Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 40 Filed 06/13/19 Page 1 of 12
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`FINTIV, INC.,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`C.A. NO. 6:18-cv-372-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`APPLE INC.’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)
`
`IPR2020-00019
`Fintiv EX2037 Page 1
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 40 Filed 06/13/19 Page 2 of 12
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) moves to transfer this
`case to the Northern District of California (“NDCA”) because NDCA is a clearly more convenient
`forum than the Western District of Texas (“WDTX”). Should the Court determine that NDCA is
`not clearly more convenient than this District, Apple alternatively moves to transfer this case to
`the Austin Division of this District.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`In this patent infringement lawsuit, Fintiv accuses Apple, a California company, of
`infringing a single patent by making, using, selling, importing and/or offering for sale the Apple
`Wallet application on iPhone and Apple Watch. The research, design, development,
`implementation, and product marketing of Apple Wallet are all centered in NDCA. Accordingly,
`Apple’s potential witnesses and documents are in NDCA. Potential nonparty witnesses are also
`in NDCA. Apple is not aware of any potential Apple or nonparty witnesses in this District.
`Although Fintiv is headquartered in Austin, it appears to be a virtual company focusing on
`patent enforcement with only a handful of employees around the United States. Fintiv does not
`appear to have been involved in the development of the patent-in-suit and admitted it does not
`possess any conception and reduction to practice documents. Therefore, Fintiv is unlikely to have
`many relevant witnesses or documents in this District or anywhere.
`Because the interests of justice and the convenience of the parties and likely witnesses
`strongly favor transfer, Apple respectfully requests that this action be transferred to NDCA, or in
`the alternative, to the Austin Division of WDTX.
`BACKGROUND
`
`I.
`
`This Lawsuit and the Asserted Patent
`Fintiv alleges that the Apple Wallet application (the “Accused Technology”) on the iPhone
`(including the iPhone 6, 6 Plus, 6s, 6s Plus, SE, 7, 7 Plus, 8, 8 Plus, X, XR, XS, and XS Max) and
`Apple Watch (including Series 1 through 4) (collectively, the “Accused Products”) infringes U.S.
`Patent No. 8,843,125 (the “’125 Patent”). Pl.’s 1st Am. Compl. for Patent Infringement ¶¶ 1-3, 16
`(ECF No. 28) (“FAC”). The ʼ125 Patent is titled “System and Method for Managing Mobile
`
`1
`
`IPR2020-00019
`Fintiv EX2037 Page 2
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 40 Filed 06/13/19 Page 3 of 12
`
`Wallet and Its Related Credentials.” According to Fintiv, the ʼ125 Patent relates to “a mobile
`wallet application and mobile wallet management system to store contactless cards in a secure
`environment.” Id. ¶ 12.
`
`II.
`
`Apple’s Witnesses and Documents Are in NDCA
`Apple is a California corporation headquartered in Cupertino, California since 1976. Decl.
`of Michael Jaynes ¶ 3 (Ex. A) (“Jaynes Decl.”). Although Apple sells its products throughout the
`United States, the research, design, development, marketing, and finance operations for the
`Accused Technology take place in NDCA. Id. ¶¶ 5, 10-15, 17, 19-21. Indeed, the Apple
`employees who designed and developed the Accused Technology, and who will be able to explain
`to jury how that technology operates, are located in or around Cupertino. Id. ¶¶ 12-15.
`Because Fintiv’s infringement allegations are based largely on the Apple Wallet software,
`engineers familiar with the Apple Wallet source code and servers will be particularly important
`witnesses. See, e.g., Decl. of Claudia Wilson Frost (Ex. B-17) (Preliminary Infringement
`Contentions at 18) (“Frost Decl.”) (“On information and belief, the Accused Apple Devices enable
`retrieving a widget (e.g., related user interface software) and a wallet management applet (WMA)
`(e.g., a software component related to management of credit card applets) corresponding to the
`contactless card applet (e.g., a software component related to a credit card within Apple Wallet).”);
`id. at 89 (“On information and belief, the Accused Apple Devices include a WMS (e.g., Apple Pay
`server wallet management infrastructure) that is hosted on the TSM system (e.g., Apple Pay
`servers).”). These individuals are located in NDCA.
