UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC., AND APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`IXI IP, LLC
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2015-01444
`Patent 7,039,033
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONERS’ UPDATED MANDATORY NOTICES
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01444
`Attorney Docket No: 00035-0004IP1
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.8, Petitioners, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
`
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Apple Inc. (hereinafter, collectively,
`
`“Petitioners”), hereby submit the following updated Mandatory Notices to reflect
`
`updates to the related litigation.
`
`1.
`
`Real Party-In-Interest under 37 CFR § 42.8(b)(1)
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and
`
`Apple Inc. are the real parties-in-interest.
`
`2.
`
`Related Matters under 37 CFR § 42.8(b)(2)
`
`The following judicial or administrative matters may affect or be affected by
`
`a decision in this proceeding:
`
`Petitioners are not aware of any disclaimers, reexamination certificates or
`
`petitions for inter partes review for U.S. Patent No. 7,039,033 (the ’033 Patent).
`
`The ’033 Patent was the subject of Civil Actions:
`
`IXI Mobile (R&D) Ltd. et al. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., U.S.
`
`District Court, Southern District of New York, 14-cv-4355;
`
`IXI Mobile (R&D) Ltd. et al. v. Apple, Inc., U.S. District Court, Southern
`
`District of New York, 14-cv-4428; and
`
`IXI Mobile (R&D) Ltd. et al. v. Blackberry Limited et al., U.S. District
`
`Court, Southern District of New York, 14-cv-7954.
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01444
`Attorney Docket No: 00035-0004IP1
`Per the attached transfer order, these Civil Actions have been transferred to
`
`the Northern District of California. The pending Civil Actions are now captioned
`
`as:
`
`IXI Mobile (R&D) Ltd. et al. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., U.S.
`
`District Court, Northern District of California, 3:15-cv-03752-HSG;
`
`IXI Mobile (R&D) Ltd. et al. v. Apple, Inc., U.S. District Court, Northern
`
`District of California, 4:15-cv-03755-PJH; and
`
`IXI Mobile (R&D) Ltd. et al. v. Blackberry Limited et al., U.S. District
`
`Court, Northern District of California, 3:15-cv-03754-RS.
`
`The remaining mandatory notice information remains the same as that
`
`included in the petition.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` /W. Karl Renner/
`W. Karl Renner
`Reg. No. 41,265
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: November 4, 2015
`
`
`Customer Number 26171
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`Telephone: (612) 337-2508
`Facsimile: (612) 288-9696
`
`

`
`Case IPR2015-01444
`Attorney Docket No: 00035-0004IP1
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 CFR §§ 42.6(e)(4) and 42.205(b), the undersigned certifies
`
`that on November 4, 2015, a complete and entire copy of this Petitioners’ Updated
`
`Mandatory Notices was provided via email, to the Patent Owner by serving the
`
`correspondence addresses of record as follows:
`
`Andy H. Chan
`Pepper Hamilton LLP
`333 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 400
`Redwood City, CA 94065
`
`George S. Haight
`Pepper Hamilton LLP
`125 High Street
`19th Floor, High Street Tower
`Boston, MA 02110
`
`Email: chana@pepperlaw.com
`Email: haightg@pepperlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Diana Bradley/
`
`Diana Bradley
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`60 South Sixth Street, Suite 3200
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`(858) 678-5667
`
`

`
`DOCUMENT
`
` USDS SDNY
`
`
`
`
`DOC «:11:
`DATE FILED: 2- 6— I I?
`
`
`
`ELECTRONICALI
`
`FILED
`
`No. I4mcv~4355 (RJS)
`
`No.
`
`l4—cv—4428 (RJS)
`
`No. I4—C\/-7954 (RJS)
`
`OPINION AND ORDER
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
` IXI MOBILE (R&D) LTD. and IXI IP LLC,
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs.
`
`av-
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs.
`
`IXI MOBILE (R&D) LTD. and IXI IP LLC.
`
`
`BLACKBERRY LIMITED and
`
`BLACKBERRY CORPORATION,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
` IX] MOBILE (R&D) LTD. and [XI IP LLC.
`
`
`APPLE INC..
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, District Judge:
`
`Now before the Court are Defendants’ motions to transfer these three related patent
`
`infringement actions to the Noxthem District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(3). For
`
`the reasons set forth below, the Court grants Defendants’ motions to transfer.
`
`

