Case 2:17-cv-03740-JMV-JBC Document 45 Filed 03/23/18 Page 1 of 48 PageID: 835
`
`
`ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
`
`RAYNA E. KESSLER, ESQ. (NJ 031782010)
`399 Park Ave., Suite 3600
`New York, NY 10022
`Telephone: (212) 980-7431
`Facsimile: (212) 980-7499
`RKessler@RobinsKaplan.com
`
`CHRISTOPHER A. SEIDL, ESQ. (MN 313439) (pro hac vice)
`JOHN K. HARTING, ESQ. (MN 392234) (pro hac vice)
`KRIS TENG, ESQ. (MN 399017) (pro hac vice)
`MARY PHENG, ESQ. (MN 0398500) (pro hac vice)
`800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`Telephone: (612) 349-8500
`Facsimile: (612) 339-4181
`
`CHRISTINE S. YUN SAUER (CA 314307) (pro hac vice)
`LI ZHU, ESQ. (CA 302210) (pro hac vice)
`2440 W. El Camino Real, Suite 100
`Mountain View, CA 94040
`Telephone: (650) 784-4040
`Facsimile: (650) 784-4041
`
`
`INVT SPE LLC,
`
`
`
` Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`
`HTC Corporation, and
`HTC America, Inc.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`CASE NO.: 2:17-cv-03740-JMV-JBC
`
`INVT’S OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANT HTC CORP.
`AND HTC AMERICA, INC.’S
`MOTION TO TRANSFER
`
`Oral Argument Requested
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1007, Page 1
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-03740-JMV-JBC Document 45 Filed 03/23/18 Page 2 of 48 PageID: 836
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
`RELEVANT FACTS ................................................................................................. 3
`I. THIS CASE AND THE RELATED CASES INVOLVE COMMON
`ISSUES RELATED TO INVT’S STANDARD-ESSENTIAL
`PATENTS. ......................................................................................................... 3
`II. THIS MATTER IS INTIMATELY CONNECTED WITH NEW
`JERSEY. ............................................................................................................. 6
`A. Defendant engages major wireless carriers, such as Verizon, to
`distribute the Accused Products, and relevant information is
`located in New Jersey. ............................................................................... 6
`B. Defendant extensively collaborated with wireless providers
`located in New Jersey to develop the Accused Products to comply
`with the Accused Standards, and relevant information is located in
`or close to New Jersey. .............................................................................. 8
`C. Qualcomm has a significant presence in New Jersey, and relevant
`information is located in or close to New Jersey. ................................... 14
`D. Panasonic—the original patent holder—has its domestic
`headquarters in New Jersey. .................................................................... 15
`LEGAL ARGUMENT ............................................................................................. 15
`I. THE PRIVATE INTEREST FACTORS WEIGH HEAVILY
`AGAINST TRANSFER. .................................................................................. 16
`INVT’s venue choice merits significant deference; Defendant’s
`A.
`preference does not. ................................................................................. 16
`B. New Jersey—not California—is more convenient for numerous
`potential non-party witnesses. ................................................................. 18
`1. New Jersey is more convenient for Verizon and AT&T
`witnesses, weighing against transfer. .............................................. 19
`2. Potentially relevant current and former Qualcomm
`employees also reside in New Jersey. ............................................. 21
`3. New Jersey is more convenient for Panasonic witnesses and
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1007, Page 2
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-03740-JMV-JBC Document 45 Filed 03/23/18 Page 3 of 48 PageID: 837
`
`
`
`the prosecuting attorney for the Asserted Patents. .......................... 25
`INVT’s claims also arose in New Jersey. ............................................... 26
`C.
