Case 2:17-cv-03740-JMV-JBC Document 42 Filed 03/09/18 Page 1 of 3 PageID: 500
`
`
`
`FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
`Formed in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
`Karen A. Confoy
`Allison L. Hollows
`Princeton Pike Corporate Center
`997 Lenox Drive, Building 3
`Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
`Telephone: (609) 896-3600
`Facsimile: (609) 896-1469
`kconfoy@foxrothschild.com
`ahollows@foxrothschild.com
`
`
`
`SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER &
`HAMPTON LLP
`A Limited Liability Partnership
`Including Professional Corporations
`Stephen S. Korniczky (pro hac vice)
`Martin R. Bader (pro hac vice)
`Ericka J. Schulz (pro hac vice)
`12275 El Camino Real, Suite 200
`San Diego, California 92130-2006
`Telephone: 858.720.8900
`Facsimile: 858.509.3691
`skorniczky@sheppardmullin.com
`mbader@sheppardmullin.com
`eschulz@sheppardmullin.com
`
`
`Counsel for Defendants and Counterclaim-Plaintiffs
`HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`Plaintiff
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`INVT SPE LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`HTC Corporation, and
`HTC America, Inc.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-03740-JMV-JBC
`
`
`
`Filed Electronically
`
`
`RETURN DATE: APRIL 16, 2018
`ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS HTC CORPORATION AND HTC AMERICA, INC.’S
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO TRANSFER
`
`-1-
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1006 Page 1
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-03740-JMV-JBC Document 42 Filed 03/09/18 Page 2 of 3 PageID: 501
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on April 16, 2018, or as soon thereafter as
`
`counsel may be heard, the undersigned attorneys for Defendants HTC Corp. and
`
`HTC America, Inc. (collectively, “HTC”) shall move before the Honorable John
`
`M. Vazquez, United States District Judge, Martin Luther King Building & U.S.
`
`Courthouse, 50 Walnut Street, Newark, NJ 07102, for entry of an Order
`
`transferring this action, under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), to the United States District
`
`Court for the Northern District of California.
`
`PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that in support of this Motion, HTC
`
`will rely upon the accompanying Memorandum of Law submitted herewith, the
`
`Declarations of Ericka J. Schulz, Lynn Yu, David Wiggins, Frank Wu, Brian
`
`Bannister, and Deborah Dwight, and any reply papers in support therefore.
`
`PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that a proposed form of Order is
`
`also submitted herewith for the Court’s consideration.
`
`PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that oral argument is respectfully
`
`requested.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1006 Page 2
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-03740-JMV-JBC Document 42 Filed 03/09/18 Page 3 of 3 PageID: 502
`
`Dated: March 9, 2018
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Karen A. Confoy
`Karen A. Confoy
`Allison L. Hollows
`FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
`997 Lenox Drive, Bldg. 3
`Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
`Telephone: 609.896.3600
`Facsimile: 609.896.1469
`kconfoy@foxrothschild.com
`ahollows@foxrothschild.com
`
`Stephen S. Korniczky (admitted pro hac vice)
`Martin R. Bader (admitted pro hac vice)
`Ericka J. Schulz (admitted pro hac vice)
`SHEPPARD MULLIN
`RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
`12275 El Camino Real, Suite 200
`San Diego, California 92130
`Telephone: 858.720.8900
`Facsimile: 858.509.3691
`skorniczky@sheppardmullin.com
`mbader@sheppardmullin.com
`eschulz@sheppardmullin.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants and
`Counterclaim-Plaintiffs HTC Corporation
`and HTC America, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1006 Page 3
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-03740-JMV-JBC Document 44 Filed 03/12/18 Page 1 of 43 PageID: 786
`
`FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
`Formed in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
`Karen A. Confoy
`Allison L. Hollows
`Princeton Pike Corporate Center
`997 Lenox Drive, Building 3
`Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
`Telephone: (609) 896-3600
`Facsimile: (609) 896-1469
`kconfoy@foxrothschild.com
`ahollows@foxrothschild.com
`
`SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER
`& HAMPTON LLP
`A Limited Liability Partnership
`Including Professional Corporations
`Stephen S. Korniczky (pro hac vice)
`Martin R. Bader (pro hac vice)
`Ericka J. Schulz (pro hac vice)
`12275 El Camino Real, Suite 200
`San Diego, California 92130-2006
`Telephone: 858.720.8900
`Facsimile: 858.509.3691
`skorniczky@sheppardmullin.com
`mbader@sheppardmullin.com
`eschulz@sheppardmullin.com
`
`Counsel for Defendants and Counterclaim-Plaintiffs
`HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`INVT SPE LLC,
`
`Plaintiff
`
`v.
