because they have the means to litigate here. See Express Mobile, Inc. v. Web.com Grp., Inc., C.A.
`
`No. 19-1936-RGA, 2020 WL 3971776, at *3 (D. Del. July 14, 2020) (finding factor weighed in
`
`favor of transfer even though defendant had the “capability of litigating in Delaware” because “[i]t
`
`is unreasonable to subject all parties to an inconvenient forum when a forum exists that would
`
`significantly reduce the burden of at least one of the parties”).1
`
`Robocast argues that litigating in California would be inconvenient, but again does so with
`
`misleading rhetoric. It states that “Robocast’s operations employees, counsel, and documents are
`
`
`1 Robocast contends that the fact that Google previously brought suit in this District against a
`Delaware corporation headquartered in Texas undermines Google’s arguments. But the Northern
`District of California did not have personal jurisdiction over the defendant in that case and thus
`was unavailable. Microsoft Corp. v. Geotag Inc., 847 F. Supp. 2d 675, 677-78 (D. Del. 2012).
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00304-RGA-JLH Document 37 Filed 12/06/22 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 1546
`
`
`primarily located on the East Coast, not far from Delaware.” Yet Robocast’s “principal office” is
`
`
`
`in Idaho, as is its CEO and the VP of Operations, comprising half of its employees. Both
`
`Defendants and Robocast thus will have to travel to Delaware, whereas the Northern District of
`
`California only requires travel for Robocast. Idaho is significantly closer to California than it is
`
`Delaware. This factor weighs in favor of transfer.
`
`E.
`
`Robocast Fails to Refute That Certain Witnesses Can Be Subpoenaed in the
`Northern District but not in Delaware
`
`Defendants have identified numerous relevant third-party fact witnesses who may not
`
`voluntarily appear and cannot be compelled to do so by subpoena in this District, but who do fall
`
`within the subpoena power of the Northern District of California. See D.I. 24 at 10-11; cf.
`
`Williamson v. Google Inc., C.A. No. 12-216-GMS, 2015 WL 13311284, at *2 (D. Del. Mar. 2,
`
`2015) (there is “some reason to believe” that any witness unaffiliated with a party may refuse to
`
`testify absent a subpoena). Although Robocast downplays the relevance of the third-party
`
`witnesses Defendants identify in the Northern District of California, Robocast does not dispute the
`
`relevance or importance of any of these witnesses, which includes two prior artists named on key
`
`art from Robocast’s previous suits against Apple and Microsoft, former employees of Defendants
`
`who may be knowledgeable about the design and operation of the accused products during the
`
`terms of the long-expired Patents-in-Suit, and third-party Apple and its employees likely to have
`
`knowledge relevant to damages from the settlement of the prior suit. See D.I. 24 at 10-11.
`
`Additionally, courts in this District have recognized the importance of these witnesses and
`
`how their location can favor transfer. For example, courts have noted that prior art witnesses can
`
`be key material witnesses whose location favors transfer. See Illumina, Inc. v. Complete
`
`Genomics, Inc., C.A. No. 10-649, 2010 WL 4818083, at *4 (D. Del. Nov. 9, 2010). Furthermore,
`
`the identification of additional material witnesses will likely only increase the weight of this factor
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00304-RGA-JLH Document 37 Filed 12/06/22 Page 10 of 15 PageID #: 1547
`
`
`in favor of transfer, given that Defendants and the other third parties have been based in Northern
`
`
`
`California at all relevant times. Wacoh Co. v. Kionix Inc., 845 F. Supp. 2d 597, 602-03 (D. Del.
`
`2012) (likely presence of former employees favors transfer to District containing parties’
`
`headquarters).
`
`In contrast, Robocast identifies no relevant witnesses in Delaware. “The fact that plaintiff
`
`has not identified a single material witness who resides in Delaware rather than California is telling
`
`and weighs in favor of transfer.” Teleconference Sys. v. Proctor & Gamble Pharm., Inc., 676 F.
`
`Supp. 2d 321, 333 (D. Del. 2009).2 Instead, Robocast identifies its own employees and its
`
`prosecution counsel, none of whom resides in Delaware. Regarding its employees, Robocast itself
`
`argues that “witnesses who are employed by a party carry no weight because each party is able,
`
`indeed, obligated to procure the attendance of its own employees for trial.” D.I. 32 at 14 (internal
`
`quotation marks omitted). If Robocast is correct, its employees’ location is irrelevant for this
`
`factor. Additionally, although Robocast identifies its prosecution counsel in New York City, it
`
`ignores that they too are outside this Court’s subpoena power.3
`
`Because almost all of the identified third parties are located within the Northern District of
`
`California and are thus subject to the subpoena power of that court and are less likely to incur
`
`significant expenses there, this factor weighs strongly in favor of transfer.
`
`F.