`
`I. BACKGROUND’
`
`Plaintiffs lXl Mobile (R&D) Ltd. and IXI IP LLC (Collectively. "lXl") bring these three
`
`related actions against (i) Samsung Electronics Co.. Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`(collectively. "Samsung"). (ii) Blacl-;Berry Limited and BlackBerry Corporation (collectively.
`
`"B|ackBerry"). and (iii) Apple Inc. ("Apple"). alleging infringement of three of IXl‘s patents
`
`under the patent laws ofthe United States. 35 U.S.C. § l er seq} The first entity Plaintiff. IXI
`
`Mobile (R&D) Ltd.. is a developer and seller of wireless mobile devices.
`
`(No.
`
`l4Lcv—4355
`
`(RJS), Doc. No.
`
`l 1] 2'. N0.
`
`l4—Cv—4428 (RJS). Doc. No.
`
`l 1l 2; No- l4——cv—7954 (RJS), Doc. No.
`
`1 1i 2.)
`
`[X1 Mobile (R&D) Ltd. is an Israeli corporation and. until June 2007. was headquartered
`
`in Northern California.
`
`(Id.; No.
`
`l4—cv—7954 (RJS). Doc. No. 30 W 24.) The second entity
`
`Plaintiff. IXI IP LLC. is a New York limited liability company and a patent assertion entity that
`
`was fortned in April 2014 — a little more than two months before IXI commenced the first of
`
`these actions.
`
`(No. l4—cv4355 (RJS), Doc. No.
`
`l 1] 3; No.
`
`l4—cv—4428 (RJS). Doc. No.
`
`1 fl 3;
`
`No. 1-fl—Cv—7954 (RJS), Doc. Nos.
`
`I
`
`1] 3. 28 at 7, 30 fll ll.) On June 5. 2014.
`
`lXl IP LLC
`
`received the patents—in—suit from lXI Mobile (R&D) Ltd. and then immediately licensed the
`
`patents back to IXI Mobile (R&D) Ltd. (No.
`
`l4—cv—4355 (RJS), Doc. No. 1 W 2-3; No.
`
`l4—cv—
`
`4428 (RJSL Doc. No.
`
`l
`
`2-3; No. l4—cv~7954 (RJS), Doc. Nos.
`
`l
`
`2—3, 30
`
`l4~l7.) At a
`
`high level of generality and as set forth in greater detail in the three Complai nts. the patents—in—
`
`suit involve “mobile tethering" or hotspot technology. which enables a device "to access a wide
`
`‘ For the purposes of this Opinion and Order. the Court accepts all allegations in the Complaints (No. l4a:v~4355
`(RJS). Doc. No. 1: No. I4-cv~4428 (RJS). Doc. No. 1: No. l4«cv—7954 (RJS). Doc. No. 1) as true.
`
`3 In three joint stipulations dated May II. 2015. the parties dismissed with prejudice all claims and counterclaims
`with respect to a fourth IXI patent. U.S. Patent No. 7.426.398.
`(No.
`l4~c\~4355 (RJS). Doc. No. 64: No.
`l4—cv—
`4428 {R.lS). Doc. No. 7'0; No.
`l4—cv—7954 (RJS). Doc. No. 50.)
`IX] also initially named a third Samsung entity.
`Sainsung Telecommunications America. LLC ("ST/X“). as a defendant in its Complaint. but 011 March 6, 3015. the
`parties stipulated to the dismissal. without prejudice. of all claims against STA.
`(No.
`l4—cva’l355 (RJS). Doc. No.
`59.)
`
`l‘-.!
`
`

`
`area network (such as the Internet) by way ofa connection between the first device and a second,
`
`intermediary, device that has access to the wide area network." (No.
`
`l4—cv-4355 (RJS), Doc.
`
`No.
`
`1 1] 12: No. 1-%cv41428 (RJS). Doc. No.
`
`1 fl 9; No. 14—cv—7954 (RJS). Doc. No.
`
`1 1] 9.) The
`
`patents—in—suit
`
`also concern technology pertaining to
`
`the
`
`remote
`
`control of mobile
`
`communication devices, including cellular telephones. Ud.)
`
`On February 3, 2015, Defendants filed the instant motions to transfer these actions to the
`
`Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
`
`(No. 14—cv~4355 (RJS), Doc.
`
`No. 44; No. 14—cv—4428 (RJS), Doc. No. 47; No. 14—cv—7954 (RJS), Doc. No. 27.) The
`
`motions were fully briefed by March 5, 2015.
`
`(No.
`
`l4—cv—4428 (RJS), Doc. No. 63; No. 14—cv—
`
`7954 (RJS), Doc. No.45.)
`
`ll. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`"A district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it
`
`might have been brought .
`
`.
`
`. [f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of
`
`justice .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`28 U.S.C. § l404(a). For a motion to transfer venue. the burden is on the moving
`
`party to show by "clear and convincing evidence" that transfer is proper. C Y], Inc. 1’. Ja—Ru, Inc.
`
`913 F. Supp. 2d 16, 18 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (citing N. Y. Marine & Gen. Ins. Co. 1’. Lafcirge N. Am.
`
`Inc. 599 F.3d 102, 113-14 (2d Cir. 2010)).
`
`As the statute makes clear, Defendants must tirst show that the instant actions could have
`
`been brought originally in the transferee district. Wldrclmus Collection 1'. Barclays Prods. Ltd,
`
`No.
`
`l1—cv—217 (LBS), 2011 WL 4036097, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2011). Under 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 139l(b}(2). venue may be laid in any judicial district "in which a substantial part of the events
`
`or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred." The parties do not dispute that these actions
`
`could have been brought
`
`in the Northern District of California.
`
`the district where Apple is
`
`Lg.)
`
`