`
`HTC Corporation, and
`HTC America, Inc.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-03740-JMV-JBC
`
`HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL –
`OUTSIDE ATTORNEYS’ EYES
`ONLY
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`Filed Electronically
`PUBLIC REDACTED VERSION
`RETURN DATE: APRIL 16, 2018
`ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED
`
`DEFENDANTS HTC CORPORATION AND HTC AMERICA, INC.’S
`MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO
`TRANSFER
`
`-i-
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1006 Page 4
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-03740-JMV-JBC Document 44 Filed 03/12/18 Page 2 of 43 PageID: 787
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ....................................................................... 3
`A. Asserted Patents and Relevant Technology ......................................... 3
`B.
`Processor Chipsets and Patent Agreements Reside in California. ........ 4
`C.
`Jersey. ................................................................................................. 7
`D. HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc. .......................................... 9
`E.
`California. ......................................................................................... 11
`III. ARGUMENT.............................................................................................. 11
`INVT Could Have Filed in the Northern District of California. ........ 13
`A.
`1.
`Jurisdiction over HTC for This Case. ...................................... 13
`2.
`HTC. ....................................................................................... 15
`B.
`District of California Is in the Interest of Justice. .............................. 17
`The Private Factors Strongly Favor Transfer........................... 19
`1.
`a)
`Choice of Venue Is Given Minimal Deference. ............. 19
`b)
`Transfer. ....................................................................... 20
`(1) Qualcomm’s Chipset Design and
`Development ....................................................... 21
`(2)
`Agreements ......................................................... 23
`
`Critical Qualcomm Witnesses With Knowledge of Its Baseband
`
`INVT and Parent Company Inventergy, Have Substantial Ties
`to the Northern District of California, and No Ties to New
`
`Numerous Third-Party Prior Art Witnesses Are Located in
`
`The Northern District of California Has Personal
`
`Venue Is Proper in the Northern District of California for
`
`The Private and Public Factors Show Transfer to the Northern
`
`Because INVT Has No Ties to New Jersey, Its
`
`The Center of Gravity of This Case Favors
`
`The Qualcomm and Panasonic Patent
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1006 Page 5
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-03740-JMV-JBC Document 44 Filed 03/12/18 Page 3 of 43 PageID: 788
`
`
`Inventergy’s Patent Purchase License
`
`Due to the Inconvenience of This Forum, HTC’s
`Preference for the Northern District of California
`
`The Northern District of California is More
`Accessible to Relevant Evidence and Non-Party
`
`The Overall Weight of the Public Factors Favors
`
`2.
`
`(3) HTC’s Accused Products .................................... 24
`(4)
`Negotiations. ....................................................... 25
`c)
`Favors Transfer. ............................................................ 28
`d)
`Witnesses. ..................................................................... 29
`Transfer. ................................................................................. 31
`a)
`Transfer. ....................................................................... 31
`b)
`Fora Favors Transfer to the Northern District. .............. 32
`c)
`Suit Favors Transfer. ..................................................... 33
`d)
`Against Transfer. .......................................................... 35
`IV. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................... 36
`
`No Practical Considerations Weigh Against
`
`The Relative Administrative Difficulty of the Two
`
`California’s Local Interest in Adjudicating this
`
`Enforceability and Public Policy Do Not Weigh
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1006 Page 6
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-03740-JMV-JBC Document 44 Filed 03/12/18 Page 4 of 43 PageID: 789
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`AT&T Co. v. MCI Commc’ns Corp.
