Case 6:19-cv-00432-ADA Document 42 Filed 12/09/19 Page 1 of 17
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`PARUS HOLDINGS INC.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Civil Action No. 6:19-cv-432-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S OPPOSED MOTION TO TRANSFER
`FOR FORUM NON CONVENIENS
`
`IPR2020-00686
`Apple EX1034 Page 1
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00432-ADA Document 42 Filed 12/09/19 Page 2 of 17
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1 
`BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 1 
`LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................................... 5 
`ALL OF THE FACTORS FAVOR TRANSFER ............................................................... 6 
`A. 
`This Suit Could Have Been Brought in the Northern District of California .......... 6 
`B. 
`The Northern District of California Is Clearly the More Convenient Forum ......... 6 
`1. 
`The Private Factors Favor Transfer ............................................................ 6 
`2. 
`The Public Factors Favor Transfer ........................................................... 10 
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 10 
`
`
`
`I. 
`II. 
`III. 
`IV. 
`
`V. 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`IPR2020-00686
`Apple EX1034 Page 2
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00432-ADA Document 42 Filed 12/09/19 Page 3 of 17
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`ACQIS LLC v. EMC Corp.,
`67 F. Supp. 3d 769 (E.D. Tex. 2014) .........................................................................................7
`
`DataQuill, Ltd. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. A-13-CA-706-SS, 2014 WL 2722201 (W.D. Tex. June 13, 2014) ................................6, 9
`
`In re Genentech, Inc.,
`566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..............................................................................................8, 9
`
`Humble Oil & Ref. Co. v. Bell Marine Serv., Inc.,
`321 F.2d 53 (5th Cir. 1963) .......................................................................................................5
`
`In re Nintendo Co. Ltd.,
`589 F.3d 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..................................................................................................5
`
`Parus v. Amazon.com,
`No. 6:19-cv-00454-ADA .........................................................................................................10
`
`Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Dell, Inc.,
`No. SA-16-CV-451-XR, 2016 WL 7077069 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 5, 2016) ...................................9
`
`In re Toyota Motor Corp.,
`747 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................5
`
`In re TS Tech. USA Corp.,
`551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................10
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. A-18-CV-992-LY, 2019 WL 2035583 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 8, 2019) ......................................9
`
`Via Vadis, LLC v. Netgear, Inc.,
`No. A-14-cv-809-LY, 2015 WL 10818675 (W.D. Tex. July 30, 2015) ....................................9
`
`In re Volkswagen AG,
`371 F.3d 201 (5th Cir. 2004) .....................................................................................................5
`
`In re Volkswagen of America,
`545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) .....................................................................................................6
`
`Wet Sounds, Inc. v. Audio Formz, LLC,
`No. A-17-CV-141-LY, 2017 WL 4547916 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 11, 2017) ....................................6
`
`
`
`ii
`
`IPR2020-00686
`Apple EX1034 Page 3
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00432-ADA Document 42 Filed 12/09/19 Page 4 of 17
`
`XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, LC,
`No. W-16-CA-00447-RP, 2017 WL 5505340 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 5, 2017) .................................6
`
`Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) ...............................................................................................................1, 8, 11
`
`Other Authorities
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 7,076,431 ..............................................................................................................1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`IPR2020-00686
`Apple EX1034 Page 4
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00432-ADA Document 42 Filed 12/09/19 Page 5 of 17
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Northern District of California (“N.D. Cal.”) would be a clearly more convenient
`
`forum for this case. Apple employees knowledgeable about the research, development,
`
`marketing, and finances of the accused aspects of Siri are centered in Apple’s headquarters in
`
`N.D. Cal. In its pleadings, Parus Holdings Inc. refers to a few Apple retail stores, but has not
`
`identified a single relevant witness or document—of either Apple or Parus—in this District.
`
`Parus has no reason for maintaining this action in this District. Parus is a Delaware
`
`corporation headquartered in Illinois with no offices or employees in Texas. In fact, Parus has
`
`more connections to N.D. Cal. than this District, as both its Chief Technology Officer and Chief
`
`Marketing Officer appear to reside in the San Francisco Bay area.