`D. The convenience of the parties does not favor transfer. .......................... 28
`E. The location of documentary evidence also weighs against
`transfer. .................................................................................................... 30
`II. THE RELEVANT PUBLIC INTEREST FACTORS WEIGH
`HEAVILY AGAINST TRANSFER. ............................................................... 32
`A. Practical considerations and judicial economy weigh heavily
`against transfer. ........................................................................................ 32
`B. The local interest does not favor transfer. ............................................... 34
`C. Court congestion favors this District or is neutral. ................................. 36
`D. Public policy does not favor transfer. ...................................................... 37
`E. The remaining public interest factors are neutral. ................................... 37
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 37
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1007, Page 3
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-03740-JMV-JBC Document 45 Filed 03/23/18 Page 4 of 48 PageID: 838
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`3G Licensing, S.A. v. HTC Corp.,
`No. 17-cv-0083, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207202
`(D. Del. Dec. 18, 2017) ....................................................................................... 17
`Am. Fin. Res., Inc. v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC,
`No. 14-7555, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94562 (D.N.J. July 21, 2015) ................. 18
`Apple Inc. v. High Tech Computer Corp.,
`No. 10-166, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4022 (D. Del. Jan. 14, 2011) .............. 28, 32
`Brandywine Comm’cns Techs., LLC v. HTC Corp. et al.,
`No. 6:12-cv-00276 (M.D. Fla. Aug. 23, 2012) ................................................... 19
`Brandywine Commc’ns. Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 12-cv-262, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198355
`(M.D. Fla. Aug. 23, 2012) .................................................................................. 19
`Clark v. Burger King Corp.,
`255 F. Supp. 2d 334 (D.N.J. 2003) ..................................................................... 29
`Clopay Corp. v. Newell Cos.,
`527 F. Supp. 733 (D. Del. 1981) ......................................................................... 17
`Core Wireless Licensing, S.A.R.L. v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 6:12-CV-100 LED-JDL, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24922
`(E.D. Tex. Feb. 22, 2013) ................................................................................... 21
`Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`No. 2:14-cv-912, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 107270
`(E.D. Tex. Aug. 12, 2016) ............................................................................ 22, 23
`Corel Software, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`No. 2:14-cv-528, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24003
`(D. Utah Feb. 26, 2016) ..................................................................................... 22
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1007, Page 4
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-03740-JMV-JBC Document 45 Filed 03/23/18 Page 5 of 48 PageID: 839
`
`
`
`Ezaki Glico Kabushiki Kaisha v. Lotte Int’l Am. Corp.,
`No. 15-54772, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157424
`(D.N.J. Sept. 25, 2017) ................................................................................. 25, 26
`Gemalto S.A. v. HTC Corp. et al.,
`No. 6:10-cv-561, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133612
`(E.D. Tex. Nov. 18, 2011) .................................................................................... 6
`In re Asus Computer Int’l,
`573 Fed. Appx. 928 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................ 24, 27
`In re Zimmer Holdings, Inc.,
`609 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 33
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Altera Corp.,
`842 F. Supp. 2d 744 (D. Del. 2012) .................................................................... 15
`Interlink Prods. Int’l v. Fan Fi Int’l, Inc.,
`No. 16-1142, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53627 (D.N.J. Apr. 7, 2017) ............ 25, 26
`INVT SPE LLC v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 2:17-cv-01622-JMV-JBC,
`(filed May 25, 2017) ......................................................................................... 4, 9
`INVT SPE LLC v. ZTE Corp. et al.,
`No. 2:17-cv-06522-JMV-JBC,
`(filed Aug. 29, 2017) ......................................................................................... 4, 9
`LG Elecs. Inc. v. First Int’l Computer,
`138 F. Supp. 2d 574 (D.N.J. Apr. 11, 2001) ....................................................... 17
`Linwood Trading Ltd. v. Am. Metal Recycling Servs.,
`No. 14-5782, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115395
`(D.N.J. Aug. 28, 2015) ........................................................................................ 16
`MaxLite, Inc. v. ATG Elecs., Inc.,
`193 F. Supp. 3d 371 (D.N.J. 2016) ............................................................... 30, 31
`NFC Tech., LLC v. HTC Am.,
`No. 2:13-cv-01058, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 105230
`(E.D. Tex. Aug. 1, 2014) .................................................................................... 34
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1007, Page 5
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-03740-JMV-JBC Document 45 Filed 03/23/18 Page 6 of 48 PageID: 840
`
`
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 6:15-cv-1095, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177687
`(E.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2016) .................................................................................. 23
`Parthenon Unified Memory Architecture LLC v. HTC Corp. et al.,
`No. 2:14-cv-00690, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102860