`736 F. Supp. 1294 (D.N.J. 1990)...................................................................... 27
`
`Bayer Pharma AG v. Watson Labs., Inc.
`No. 14-1804 (JLL), 2014 WL 2516412 (D.N.J. June 2, 2014) ......................... 36
`
`Blackbird Tech., LLC v. Cloudfare Inc.
`No. 17-283, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 167860 (D. Del. Oct. 11,
`2017) ............................................................................................................... 20
`
`Burger King v. Rudzewicz
`471 U.S. 462 (1985) ......................................................................................... 15
`
`In re Cray Inc.
`871 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ........................................................................ 15
`
`Days Inn Worldwide, Inc. v. Ram Lodging LLC
`No. 09-2275 (SDW), 2010 WL 1540926 (D.N.J. Apr. 14, 2010) ..................... 18
`
`Elecs. for Imaging, Inc. v. Coyle
`340 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2002) ........................................................................ 13
`
`ESP Shibuya Enters., Inc. v. Fortune Fashion Indus.
`No. 08-3992 (PGS), 2009 WL 1392594 (D.N.J. May 15, 2009)....................... 34
`
`Good Tech. Corp. v. AirWatch, LLC
`No. 14-1092, 2015 WL 296501 (D. Del. Jan. 21, 2015) ................................... 31
`
`In re Hoffmann-La Roche Inc.
`587 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ........................................................................ 34
`
`Inventergy, Inc. v. HTC Corp.
`DED-1-17-cv-00200 (D. Del. Feb. 27, 2017), D.I. 1 .......................................... 8
`
`Inventergy, Inc. v. HTC Corp.
`DED-1-17-cv-00200 (D. Del. May 25, 2017), D.I. 5. ......................................... 8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iv-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1006 Page 7
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-03740-JMV-JBC Document 44 Filed 03/12/18 Page 5 of 43 PageID: 790
`
`
`INVT SPE LLC v. Apple, Inc.
`No. 2:17-cv-03738 (JMV)(JBC) (filed May 25, 2017) ....................................... 3
`
`INVT SPE LLC v. ZTE Corp.
`No. 2:17-cv-06522 (JMV)(JBC) (filed Aug. 29, 2017) ...................................... 3
`
`Japan Gas Lighter Ass’n v. Ronson Corp.
`257 F. Supp. 219 (D.N.J. 1966) ....................................................................... 16
`
`Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co.
`55 F.3d 873 (3d. Cir. 1995) .................................................................. 12, 17, 18
`
`LG Elecs., Inc. v. First Intern. Comput., Inc.
`138 F. Supp. 2d 574 (D.N.J. 2001) .... 1, 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 20, 24, 27, 29, 31, 35
`
`Liggett Grp. Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.
`102 F. Supp. 2d 518 ......................................................................................... 13
`
`Link_A_Media Devices, 662 F.3d 1221, 1224 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................. 35
`
`ML Design Grp., LLC v. Young Mfg. Co.
`No. 12-5883 (MAS)(TJB), 2013 WL 3049174 (D.N.J. June 17,
`2013) ............................................................................................................... 35
`
`In re Morgan Stanley
`417 F. App’x 947 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ................................................................... 33
`
`Otsuka Pharm. Co., Ltd. v. Mylan, Inc.
`106 F. Supp. 3d 456 (D.N.J. Mar. 23, 2015) .................................................... 15
`
`Platinum Partners Value Arbitrage Fund, L.P. v. TD Bank, N.A.
`No. 10–6457 (ES), 2011 WL 3329087 (D. N. J. Aug. 2, 2011) .................. 19, 27
`
`Reckitt Benckiser Pharm., Inc. v. Biodelivery Sciences Int’l, Inc.
`No. 14-5892 (MAS)(TJB), 2015 WL 4461511 (D.N.J. Jul. 21,
`2015.) ........................................................................................................ 18, 20
`
`Ricoh v. Honeywell
`817 F. Supp. 473 (D.N.J. 1993) ......................................... 21, 25, 27, 28, 33, 34
`
`Rothschild Storage Retrieval Innovations, LLC v. HTC Corp.