`
`headquartered (No. 14—cv—7954 (RJS). Doc. No. 29 1] 3), BlackBerry has numerous offices and
`
`executives (No.
`
`l4—cv—4428 (RJS). Doc. No. 49 1l 8). and the supplier ofthe Android operating
`
`system — the site of much of the allegedly infringing technology in Sainsuiigs devices — is
`
`headquartered (No.
`
`l4—cv—-4355 (RJS), Doc. Nos. 45 at 2. 46~l 1] 9).
`
`Indeed. IXI's counsel has
`
`admitted that "[t]here's absolutely no dispute" that the Northern District of California would be
`
`an appropriate venue for each of these actions.
`
`(No. 14+cv+7954 (RJS). Doc. No. 30-] at 99.
`
`Ex. S at 5:15.)
`
`Having resolved that
`
`threshold question.
`
`the Court must
`
`then take into account
`
`the
`
`convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interest ofjustice. “District courts have broad
`
`discretion" in making these determinations. D.H. B/a1'r& Co.
`
`1’. Gortcfienci-. 462 F.3d 95, 106
`
`(2d Cir. 2006); see also In re Cuyaliogri Equip. Corp. 980 F.2d 110, 117 (2d Cir. 1992)
`
`(“[M}otions for transfer lie within the broad discretion of the district court" (citing Stewart Org,
`
`Inc-.
`
`1'. Rice}: Corp. 487 US. 22. 29 (l988))).
`
`In exercising their discretion under Section
`
`l404(a), courts are generally guided by several non—dispositive factors. including:
`
`(1) the convenience of witnesses; (2) the location of relevant documents and
`relative ease of access to sources of proofi (3) the convenience of the parties; (4)
`the locus of the operative facts; (5) the availability of process to compel
`the
`attendance of unwilling witnesses; (6) the relative means of the parties; (7') the
`forums familiarity with the governing law; (8) the weight accorded the plaintiff's
`choice of forum; and (9) trial efficiency and the interests of justice, based on the
`totality of the circumstances.
`
`France Tciecom SA.
`
`v. Mai-rel} Senn'c0ndim‘or, Inc, No.
`
`l2~cv4986 (J SR). 2012 WL
`
`6808527. at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 28. 2012) (quoting Tannin Techs. USA. LLC v. Nintendo Ca, 818
`
`F. Supp. 2d 770. 772 (S.D-N.Y. 2011)); see also N. Y. Mmfne & Gen. Ins. Co., 599 F.3d at 1 I2.
`
`The Court will address each ofthese factors in tum.
`
`

`
`III. DISCUSSION
`
`A. Convenience of Witnesses
`
`"Courts typically regard the convenience of witnesses as the most important factor in
`
`considering a § 1404(3) motion to transfer." Wlnreliaus Colfecriorz, 2011 WL 4036097. at *4
`
`(quoting Herbert Ltd. P'ship 1’. Elec. Arts Inc. 325 F. Supp. 2d 282, 286 (S.D.N.Y. 2004)).
`
`Among the various categories of witnesses, the convenience of non-patty witnesses is weighted
`
`more heavily than that of party witnesses. Sec Indian Harbor Ins. Co. v. Factory Mm. Ins. Co.,
`
`419 F. Supp. 2d 395. 402 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (citing Royal & Sziriailiance 1’. British Airways, 167 F.
`
`Supp. 2d 573, 577 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)). Additionally. "[w]hen weighing the convenience of the
`
`witnesses, courts must consider the materiality. nature, and quality of each witness. not merely
`
`the number of witnesses in each district." M:'!lemn':m:. LP. 1’. Hyland Sofrmru-e, Ina. N0. 03ecv—
`
`3900 (DC). 2003 WL 22928644, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 10. 2003) (citations omitted). As
`
`numerous courts have recognized.
`
`in patent infringement suits. "[t]he key witnesses[] .
`
`.
`
`. are
`
`those officers and employees who are involved in the design, production, and sale of the
`
`products." 1d.; sec also In! '1 Sec. EXC/1., LLC 1'. CIn". Ba’. Options E.t‘c'h. Inc. No. 06—cv—l3445
`
`(RMB) (THK), 2007 WL 1541087, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 24. 2007') (“In the context ofa patent
`
`infringement suit, a court should give particular consideration to individuals who can testify
`
`about
`
`the technology of the allegedly infringing inventionsf‘), report and recom:12endcitz'on
`
`adopted by 2007 WL 2319128 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 9. 2007); Fuji Photo Film Co. 1'. Lcmr Media.
`
`Inc. 4l5 F. Supp. 2d 370, 373 (S.D.N.Y. 2006) ("The key issues in a patent infringement suit
`
`involve the technology ofthe inventions claimed in the patents—in—suit.“).
`
`Here. witness convenience overwhelmingly favors transferring these actions to the
`
`Northern District of California.
`
`11 is telling that all three Defendants — Apple. BlackBerry, and
`
`U‘:
`
`