`(E.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2015) .............................................................................. 27, 32
`Pippins v. KPMG LLP,
`No. 11-0377, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30678
`(S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2011) ................................................................................... 25
`Quintiles IMS, Inc. v. Veeva Sys.,
`No. 17-177, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97905 (D.N.J. June 23, 2017) ............ 18, 20
`Ramada Franchise Sys. v. Timeless Towns of the Ams.,
`No. 96-4394, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13861 (D.N.J. Jan. 13, 1997) ................. 16
`Robocast, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 11-235-RGA, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24879
`(D. Del. Feb. 24, 2012) ....................................................................................... 15
`Rockstar Consortium US LP v. HTC Corp.,
`No. 2:13-cv-00895, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102991
`(E.D. Tex. July 29, 2014) ........................................................................ 23, 34, 35
`Shutte v. Armco Steel Corp.,
`431 F.2d 22 (3d Cir. 1970) ..................................................................... 14, 16, 18
`Smart Audio Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`910 F. Supp. 2d 718 (D. Del. 2012) .................................................. 16, 21, 27, 33
`Summit 6 LLC v. HTC Corp.,
`No. 7:14-cv-00014, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126800
`(N.D. Tex. Sept. 10, 2014) ............................................................................ 29, 33
`Telebrands Corp. v. Mopnado,
`No. 2:14-7969, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10316 (D.N.J. Jan. 28,
`2016) ................................................................................................................... 15
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1007, Page 6
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-03740-JMV-JBC Document 45 Filed 03/23/18 Page 7 of 48 PageID: 841
`
`
`
`Telebrands Corp. v. Mopnado,
`No. 2:14-07969 (JLL) (JAD),
`2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10671
`(D.N.J. Jan. 12, 2016) .............................................. 15, 18, 19, 26, 27, 30, 31, 32
`Wi-LAN Inc. v. HTC Corp.,
`No. 2:11-cv-68, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99635
`(E.D. Tex. July 17, 2013) .................................................................................... 21
`Wultz v. Bank of China,
`298 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) .......................................................................... 24
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vii
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1007, Page 7
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-03740-JMV-JBC Document 45 Filed 03/23/18 Page 8 of 48 PageID: 842
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`Am. Fin. Res., Inc. v. Nationstar Mortgage, LLC,
`No. 14-7555, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94562 (D.N.J. July 21, 2015) ................. 20
`Apple Computer, Inc. v. Unova, Inc.,
`No. 03-101, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23843 (D. Del. Nov. 25, 2003) ................ 32
`Apple Inc. v. HTC Corp.,
`No. 10-166, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4022 (D. Del. Jan. 14, 2011) .................... 31
`Brandywine Commc’ns. Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 12-cv-262, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198355 (M.D. Fla. Aug.
`23, 2012) ............................................................................................................. 21
`Core Wireless Licensing, S.A.R.L. v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 6:12-cv-100, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24922
`(E.D. Tex. Feb. 22, 2013) ................................................................................... 20
`Ezaki Glico Kabushiki Kaisha v. Lotte Int’l Am. Corp.,
`No. 15-54772, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157424 (D.N.J. Sept. 25,
`2017) ............................................................................................................. 25, 26
`In re Apple Inc.,
`743 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 20
`In re Asus Computer Int’l,
`573 Fed. Appx. 928 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................. 24
`In re Zimmer Holdings, Inc.,
`609 F.3d 1378, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................................ 32
`Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Altera Corp.,
`842 F. Supp. 2d 744 (D. Del. 2012) .................................................................... 17
`Interlink Prods. Int’l v. Fan Fi Int’l, Inc.,
`No. 16-1142, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53627 (D.N.J. Apr. 7, 2017) .................. 26
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1007, Page 8
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-03740-JMV-JBC Document 45 Filed 03/23/18 Page 9 of 48 PageID: 843
`
`
`
`INVT SPE LLC v. HTC Corp. et al.,
`No. 2:17-cv-03740-JMV-JBC
`(filed May 25, 2017) ......................................................................................... 4, 8
`INVT SPE LLC v. ZTE Corp. et al.,
`No. 2:17-cv-06522-JMV-JBC
`(filed Aug. 29, 2017) ......................................................................................... 4, 8
`Linwood Trading Ltd. v. Am. Metal Recycling Servs.,
`No. 14-5782 (CCC), 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115395 (D.N.J. Aug.
`28, 2015) ............................................................................................................. 18
`Master Cutlery, Inc. v. Panther Trading Co.,
`No. 12-4493, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178639 (D.N.J. Dec. 14,
`2012) ................................................................................................................... 27
`MaxLite, Inc. v. ATG Elecs., Inc.,
`193 F. Supp. 3d 371 (D.N.J. 2016) ..................................................................... 29
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 6:15-cv-1095, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177687 (E.D. Tex. Sept.