` Glen Steele is an Engineering Manager at Apple and leads the Wallet Engineering team
`for iOS, the operating system for the accused iPhones. Jaynes Decl. ¶ 12. Mr. Steele and his team
`are responsible for developing, maintaining, and updating the device-side iOS source code for
`Apple Wallet. Id. Mr. Steele and the members of his team with knowledge about the design and
`development of the Apple Wallet iOS source code are all located in or around Cupertino. Id.
`Greg Novick is an Engineering Manager at Apple and leads the Apple Watch Software
`Engineering team for watchOS, the operating system for the accused Apple Watches. Id. ¶ 13.
`
`2
`
`IPR2020-00019
`Fintiv EX2037 Page 3
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 40 Filed 06/13/19 Page 4 of 12
`
`Mr. Novick and his team are responsible for developing, maintaining, and updating the device-
`side watchOS source code for Apple Wallet. Id. Mr. Novick and the members of his team with
`knowledge about the design and development of the Apple Wallet source code for watchOS are
`all located in or around Cupertino. Id.
`Chris Sharp is the Director of Engineering in the Apple Pay Server Engineering group. Id.
`¶ 15. Mr. Sharp has been involved in the design and development of Apple Wallet, and its
`predecessor product called Apple Passbook, since its inception around 2011, and he wrote much
`of the source code for the original version of the server-side software utilized by the Apple Wallet
`application. Id. Mr. Sharp’s team is responsible for developing, updating, and maintaining the
`server-side source code for Apple Wallet. Id. The servers are not located in WDTX. Id. With
`four exceptions, Mr. Sharp and his team are located in or around Cupertino. Id. The remaining
`four individuals are located outside the United States. Id.
`Apple witnesses with knowledge relevant to non-technical issues in this case are also
`located in NDCA. David Brudnicki leads the Apple Pay Product Architecture team at Apple. Id.
`¶ 14. Mr. Brudnicki’s team interfaces with both internal Apple personnel (e.g., the Apple Wallet
`engineering teams) and external business partners (e.g., financial institutions) to ensure that Apple
`Wallet satisfies business, technical, and regulatory requirements. Id. Mr. Brudnicki and all the
`members of his team are located in or around Cupertino. Id.
`Baris Cetinok is the Senior Director of Product Marketing at Apple with product marketing
`responsibilities for Apple Wallet and Apple Pay. Id. ¶ 17. Mr. Cetinok and his team members
`with knowledge of Apple Wallet product marketing are located in or around Cupertino. Id.
`Michael Jaynes, Senior Finance Manager at Apple, works in Sunnyvale, California and is
`knowledgeable about the sales and financial information concerning iPhones and Apple Watches.
`Id. ¶ 21. Apple’s team responsible for and knowledgeable about Apple’s licensing practices is
`also located in NDCA, and none of its members are in Texas. Id. ¶ 20.
`In addition, none of these individuals are aware of anyone in Texas who is responsible for
`
`3
`
`IPR2020-00019
`Fintiv EX2037 Page 4
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 40 Filed 06/13/19 Page 5 of 12
`
`designing, developing, or marketing Apple Wallet.1 Id. ¶¶ 12-15, 17, 22.
`
`III.
`
`Fintiv Is Likely to Have Few Sources of Evidence
`While public details are scarce, Fintiv has the earmarks of a newly-rebranded virtual
`company with limited business operations beyond litigation. Fintiv claims to be a “new company”
`that has “a mobile commerce platform that brings together payments, loyalty programs and
`marketing campaigns in one place.” Frost Decl. (Ex. B-12) (Fintiv’s webpage); id. (Ex. B-13)
`(Fintiv’s LinkedIn Profile). In reality, Fintiv is the new name of a troubled startup previously
`known as Mozido, Inc. that is now “actively working to enforce its broad patent portfolio.” Id.
`(Ex. B-15) (Entity Details for Fintiv, Inc.); id. (Ex. B-11) (Forbes article). Mozido, “now doing
`business as Fintiv,” was a “financial technology start-up company,” id. (Ex. B-14, ¶ 4) (Indictment,
`United States v. Liberty), that raised over $55 million in funding between 2010 and 2017. See id.
`(B-16, ¶¶ 1-2) (Compl., SEC v. Liberty); id. (Ex. B-11) (Forbes article). As alleged by the
`government in lawsuits against certain Mozido founders, significant portions of those funds,
`however, were diverted for personal use by one founder and his friends and family. See id. (Ex.
`B-14, ¶ 12) (Indictment, United States v. Liberty); id. (Ex. B-16, ¶ 3) (Compl., SEC v. Liberty).