`
`Sainsung — are unaware of a single party or non-party witness located in New York with
`
`knowledge of the design. development, or marketing of the relevant technologies.
`
`(No.
`
`l4—cv—
`
`7954 (R18), Doc. No. 29 W 5. 7-10, 12; No.
`
`l4—cv—4428 (RJS). Doc. No. 49 W 4, 7-8: No. 14-
`
`cv—4355 (RJS), Doc. No. 46-] ll 8.) Moreover, even lXl is unable to name a single party or non-
`
`party witness located in or close to New York with knowledge of the design. development, or
`
`marketing of the relevant
`
`technologies.
`
`Specifically.
`
`IXI
`
`identifies merely two witnesses
`
`potentially located near New York ; Steve Pederson from IXI IP LLC and an unnamed third-
`
`paity witness from Verizon Communications, Inc. (No.
`
`l4~cv—7954 (RJS), Doc. No. 3] at lS—
`
`lo, 18-19, Doc. No. 34) — but their testimony undisputedly would not concern the technology of
`
`the allegedly infringing inventions. Thus, neither is a key witness, and the presence of these
`
`individuals is entitled to barely any weight.
`
`[n marked contrast, an abundance of key party and non-party witnesses reside within or
`
`in close proximity to the Northern District of California. For example. every single one of
`
`Apple‘s likely party witnesses with knowledge of the design. development, and marketing of the
`
`relevant technologies resides and works within the Northern District of California.
`
`(No.
`
`l4—cv—
`
`7954 (R18). Doc. No. 29 W 5, I2.) Specifically. Apple has identified at least seven key party
`
`witnesses — Delziel Fernandes, Sergey Sitnikov, Andreas Wolf, Timm Hannon, Sean Kelly,
`
`Michael Chu, and Steve Gedikian — who all
`
`('1 ) work at Apple's Cupertino. California
`
`headquarters in the Northern District of C alifornia, and (2) live within the Northeni District of
`
`California.
`
`(Id. 1] 12.) Notably, all of these employees are "key" witnesses, Mi/lenniizm. L.P.,
`
`2003 WL 22928644. at *3, since all but Mr. Gedikian are engineers responsible for and possess
`
`knowledge of the technologies at issue. and Mr. Gedikian was responsible for marketing the
`
`allegedly infringing technologies (No.
`
`l4rcv—7954 (RJS), Doc. No. 29 1]
`
`I2).
`
`In addition.
`
`

`
`BlackBerry‘s Senior Technical Director, Michael Rybak ~ 21 party witness with knowledge of the
`
`relevant
`
`technologies,
`
`including prior art
`
`to the patents—in—suit — works in Blacl-(Berry's
`
`Pleasanton. California office. which.
`
`like Apple's headquarters.
`
`is located in the Northern
`
`District ofCalifornia. (No. l4—cv—4428 (RJS), Doc. No. 55 1] 2.)
`
`Similarly. with respect to non-party witnesses, three of the six inventors of the patents
`
`identified in the Complaints reside in the Northern District of California.
`
`(No. 14—cv—7954
`
`(RJS), Doc. No. 31 at 17.) A fourth inventor lives in Seattle, Washington, and the other two
`
`inventors are located in Israel.
`
`(Ir/.) Specifically, inventors Hans Reisgies, Amit Haller, and
`
`Peter Fornell all reside in the Northern District of California.
`
`(1d.)
`
`Furthermore. several
`
`potential non-party witnesses possessing knowledge of relevant prior art — employees of Santa
`
`Clara, California-based Agilent Technologies who,
`
`in a December 2000 patent application.
`
`disclosed similar functionality as described in several of the patents+in~suit — likely reside within
`
`the Northern District ofCalifomia.
`
`(No.
`
`l4—cv—7954 (RJS). Doc. No. 30 1] 18.) Additionally,
`
`Samsung's non—party witnesses likely to testify about the Android operating system — the site of
`
`much ofthe allegedly infringing technology in Samsungs devices - are likely located within the
`
`Northern District of California in Mountain View, California.
`
`(No.
`
`l¢#c\/41355 (RJS). Doc.
`
`Nos. 45 at 2, 46—] 1| 9.) Finally. the majority of BlackBerry's current models incorporate Wi—Fi
`
`and Bluetooth chips designed and manufactured by Broadcom Corporation, which is based in
`
`Irvine, California, within the neighboring Central District of California. (No. l4~«cv~4428 (RJS),
`
`Doc. Nos. 48 at 2, 54 at 3.) Blackberry has averred that two likely witnesses, Clint Brown and
`
`Patrick Zhang — the two Broadcom employees with whom BlackBerry‘s personnel primarily
`
`interact with respect
`
`to the allegedly infringing technology — are also located in Irvine.
`
`California. Ud.)
`
`

