Case 1:15-cv-04219-TWT Document 107-2 Filed 06/09/17 Page 1 of 28
`Case 1:15-cv—04219-TWT Document 107-2 Filed 06/09/17 Page 1 of 28
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-04219-TWT Document 107-2 Filed 06/09/17 Page 2 of 28
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
`ATLANTA DIVISION
`
`IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`VALVE CORPORATION,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-04219-TWT
`
`DEFENDANT VALVE CORPORATION’S MOTION TO TRANSFER
`IN LIGHT OF TC HEARTLAND
`
`Defendant Valve Corporation (“Valve”) respectfully moves the Court,
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), for an order transferring this case to the Western
`
`District of Washington. Valve also seeks the Court’s leave to file an amended
`
`Answer, to the extent the Court deems it necessary.
`
`In support of this Motion,
`
`Valve relies upon the accompanying Memorandum of Law and the Declaration of
`
`Scott Lynch filed herewith.
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-04219-TWT Document 107-2 Filed 06/09/17 Page 3 of 28
`
`Dated: June 9, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Tanya L. Chaney
`Patrick A. Lujin
`MO Bar No. 41392 (Pro Hac Vice)
`B. Trent Webb
`MO Bar No. 40778 (Pro Hac Vice)
`Mark D. Schafer
`MO Bar No. 67197 (Pro Hac Vice)
`SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
`2555 Grand Boulevard
`Kansas City, Missouri 64108
`Telephone: (816) 474-6550
`
`Tanya L. Chaney
`TX Bar No. 24036375 (Pro Hac Vice)
`SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
`600 Travis Street, Suite 3400
`Houston, Texas 77002
`Telephone: (713) 227-8008
`
`By: /s/ Ann Fort
`Thomas W. Curvin
`GA Bar No. 202740
`Ann G. Fort
`GA Bar No. 269995
`EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP
`999 Peachtree Street N.E. Suite 2300
`Atlanta, GA 30309
`Telephone: (404) 853-8000
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`VALVE CORPORATION
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-04219-TWT Document 107-2 Filed 06/09/17 Page 4 of 28
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on June 9, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing
`
`DEFENDANT VALVE CORPORATION’S MOTION TO TRANSFER IN
`
`LIGHT OF TC HEARTLAND with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system
`
`which will automatically send email notification of such filing to the following
`
`attorneys of record:
`
`Cynthia R. Parks, GA Bar No. 563929
`Parks IP Law LLC
`730 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 600
`Atlanta, GA 30308
`Telephone: (678) 365-4444
`Facsimile: (678) 365-4450
`
`Robert D. Becker, CA Bar No. 160648 (Pro Hac Vice)
`Manatt, Phelps & Phillips LLP-CA
`1841 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Telephone: (650) 812-1300
`
`By: /s/ Tanya L. Chaney
`Tanya L. Chaney
`TX Bar No. 24036375 (Pro Hac Vice)
`SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
`600 Travis Street, Suite 3400
`Houston, Texas 77002
`Telephone: (713) 227-8008
`
`Attorney for Defendant
`VALVE CORPORATION
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-04219-TWT Document 107-2 Filed 06/09/17 Page 5 of 28
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
`ATLANTA DIVISION
`
`IRONBURG INVENTIONS LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`VALVE CORPORATION,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-04219-TWT
`
`DEFENDANT VALVE CORPORATION’S
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TRANSFER IN LIGHT
`OF TC HEARTLAND
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-04219-TWT Document 107-2 Filed 06/09/17 Page 6 of 28
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`
`FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND......................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Valve Is a Washington Corporation with Its Principal Place of
`Business in Bellevue, Washington....................................................... 3
`
`Valve Has Not Waived Its Right to Challenge Venue
`Throughout Preliminary Motion Practice and Amended
`Pleadings. ............................................................................................. 4
`
`III. ARGUMENT.................................................................................................. 4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Venue is Improper in This District Under TC Heartland,
`Requiring Transfer. .............................................................................. 4
`
`Valve Has Not Waived Its Right to Challenge Venue......................... 6
`
`Valve Properly Preserved Its Venue Defense. ................................... 10
`
`Valve Should Be Granted Leave to Amend Its Answer If
`Necessary To Bring Its Venue Averments Into Line With
`Intervening Supreme Court Precedent. .............................................. 12