`Fintiv alleges its principal place of business is at 801 Barton Springs, Austin, Texas, which
`is a co-working space owned by WeWork. FAC ¶ 5; Frost Decl. (Ex. B-1) (WeWork webpage—
`
`1 Apple has five retail stores and three nonretail offices in WDTX, but none of the employees at
`those facilities have knowledge relevant to this litigation and all of the relevant documents located
`to date are in NDCA. Id. ¶¶ 24-26. None of the employees in WDTX has any responsibility for
`the design, development, implementation, or product marketing of Apple Wallet or are likely to
`have unique documents or information relevant to this case. Id. Although Apple employs a data
`scientist in Austin who is responsible for fraud detection in connection with the Apple Pay card
`provisioning process, id. ¶ 16, the ʼ125 Patent neither claims nor discloses any fraud detection
`algorithms. See generally ʼ125 Pat. Fraud detection is a separate aspect of card provisioning that
`is not at issue in this case. The data scientist in Austin develops algorithms to detect potential
`fraud, but does not write code that is included in Apple Wallet, does not design or develop the
`Accused Technology, and relies on the Cupertino-based Apple Wallet engineers to ensure that
`Apple Wallet can provide the data necessary for the fraud prevention algorithms. Jaynes Decl.
`¶ 16. The algorithms also run on separate servers that are not part of Apple Wallet. Id.
`
`4
`
`IPR2020-00019
`Fintiv EX2037 Page 5
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 40 Filed 06/13/19 Page 6 of 12
`
`locations).2 A search of publicly available information identified ten individuals related to Fintiv,
`but only three appear to be located in Austin and none are in this Division. Id. ¶ 20. For example,
`the signatory of the ʼ125 Patent assignment to Fintiv—Fintiv’s President, Charles Wiggs—appears
`to be based in Missouri. Id. Those ten identified individuals were not involved in the development
`of the ’125 Patent; the patent was developed by SK C&C, a Korean company, ʼ125 Pat. and
`assigned to a Korean Mozido subsidiary. Frost Decl. (Ex. B-3) (USPTO Public Pair, Patent
`Search). Fintiv has also admitted that it does not possess any ʼ125 Patent conception or reduction
`to practice documents. Id. ¶ 19.
`
`IV.
`
`Neither Party Has Any Connection to the Waco Division Relevant to This Case
`Apple has no retail stores or offices in the Waco Division, Jaynes Decl. ¶ 27. None of the
`Apple employees responsible for the design, development, implementation, or product marketing
`of Apple Wallet, or who are likely to have unique documents or information relevant to this case,
`are in Waco or WDTX. Id. ¶¶ 12-15, 17, 20-22, 28.
`Fintiv does not appear to have any connection to Waco, other than this lawsuit, and does
`not allege any. See Frost Decl. (Ex. B-4) (YellowPages.com).
`
`V.
`
`Potential Nonparty Witnesses
`Apple’s prior art search is ongoing, but at least eight inventors on three strong prior art
`references are identified as being located in NDCA. In particular, the sole inventor on U.S. Patent
`Application Publication 2010/0041368 is listed as being located in Fremont, California and U.S.
`Patent Application Publication 2010/0138518 lists San Francisco and Corte Madera, California as
`the locations for the two named inventors. See id. (Ex. B-5) (U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. 2010/0041368);
`id. (Ex. B-6) (U.S. Pat. Appl. Pub. 2010/0138518). All five inventors of U.S. Patent 8,165,635 are
`identified as being located in NDCA cities. See id. (Ex. B-8) (U.S. Pat. No. 8,165,635). Likewise,
`the original assignee of the ’635 patent (Vivotech, Inc.) is in NDCA. Id. According to the ʼ125
`Patent, the named inventors are Korean and the prosecuting attorney is in Virginia. ʼ125 Pat.;
`
`2 WeWork leases office space, including “shared workspaces; conference rooms for interviews,
`small group sessions, and board meetings . . . .” Frost Decl. (Ex. B-2) (S&P Capital IQ, WeWork).
`
`5
`
`IPR2020-00019
`Fintiv EX2037 Page 6
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 40 Filed 06/13/19 Page 7 of 12
`
`Frost Decl. (Ex. B-7) (Hauptman Ham website, “Contact”).