`
`With respect to third-party witnesses, Apple intends to rely on the Open Agent
`
`Architecture system to invalidate the asserted patents, and from its investigation, the individuals
`
`knowledgeable about this system are located in N.D. Cal. Apple is not aware of, nor has Parus
`
`identified, any third parties located in the Western District of Texas (“W.D. Tex.”).
`
`Apple therefore requests transfer of this action to N.D. Cal. under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
`
`Counsel for the parties met and conferred in good faith and could not resolve the matter.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`This Lawsuit and the Asserted Patents. Parus filed this action against Apple on
`
`July 22, 2019, (ECF No. 1), and a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on October 21, 2019 (ECF
`
`No. 28). Apple subsequently moved to dismiss on November 5, 2019. (ECF No. 35.) Parus
`
`opposed Apple’s motion on November 19, 2019. (ECF No. 37.) There have been no other
`
`filings or activity in this case. The FAC alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,076,431 and
`
`9,451,084 by Apple products with Siri.
`
`Both asserted patents list the same two named inventors: Alexander Kurganov and
`
`
`
`1
`
`IPR2020-00686
`Apple EX1034 Page 5
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00432-ADA Document 42 Filed 12/09/19 Page 6 of 17
`
`Valery Zhukov. Mr. Kurganov currently resides in Hudson, New Hampshire. (Declaration of
`
`Rose Lee (“Lee Decl.”) Ex. A.) Mr. Zhukov currently resides in Tampa, Florida. (Id., Ex. B.)
`
`Apple Inc. Apple is a California corporation headquartered in Cupertino, which is in
`
`N.D. Cal. (Declaration of Michael Jaynes (“Jaynes Decl.”) ¶ 4.) Apple employs more than
`
`35,000 people in or near those headquarters. (Id.) Of Apple’s more than 270 retail stores in the
`
`United States, more than 50 are in California, including 19 in N.D. Cal. (Id. ¶ 5.) Apple has five
`
`retail stores in W.D. Tex.—two in Austin, two in San Antonio, and one in El Paso. (Id.)
`
`Parus alleges that the Accused Products1 in conjunction with Siri constitute “a system for
`
`retrieving information from pre-selected web sites by uttering speech commands into a voice
`
`enabled device and providing users with retrieved information in an audio form via said voice
`
`enabled device” (FAC ¶ 22) and “a system for acquiring information from one or more sources
`
`maintaining a listing of web sites by receiving speech commands uttered by users into a voice-
`
`enabled device and for providing information retrieved from the web sites to the users in an
`
`audio form via the voice-enabled device” (FAC ¶ 54) (the “Accused Technology”). The vast
`
`majority of individuals knowledgeable about the Accused Technology are located in N.D. Cal.,
`
`with a few exceptions. (See Jaynes Decl. ¶¶ 10-11.) None are located in Texas. (See id.)
`
`Apple witnesses knowledgeable about non-technical issues are also located in N.D. Cal.
`
`Michael Jaynes, Senior Finance Manager at Apple, works in Sunnyvale, California, and his
`
`potential trial testimony would likely focus upon the sales and financial information concerning
`
`Apple products with Siri. (Id. ¶¶ 1 & 7.) Documents concerning sales and financial information
`
`
`1 The Accused Products include “at least the Apple iPhone X or later models, the Apple iPhone
`6s or later models, iPad Pro 12.9 inch (3rd Generation), iPad Pro 11-inch, iPad Pro 12.9-inch (2nd
`Generation), iPad Pro 10.5 inch, iPad Pro 9.7 inch, iPad (6th Generation), all Apple iWatches
`[sic], all HomePods, CarPlay, MacBook Pro (15 inch, 2018), MacBook Pro (13-inch, 2018, Four
`Thunderbolt 3 Ports), MacBook Air (Retina, 13-inch, 2018), and iMac Pro.” (FAC ¶ 21.)
`
`
`
`2
`
`IPR2020-00686
`Apple EX1034 Page 6
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00432-ADA Document 42 Filed 12/09/19 Page 7 of 17
`
`for Apple products with Siri are generated and reside in or near Cupertino. (Id. ¶ 7.)