`30, 2016) ............................................................................................................. 23
`Pers. Audio, LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 9:09-cv-111, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11899 (E.D. Tex. Feb.
`11, 2010) ............................................................................................................... 5
`Phoenix Licensing, L.L.C. v. GM, LLC,
`No. 2:13-cv-1093, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39806
`(E.D. Tex. Mar. 29, 2015) ................................................................................... 29
`Pippins v. KPMG LLP,
`No. 11-0377, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30678 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21,
`2011) ................................................................................................................... 25
`Quintiles IMS, Inc. v. Veeva Sys.,
`No. 17-177, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97905 (D.N.J. June 23, 2017) ...... 19, 20, 24
`Ramada Franchise Sys. v. Timeless Towns of the Ams.,
`No. 96-4394 (DRD), 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13861 (D.N.J. Jan.
`13, 1997) ............................................................................................................. 18
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1007, Page 9
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-03740-JMV-JBC Document 45 Filed 03/23/18 Page 10 of 48 PageID: 844
`
`
`
`Robocast, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 11-235, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24879 (D. Del. Feb. 24, 2012) ........... 17, 27
`Shutte v. Armco Steel Corp.,
`431 F.2d 22 (3d Cir. 1970) ..................................................................... 16, 18, 19
`Smart Audio Techs., LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`910 F. Supp. 2d 718 (D. Del. 2012) ......................... 14, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25
`Telebrands Corp. v. Mopnado,
`Case No. 2:14-07969, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10671
`(D.N.J. Jan. 12, 2016) .................................................... 18, 20, 22, 27, 28, 31, 32
`Teva Pharms. United States v. Sandoz Inc.,
`No. 17-275, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 77193 (D.N.J. May 22, 2017) .................. 26
`Wultz v. Bank of China,
`298 F.R.D. 91 (S.D.N.Y. 2014) .......................................................................... 23
`
`
`
`
`x
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1007, Page 10
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-03740-JMV-JBC Document 45 Filed 03/23/18 Page 11 of 48 PageID: 845
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Defendant HTC, a multi-billion dollar global conglomerate, fails to meet the
`
`significant burden of proving that convenience “strongly” favors transferring this
`
`case to California. Nor does Defendant meet the even “greater burden” compelled
`
`by its financial standing and international presence. Defendant also fails to
`
`recognize that INVT’s choice of New Jersey venue is a “paramount concern”
`
`entitled to significant deference. This is especially true because INVT chose New
`
`Jersey for numerous “rational and legitimate reasons.”
`
`Chief among these reasons is judicial economy, which strongly favors venue
`
`in New Jersey. INVT has three co-pending lawsuits in New Jersey, including
`
`against ZTE—a New Jersey corporation with a significant presence in this District.
`
`ZTE has not, and will not, move to transfer its case, so these overlapping issues
`
`will undisputedly be heard in New Jersey. All three related lawsuits implicate the
`
`same asserted patents, same wireless standards, same inventors, same technical
`
`specifications, and involve numerous overlapping issues, including discovery,
`
`claim construction, and infringement proof. Transferring HTC’s case to California
`
`would create parallel litigation and lead to potentially inconsistent outcomes,
`
`inefficiencies, and waste of judicial resources.
`
`INVT’s case is also intimately tied to New Jersey. Wireless carriers with a
`
`significant presence in New Jersey, including Verizon and AT&T, collaborated
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1007, Page 11
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-03740-JMV-JBC Document 45 Filed 03/23/18 Page 12 of 48 PageID: 846
`
`
`
`with Defendant to design, develop, test, validate, certify, and distribute the
`
`infringing products. Although Qualcomm purportedly manufactures the wireless
`
`chips used by Defendant’s infringing products, the specifications for those
`
`products are dictated in part by Verizon, AT&T, and other major carriers.
`
`Defendant, by its own admission, leverages its “long-term unique relationships”
`
`with the major carriers to “tailor its products and services to the needs of each
`
`carrier,” and the same carriers distribute Defendant’s products “in all key markets,”
`
`including here in New Jersey. Defendant also concedes that, for the infringing
`
`products, “testing is performed in New Jersey . . . .” The relevance of these
`
`wireless carriers is further corroborated by the responsibilities of Defendant’s
`
`former New Jersey employees, who worked with wireless carriers to design,
`
`develop, test, and validate the Accused Products. Those employees have since
`
`gone on to work for Verizon and other companies.