`
`Put simply. the geographic distribution of the key witnesses noted above emphatically
`
`supports transfer of these actions to the Notthem District of California. Obviously. transferring
`
`these actions will significantly reduce the collective flight
`
`time of the key witnesses. By
`
`contrast. if these actions were to proceed in the Southern District of New York. four of the
`
`inventors. Apple's seven party witnesses. BlackBerry's Senior Technical Director.
`
`the two
`
`Broadcom employees. the Agilent Technologies employees. and the other non—party witnesses
`
`would each need to travel from the west coast to New York.
`
`In any event. regardless of whether
`
`these actions proceed in New York or Califomia. the remaining two inventors will still need to
`
`travel internationally from Israel to the United States.
`
`(No. I4—cv—'/954 (RJS). Doc. Nos. 28 at
`
`12. 30 1] 21); see also Emblaze Ltd. v. Apple Inc. No.
`
`lO—cv—S7l3 (PKC). 2011 WL 724275, at
`
`*2 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 25. 20] 1) (comparing, as here. travel times from Israel to New York and from
`
`Israel to San Francisco and finding that "[t]he difference in degree of inconvenience .
`
`.
`
`. is not
`
`very substantial.“ and. thus. transferring an Israeli plaintiffs action from the Southern District of
`
`New York to the Northern District ofCalifornia); Wallcc=r v. Jon Renal: Collection, Inc. 423 F.
`
`Supp. 2d 115. 118 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (transferring a case from New York to California where,
`
`similarly. "the hardship of travel on defendant will be eliminated. while the hardship of travel on
`
`plaintiff will only slightly be increased. since she would have to travel from London regardless
`
`of where the case is decided").
`
`Accordingly.
`
`in light of the paramount
`
`importance of testimony conceming the
`
`technology at issue. the Court finds that the convenience of witnesses strongly favors transfer of
`
`these actions to the Northern District of California.
`
`

`
`B. Location of Relevant Documents and Ease of Access to Sources of Proof
`
`Multiple judges in this District have found that "[i]n patent infringement cases. the bulk
`
`of the relevant evidence usually comes from the accused infiinger. Consequently,
`
`the place
`
`where the defendant's documents are kept weigh in favor of transfer to that
`
`location."
`
`Mille11m'tm2. L_P.. 2003 WL 22928644, at *4 (citing Coioplast A/S 1'. Amoena C'0rp.. No. 92—cv—
`
`3432 (MBM). 1992 WL 346359, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, l992); B0rmlLaser1nc. 1'. Coliewnt.
`
`Inc. No. 9l—cv—5863 (MBM). 1992 WL 9375, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. I3. 1992)). Applying this
`
`standard suppoits transferring these actions to the Northern District of California since Apple.
`
`BlaCkBerry, and Samsung ~ the accused infringers — all are unaware of any relevant documents
`
`in New York (No. 1-4—cv—7954 (RJS), Doc. No. 291] ll; No.
`
`l4—cv—4428 (RJS). Doc. No. 491]
`
`9; No.
`
`l4—c\/A4355 (RJS). Doc. No. 4641 1[ 8). whereas the vast majority of Apples relevant
`
`documents are located in or near Apple's Cupertino. California headquarters within the Northern
`
`District of California (No.
`
`l4—cv—7954 (RJS), Doc. No. 29 1] 6) and documents relevant to the
`
`Android operating system » the site of much of the allegedly infringing technology in Sainsuiigs
`
`devices — are likely located within the Northeni District of Califomia in Mountain View.
`
`California (No.
`
`l4—c\/-4355 (RJS). Doc. Nos. 45 at 2. 46-1 1] 9).
`
`IX], for its part, offers no
`
`evidence that any of its documents located within New York — as opposed to those retained in
`
`Israel (No.
`
`l4—c\/-7954 (RJS), Doc. No. 33 1] 8) r concern the design and development of the
`
`technology at
`
`issue.
`
`Soc Coiopiasr A/S. 1992 WL 346359. at *2 (noting the relevance of
`
`defendant's business records pertaining to the design. manufacture. and sale of its allegedly
`
`infringing products).
`
`Nonetheless, this factor does not heavily support transfer since, in light of technological
`
`progress and advances in electronic discovery. an increasing number of courts have explained
`
`