`
`Jamie De Guerre, Manager of OS Product Marketing, works in Cupertino, and his
`
`potential trial testimony would likely focus upon Siri marketing. (Id. ¶ 8.) Siri marketing
`
`documents are generated in or near Cupertino. (Id.) Brian Ankenbrandt, Attorney in Apple’s IP
`
`Transactions Group, works in Sunnyvale, and his potential trial testimony would likely focus
`
`upon Apple’s patent licensing. (Id. ¶ 9.) His group’s documents are generated in or near
`
`Cupertino. (Id.) None of these individuals are aware of Apple employees in Texas with unique
`
`knowledge or noncumulative documents regarding the Accused Technology. (Id. ¶¶ 8-9.)
`
`Ryan Orr is Senior Manager of Siri Domains in Apple’s Siri Experience Group. (Id.
`
`¶ 10.) He and his team are responsible for managing, and his potential trial testimony would
`
`likely focus upon, Siri’s various domains (e.g., Sports, Weather, Maps) and other Siri customer
`
`facing features. (Id.) Members of his group are primarily located in or near Cupertino, with a
`
`few engineers spread across the world. (Id.) None, however, are located in Austin or anywhere
`
`in Texas. (Id.) The vast majority of other engineers familiar with the Accused Technology are
`
`also located in or near Cupertino. (Id. ¶ 11.) Thus, the bulk of the design and development
`
`documents for the Accused Technology is generated in the Cupertino area. (Id.) Moreover,
`
`Apple maintains the majority of Siri source code—and provides it the highest level of security—
`
`in or near Cupertino. (Id. ¶ 14.)
`
`Though Apple has five retail stores and three non-retail offices in this District, none of
`
`the employees at those facilities have unique knowledge or noncumulative documents relevant to
`
`this litigation. (Id. ¶¶ 5-13.) All members of the Web Domain team of Apple’s Siri Search,
`
`Knowledge, and Platform Group are in Cupertino, with the exception of one individual who
`
`recently moved to Austin for personal reasons at the end of October 2019, after the Complaint
`
`
`
`3
`
`IPR2020-00686
`Apple EX1034 Page 7
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00432-ADA Document 42 Filed 12/09/19 Page 8 of 17
`
`and FAC were filed, and continues to work remotely with the Cupertino-based team. (Id. ¶ 12.)
`
`This team does not work on speech recognition or natural language processing, or on retrieval of
`
`information in response to speech commands. (Id.) There is also a group of employee grading
`
`analysts in Austin that joined Apple after the Complaint and FAC were filed. Grading analysts
`
`assist in grading Siri’s responses to measure how well Siri is responding, but they do not work on
`
`retrieving information from pre-selected websites or acquiring information from sources
`
`maintaining a listing of websites. (Id. ¶ 13.) The grading analysts’ work is reviewed in
`
`Cupertino. (Id.) Thus, none of these Apple employees in Austin have unique knowledge or
`
`noncumulative documents relevant to this case.
`
`Parus Holdings Inc. Parus has articulated no connection to this District or any unique
`
`interest of this District in this matter. Parus alleges it is a Delaware corporation with its principal
`
`place of business in Bannockburn, Illinois. (FAC ¶ 1.) Its website appears to be registered in
`
`and administered by Anguilla. (Lee Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. C.) Though Parus’s website ostensibly offers
`
`products, none appear readily available for purchase. For all Parus products, customers are only
`
`able to “Request a Demo or Contact [Parus].” (Lee Decl. Exs. D – G.)
`
`With respect to Parus employees, according to publicly available information, no relevant
`
`Parus employees are located in Texas. For example, named inventor Alexander Kurganov is a
`
`co-founder of Parus and identified as its CTO/Chief Scientist. (Lee Decl. Exs. H & I.) As noted
`
`above, Mr. Kurganov currently resides in New Hampshire and has no apparent connections with
`
`this District. (See id., Ex. A.) Parus’s Chief Financial Officer, Senior Vice President, and
`
`General Counsel, Robert McConnell, is located in Indianapolis, Indiana. (Id., Exs. I & J.)
`
`Parus’s Chief Technology Officer, Salil Pradhan, is located in the San Francisco Bay Area. (Id.,
`
`
`
`4
`
`IPR2020-00686
`Apple EX1034 Page 8
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00432-ADA Document 42 Filed 12/09/19 Page 9 of 17
`
`Exs. I, M, N.) Likewise, Parus’s Chief Marketing Officer, Darius Reneau, is located in the San
`
`Francisco Bay Area. (Id., Ex. K; see also id., Ex. L.)