`
`IV. CONCLUSION............................................................................................. 13
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-04219-TWT Document 107-2 Filed 06/09/17 Page 7 of 28
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`7 W. 57th St. Realty Co., LLC v. Citigroup, Inc.,
`No. 13-981, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44031 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31,
`2015) .....................................................................................................................9
`
`Brown v. Regions Mortg. Corp.,
`No. 11-3716, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192550 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 30,
`2012) ...................................................................................................................11
`
`Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh,
`864 F.2d 804 (D.C. Cir. 1988)..............................................................................9
`
`Clearasite Headwear, Inc. v. Paramount Cap Mfg. Co.,
`204 F. Supp. 4 (S.D.N.Y. 1962) ...........................................................................6
`
`Cont’l Cas. Co. v. Goldline Int’l, Inc.,
`No. 12-8658, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195746 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 30,
`2014) ...................................................................................................................13
`
`Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. W. Conference of Teamsters Pension Tr. Fund,
`722 F. Supp. 725 (N.D. Ga. 1989)......................................................................11
`
`Eames v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.,
`No. 04-1324, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61706 (D. Del. Aug. 29,
`2006) .....................................................................................................................9
`
`Engel v. CBS, Inc.,
`886 F. Supp. 728 (C.D. Cal. 1995) .......................................................................7
`
`Fed. Election Comm’n v. Legi-Tech,
`75 F.3d 704 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 16, 1996)................................................................12
`
`Hassan v. U.S. Postal Serv.,
`842 F.2d 260 (11th Cir. Fla. 1988) ...............................................................10, 11
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-04219-TWT Document 107-2 Filed 06/09/17 Page 8 of 28
`
`Holzsager v. Valley Hosp.,
`646 F.2d 792 (2d Cir. 1981) .........................................................................6, 8, 9
`
`In re Rawson Food Service, Inc.,
`846 F.2d 1343 (11th Cir. 1988) ..........................................................................11
`
`In re TC Heartland LLC,
`821 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir.), rev’d and remanded sub nom. TC
`Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC, 197 L. Ed. 2d
`816 (U.S. May 22, 2017) ......................................................................................7
`
`Johnson Gas Appliance Co. v. VE Holding Corp.,
`499 U.S. 922 (1991)..............................................................................................7
`
`Kuithe v. Gulf Caribe Mar., Inc.,
`No. 08-458, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91678 (S.D. Ala. Sept. 29,
`2009) ...................................................................................................................12
`
`Lafferty v. St. Riel,
`495 F.3d 72 (3d Cir. 2007) ...................................................................................8
`
`Laydon v. Mizuho Bank, Ltd.,
`12-3419, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44005 (S.D.N.Y. March 31,
`2015) .....................................................................................................................9
`
`Mastantuono v. Jacobsen Mfg. Co.,
`184 F. Supp. 178 (S.D.N.Y. June 2, 1960)...........................................................6
`
`Medtronic, Inc. v. Cordis Corp.,
`No. 3-84-136, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23380 (D. Minn. Jan. 16,
`1985) .....................................................................................................................5
`
`Peterson v. Adams,
`No. 113-116, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164594 (S.D. Ga. Nov. 19,
`2013) ...................................................................................................................11
`
`Pinson v. Rumsfeld,
`192 Fed. App’x 811 (11th Cir. 2006) .................................................................10
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-04219-TWT Document 107-2 Filed 06/09/17 Page 9 of 28
`
`Pumpco, Inc. v. Schenker Int’l, Inc.