`
`New Jersey is also the proper venue because numerous potential non-party
`
`witnesses—“the single most important factor in a Section 1404 analysis”—reside
`
`in or near New Jersey, including Verizon, AT&T, and Qualcomm employees.
`
`Likewise, the asserted patents originated with Panasonic, which has its domestic
`
`headquarters in New Jersey, and the patent attorney who prosecuted those patents
`
`resides closer to New Jersey than California.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1007, Page 12
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-03740-JMV-JBC Document 45 Filed 03/23/18 Page 13 of 48 PageID: 847
`
`
`
`Realizing that it has almost no connections to California, Defendant
`
`attempts to manufacture a “center of gravity” there by pointing to a mishmash of
`
`unnamed Taiwanese and Washington employees, undisclosed Qualcomm
`
`individuals, and unidentified Qualcomm agreements—agreements that, according
`
`to Qualcomm, may potentially only “relate to patents” and nothing more.
`
`Defendant falls far short of its burden, particularly because Defendant fails to name
`
`a single witness that would be unavailable for trial in New Jersey, as required
`
`under the law. And Defendant’s arguments regarding documents and source code
`
`are similarly flawed—Defendant never disputes that such information could be
`
`produced in New Jersey.
`
`New Jersey has substantial ties to Defendant and its distributors,
`
`Defendant’s infringing products, the asserted patents, and countless non-party
`
`witnesses. Judicial economy and other practical considerations also favor New
`
`Jersey over California. For the reasons stated herein, Defendant’s transfer motion
`
`should be denied.
`
`I.
`
`RELEVANT FACTS
`THIS CASE AND TWO RELATED CASES INVOLVE COMMON
`ISSUES RELATED TO INVT’S STANDARD-ESSENTIAL PATENTS.
`Plaintiff INVT SPE LLC has asserted seven standard-essential U.S. Patents
`
`(“the Asserted Patents”). Dkt. 1, Compl. ¶¶ 1-5, 46-151. INVT’s inventions have
`
`been adopted worldwide, as standard and essential to wireless communications.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1007, Page 13
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-03740-JMV-JBC Document 45 Filed 03/23/18 Page 14 of 48 PageID: 848
`
`
`
`Id. ¶¶ 17-18, 25-33. The inventions address fundamental issues relating to faster
`
`and better data transmission, which improve the consumer experience. Id.; see also
`
`id. ¶¶ 50, 66, 81, 94, 109, 124, 140.
`
`The Asserted Patents read on technical standards related to data transmission
`
`using Long-Term Evolution (“LTE”), Enhanced Data Rates for GSM Evolution
`
`(“EDGE”), and several second (“2G”) and third generation (“3G”) technologies
`
`(collectively, “the Accused Standards”).1 Id. ¶¶ 17-18. These Accused Standards
`
`are fundamental to allowing products and services from unrelated competitors to
`
`operate seamlessly with the telecommunications networks of major carriers,
`
`including the two largest carriers, Verizon Wireless (“Verizon”) and AT&T
`
`Mobility (“AT&T”). Id. ¶¶ 13, 29. Any device that incorporates technology using
`
`the Accused Standards necessarily infringes the Asserted Patents. Id.
`
`Defendant infringes—by itself and in conjunction with its distributors and
`
`third parties—the Asserted Patents by making, testing, and selling products such as
`
`mobile phones, tablets, and other wireless devices (“Accused Products”) that
`
`incorporate the Accused Standards. Id. ¶¶ 4, 8-9, 12-15, 46-151. Defendant admits
`
`
`
`1 The accused 2G and 3G standards relate to General Packet Radio Service
`(“GPRS”), Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (“UMTS”), High Speed
`Packet Access (“HSPA”), Enhanced General Packet Radio Services (“EGPRS”),
`and Wideband Code Division Multiple Access (“WCDMA”). Dkt. 1, Compl. ¶¶
`17, 46-151.