`
`Potential Third-Party Witnesses. Based on Apple’s investigation thus far, the most
`
`relevant third-party witnesses are located in N.D. Cal. The Open Agent Architecture (“OAA”)
`
`system developed by SRI International—the organization that launched Siri Inc.—is, to date,
`
`Apple’s most promising system prior art that Apple will assert in this case. (Lee Decl. ¶ 16.)
`
`OAA is detailed in an article entitled “Multimodal User Interfaces in the Open Agent
`
`Architecture,” authored by Douglas B. Moran, Adam J. Cheyer, Luc E. Julia, and David L.
`
`Martin. (Id., Ex. O.) All four authors appear to be located in N.D. Cal. (Lee Decl. Exs. P – S.)
`
`Attorneys and agents who prosecuted the patents-in-suit are also not in this District:
`
`(1) Reena Kuyper is a patent agent located in Salt Lake City, Utah; (2) Steve Szczepanski, Scott
`
`Kaspar, and Russell Genet are attorneys located in Illinois; (3) Shawn Diedtrich is an attorney
`
`located in Arizona; and (4) Robert McConnell, CFO, Senior VP, and General Counsel of Parus,
`
`as noted above, is located in Indianapolis, Indiana. (See Lee Decl. Exs. J, V – Y.)
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`“[I]n a case featuring most witnesses and evidence closer to the transferee venue with few
`
`or no convenience factors favoring the venue chosen by the plaintiff, the trial court should grant
`
`a motion to transfer.” In re Nintendo Co. Ltd., 589 F.3d 1194, 1198 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see also,
`
`e.g., In re Toyota Motor Corp., 747 F.3d 1338, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Courts analyze both
`
`public and private factors. See Humble Oil & Ref. Co. v. Bell Marine Serv., Inc., 321 F.2d 53, 56
`
`(5th Cir. 1963). The private factors are: (1) relative ease of access to sources of proof; (2)
`
`availability of compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses; (3) cost of attendance
`
`for willing witnesses; and (4) all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy,
`
`expeditious, and inexpensive. In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201, 203 (5th Cir. 2004). The
`
`
`
`5
`
`IPR2020-00686
`Apple EX1034 Page 9
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00432-ADA Document 42 Filed 12/09/19 Page 10 of 17
`
`public factors are (1) administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion; (2) local interest
`
`in having localized interests decided at home; (3) familiarity of the forum with the law that will
`
`govern the case; and (4) avoidance of unnecessary problems of conflict of laws or in the
`
`application of foreign law. Id.
`
`IV. ALL OF THE FACTORS FAVOR TRANSFER
`A.
`
`This Suit Could Have Been Brought in the Northern District of California
`
`Apple is a California corporation headquartered in Cupertino; thus, this suit could have
`
`been filed in N.D. Cal. See In re Volkswagen of America, 545 F.3d 304, 312-13 (5th Cir. 2008).
`
`B.
`
`The Northern District of California Is Clearly the More Convenient Forum
`1.
`
`The Private Factors Favor Transfer
`
`Relative ease of access to sources of proof. “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-SS, 2014 WL 2722201, at
`
`*3 (W.D. Tex. June 13, 2014) (quotations 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-LY, 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-00447-RP, 2017 WL 5505340, at *13 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 5, 2017).
`
`Apple’s sources of proof here are heavily located in N.D. Cal. Because the Accused
`
`Technology was designed and developed in the Cupertino area, and the relevant technical teams
`
`
`
`6
`
`IPR2020-00686
`Apple EX1034 Page 10
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00432-ADA Document 42 Filed 12/09/19 Page 11 of 17
`
`are based in N.D. Cal., the bulk of relevant design and development documents were generated
`
`in N.D. Cal. (Jaynes Decl. ¶ 11.) Likewise, the personnel responsible for financials, marketing,
`
`and licensing for the Accused Technology, as well as their documents, are in N.D. Cal. (Id. ¶¶ 1,
`
`7-10.) No Apple employees in Texas have any unique knowledge or noncumulative documents
`
`regarding the Accused Technology. All members of the Web Domain team of Apple’s Siri
`
`Search, Knowledge, and Platform Group are in Cupertino, with the exception of one individual
`
`who recently moved to Austin for personal reasons. (Id. ¶ 12.) That Web Domain team does not
`
`work on speech recognition or natural language processing, or on retrieval of information in
`
`response to speech. (Id.) There is also a group of grading analysts in Austin who assist in
`
`grading Siri’s responses. (Id. ¶ 13.) The grading analysts’ work is reviewed in Cupertino. (Id.)