`204 F.R.D. (Colo. 2001) .....................................................................................13
`
`Sarvint Techs., Inc. v. OMsignal, Inc.,
`161 F. Supp. 3d 1250, 1265 (N.D. Ga. 2015).......................................................7
`
`Stevenson v. Doyle Sailmakers, Inc.,
`No. H-86-883, 1987 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13330 (D. Md. Apr. 3,
`1987) .....................................................................................................................5
`
`Stewart-Warner Corp. v. Hunter Eng’g Co.,
`No. 69 C 579, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10553 (N.D. Ill. July 3,
`1969) .....................................................................................................................6
`
`TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Group Brands LLC,
`__ U.S. __, 197 L. Ed. 2d 816 (U.S. May 22, 2017)... 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13
`
`Tomason v. Stanley,
`297 F.R.D. 541 (S.D. Ga. Jan. 30, 2014)............................................................11
`
`Transamerica Life Ins. Co. v. Lincoln Nat’l Life Ins. Co.,
`590 F. Supp. 2d 1093 (N.D. Iowa 2008) ............................................................13
`
`VE Holding Corp. v. Johnson Gas Appliance Co.,
`917 F.2d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1990) ....................................................................1, 2, 7
`
`Weiss v. Nat’l Westminster Bank PLC,
`176 F. Supp. 3d 264, 274 (E.D.N.Y. 2016)..........................................................9
`
`Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and §1400(b)...................................................................2, 4, 10
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1391(c) ...........................................................................................1, 2, 4
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1391(c) and § 1400(b)............................................................................4
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) .................................................................................1, 2, 4, 5, 10
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) .......................................................................................1, 3, 6, 7
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-04219-TWT Document 107-2 Filed 06/09/17 Page 10 of 28
`
`Parks IP Law ............................................................................................................16
`
`Rules
`
`FED. R. CIV. P. 8(c)(1)..............................................................................................10
`
`FED. R. CIV. P. 15.....................................................................................................12
`
`FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)...............................................................................................1, 3
`
`FED. R. CIV. P. 15(a)(2)............................................................................................12
`
`FED. R. CIV. P. 8(c).............................................................................................10, 11
`
`FED. R. CIV. P. 12.................................................................................................9, 10
`
`FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(2)-(5)........................................................................................8
`
`FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(3)..............................................................................................7
`
`FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6)..............................................................................................8
`
`FED. R. CIV. P. 12(g)(2)..........................................................................................8, 9
`
`FED. R. CIV. P. 12(h) ..................................................................................................8
`
`FED. R. CIV. P. 16(b)(4)............................................................................................12
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-04219-TWT Document 107-2 Filed 06/09/17 Page 11 of 28
`
`The Supreme Court’s recent TC Heartland decision changed the law
`
`regarding venue in patent infringement cases such that venue is no longer proper in
`
`this District. See TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Group Brands LLC, __ U.S. __,
`
`197 L. Ed. 2d 816 (U.S. May 22, 2017). Defendant Valve Corporation (“Valve”),
`
`therefore moves the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a), to transfer this case to
`
`the Western District of Washington, which is now the only district where venue is
`
`proper. Valve also moves under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) for leave to
`
`amend the venue averments in its Answer in light of TC Heartland, to the extent
`
`the Court deems it necessary to do so.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`When Plaintiff Ironburg Inventions Ltd. (“Ironburg”) filed this lawsuit in
`
`December 2015, decades-old Federal Circuit precedent held that 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1400(b) incorporated the broad definition of corporate residence contained in the
`
`general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c). See, e.g., VE Holding Corp. v. Johnson
`
`Gas Appliance Co., 917 F.2d 1574, 1584 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Under § 1391(c), a
`
`corporate defendant “resides” in any district where the defendant is subject to the
`
`Court’s personal jurisdiction. Consequently, Federal Circuit precedent in effect
`
`when this lawsuit was filed authorized venue for patent cases in any district where
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-04219-TWT Document 107-2 Filed 06/09/17 Page 12 of 28
`
`a corporate defendant was subject to personal jurisdiction. See VE Holding, 917
`
`F.2d at 1578–79.
`
`The Supreme Court changed all of that on May 22, 2017, with its decision in
`
`TC Heartland. TC Heartland, 197 L. Ed. 2d at 824. The Court rejected the
`
`Federal Circuit’s conclusion that § 1391(c) defines a corporation’s residence for
`
`venue in patent cases.