`LEGAL STANDARD
`To succeed on a motion to transfer, the moving party must first show that the claims “might
`have been brought” in the proposed transferee district. In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d
`304, 312-13 (5th Cir. 2008) (“Volkswagen II”). Second, the movant must show “good cause” by
`demonstrating that the “transferee venue is clearly more convenient” than the transferor district by
`considering both the private and public interest factors. Id. at 315.
`ANALYSIS
`
`I.
`
`This Suit Could Have Been Brought in NDCA
`Because Apple is a California corporation headquartered in NDCA, this suit could have
`been brought in that district. See Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 312-13.
`
`II.
`
`NDCA Is the Clearly More Convenient Forum
`A.
`The Private Interest Factors Favor Transfer
`Factor 1—Relative Ease of Access to Sources of Proof Favors Transfer: “The Federal
`Circuit has observed that in patent infringement cases, the bulk of the relevant evidence usually
`comes from the accused infringer, and therefore the location of the defendant’s documents tends
`to be the more convenient venue.” DataQuill, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., No. A-13-CA-706, 2014 WL
`2722201, at *3 (W.D. Tex. June 13, 2014) (quotations and alterations omitted). “[D]espite
`technological advances that make the physical location of documents less significant, the location
`of sources of proof remains a meaningful factor in the analysis.” See Wet Sounds, Inc. v. Audio
`Formz, LLC, No. A-17-CV-141, 2017 WL 4547916, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 11, 2017), report and
`recommendation adopted, 2018 WL 1219248 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 22, 2018) (quotations omitted)).
`Additionally, in determining this factor, “the Court will look to the location where the allegedly
`infringing products were researched, designed, developed and tested.” XY, LLC v. Trans Ova
`Genetics, LC, No. W-16-CA-447, 2017 WL 5505340, at *13 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 5, 2017).
`Apple’s sources of proof in this case are heavily located in NDCA. Because Apple Wallet
`was designed and developed in the Cupertino area, all of the documents relating to the design and
`
`6
`
`IPR2020-00019
`Fintiv EX2037 Page 7
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 40 Filed 06/13/19 Page 8 of 12
`
`development of the Accused Technology were generated—and are currently stored—in NDCA.
`Jaynes Decl. ¶¶ 10-15, 18. Likewise, the personnel responsible for marketing the Accused
`Technology are in NDCA, and their marketing and financial documents are located there. Id. ¶ 17-
`18, 21. Licensing personnel and documents are also located in NDCA. Id. ¶ 20. As such, the
`overwhelming majority of the sources of proof regarding the Accused Technology are in NDCA.
`Conversely, Apple has no unique, relevant sources of proof in WDTX. Id. ¶¶ 12-15, 17, 22.
`Fintiv does not appear to carry on any significant business activities and therefore is not
`likely to have many relevant documents. Since its founder’s indictment for securities fraud, Fintiv
`appears to have repositioned itself as a patent enforcement entity. Frost Decl. (Ex. B-11) (Forbes
`article). Fintiv’s headquarters is a WeWork space, and it appears to have only a handful of
`employees, most of whom appear to reside outside this District. Id. (Ex. B-1) (WeWork
`webpage—locations); id. ¶ 20. Accordingly, it is unclear whether Fintiv has any significant
`business operations unrelated to litigation and any likely witnesses in this District.
`In addition, the ʼ125 Patent was developed by SK C&C, a Korean company, not Fintiv.
`Frost Decl. (Ex. B-3) (USPTO Public Pair, Patent Search). Fintiv has admitted that it does not
`possess any documents relating to conception or reduction to practice for the ʼ125 Patent. Frost
`Decl. ¶ 19. To the extent Fintiv does have any documents, it is unclear how they are relevant to
`issues in this case and they are presumably located in Austin. See ACQIS LLC v. EMC Corp.,
`67 F. Supp. 3d 769, 775 (E.D. Tex. 2014) (“Presumably, the bulk of the discovery material
`relating to a corporate party is located at the corporate headquarters.” (citing In re Acer Am.
`Corp., 626 F.3d 1252, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2010))).
`Because Apple’s sources of proof are all located in NDCA, and Fintiv does not appear to
`have many relevant documents, the relative ease of access to sources of proof favors transfer.
`Factor 2—Availability of Compulsory Process Favors Transfer: As set forth above in Part
`V of the Background, at least eight inventors on three strong prior art references are identified as
`being located in NDCA. No prior art references identified to date name WDTX inventors, and
`Apple is not aware of any other potential third-party witnesses in WDTX.