`
`that “[t]he location of relevant documents is
`
`largely a neutral
`
`factor
`
`in today's world
`
`of. .
`
`. scanning[] and emailing documents." Am. Steamship Oimers Mat. Prof. & Incfer-ii.
`
`.4.s-.s- ‘n
`
`1'. Lo;/nrge N. A111,. Inc, 474 F. Supp. 2d 474, 484 (S.D.N.Y. 2007'); see also Tomira Techs. USA.
`
`LLC, 818 F. Supp. 2d at 772 (noting that one party "almost certainly will not physically ship
`
`documents that relate to the design process from Japan to the trial court.
`
`Instead, it will scan
`
`those documents onto a computer, producing them with the click of a mouse"): TouchTtn-res
`
`Mu.s'i'c Corp.
`
`1’. Rowe Int '1 Corp. 676 F. Supp. 2d 169, 174 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (finding that. in the
`
`digital age. "the location of the documents is not a significant factor in the convenience analysis“
`
`(citations omitted)); I§'wilc Goal. Ltd. v. Youth Sports Pub! 'g, Inc. No. 06*cv»395 (H8), 2006
`
`WL 1517598. at *4 (S.D.N.Y. May 3]. 2006) (observing that "the burden on the party
`
`transporting documents is arguably minimal given the services (e.g. electronic production,
`
`overnight courier service) available to lawyers today"). Thus, since nothing in the parties‘
`
`submissions indicates that production of documents would pose a significant obstacle to
`
`adjudication in either New York or California. the Court determines that this factor is neutral as
`
`to transfer and, at most. only minimally favors transfer.
`
`C. Convenience ofPa11ies
`
`Unsurprisingl y. "[t] he convenience of the parties is often connected to the convenience of
`
`their respective witnesses." ESPN.
`
`Inc.
`
`1'. Qzt1'/t'si'lvc»i', 1:10.. 58] F. Supp. 2d 542. 549-50
`
`(S.D.N.Y. 2008). Therefore. while simply shifting inconvenience from one party to another does
`
`not support transfer. it is clear that when the convenience of witnesses weighs in one direction,
`
`the convenience of the parties will likely weigh in that direction as well. See id. at 550 (citing
`
`Dnji-‘er 1’. Gen. Motors Corp. 853 F. Supp. 690, 693 (S.D.N.Y- l994)). As discussed above. the
`
`convenience of the witnesses heavily favors transfer to the Northern District of California. so this
`
`10
`
`

`
`factor likewise favors transfer to that District. Nevertheless,
`
`the fact
`
`that Defendants are
`
`corporations with significant operations in New York, coupled with the fact that lXl [P LLC is
`
`incorporated in New York, suggests that this factor does not overwhelmingly favor transfer.
`
`D. Locus of Operative Facts
`
`"The location of operative events is a primary factor in determining a § 1404(a) motion to
`
`transfer." l’.V/HIE’/ICIIIS C‘olIecr1'0n, 20] l WL 4036097. at *2 (citing Bi'l11'ng 1'. Commerce One, Inc.
`
`186 F. Supp. 2d 375, 377 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)). As many courts have recognized. “[i]n patent
`
`infringement cases. the locus of operative facts is where the allegedly infringing product was
`
`designed. developed. and managed." Millennitmi, LR. 2003 WL 22928644, at *5 (citing
`
`Lighting World, Inc. 1'. Bircltwood Lighting. Inc, No. 0l—cv—475l (BSJ). 2001 WL 1242277. at
`
`*3——’l (S.D.N.Y_ Oct. 16. 2001)): see also VVech.rle.r r. Macks In! '1 Trade. Inc, No. 99—cV—5'/'25
`
`(AGS). 1999 WL 1261251. at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27. 1999); Amersirarn Pharmacia Biotech. Inc.
`
`1'. Pm-lcn1—Elmcr Corp. 11 F. Supp. 2d 729, 730 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)). Other courts within this
`
`District have concluded that the locus may also include the location where the patented invention
`
`was developed. See. e.g.. France Telccom S./11.. 2012 WL 6808527, at *1 (noting that '“[i]n
`
`patent cases, the locus of the operative facts generally lies either where the patented invention
`
`was developed. or where the allegedly infringing product was designed. developed. and
`
`produced" (citing C1'rre.\' Sirs. LLC 1*.
`
`Infi'aReDx, Inc. No.
`
`l0—cv—3952 (DLC). 2010 WL
`
`3431165. at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 31. 20]0))).
`
`Under either framework. it is clear that the Northern District of California is a locus of
`
`operative facts and the Southem District of New York is not. Here, there can be no dispute that
`
`many of the allegedly infringing products — including all applicable Apple products and. at a
`
`minimum. some of the BlackBerry and Samsung products — were designed. developed. and
`
`ll
`
`