`
`The Relevant Books and Records are Located in the Northern District of
`California
`
` It is undisputed there is no relevant evidence in Delaware. See D.I. 32 at 16. By contrast,
`
`Defendants have noted that all or nearly all of the relevant documents, including highly proprietary
`
`
`2 Google’s opening brief did not discuss its current employees under this factor, so it is unclear
`what, if anything, Robocast’s argument was meant to address. Robocast does not dispute former
`employees are relevant under this factor, and current employees are relevant under other factors.
`3 The distance between the courthouse in this District and New York City, New York is
`approximately 123 miles according to Google Maps.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00304-RGA-JLH Document 37 Filed 12/06/22 Page 11 of 15 PageID #: 1548
`
`
`information and source code, were created and are maintained by teams located in the Northern
`
`
`
`District of California. See D.I. 22, ¶¶ 3-6. Although Robocast argues that this factor “disfavors
`
`transfer” because its documents are located on the East Coast, see D.I. 32 at 16, Robocast ignores
`
`that it is primarily Defendants’ documents that are relevant to its infringement claims. In re
`
`Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“In patent infringement cases, the bulk of
`
`relevant evidence usually comes from the accused infringer.”). “Because “[e]fficiency favors
`
`transferring a case to the location where the vast majority of relevant records are to be found,” this
`
`factor favors transfer. MoneyCat Ltd. v. PayPal Inc., C.A. No. 13-1358, 2014 WL 2042699, at *6
`
`(D. Del. May 15, 2014) (“[Defendant] is likely to be the party producing the bulk of documents
`
`and records in this case, and that it would be more convenient for it to litigate this case near its
`
`headquarters than on the East Coast”).
`
`II.
`
`THE PUBLIC INTEREST FACTORS STRONGLY FAVOR TRANSFER
`
`A.
`
`Practical Considerations Favor the Northern District of California
`
`Robocast’s opposition for this factor focuses on this Court’s previous experience with one
`
`of the asserted patents and a pending case involving the asserted patents, Robocast, Inc. v. Netflix,
`
`Inc., C.A. No. 22-305 (RGA), in this district. See D.I. 32 at 18-19. Robocast gives undue emphasis
`
`to its allegations of infringement against other parties. This case is separate and factually different
`
`from the prior cases, which concluded over eight years ago and only involved one of the three
`
`Patents-in-Suit. All three involve separate accused products developed by unrelated defendants.
`
`Robocast has not identified any common products, “technology,” or “overlap” other than the
`
`patent(s) asserted between these cases.4
`
`
`4 Robocast contends, without any analysis and citing 25 pages of text, that “YouTube’s website
`is substantially similar to Microsoft’s previously accused websites in material respects.” D.I. 32
`fn.3. This unsupported allegation that a years-old website operated by a different company is
`“substantially similar” to unidentified functionality in Google’s products is entitled to no weight.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00304-RGA-JLH Document 37 Filed 12/06/22 Page 12 of 15 PageID #: 1549
`
`
`
`
`
`Nor has Robocast rebutted that the Federal Circuit has routinely held that “just because a
`
`patent is litigated in a particular forum does not mean the patent owner will necessarily have a free
`
`pass to maintain all future litigation involving that patent in that forum.” See, e.g., In re Google
`
`LLC, No. 2022-140, 2022 WL 1613192, at *4 (Fed. Cir. May 23, 2022) (quoting In re Vistaprint
`
`Ltd., 628 F.3d 1342, 1344-46 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 15, 2010) and directing district court to transfer); In
`
`re Toyota Motor Corp., 747 F.3d 1338, 1340–41 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (ordering transfer despite the
`
`presence of co-pending litigation in the transferor district).
`
`Where, as here, “several of the most important factors . . . in this case strongly favor the
`
`transferee court,” transfer should be granted regardless of patentee’s “co-pending suits” in this
`
`District “involv[ing] different defendants with different hardware and software.” In re DISH
`
`Network L.L.C., No. 2021-182, 2021 WL 4911981, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 21, 2021) (directing
`
`district court to grant transfer motion); see also In re Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 2 F.4th 1371, 1375
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2021) (finding district court erred in denying transfer where district court had relied on,
`
`inter alia, “that at least one of the co-pending cases will remain in this District”); In re Zimmer
`
`Holdings, Inc., 609 F.3d 1378, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (granting mandamus in “light of the
`
`substantial conveniences in trying this case in the [transferee forum], the limited relationship
`
`between this case and [patentee’s] other pending suit in the [transferor forum] and because the
`
`only connection between this case and the plaintiff's chosen forum is a legal fiction”).