`
`7
`
`IPR2020-00019
`Fintiv EX2037 Page 8
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 40 Filed 06/13/19 Page 9 of 12
`
`Factor 3—Attendance of Willing Witnesses Favors Transfer: The convenience of
`witnesses is the single most important factor in the transfer analysis. See In re Genentech, Inc.,
`566 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Auto-Dril, Inc. v. Nat’l Oilwell Varco, L.P., No. 6:15-CV-
`00091, 2016 WL 6909479, at *7 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 28, 2016). The engineers who developed the
`Accused Technology, update and maintain the device- and server-side source code for Apple
`Wallet, and help to ensure that it meets business and regulatory requirements are all in Cupertino
`(e.g., Messrs. Steele, Novick, Brudnicki and Sharp). Jaynes Decl. ¶¶ 12-15. In addition, the likely
`Apple witnesses on licensing, finance, and sales are also located in NDCA (e.g., Messrs. Cetinok
`and Jaynes). Id. ¶¶ 17, 20-21. Therefore, all of the likely Apple witnesses with knowledge of the
`development, design, implementation, and product marketing of the Accused Technology are
`located in NDCA. Id. ¶¶ 12-15, 17, 20-21.
`Apple does not have any likely witnesses in WDTX, id. ¶¶ 12-15, 17, 22, 26, and all of
`the above-identified witnesses are a short car ride from the courthouses in NDCA (whether San
`Francisco, Oakland, or San Jose), but more than 1,700 miles and a lengthy plane ride from Waco.
`See Frost Decl. (Ex. B-9) (Google Flights Search Results). In addition to travel time, the length
`of this trip also involves additional expenses such as meal and lodging expenses.
`Fintiv is unlikely to have many witnesses in WDTX, and there is no indication that Fintiv
`has offices or other facilities in this Division. See Frost Decl. (Ex. B-4) (YellowPages.com).
`Fintiv appears to be a patent enforcement entity, and its potentially relevant witnesses appear to
`reside all around the United States. Id. (Ex. B-11) (Forbes article); id. ¶ 20.
`In situations like this, where the vast majority of likely witnesses are in the transferee
`district, transfer is strongly favored. Genentech, 566 F.3d at 1343; Wet Sounds, 2017 WL 4547916,
`at *3; Collaborative Agreements, LLC v. Adobe Sys., Inc., No. 1-14-CV-356, 2015 WL 10818739,
`at *4 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 21, 2015); Via Vadis, LLC v. Netgear, Inc., No. A-14-cv-809, 2015 WL
`10818675, at *2 (W.D. Tex. July 30, 2015). For example, in Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Dell, Inc.,
`No. SA-16-CV-451, 2016 WL 7077069, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 5, 2016), the defendants
`successfully moved to transfer a patent infringement case from WDTX to NDCA, even though the
`
`8
`
`IPR2020-00019
`Fintiv EX2037 Page 9
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 40 Filed 06/13/19 Page 10 of 12
`
`defendant had an Austin office with 300 employees and identified at least one Austin-based
`engineer heavily involved in the design and development of at least one of the accused products.
`Nevertheless, the Court still found that the bulk of the evidence and witnesses were in California
`and that this weighed in favor of transfer. Id. at *5.
`In addition, this Court transferred two patent infringement cases against Apple to NDCA
`because, like this case, numerous witnesses were located in the NDCA and there was little or no
`connection to WDTX. Order Transferring Venue to NDCA and Dismissing Mot. to Dismiss w/o
`Prejudice, Uniloc USA, Inc. et al. v. Apple Inc., No. A-18-CV-164-LY (W.D. Tex. Mar 28, 2019),
`ECF No. 52 (“Uniloc Transfer Order”); DataQuill, 2014 WL 2722201, at *3-4. In Uniloc, the
`Court recently transferred the case to NDCA because, like in this case, a “significant number of
`party and non-party witnesses are in California” and most of the relevant witnesses were within
`the subpoena power of NDCA, but not WDTX. Uniloc Transfer Order at 8. In DataQuill, the
`Court also transferred an infringement suit against Apple to NDCA because, as in this case, Apple
`“designed each of the accused products at its headquarters in Cupertino” and “identified a number
`of Cupertino-based witnesses who are likely to possess specific knowledge relevant to the accused
`products.” 2014 WL 2722201, at *3-4. Because Apple has identified numerous relevant witnesses
`in NDCA and Fintiv is unlikely to have many witnesses in WDTX, this factor favors transfer.