`
`managed in the Northern District of C alifornia, whereas no such conduct occurred in the
`
`Southem District of New York. (No. 14—cv—7954 (RJS), Doc. No. 28 at 11-13, 15-16, Doc. No.
`
`29 ml 5, 7—l0. 12, Doc. No. 35 at 6: No. l4—cv4428 (R.lS}. Doc. No.48 at 2. Doc. No. 49 fi|1l 4.
`
`7—8. Doc. No. 54 at 2-3; No.
`
`l4—cv—-4355 (RJS). Doc. No. 45 at 2, Doc. No. 46-] 111] 8-9.)
`
`Moreover, since the technology patented by IX] was developed in the Northern District of
`
`California as well as in lsrael. but not in the Southern District of New York (No. 14~cv—7954
`
`(RJS). Doc. Nos. 28 at 16, 31 at 18), the expanded definition oflocus relied on by Judge Rakoff
`
`in France Telccom SA. and Judge Cote in Ct'rre.t' Sys. LLC‘ — that is, the definition that includes
`
`the location where the patented invention was developed — further supports transfer. Finally. the
`
`mere fact that some operative facts in these actions occurred in Israel does not counsel against
`
`transfer.
`
`Indeed, courts in this District routinely transfer actions where, as here,
`
`there are
`
`multiple loci of operations. many of the operative facts transpired in the transferee district, and
`
`no significant operative facts took place in the transferor district. See, e.g., Frrmce Tclccom S.A..
`
`2012 WL 6808527. at * 1-2 (granting transfer where the "operative facts appear to have occurred
`
`in several different locales around the world." but "the Northem District of California is the
`
`locus of many of the operative facts" and "no significant operative facts appear to have occurred
`
`in New York"); Serconef. Ltd. 1’. Ncrgear. Inc, No. 06—cv—5026 (JSR). 2006 WL 2109462, at *2
`
`(S.D.N.Y. July 27. 2006) (same). Accordingly, the Court determines that this factor weighs
`
`heavily in favor oftransferring these actions to the N01'tl]Bl‘11 District 0fCalif0ITtia.
`
`E. Availability of Process to Compel the Attendance of Unwilling Witnesses
`
`In evaluating motions to transfer. courts also consider "the availability of process to
`
`compel the testimony of unwilling witnesses." ll/ltiteliatts Coilccriotz, 201 I WL 4036097. at *5.
`
`However, if neither party submits evidence suggesting that a witness will be unwilling to testify
`
`I2
`
`

`
`voluntarily. the availability of process to compel testimony is largely irrelevant to the transfer
`
`analysis. See Pace 1*. Qriiiiraiiflfa. No.
`
`l3—cv—9l (RJS), 2013 WL 5405563. at *4 (S.D.N.Y.
`
`Sept. 23. 2013) (citing lVln'relmzis Co/iecrion, 2011 WL 4036097. at *5). Because no party here
`
`has proffered any materials indicating that any of the witnesses will not testify in New York or
`
`California voluntarily. this factor is neutral as to the § l404(a) analysis.
`
`F. Relative Means of the Parties
`
`An additional factor courts take into account when deciding transfer motions is “the
`
`relative means of the parties to bring suit in either forum."
`
`i’i/flfféflalrls Colleclforz, 2011 WL
`
`4036097. at *6. But where. as here. all parties are corporations. "this factor is not entitled to
`
`great weight." Bionx lnipianis. Inc‘. it Biomcl. Inc, No. 99—Cv—7-40 (WHP), 1999 WL 342306, at
`
`*5 (S.D.N.Y. May 27, 1999) (citing Toy Biz. Inc.
`
`1'. Cenzttri Corp. 990 F. Supp. 328. 331
`
`(S.D.N.Y. 1998)).
`
`Furthermore. "[a] party arguing against or for transfer because ofinadequate
`
`means must offer documentation to show that transfer (or the lack thereof) would be unduly
`
`burdensome to [its] finances.“ Mcr.s'rei'("r:rd Int‘l. Inc.
`
`1‘. Larry! S'oiui.r'rm.s-.
`
`Im.'°.. No. 03—cv—7157
`
`(WHP). 2004 WL 1368299. at *7 (S.D.N.Y. June I6. 2004) (citations and internal quotation
`
`marks omitted). To be sure. lXl's moving papers refer to Apples and Samsung's substantial
`
`financial resources. while conceding that BlackBerry has had "recent financial struggles." (No.
`
`l4—cv~7954 (RJS). Doc. No. 31 at 27: No.
`
`l4—cv~4428 (RJS), Doc. No. 50 at 27; No.
`
`l4Pcv—
`
`4355 (RJS), Doc. No. 47 at 27.) Nevertheless. these assertions are of no moment since IXI has
`
`provided no documentation to suggest that transfer to the Northern District of California would
`
`be "unduly burdensome" to its finances.
`
`:'t-1'a.vIer('urd Inf/.
`
`lmz. 2004 WL 1368299. at *7.
`
`Moreover. lXl's argument that the Southern District of New York is more convenient than the
`
`Northern District ofCa1ifornia because IXl’s “chosen counsel has offices in New York and the
`
`13
`
`