`No. 14-22655 (KMW) (S.D. Fla. Jan. 26, 2015) .............................................. 17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-v-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1006 Page 8
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-03740-JMV-JBC Document 44 Filed 03/12/18 Page 6 of 43 PageID: 791
`
`
`Synchronoss Techs., Inc. v. Dropbox, Inc.
`No. 15-2192 (MLC), 2015 WL 13064914 (D.N.J. Dec. 30, 2015) ................... 21
`
`TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC
`137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017) ..................................................................................... 15
`
`Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.
`No. 17-275 (FLW), 2017 WL 2269979 (D.N.J. May 23, 2017) ....................... 35
`
`In re Toa Techs., Inc.
`543 F. App’x 1006 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ................................................................. 35
`
`In re United States
`273 F.3d 380 (3d Cir. 2001) ............................................................................. 19
`
`Van Dusen v. Barrack
`376 U.S. 612 (1964) ......................................................................................... 11
`
`In re WMS Gaming Inc.
`564 F. App’x 579 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ................................................................... 33
`
`In re Zimmer Holdings, Inc.
`609 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ........................................................................ 31
`
`Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) .............................................................................................. 15
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) .................................................................................. 11, 12, 18
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P 45 ................................................................................................... 30
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,466,563 ..................................................................................... 3
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 6,760,590 ..................................................................................... 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-vi-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1006 Page 9
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-03740-JMV-JBC Document 44 Filed 03/12/18 Page 7 of 43 PageID: 792
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Defendants and Counterclaim-Plaintiffs HTC Corporation (“HTC Corp.”)
`
`and HTC America, Inc. (“HTC America”) (collectively, “HTC”) respectfully
`
`submit this Memorandum of Law in Support of Their Motion to Transfer this
`
`action to the Northern District of California (“CAND”). Although Plaintiff and
`
`Counterclaim-Defendant INVT SPE LLC (“INVT”) prefers New Jersey, the
`
`deference typically given to INVT’s choice of venue is significantly diminished
`
`here because INVT is headquartered in CAND, and has no ties to New Jersey.
`
`Any deference is further diminished given that the central hub of activity related to
`
`issues in this case is California, not New Jersey.
`
`First and foremost, California is the center of gravity or hub of activity for
`
`the design, development, and production of the allegedly infringing devices—the
`
`cellular baseband processors (“chipset”)—incorporated into the HTC products
`
`INVT has identified in its Complaint as the “HTC Accused Products.” Such
`
`chipsets are necessary and required for the HTC Accused Products to allegedly
`
`practice the patents INVT asserted in this action. California-based chipset vendor
`
`Qualcomm, Inc., and/or its subsidiary Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. (“QTI”)
`
`(collectively, “Qualcomm”), designs and develops these chipsets for most, if not
`
`all, of the HTC Accused Products. Moreover, Qualcomm has relevant patent
`
`agreements (likely based on California law) that cover its chipsets and provide
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1006 Page 10
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-03740-JMV-JBC Document 44 Filed 03/12/18 Page 8 of 43 PageID: 793
`
`
`exempting pass-through rights to HTC. Qualcomm affirms its witnesses most
`
`knowledgeable of these central issues are located in California.
`
`Second, the pre-suit conduct of Inventergy, Inc. (“Inventergy”), INVT’s
`
`California-based member company, is also central to this case. Inventergy is a
`
`third-party and alleged prior owner of the patents INVT asserts in this case, that
`
`conducted pre-suit negotiations with HTC. INVT relies on Inventergy’s pre-suit
`
`conduct to allege that (1) HTC was placed on notice of the Asserted Patents (i.e., a
`
`critical element for proving willful infringement and assessing damages); and (2)
`
`that INVT complied with its obligations to license its purported standard essential
`
`patents on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (“FRAND”) terms (i.e., a
`
`critical issues for damages and HTC’s defenses). Inventergy is not a party to this
`
`case and, like INVT, has no ties to New Jersey. Thus, CAND, not New Jersey, has
`
`subpoena power over these important witnesses.