`
`Instead, the Court reiterated that venue in patent cases is
`
`controlled solely by § 1400(b), and held that for purposes of § 1400(b), a
`
`corporation “resides” only in its state of incorporation.
`
`Under the now-controlling standard set forth in TC Heartland, venue is no
`
`longer proper in this District. As Ironburg recognized in its Second Amended
`
`Complaint, Valve is not a Georgia corporation and does not have a regular and
`
`established place of business in Georgia.
`
`Instead, Valve is a Washington
`
`corporation with its principal place of business in Bellevue, Washington. See Doc.
`
`44 at ¶ 3.1 Ironburg alleged that venue was proper in this District under § 1391(b)
`
`and § 1400(b). Id. at ¶ 5. But Valve denied those allegations, thus preserving the
`
`issue for consideration here. Doc. 49 at ¶ 5.
`
`1 Valve refers to the current operative complaint. Ironburg’s previous complaints
`contained the same allegations.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-04219-TWT Document 107-2 Filed 06/09/17 Page 13 of 28
`
`Valve therefore respectfully requests that the Court transfer this case to the
`
`Western District of Washington pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). In addition, for
`
`the avoidance of doubt regarding the preservation of the venue issue, Valve also
`
`requests pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) that the Court grant
`
`Valve leave to amend the venue averments in its Answer to bring them into
`
`technical conformity with the law as announced by the Supreme Court in TC
`
`Heartland.
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Valve Is a Washington Corporation with Its Principal Place of
`Business in Bellevue, Washington.
`
`Valve is a leading video game development and digital distribution company
`
`incorporated in Washington and with its headquarters located in Bellevue
`
`Washington, within the Western District of Washington. Declaration of Scott
`
`Lynch (“Lynch Decl.”) at ¶¶ 2-3. Valve is not a Georgia business entity. Id. at
`
`¶ 5. Valve does not have an office or any other operations in Georgia, does not
`
`maintain any employees in Georgia, does not own or lease real estate in Georgia,
`
`does not have any bank accounts in Georgia, is not registered to do business in
`
`Georgia, and has no agent for service of process in Georgia. Id. Valve does not
`
`uniquely target Georgia for the sale of its products, and any sales of Valve products
`
`in Georgia are processed through Valve’s headquarters in Washington. Id. at ¶ 6.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-04219-TWT Document 107-2 Filed 06/09/17 Page 14 of 28
`
`B.
`
`Valve Has Not Waived Its Right to Challenge Venue Throughout
`Preliminary Motion Practice and Amended Pleadings.
`
`Ironburg filed its original Complaint against Valve in this District on
`
`December 3, 2015, alleging claims of patent infringement. Doc. 1.
`
`Ironburg
`
`alleged that Valve is a Washington corporation with a place of business in
`
`Bellevue, and alleged venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c) and § 1400(b). Id. at ¶¶ 3,
`
`5. The parties engaged in motion practice related to their claims and defenses.
`
`Throughout the pleadings in this case, Valve has consistently denied that venue is
`
`proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and §1400(b). See, e.g. Doc. 21 at ¶ 5, Doc. 49
`
`at ¶ 5. Furthermore, the parties stipulated that the preliminary motion practice did
`
`not waive Valve’s right to challenge venue. Doc. 42 at ¶¶ 2, 5.
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`Venue is Improper in This District Under TC Heartland,
`Requiring Transfer.
`
`A.
`
`The Supreme Court has now made clear that venue in patent cases is
`
`governed exclusively by § 1400(b). TC Heartland, 197 L. Ed. 2d at 825.
`
`Section 1400(b) provides that venue in patent cases is limited to: (1) the judicial
`
`district where a defendant resides, or (2) where the defendant has committed acts
`
`of infringement and has a regular and established place of business. Venue is not
`
`proper in this District under either prong.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-04219-TWT Document 107-2 Filed 06/09/17 Page 15 of 28
`
`Venue is improper in this District under the first prong because Valve does
`
`not reside in Georgia. “[A] domestic corporation ‘resides’ only in its State of
`
`incorporation for purposes of the patent venue statute.” TC Heartland, 197 L. Ed.