`Factor 4—Other Practical Problems: Apple is unaware of any similar or related cases
`pending in either NDCA or WDTX. Accordingly, this factor is neutral in the convenience analysis.
`
`The Public Interest Factors Favor Transfer
`B.
`Factor 1—Court Congestion Slightly Favors Transfer: Although a less congested Waco
`Division docket will likely change the statistics, based on data as of December 2018, NDCA has
`a shorter median time to trial for patent cases than this District (approximately 28 months and 32
`months, respectively). See Frost Decl. (Ex. B-10) (Lex Machina Statistics).
`Factor 2—Local Interests Strongly Favor Transfer: NDCA has a stronger local interest in
`this litigation than WDTX. This factor weighs heavily in favor of transfer because of the solid
`factual connection that this action has to the transferee venue and the lack of connection to this
`
`9
`
`IPR2020-00019
`Fintiv EX2037 Page 10
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 40 Filed 06/13/19 Page 11 of 12
`
`District. See Volkswagen I, 371 F.3d at 206. The personnel identified in Part II of the Background
`that are responsible for research, design, development, implementation, and product marketing of
`Apple Wallet are located in NDCA—and none are in WDTX. Jaynes Decl. ¶¶ 12-15, 17, 22. This
`gives NDCA a significant localized interest in the action. See DataQuill, 2014 WL 2722201, at
`*4 (“[T]his case is about Apple’s actions in designing and developing the iPhone and some of its
`software products, all of which happened in Cupertino.”). Fintiv is allegedly headquartered in the
`Austin Division, but its connection to WDTX is tenuous. See supra Part I.A.1.
`Factors 3 and 4—Familiarity with the Governing Law and Conflicts of Law Are Neutral:
`Because this case is governed by federal patent law, the last two public interest factors are neutral.
`In re TS Tech. USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315, 1320-21 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`III.
`
`In WDTX, the Austin Division is More Convenient
`If the Court determines that transfer to NDCA is not warranted, this case should be
`transferred to the Austin Division of this District because there are no sources of proof in this
`Division of WDTX. “The § 1404(a) factors apply as much to transfers between divisions of the
`same district as to transfers from one district to another.” In re Radmax, Ltd., 720 F.3d 285, 288
`(5th Cir. 2013) (per curiam). As noted above, Fintiv is based in Austin in a WeWork space, and
`through publicly available information, Apple has not identified any Fintiv employees located in
`the Waco Division. Because Fintiv alleges that its principal place of business is in Austin, to the
`extent Fintiv has any relevant documents or witnesses they are presumably located there. See
`ACQIS, 76 F. Supp. 3d at 775. Accordingly, if the Court determines that NDCA is not clearly
`more convenient than this District, Apple respectfully requests that the Court transfer this case to
`the Austin Division, which is clearly more convenient for both parties than this Division.
`CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, Apple respectfully requests that the Court transfer this case to
`NDCA. If the Court believes that a transfer to NDCA is not warranted, this case should instead
`be transferred to the Austin Division of WDTX.
`
`10
`
`IPR2020-00019
`Fintiv EX2037 Page 11
`
`

`

`Case 6:18-cv-00372-ADA Document 40 Filed 06/13/19 Page 12 of 12
`
`Dated: June 13, 2019
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/Claudia Wilson Frost
`Claudia Wilson Frost – Lead Counsel
`Texas Bar No. 21671300
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`609 Main, 40th Floor
`Houston, TX 77002
`Telephone: 713.658.6400
`Facsimile: 713.658.6401
`cfrost@orrick.com
`
`Travis Jensen
`California Bar No. 259925
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
`1000 Marsh Rd.
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Telephone: 650.614.7400
`Facsimile: 650.614.7401
`tjensen@orrick.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR APPLE INC.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
`
`Pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(i), counsel for Apple has conferred with counsel for Fintiv in
`a good-faith effort to resolve the matter presented herein. Counsel for Fintiv opposes this instant
`Motion.
`
`/s/Claudia Wilson Frost
`Claudia Wilson Frost
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that on June 13, 2019, all counsel of record who are deemed to
`have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document through the
`Court’s CM/ECF system under Local Rule CV-5. Any other counsel of record will be served by
`a facsimile transmission or first-class mail.
`
`/s/Claudia Wilson Frost
`Claudia Wilson Frost
`
`11
`
`IPR2020-00019
`Fintiv EX2037 Page 12
`
`