`
`Third, HTC Corp. is a Taiwanese corporation, and the hub of activity
`
`centered around the production of the HTC Accused Products, including
`
`development, design and manufacturing, is in Taiwan. HTC America’s
`
`Washington headquarters is the hub for sales and marketing of the HTC Accused
`
`Products in the United States. Moreover, HTC conducts industrial design of the
`
`Accused Products in San Francisco, California; and HTC primarily uses California
`
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1006 Page 11
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-03740-JMV-JBC Document 44 Filed 03/12/18 Page 9 of 43 PageID: 794
`
`
`testing facilities to confirm the Accused Products are compatible with cellular
`
`standards.
`
`Therefore, given that CAND is the district court most central to where the
`
`operative facts of this case arose, is more convenient to such witnesses, and the
`
`balance of the private and public factors favors a transfer, the Court should transfer
`
`this case to CAND.
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`A. Asserted Patents and Relevant Technology
`
`On May 25, 2017, INVT accused HTC of infringing U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`6,466,563; 6,611,676; 7,206,587; 7,760,815; 7,764,711; 7,848,439; and 6,760,590
`
`(collectively, the “Asserted Patents”).1 (D.I. 1, Complaint, ¶¶ 46–151.) INVT
`
`alleges it owns the Asserted Patents (as part of a larger “Panasonic portfolio”)
`
`“through assignments originating with Panasonic Corporation.” (Id., ¶¶ 17 and
`
`19.) INVT allegedly obtained this portfolio from Inventergy on April 27, 2017.
`
`(Id.)
`
`
`1 In two separate co-pending cases, INVT sued Apple, Inc. (“Apple”) and ZTE
`(USA) Inc. (“ZTE”) for allegedly infringing the same Asserted Patents. See INVT
`SPE LLC v. Apple, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-03738 (JMV)(JBC) (filed May 25, 2017) (the
`“Apple Action”); and INVT SPE LLC v. ZTE Corp., 2:17-cv-06522 (JMV)(JBC)
`(filed Aug. 29, 2017) (the “ZTE Action”). On January 10, 2018, Apple moved to
`transfer its case to CAND. (Case No. 2:17-cv-03738, D.I. 46.) To date, ZTE has
`not filed a motion to transfer.
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1006 Page 12
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-03740-JMV-JBC Document 44 Filed 03/12/18 Page 10 of 43 PageID: 795
`
`
`INVT alleges the “[i]mplementation of mandatory portions of various
`
`[cellular standards] infringe one or more of the Asserted Patents”—i.e., the
`
`Asserted Patents are allegedly essential to world-wide cellular industry standards.
`
`(D.I. 1, ¶¶ 17, 19, 32, 59, 74, 87, 102, 117, 133, 149.) INVT claims that in order to
`
`comply with cellular standards, such as EDGE, EGPRS, WCDMA, UMTS, HSPA,
`
`and LTE (“Relevant Standards”), it is mandatory to use the Asserted Patented
`
`technology. (Id., ¶¶ 51, 67, 82, 95, 110, 125, and 141.) INVT also alleges a
`
`number of HTC Corp. mobile devices that are compatible with one or more of the
`
`Relevant Standards (including the HTC Accused Products)2 purportedly infringe
`
`the Asserted Patents. (Id., ¶¶ 52–54, 68–70, 83–85, 96–98, 111–113, 126–128, and
`
`142–144, Appendix A.)
`
`B. Critical Qualcomm Witnesses With Knowledge of Its Baseband
`Processor Chipsets and Patent Agreements Reside in California.
`
`To the extent any functionality of an HTC Accused Product is covered by
`
`any of the Asserted Patents, the device that actually performs the allegedly
`
`infringing functionality is the third-party baseband processor, or chipset,
`
`incorporated into the HTC Accused Product. (Declaration of Frank Wu (“Wu
`
`
`2 HTC hereby objects to INVT’s list of HTC Accused Products at least because
`some of these products may not have been sold or distributed by HTC Corp. or
`HTC America within the United States, and/or do not comply with any of the
`Relevant Standards. No reference to the HTC Accused Products waives HTC’s
`objections.