`
`2d at 824. Valve is incorporated in Washington State, a fact explicitly alleged by
`
`Ironburg. Lynch Decl. at ¶ 2; Doc. 44 at ¶ 3. Valve therefore resides in
`
`Washington for the purposes of § 1400(b), and venue cannot be established in this
`
`District on that basis.
`
`Venue is also improper in this District under the second prong, because
`
`Valve does not have a regular and established place of business in Georgia. See
`
`Lynch Decl. at ¶¶ 5-6. Instead, Valve’s principal place of business is in Bellevue,
`
`Washington, as Ironburg pled in its Second Amended Complaint. Id. at ¶ 2; Doc.
`
`44 at ¶ 3.
`
`In fact, Valve has no operations whatsoever in Georgia. See Lynch Decl. at
`
`¶¶ 5-6. And to the extent any Valve products are sold into Georgia, the receiving
`
`and processing of those sales takes place through Valve’s headquarters in
`
`Washington. Id. Such minimal contacts are insufficient to establish venue under
`
`§ 1400(b). E.g., Stevenson v. Doyle Sailmakers, Inc., No. H-86-883, 1987 U.S.
`
`Dist. LEXIS 13330, at *6 (D. Md. Apr. 3, 1987); Medtronic, Inc. v. Cordis Corp.,
`
`No. 3-84-136, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23380, at *5 (D. Minn. Jan. 16, 1985);
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-04219-TWT Document 107-2 Filed 06/09/17 Page 16 of 28
`
`Stewart-Warner Corp. v. Hunter Eng’g Co., No. 69 C 579, 1969 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`
`10553, at *13 (N.D. Ill. July 3, 1969); Clearasite Headwear, Inc. v. Paramount
`
`Cap Mfg. Co., 204 F. Supp. 4, 6 (S.D.N.Y. 1962); Mastantuono v. Jacobsen Mfg.
`
`Co., 184 F. Supp. 178, 180 (S.D.N.Y. June 2, 1960). Rather, a corporate defendant
`
`may be sued for patent infringement only where it is incorporated, or where it has a
`
`regular and established place of business and commits acts of infringement. 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1400(b); TC Heartland, 197 L. Ed. 2d at 824.
`
`Because the Western District of Washington is now the only appropriate
`
`venue for this action, this case should be transferred to that District pursuant to
`
`§ 1406(a). Indeed, under the circumstances, § 1406(a) provides that transfer is
`
`mandatory: “The district court of a district in which is filed a case laying venue in
`
`the wrong division or district shall dismiss, or if it be in the interest of justice,
`
`transfer such case to any district or division in which it could have been brought.”
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) (emphasis added).
`
`B.
`
`Valve Has Not Waived Its Right to Challenge Venue.
`
`To the extent Ironburg contends Valve waived its venue objections, that
`
`contention is misplaced. Valve cannot have waived a defense that was not
`
`available until after the Supreme Court’s decision in TC Heartland. See Holzsager
`
`v. Valley Hosp., 646 F.2d 792, 796 (2d Cir. 1981) (“In any event a party cannot be
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-04219-TWT Document 107-2 Filed 06/09/17 Page 17 of 28
`
`deemed to have waived objections or defenses which were not known to be
`
`available at the time they could first have been made[.]”); Engel v. CBS, Inc., 886
`
`F. Supp. 728, 730 (C.D. Cal. 1995) (finding defendants did not waive right to
`
`challenge venue when they omitted it in their prior motion because the retroactive
`
`application of venue statute was not clear until later D.C. Circuit decision).
`
`Valve did not have a cognizable venue defense available under Rule
`
`12(b)(3) or 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in TC
`
`Heartland. Before that decision, binding Federal Circuit precedent held that venue
`
`in patent cases was proper in any district where a corporate defendant was subject
`
`to personal jurisdiction. See, e.g., VE Holding, 917 F.2d at 1578–79; Sarvint
`
`Techs., Inc. v. OMsignal, Inc., 161 F. Supp. 3d 1250, 1265 (N.D. Ga. 2015). From
`
`1990 until the Supreme Court’s May 22 decision, VE Holding was the law of the
`
`land. Not only was it reaffirmed in the Federal Circuit’s decision in the TC
`
`Heartland case,2 but the Supreme Court originally refused to disturb VE Holding
`
`when it denied certiorari in that case in 1991. Johnson Gas Appliance Co. v. VE
`
`Holding Corp., 499 U.S. 922 (1991).