`
`principal attorneys working on the matter are located in Philadelphia. PA" (No.
`
`l4wcv—7954
`
`(RJS). Doc. No. 31 at 13) is equally unpersuasive since any inconvenience to IXI’s lawyers is
`
`"irrelevant." Ci'rrc.r Sys. LLC. 2010 WL 3431165. at *3 (holding that "any inconvenience to
`
`[plaintiff s] New Yorl<—based counsel is irrelevant"); see also Crcssman 1’. United’ Air Lines, Inc.
`
`158 F. Supp. 404. 407 (S.D.N.Y. 1958) (finding that any inconvenience to counsel "is not a
`
`relevant consideration"). Accordingly. the Court detennines that this factor is neutral.
`
`G. Forunfs Familiarity with the Governing Law
`
`"Familiarity with the governing law as a factor in determining transfer of venue is
`
`‘generally given little weight in federal courts.'" MASTR Asset Backed Sec. Trust 20()7—WMCI.
`
`ex rel. U.S. Bank Nut '1 .~1s.s'
`
`'11 1‘.
`
`ll/l1rI(' Mort. LLC. 880 F. Supp. 2d 418, 423 (S.D.N.Y. 2012)
`
`(quoting Am. Eagle Ouiffitrers, Inc. 1'. Talc Bros. Corp, 457 F. Supp. 2d 474, 479 (S.D.N.Y.
`
`2006)). More specifically. “[p]atent law is federal law and any district court may handle a patent
`
`case with equal skill." Wec'h.s-fer r. Mrrc/re Int '1 Trade. Inc. No. 99—cv—5"/25 (AGS). 1999 WL
`
`1261251, at *9 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 27. 1999) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
`
`Therefore. the Court determines that this relatively unimportant factor is also neutral.
`
`H. Weight Accorded the Plaintiffs‘ Choice of Forum
`
`A “plaintiffs choice of forum is presumptively entitled to substantial deference.“ Grass
`
`1'. Brinslz Broad. Corp., 386 F.3d 224. 230 (2d Cir. 2004) (citation omitted). However.
`
`the
`
`weight afforded to a plaintiffs choice is diminished "where the operative facts lack a meaningful
`
`connection to the chosen forum." Gla.\'aSmiIhKline Bfologfcrils. S.A..
`
`1'. Hospira I-Vorldwide.
`
`Inc, No. 13~cv—l395 (PKC). 2013 WL 2244315, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 21, 2013) (citation
`
`omitted); see also Scrconcr. Lml. 2006 WL 2109462, at *2 (concluding that “where. as here. the
`
`other factors all favor transfer and the connection between the case and the Southem District of
`
`14
`
`

`
`New York is virtually nonexistent. plaintift"s choice of forum is
`
`insufficient
`
`to prevent
`
`transfer"). Here, the Court has little difficulty concluding that the operative facts in these actions
`
`lack a meaningful connection to the Southern District of New York. As noted above.
`
`the
`
`Northern District of California — where much of the accused products were designed. developed.
`
`and managed and where. along with Israel. the patented technology was invented — is clearly a
`
`locus of operative facts. whereas the Southern District ofNew York ~ where none of those things
`
`occurred — is not.
`
`As a result. IX] is left to rely. almost exclusively, on the incorporation of IX] IP LLC in
`
`New York v notwithstanding the fact that it was formed only a couple of months prior to
`
`commencing these actions.
`
`Indeed. Apple has convincingly questioned the strength of IXI [P
`
`LLC"s connection to the Southern District ofNew York. asserting that it "has found nothing in
`
`the public domain or on the company website th