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1006 Page 13
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-03740-JMV-JBC Document 44 Filed 03/12/18 Page 11 of 43 PageID: 796
`
`
`Decl.”), ¶ 7.) Indeed, INVT’s allegations are actually directed at these chipsets
`
`that perform the Alleged Functionalities3 that INVT claims are required for a
`
`product to be compatible with the Relevant Standards. (See D.I. 1, ¶¶ 52–54, 58–
`
`59, 67–70, 72–74, 82–85, 87, 95–98, 100–102, 110–113, 115–117, 125–128, 131–
`
`133, 141–144, 147–149.) It is the chipset vendor—not HTC—that designs and
`
`develops the chipset’s Alleged Functionalities, which are controlled by firmware
`
`and source code for the chipset. (Wu Decl., ¶ 8; Declaration of Brian Banister
`
`(“Banister Decl.”), ¶¶ 2, 7, 11, 13, and 15.) For most, if not all, of the HTC
`
`Accused Products, HTC purchases these chipsets from Qualcomm, including, the
`
`Qualcomm Snapdragon 820 identified in the complaint. (D.I. 1, ¶¶ 58, 73, 101,
`
`116, 132, 148; Wu Decl., ¶ 8.) Other chipsets, such as the Snapdragon 210 and
`
`810 may be implicated in this case as well. (Wu Decl., ¶ 8.) Qualcomm is
`
`headquartered in San Diego, California, and has offices in the Bay Area. (Banister
`
`Decl., ¶¶ 3, 4.)
`
`
`3 “Alleged Functionalities” will herein be referred to as:
`• “Alleged 2G Functionalities,” or portions of the EGPRS standard as
`identified in the Banister Decl., ¶ 10.
`• “Alleged 3G Functionalities,” or portions of the UMTS, WCDMA,
`and/or HSPA standards as identified in the Banister Decl., ¶ 12.
`• “Alleged 4G Functionalities,” or portions of the LTE standard as
`identified in Banister Decl., ¶ 12.
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1006 Page 14
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-03740-JMV-JBC Document 44 Filed 03/12/18 Page 12 of 43 PageID: 797
`
`
`Because HTC purchases these chipsets from Qualcomm, HTC’s knowledge
`
`of the chipset design, development, manufacture, testing, and operation is
`
`significantly limited. (Wu Decl., ¶ 9.) For example, HTC does not receive,
`
`maintain, or alter the human readable source code used to program Qualcomm’s
`
`chipsets. (Id.) For litigation matters, Qualcomm’s practice is to maintain the
`
`source code related to the Relevant Standards in a secure environment in Los
`
`Angeles, California. (Banister Decl., ¶ 8.) Qualcomm affirms that “the vast
`
`majority of QTI’s US-based employees involved in the design and development of
`
`QTI’s cellular baseband processor chipsets and software supporting the Relevant
`
`Standards (including the Identified QTI Chipsets)” are located in California. (Id., ¶
`
`9.)
`
`Qualcomm has entered into one or more potentially relevant patent
`
`agreements with Panasonic Mobile Co., Ltd and/or Panasonic Systems Networks
`
`Co., Ltd. (“Panasonic”).4 (Declaration of Deborah Dwight (“Dwight Decl.”), ¶ 5.)
`
`HTC alleges these agreements provide pass through rights to HTC for the use of
`
`the technology allegedly covered by the Asserted Patents, and thus, may be
`
`dispositive of a number of issues. (See D.I. 27, HTC’s First Amended
`
`Counterclaims, 35.) Qualcomm further affirms that “[t]he vast majority of
`
`
`4 Panasonic Mobile Co., Ltd was absorbed into Panasonic Corp. after
`reorganization of subsidiaries. (See Schulz Decl., Ex. R.)
`
`
`
`
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1006 Page 15
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-03740-JMV-JBC Document 44 Filed 03/12/18 Page 13 of 43 PageID: 798
`
`
`Qualcomm’s US-based employees knowledgeable regarding Qualcomm’s license
`
`Agreements with Panasonic are based in Qualcomm’s California offices.” (Dwight
`
`Decl., ¶ 6.) Likewise, Qualcomm maintains “the servers that house Qualcomm’s
`
`contract management system” in California as well. (Id., ¶ 8.)