`
`2 “The arguments raised regarding venue have been firmly resolved by VE
`Holding, a settled precedent for over 25 years.” In re TC Heartland LLC, 821 F.3d
`1338, 1341 (Fed. Cir.), rev'd and remanded sub nom. TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft
`Foods Grp. Brands LLC, 197 L. Ed. 2d 816 (U.S. May 22, 2017).
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-04219-TWT Document 107-2 Filed 06/09/17 Page 18 of 28
`
`The Supreme Court’s decision in TC Heartland rendered venue in this
`
`District improper, allowing Valve—for the first time—to challenge venue under
`
`§ 1406(a). See Lafferty v. St. Riel, 495 F.3d 72, 77 (3d Cir. 2007) (“Section
`
`1406(a) comes into play where plaintiffs file suit in an improper forum.”). Valve
`
`promptly brought this newly available challenge under § 1406(a) after the Supreme
`
`Court’s decision in TC Heartland. See Holzsager, 646 F.2d at 796 (explaining a
`
`party must assert a previously unavailable defense “as soon as [its] cognizability is
`
`made apparent”).
`
`Nor did Valve waive its venue defense by bringing prior motions to dismiss
`
`under Rule 12(b)(6). See Docs. 13, 20. First, as stipulated by the parties and
`
`ordered by the Court,
`
`the filing of Ironburg’s Second Amended Complaint
`
`permitted Valve to file any response permitted by law, “including but not limited
`
`to the following: an answer, a motion to dismiss, a counterclaim.” Doc. 43 at ¶ 2.
`
`This effectively reset Valve’s ability to bring such motions.
`
`Valve also did not waive its venue defense under Rule 12(h). That rule
`
`states that a party “waives any defense listed in Rule 12(b)(2)-(5) by . . . omitting it
`
`from a motion in the circumstances described in Rule 12(g)(2).” FED. R. CIV. P.
`
`12(h). In turn, Rule 12(g)(2) provides that a defense or objection is waived only if
`
`it “was available to the party but omitted from its earlier motion.” FED. R. CIV. P.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-04219-TWT Document 107-2 Filed 06/09/17 Page 19 of 28
`
`12(g)(2) (emphasis added). “[A] defense is unavailable if its legal basis did not
`
`exist at the time of the answer or pre-answer motion . . . .” Chatman-Bey v.
`
`Thornburgh, 864 F.2d 804, 813 n.9 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (citing Holzsager, 646 F.2d at
`
`796). Put another way, “a party cannot be deemed to have waived objections or
`
`defenses which were not known to be available at the time they could first have
`
`been made, especially when it does raise the objections as soon as their
`
`cognizability is made apparent.” Holzsager, 646 F.2d at 796.
`
`Defenses that are only made cognizable by a sudden change in binding
`
`precedent are precisely the sort not deemed to have been “available” previously
`
`and, therefore, are not waived by having been omitted from an earlier motion. See
`
`Laydon v. Mizuho Bank, Ltd., 12-3419, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44005, at *23
`
`(S.D.N.Y. March 31, 2015); see also Weiss v. Nat’l Westminster Bank PLC, 176 F.
`
`Supp. 3d 264, 274 (E.D.N.Y. 2016) (defenses not available to a defendant at the
`
`time an earlier Rule 12 motion was filed, but that became available to a defendant
`
`upon the Supreme Court’s change of law are permitted); 7 W. 57th St. Realty Co.,
`
`LLC v. Citigroup, Inc., No. 13-981, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 44031, at *23-*24
`
`(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2015) (same); cf. Eames v. Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co., No. 04-
`
`1324, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61706, at *11 n.3 (D. Del. Aug. 29, 2006) (defenses
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-04219-TWT Document 107-2 Filed 06/09/17 Page 20 of 28
`
`not available to a defendant at the time an earlier Rule 12 motion was filed are not
`
`barred).