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1007, Page 14
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-03740-JMV-JBC Document 45 Filed 03/23/18 Page 15 of 48 PageID: 849
`
`
`
`“most, if not all, of the HTC Accused Products” contain a “cellular baseband
`
`processor” that “implements functionalities required for the HTC Accused Product
`
`to comply with the [accused] standard.” Dkt. 43 at 4; Dkt. 42-3 ¶ 7.
`
`INVT has filed related actions against two other telecommunications
`
`companies—ZTE and Apple2—in this Court, implicating the same Asserted
`
`Patents, Accused Standards, inventors, and technical specifications and
`
`functionalities as this case. INVT SPE LLC v. ZTE Corp. et al., No. 2:17-cv-06522-
`
`JMV-JBC, Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 44-148 (filed Aug. 29, 2017) (“ZTE”); INVT SPE LLC v.
`
`Apple Inc., No. 2:17-cv-01622-JMV-JBC, Dkt. 1 ¶¶ 46-151 (filed May 25, 2017)
`
`(“Apple”). INVT’s actions against HTC, ZTE, and Apple involve numerous
`
`overlapping issues, including discovery, claim construction issues, and
`
`infringement proof (i.e., whether the Asserted Patents cover the Accused Standards
`
`and Accused Products). ZTE, a New Jersey corporation, has not and will not move
`
`to transfer its case, so these overlapping issues will undisputedly be heard in New
`
`Jersey.
`
`
`
`2 The related Apple case should also remain in New Jersey for many of the
`same reasons discussed in this opposition.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1007, Page 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-03740-JMV-JBC Document 45 Filed 03/23/18 Page 16 of 48 PageID: 850
`
`
`
`II. THIS MATTER IS INTIMATELY CONNECTED WITH NEW
`JERSEY.
`A. Defendant engages major wireless carriers, such as Verizon, to
`distribute the Accused Products, and relevant information is
`located in New Jersey.
`Defendant is one of the country’s largest providers of consumer electronics,
`
`and is one of the world’s largest manufacturers of EDGE/3G/LTE user devices.
`
`Dkt. 1, Compl. ¶ 24. Defendant has a massive, national presence, and has a sales
`
`office in Bedminster, New Jersey. See Ex. 1. However, instead of setting up an
`
`army of its own retail stores, Defendant primarily relies on “major carriers and
`
`local retail channels” to distribute the Accused Products and “maintain[] a presence
`
`in all key markets, including the United States . . . .” See Ex. 2 at 30, 43, 147.
`
`In Defendant’s own words: “HTC promotes products directly to mass-
`
`market consumers via long-term unique relationships with the world’s largest
`
`telecommunications service providers that include the four big mobile operators in
`
`the United States . . . .” Id. at 142. Defendant confirms it “sells its products to
`
`third-party distributors, and expects the sales of the Accused Products to
`
`encompass all of the United States.” Dkt. 43 at 24 (citing Dkt. 43-1 ¶ 5). Leading
`
`these third-party distributors is Verizon—a wireless carrier with its corporate
`
`headquarters located in Basking Ridge, New Jersey. Ex. 3. Defendant’s “New
`
`Jersey Employees (current and former) focus mainly on supporting HTC’s U.S.
`
`carrier customers, including Verizon Wireless.” Dkt. 43-1 ¶ 11.
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1007, Page 16
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-03740-JMV-JBC Document 45 Filed 03/23/18 Page 17 of 48 PageID: 851
`
`
`
`Accordingly, Verizon and other major carriers will have relevant
`
`information about the distribution and sale of the Accused Products on Defendant’s
`
`behalf, relevant to both infringement and damages. See Gemalto S.A. v. HTC Corp.