`
`C.
`
`INVT and Parent Company Inventergy, Have Substantial Ties to
`the Northern District of California, and No Ties to New Jersey.
`
`On January 20, 2015, Inventergy’s former Vice President of Licensing,
`
`Anna Johns, allegedly contacted HTC Corp. to offer a worldwide license to its
`
`alleged “Device Essential IPRs” comprising 63 patent families, and specifically
`
`identified at least U.S. Patent Nos. 6,760,590 and 7,848,439. (Declaration of Lynn
`
`Yu (“Yu Decl.”), Ex. 1 at 3–4.) Ms. Johns indicated that Inventergy acquired these
`
`patents from Panasonic Corporation in October 2013. (Id. at 3.)
`
`Since at least April 15, 2015, additional Inventergy representatives were
`
`brought into the licensing negotiations with HTC, including at least Inventergy’s
`
`former Senior Vice President and General Counsel, Wayne Sobon; former Director
`
`of Technology, Jukka-Pekka (“JP”) Hyvarinen; and former Vice President and IP
`
`Counsel, Saxon Noh.5 (Yu Decl., Ex. 3.) All communications from these
`
`individuals indicated they were operating out of Campbell, California (which is in
`
`
`5 Also included was an employee with email address jon@inventergy.com, which
`may have been Jon Rortveit, who formerly held the title of Senior Vice President,
`IP Acquisitions & Licensing at Inventergy.
`
`
`
`
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1006 Page 16
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-03740-JMV-JBC Document 44 Filed 03/12/18 Page 14 of 43 PageID: 799
`
`
`CAND). (See Yu Decl., Exs. 2–4.) Further, these former employees appear to
`
`reside in CAND in California’s San Francisco Bay Area. (Declaration of Ericka J.
`
`Schulz (“Schulz Decl.”), Exs. A–C.)
`
`Likewise, Inventergy’s current top-level employees also reside in the
`
`CAND. This includes Inventergy’s Chairman and CEO, Joe Beyers; its Chief
`
`Financial Officer, Secretary, and Treasurer, John Niedermaier; its VP of
`
`Operations, Molly McAuliffe; and the President of related entity Inventergy
`
`Innovations, Ken Cannizarro. (Schulz Decl., Exs. D–F.)
`
`On February 27, 2017, Inventergy sued HTC in Delaware for allegedly
`
`infringing the Asserted Patents. Inventergy, Inc. v. HTC Corp., DED-1-17-cv-
`
`00200 (D. Del. Feb. 27, 2017), D.I. 1. (Schulz Decl., Ex. U). In that lawsuit,
`
`Inventergy identified its principal place of business as San Francisco, California,
`
`which is about 60 miles north of Campbell, California. (See id., ¶ 12; see also
`
`Schulz Decl., Ex. G.) Inventergy eventually dismissed this case on May 25, 2017.
`
`Inventergy, Inc. v. HTC Corp., DED-1-17-cv-00200 (D. Del. May 25, 2017), D.I.
`
`5. (Schulz Decl., Ex. V).
`
`Even before Inventergy dismissed its Delaware case, INVT was
`
`incorporated on March 22, 2017, and Inventergy allegedly assigned to INVT a
`
`patent portfolio that included the Asserted Patents in April of 2017. (Schulz Decl.,
`
`Exs. H–N, P.) INVT filed this case on May 25, 2017. (D.I. 1.) INVT was created
`
`
`
`
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1006 Page 17
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-03740-JMV-JBC Document 44 Filed 03/12/18 Page 15 of 43 PageID: 800
`
`
`as a “special purpose entity” to monetize at least the Asserted Patents. (Schulz
`
`Decl., Ex. O at 1, 6, 17; D.I. 1, ¶ 19.) Inventergy and INVT are related to Fortress
`
`Investment Group LLC (“Fortress”), and INVT shares the same office address as
`
`Fortress’s San Francisco office. (D.I. 1, ¶ 16; Schulz Dec., Ex. Q.)
`
`D. HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc.