`
`C.
`
`Valve Properly Preserved Its Venue Defense.
`
`Valve has never conceded that this District is a proper venue for this action,
`
`and specifically denied Ironburg’s allegation that venue in this District was proper.
`
`Doc. 49 at ¶ 5 (“Valve further denies that venue over
`
`Ironburg’s patent
`
`infringement claims is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and §1400(b).”).
`
`Therefore, Valve has preserved its venue defense.
`
`The fact that Valve presented its venue objection by way of denial, rather
`
`than as a separately enumerated defense does not change the analysis. Rule 8(c)
`
`nominally requires a party to state its affirmative defenses. FED. R. CIV. P. 8(c)(1).
`
`But “[t]he purpose of Rule 8(c) is simply to guarantee that the opposing party has
`
`notice of any additional issue that may be raised at trial so that he or she is
`
`prepared to properly litigate it.” Hassan v. U.S. Postal Serv., 842 F.2d 260, 263
`
`(11th Cir. Fla. 1988) (citing Blonder-Tongue Labs., Inc. v. Univ. of Ill. Found., 402
`
`U.S. 313, 350 (1971)).
`
`In this Circuit, the burden of establishing the propriety of venue is on
`
`Ironburg. E.g., Pinson v. Rumsfeld, 192 Fed. App'x 811, 817 (11th Cir. 2006)
`
`(“The plaintiff has the burden of showing that venue in the forum is proper.”);
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-04219-TWT Document 107-2 Filed 06/09/17 Page 21 of 28
`
`Peterson v. Adams, No. 113-116, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 164594, at *6 (S.D. Ga.
`
`Nov. 19, 2013); Brown v. Regions Mortg. Corp., No. 11-3716, 2012 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS 192550, at *5-*6 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 30, 2012); Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. W.
`
`Conference of Teamsters Pension Tr. Fund, 722 F. Supp. 725, 727 (N.D. Ga.
`
`1989). Here, Valve’s denial of the venue allegation gives notice to Ironburg that
`
`venue is a live issue that Ironburg will have to prove.3
`
`And even if Valve’s specific denial of Ironburg’s venue allegation did not
`
`technically comply with Rule 8(c), this Court should ignore any technical non-
`
`compliance because there is no prejudice to Ironburg. Valve’s specific denial gave
`
`Ironburg notice of the issue, and where a plaintiff has notice of a defense there is
`
`no prejudice. Hassan, 842 F.2d at 263 (where plaintiff has notice of an affirmative
`
`defense, “the defendant's failure to comply with Rule 8(c) does not cause the
`
`plaintiff any prejudice. And, when the failure to raise an affirmative defense does
`
`3 Indeed, under this Circuit’s precedent, the Court would be justified in viewing the
`issue of improper venue as not an affirmative defense at all, such that Valve was
`not obligated to raise it under Rule 8(c). Rather, because Ironburg has the burden
`of proof on venue, Valve’s denial of the allegation merely points out a defect in
`Ironburg’s case. And “[a] defense which points out a defect in the plaintiff’s prima
`facie case is not an affirmative defense.” In re Rawson Food Service, Inc., 846
`F.2d 1343, 1349 (11th Cir. 1988); Tomason v. Stanley, 297 F.R.D. 541, 546 (S.D.
`Ga. Jan. 30, 2014) (same).
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-04219-TWT Document 107-2 Filed 06/09/17 Page 22 of 28
`
`not prejudice the plaintiff, it is not error for the trial court to hear evidence on the
`
`issue.”).
`
`D.
`
`Valve Should Be Granted Leave to Amend Its Answer If
`Necessary To Bring Its Venue Averments Into Line With
`Intervening Supreme Court Precedent.
`
`If the Court questions whether the issue of venue has been preserved, Valve
`
`requests leave to amend the venue averments in its Answer to bring them into line
`
`with the Supreme Court’s holdings in TC Heartland regarding which venue statute
`
`controls and whether venue is proper under the controlling statute.