`
`The grading analysts do not work on retrieving information from pre-selected websites or
`
`acquiring information from sources maintaining a listing of websites. (Id.)
`
`Parus does not appear to conduct any business activities in Texas, let alone this District.
`
`It is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Illinois whose primary business focus appears to be
`
`on litigation. Parus is therefore unlikely to have many relevant documents, but to the extent it
`
`does have relevant documents, they are likely to be in Illinois. 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.”). And beyond Illinois, other relevant
`
`documents would be located in N.D. Cal., where Parus’s Chief Technology Officer, Salil
`
`Pradhan, and Parus’s Chief Marketing Officer, Darius Reneau, are located. (See Lee Decl.
`
`Exs. I, K – N.) This factor thus weighs strongly in favor of transfer.
`
`Availability of compulsory process to secure attendance of witnesses. Third-party
`
`witnesses for Apple’s strongest system prior art located to date, OAA—a predecessor of the
`
`
`
`7
`
`IPR2020-00686
`Apple EX1034 Page 11
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00432-ADA Document 42 Filed 12/09/19 Page 12 of 17
`
`accused technology, Siri—are located in N.D. Cal. (Lee Decl. ¶ 16.) Apple is not aware of any
`
`potential third-party witnesses in this District (id.), nor has Parus identified a single non-party
`
`witness here. Even the prosecuting patent agents and attorneys of the patents-in-suit are in Utah,
`
`Illinois, and Arizona. (Lee Decl. Exs. J, V–Y.) This factor thus also weighs in favor of transfer.
`
`Cost of attendance for willing witnesses. “The convenience of the witnesses is
`
`probably the single most important factor in a transfer analysis.” In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d
`
`1338, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “When the distance between an existing venue for trial of a matter
`
`and a proposed venue under § 1404(a) is more than 100 miles, the factor of inconvenience to
`
`witnesses increases in direct relationship to the additional distance to be traveled.” Id. at 1343.
`
`The Apple witnesses that Apple expects to call at trial are based in N.D. Cal. As
`
`discussed above, the vast majority of engineers responsible for developing key aspects of the
`
`Accused Technology are located in or near Cupertino, with the exception of a few, none of
`
`whom are located in Texas. (Jaynes Decl. ¶ 10.) Moreover, Apple witnesses with knowledge
`
`about the financials, sales, marketing, and licensing of the Accused Technology are located in or
`
`near Cupertino. (Id. ¶¶ 1, 7-9.) Cupertino is more than 1,700 miles away from Waco, and there
`
`are no direct flights from N.D. Cal. to Waco. (Lee Decl. ¶ 27, Ex. Z.) It would therefore be
`
`much more convenient and cost efficient (e.g., less flight, hotel, office space expenses, and time
`
`away from home) for Apple witnesses to attend trial in N.D. Cal. than in W.D. Tex.
`
`As for Parus, it has failed to identify any witnesses in this District. Parus is
`
`headquartered in Illinois, with no offices in Texas, let alone this District, and there is no
`
`indication that any of its employees are located in Texas. In fact, Parus has more ties to N.D.
`
`Cal. than it does to Texas, as its Chief Technology Officer and Chief Marketing Officer are
`
`based in the San Francisco Bay Area. (See Lee Decl. Exs. I, K – N.)
`
`
`
`8
`
`IPR2020-00686
`Apple EX1034 Page 12
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00432-ADA Document 42 Filed 12/09/19 Page 13 of 17
`
`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 1343–45 (finding convenience of
`
`party witnesses “favored transfer, and not only slightly”); Via Vadis, LLC v. Netgear, Inc., No.