`
`This Court has also granted transfer based on other factors regardless of the fact that the
`
`patentee has sued two different defendants in this District for infringement of the same patent. See
`
`Signal Tech, LLC v. Analog Devices, Inc., Civil Action No. 11-1073-RGA, 2012 WL 1134723, at
`
`*4 (D. Del. Apr. 3, 2012) (granting transfer despite that, absent transfer, the two cases “would have
`
`been handled by one judge, perhaps with some efficiencies”); see also Wacoh Co. v. Kionix Inc.,
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00304-RGA-JLH Document 37 Filed 12/06/22 Page 13 of 15 PageID #: 1550
`
`
`845 F. Supp. 2d 597, 604 (D. Del. 2012) (severing and transferring suits involving related patents).
`
`
`
`Robocast has not identified any reason why this case must be heard in the same forum as
`
`Robocast’s Netflix, Apple, or Microsoft cases other than that one or more of the same patents is
`
`asserted—a proposition that has been rejected as insufficient by the Federal Circuit and this Court.
`
`Robocast’s case is even less compelling because the Netflix action is in its infancy, and the Apple
`
`and Microsoft cases concluded more than eight years ago. Any consideration of judicial economy
`
`from considering the same patents in the same forum is dwarfed by the other Section 1404 factors.
`
`The only case Robocast argues is analogous on this issue is nothing of the sort. Robocast
`
`argues Vistaprint is “more analogous to this case” than the cases cited by Google (Opp. at 18 fn.
`
`14), but in that case, it was clearly stated that “no defendant party is actually located in the
`
`transferee venue and the presence of the witnesses in that location is not overwhelming.”
`
`Vistaprint, 628 F.3d at 1346–47 (emphasis added). Here, Defendants are located in the Northern
`
`District of California, the relevant witnesses are predominantly based there, the relevant evidence
`
`was created and is maintained there, and Robocast has identified no evidence or witnesses in this
`
`District. There is no factual or legal basis for judicial economy considerations to outweigh these
`
`considerations. See Teleconference Sys. v. Proctor & Gamble Pharm., Inc., 676 F. Supp. 2d 321,
`
`335 (D. Del. 2009). This factor favors transfer.
`
`B.
`
`Court Congestion Favors Transfer
`
`Although Robocast argues that the Judicial Caseload Profile statistics show that this
`
`District is less congested than the Northern District of California, see D.I. 32 at 19-20, Robocast
`
`ignores that this District has significantly more weighted filings (873) per judgeship than the
`
`Northern District of California (699). See D.I. 25, Ex. 6. Courts in this District have consistently
`
`held that the amount of weighted filings in Delaware compared to the amount in the proposed
`
`transferee district weighs in favor of transfer. See, e.g., Cisco Sys., Inc. Ramot at Tel Aviv
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00304-RGA-JLH Document 37 Filed 12/06/22 Page 14 of 15 PageID #: 1551
`
`
`University, Ltd., C.A. No. 21-1365-GBW, 2022 WL 16921988, at *7 (D. Del. Nov. 14, 2022)
`
`
`
`(finding factor weighed in favor of transfer based on comparison of amount of weighted filings);
`
`Gen. Sci. Corp. v. Den-Mat Holdings, LLC, 2021 WL 4622548, at *3 (D. Del. Oct. 7, 2021) (same).
`
`C.
`
`Robocast Fails to Rebut the Northern District’s Local Interest in the Litigation
`
`Robocast offers no argument to suggest that this District has a particularized interest in this
`
`case, instead focusing on the parties being Delaware entities. See D.I. 32 at 20. But this amounts
`
`to no more than a generic interest in the litigation. The Northern District of California’s interest,
`
`however, can be tied to the specific facts of this case. Not only were the accused products designed
`
`and developed in the Northern District, Robocast’s willful infringement claim for the ’451 patent
`
`specifically “calls into question the work and reputation of several individuals residing” in the
`
`Northern District of California. See In re Hoffman-La Roche Inc., 587 F.3d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2009); Papst, 126 F. Supp. 3d at 445. This factor favors transfer.
`
`D.
`
`Public Policy Is Neutral
`
`Although Robocast argues that “[p]ublic policy encourages Delaware as a forum to resolve
`
`disputes between Delaware corporations,” see D.I. 32 at 20, courts have treated this factor as
`
`neutral when the litigation includes federal patent claims as it does here. See Symantec Corp. v.
`
`Zscaler, Inc., 2017 WL 3262246, at *5 (D. Del. July 31, 2017). This factor is neutral.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court transfer this
`
`action to the Northern District of California.
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cv-00304-RGA-JLH Document 37 Filed 12/06/22 Page 15 of 15 PageID #: 1552
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Jordan R. Jaffe
`Amy H. Candido
`Catherine Lacey
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI,
`P.C.
`One Market Plaza, Suite 330
`San Francisco, CA 94105-1126
`
`
`
`December 6, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Griffin A. Schoenbaum
`Frederick L. Cottrell, III (#2555)
`Griffin A. Schoenbaum (#6915)
`RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.
`One Rodney Square
`920 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 651-7700
`cottrell@rlf.com
`schoenbaum@rlf.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants YouTube, LLC and
`Google LLC
`
`11
`
`