`
`HTC Corp. is a Taiwanese corporation with its headquarters and principle
`
`place of business in Taipei, Taiwan. (Wu Decl., ¶ 5; D.I. 1, ¶ 20.) HTC Corp.
`
`designs, develops, manufactures, and sells mobile phones and tablet computers in
`
`and from Taiwan, including the HTC Accused Products. (Wu Decl., ¶ 6.) The
`
`majority of HTC Corp.’s engineers work and live in Taiwan, including those who
`
`worked on the hardware and software design, development, integration, and
`
`manufacturability of the HTC Accused Products. (Id.) HTC Corp. primarily
`
`maintains the design, development, and testing documents related to the HTC
`
`Accused Products in Taiwan. (Id.) HTC Corp. also primarily maintains
`
`documents regarding its corporate finances and sales figures related to the HTC
`
`Accused Products in Taiwan. (Id., ¶ 14.)
`
`HTC Corp. directly and/or through intermediaries, ships, distributes, uses,
`
`offers for sale, sells, and/or advertises products and services in the United States,
`
`and expects that the products will be purchased by end users in the State of
`
`California and the San Francisco Bay Area. (Id., ¶ 13.) HTC Corp. also conducts
`
`
`
`
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1006 Page 18
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-03740-JMV-JBC Document 44 Filed 03/12/18 Page 16 of 43 PageID: 801
`
`
`business in the Bay Area by and through its wholly owned subsidiary HTC
`
`America that maintains offices in San Francisco. (Id.)
`
`HTC America is a Washington corporation with its principal place of
`
`business in Seattle, Washington. (Declaration of David Wiggins (“Wiggins
`
`Decl.”), ¶ 4; D.I. 1, ¶ 22.) HTC America imports the HTC Accused Products and
`
`coordinates its sales and marketing activities in the United States from its Seattle
`
`headquarters, where the majority of its employees work. (Id., ¶ 5.) HTC America
`
`primarily maintains sales and marketing records and documents in Washington.
`
`(Id., ¶ 7.) “HTC America sells the HTC Accused Products that are sold in the
`
`United States to carriers and third-party distributors with the expectation that these
`
`products will be sold to end users throughout the United States, including
`
`California, the Bay Area, and Silicon Valley.” (Id., ¶5.)
`
`Additionally, HTC America has an office in San Francisco (within CAND).
`
`(Wiggins Decl., ¶ 6.) HTC America employs
`
` individuals in its San Francisco
`
`office. (Id.) These “employees primarily focus on hardware, software and
`
`usability design [(i.e., Industrial Design)] for HTC devices, including for the HTC
`
`Accused Products.” (Id.; see also Wu Decl., ¶ 12.) HTC America has a small
`
`office, currently of
`
` employees, located in Bedminster, New Jersey (the “New
`
`Jersey Employees”). (Wiggins Decl., ¶ 10.) These New Jersey Employees focus
`
`mainly on supporting HTC’s U.S. carrier customers, including Verizon Wireless.
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2018-1556
`HTC EX1006 Page 19
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-03740-JMV-JBC Document 44 Filed 03/12/18 Page 17 of 43 PageID: 802
`
`
`(Id., ¶ 11.) The HTC America operations in San Francisco are far more substantial
`
`than those in New Jersey. (Id., ¶ 10.)
`
`E. Numerous Third-Party Prior Art Witnesses Are Located in
`California.
`
`HTC’s early investigations show that many inventors and/or authors of
`
`relevant third-party prior art reside in California. Although HTC’s investigations
`
`have just begun, a number of prior art references that could invalidate one or more
`
`of the Asserted Patents have been identified. (Appendix A.) The authors and/or
`
`inventors of these prior art references are important third-party witnesses who
`
`likely have knowledge and documents relevant to the prior art in this case. (Schulz
`
`Decl., ¶ 20.) HTC has already identified at least 19 authors/inventors that currently
`
`live in California. (Id. at Appendix A.)
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`The convenience of all parties involved, and especially the convenience of
`
`critical third-party witnesses, dictates this case should be transferred to CAND.
`
`Under 28 U.S.C. §1404(a), “[f]or the convenience of the parties and
`
`witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to
`
`any other district or division where it might have been br