`
`See Fed.
`
`Election Comm'n v. Legi-Tech, 75 F.3d 704, 707 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 16, 1996)
`
`(“Nevertheless, waiver
`
`is not automatic. The district court has substantial
`
`discretion under FED. R. CIV. P. 15 to allow a party to amend its pleadings and to
`
`introduce authority or evidence at a later time.”).
`
`Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2), a party may amend its
`
`pleadings “with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave. The
`
`court should freely give leave when justice so requires.” In addition, Rule 16(b)(4)
`
`allows the Court to modify the deadline to amend pleadings in its scheduling order
`
`upon a showing of good cause.
`
`Good cause exists here, where there has been a significant intervening
`
`change in the applicable law. See, e.g., Kuithe v. Gulf Caribe Mar., Inc., No. 08-
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-04219-TWT Document 107-2 Filed 06/09/17 Page 23 of 28
`
`458, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91678, at *5-*6 (S.D. Ala. Sept. 29, 2009) (“The
`
`‘good cause’ standard may be satisfied by a showing that the substantive law
`
`changed ….” (quoting Woodworth v. Erie Ins. Co., No. 05-6344, 2009 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS 49379, at *8 (W.D.N.Y. June 12, 2009)); see also Cont'l Cas. Co. v.
`
`Goldline Int'l, Inc., No. 12-8658, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195746, at *11 (C.D. Cal.
`
`Jan. 30, 2014); Transamerica Life Ins. Co. v. Lincoln Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 590 F.
`
`Supp. 2d 1093, 1100-01 (N.D. Iowa 2008); Pumpco, Inc. v. Schenker Int’l, Inc.,
`
`204 F.R.D. 667, 668 (D. Colo. 2001). Given the change in law brought about by
`
`TC Heartland, justice requires that Valve be allowed to amend its Answer.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Valve respectfully requests that the Court transfer
`
`venue of this case to the Western District of Washington and, if necessary, grant
`
`Valve leave to amend the venue averments in its Answer.
`
`Dated: June 9, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Tanya L. Chaney
`Patrick A. Lujin
`MO Bar No. 41392 (Pro Hac Vice)
`B. Trent Webb
`MO Bar No. 40778 (Pro Hac Vice)
`Mark D. Schafer
`MO Bar No. 67197 (Pro Hac Vice)
`SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
`2555 Grand Boulevard
`Kansas City, Missouri 64108
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-04219-TWT Document 107-2 Filed 06/09/17 Page 24 of 28
`
`Telephone: (816) 474-6550
`
`Tanya L. Chaney
`TX Bar No. 24036375 (Pro Hac Vice)
`SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
`600 Travis Street, Suite 3400
`Houston, Texas 77002
`Telephone: (713) 227-8008
`
`By: /s/ Ann Fort
`Thomas W. Curvin
`GA Bar No. 202740
`Ann G. Fort
`GA Bar No. 269995
`EVERSHEDS SUTHERLAND (US) LLP
`999 Peachtree Street N.E. Suite 2300
`Atlanta, GA 30309
`Telephone: (404) 853-8000
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`VALVE CORPORATION
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-04219-TWT Document 107-2 Filed 06/09/17 Page 25 of 28
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`
`Pursuant to LR 7.1D, the undersigned counsel hereby certifies that the
`
`foregoing DEFENDANT VALVE CORPORATION’S MEMORANDUM IN
`
`SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TRANSFER IN LIGHT OF TCHEARTLAND
`
`complies with the font and point selections approved by the Court in LR 5.1C. This
`
`document was prepared on a computer using the Times New Roman font (14
`
`point).
`
`/s/ Tanya L. Chaney
`Tanya L. Chaney
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 1:15-cv-04219-TWT Document 107-2 Filed 06/09/17 Page 26 of 28
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on June 9, 2017, I electronically filed the foregoing
`
`DEFENDANT VALVE CORPORATION’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
`
`OF MOTION TO TRANSFER IN LIGHT OF TCHEARTLAND with the
`
`Clerk of Court us