`
`et al., No. 6:10-cv-561, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133612, at *12 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 18,
`
`2011) (Verizon’s New Jersey sales documents are relevant to HTC’s
`
`infringement). Public information indicates that Verizon witnesses, documents, and
`
`other sources of proof are likely to reside in New Jersey, including at Verizon’s
`
`corporate headquarters. Verizon’s significant presence in this District also includes
`
`numerous executives likely involved in the distribution, sale, and marketing of
`
`Defendant’s Accused Products, including at least the following:
`
`
`
`Anthony Dennis (Flemington, New Jersey), Verizon’s
`Executive Director of Wireless Marketing, is responsible
`“generating RFP guidance for OEMs” and “negotiating
`features, network service enablement” with a “[s]trong
`working relationship with leadership teams in major
`OEMs . . . .” Ex. 4;
`
` Matthew Carr (Basking Ridge, New Jersey), Verizon’s
`VP of Marketing & Field Operations, is “[r]esponsible
`for all marketing and sales operations efforts nationally
`across six markets.” Ex. 5;
`
`Brian Higgins (Basking Ridge, New Jersey), Verizon’s
`VP of Device and Product Marketing.” Ex. 6; and
`
`
`
`
`
`Bruce Knauf (Basking Ridge, New Jersey), Defendant’s
`former Product Management Manager, who now works
`as Verizon’s Manager of “Product Management, Device
`Marketing.” Ex. 7.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1007, Page 17
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-03740-JMV-JBC Document 45 Filed 03/23/18 Page 18 of 48 PageID: 852
`
`
`
`These and other potentially relevant Verizon employees will have documents
`
`relating to the distribution, sales, and marketing of the Accused Products, including
`
`documents maintained at Verizon’s headquarters in New Jersey.
`
`B. Defendant extensively collaborated with wireless providers
`located in New Jersey to develop the Accused Products to comply
`with the Accused Standards, and relevant information is located
`in or close to New Jersey.
`Defendant also works extensively with wireless providers located in New
`
`Jersey to develop the Accused Products. The two largest wireless carriers—
`
`Verizon and AT&T—have a significant presence in New Jersey. As previously
`
`mentioned, Verizon is headquartered here. Ex. 3. AT&T conducts research and
`
`development on its network through its subsidiary, AT&T Labs, which has only
`
`three locations—two in New Jersey (Bedminster and Middletown) and another
`
`within 100 miles of this District (New York, New York). Ex. 8.
`
`Verizon and AT&T are more than just Defendant’s customers and
`
`distributors. “Defendant collaborates with both Verizon and AT&T, as well as
`
`other major carriers, to develop and incorporate the Accused Standards into the
`
`Accused Products so that those products can communicate with their respective
`
`provider networks.” See Dkt. 1 ¶ 15. Defendant publicly boasts that its
`
`relationships with wireless carriers “not only keep HTC abreast of user demand but
`
`also allow HTC to better tailor its products and services to the needs of each
`
`carrier partner.” Ex. 2 at 142 (emphasis added); see also id. at 44 (stating the HTC
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1007, Page 18
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-03740-JMV-JBC Document 45 Filed 03/23/18 Page 19 of 48 PageID: 853
`
`
`
`One M8 “passed all carriers testing and sold simultaneously through 230 carriers
`
`worldwide”). The same report states: “HTC continues to invest more developing
`
`resources to ensure HTC devices [] fully meet the demands of global telecom
`
`carriers to ensure HTC’s leadership position in 4G market and technology.” Id. at
`
`49 (emphasis added). For example, Defendant works with Verizon “to ensure that
`
`Defendant’s accused products and services comply with 3GPP technical
`
`specifications, infringing one or more of the Asserted Patents.” Id. For example,
`
`Defendant admits it organizes “compatibility testing for the cellular standards that
`
`are at issue in this case” pursuant to Verizon’s specifications, relevant to
`
`infringement. Dkt. 43 at 24 (citing Dkt. 42-1 ¶ 10) (emphasis added).
`
`Likewise, AT&T’s public comment to the Federal Communications
`
`Commission touted the intimate relationship between handset manufacturers like
`
`Defendant and wireless providers in developing the Accused Products:
`
`The development process for innovative handsets is
`typically very collaborative between the network
`operator and handset manufacturers (e.g., Apple and
`AT&T regarding the iPhone). In fact, many design
`concepts for devices are suggested by network operators
`based upon their experience and understanding of
`consumer preferences for particular functionalities and
`features. Since technologies and consumer preferences
`are evolving rapidly, wireless operators can and do serve
`as a valuable resource to device manufacturers to help
`guide the device design process.
`
`Additionally, network operator and device manufacturer
`collaboration and optimization activity is already
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1007, Page 19
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-03740-JMV-JBC Document 45 Filed 03/23/18 Page 20 of 48 PageID: 854
`
`
`
`important with traditional and ‘smart’ handsets and will
`become exponentially more important because more
`specialized wireless devices demand even greater
`optimization to maximize their performance using
`limited network resources.
`
`Ex. 9 at Ex. 1 at 10 (emphasis added). “AT&T works with virtually every major
`
`handset manufact