`
`A-14-cv-809-LY, 2015 WL 10818675, at *2 (W.D. Tex. July 30, 2015) (granting transfer to
`
`N.D. Cal. and recognizing that requiring Netgear’s witnesses to travel over 1,700 miles to Austin
`
`presents a burden); Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Dell, Inc., No. SA-16-CV-451-XR, 2016 WL
`
`7077069, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 5, 2016) (granting transfer to N.D. Cal. though defendant had
`
`300 employees and at least one engineer heavily involved in design and development in Austin).
`
`Courts have transferred infringement cases against Apple to N.D. Cal. based on similar
`
`facts. See Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. A-18-CV-992-LY, 2019 WL 2035583, at *4
`
`(W.D. Tex. Apr. 8, 2019) (transferring case to N.D. Cal. because a “significant number of party
`
`and non-party witnesses are in California” and most of the relevant witnesses were within
`
`subpoena power of that district); DataQuill, 2014 WL 2722201, at *3–4 (finding DataQuill
`
`“failed to demonstrate the existence of any meaningful documents at Apple’s Austin campuses,”
`
`and transferring infringement suit to N.D. Cal. because 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”).
`
`Because Apple has identified numerous relevant witnesses—both for Apple and Parus—
`
`in N.D. Cal., and Parus is unlikely to have any witnesses in this District, this factor
`
`overwhelmingly weighs in favor of transfer.
`
`All Other Practical Problems. In addition to Apple, Parus has filed separate suits
`
`against Google, LG, Amazon, and Samsung, asserting infringement of the same two patents by
`
`different products. See Parus v. Google, No. 6:19-cv-00433-ADA; Parus v. LG, No. 6:19-cv-
`
`
`
`9
`
`IPR2020-00686
`Apple EX1034 Page 13
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00432-ADA Document 42 Filed 12/09/19 Page 14 of 17
`
`00437-ADA; Parus v. Samsung, No. 6:19-cv-00438-ADA; Parus v. Amazon.com, No. 6:19-cv-
`
`00454-ADA. Google, LG, and Samsung intend to transfer to N.D. Cal. (Lee Decl. ¶ 30.)
`
`Amazon moved for intra-district transfer to Austin, but stated it does not oppose transfer to N.D.
`
`Cal. See Amazon.com, Inc., No. 6:19-cv-454-ADA, ECF No. 20, at 1 n.1 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 24,
`
`2019). Apple requests transfer to N.D. Cal. instead of Austin because Apple’s relevant witnesses
`
`and documents, and as well as those of the majority of the other defendants, are in N.D. Cal.
`
`2.
`
`The Public Factors Favor Transfer
`
`Administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion. According to Legal Metric,
`
`the average time for cases to terminate by trial between January 2013 and September 2018 in this
`
`District was 40.4 months as opposed to 35.6 months in N.D. Cal. (Lee Decl. Exs. AA & BB.)
`
`Apple notes that this Court’s Order Governing Proceedings provides for trial to begin 44–
`
`47 weeks after the Markman hearing. Because this case is in its infancy and no Markman
`
`hearing has been scheduled yet, this factor weighs slightly in favor of transfer.
`
`Local interest in having localized interests decided at home. Because Apple is
`
`headquartered in Cupertino and the Accused Technology was developed in N.D. Cal. (Jaynes
`
`Decl. ¶¶ 4, 11), N.D. Cal. has a stronger local interest in deciding the issues in this case. No
`
`Apple employees in Texas have unique knowledge or noncumulative documents regarding the
`
`Accused Technology. (Id. ¶¶ 5–13.) Furthermore, Parus has failed to articulate any connection
`
`it has with Texas, let alone this District. This factor thus favors transfer.
`
`Familiarity of forum with governing law and avoidance of conflict of laws. 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).
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Apple requests that the Court transfer this case to N.D. Cal. under Section 1404(a).
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`IPR2020-00686
`Apple EX1034 Page 14
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00432-ADA Document 42 Filed 12/09/19 Page 15 of 17
`
`
`
`Dated: December 9, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Bita Rahebi
`Bita Rahebi
`
`Bita Rahebi, Admitted Pro Hac Vice
`brahebi@mofo.com
`Hector G. Gallegos, Admitted Pro Hac Vice
`hgallegos@mofo.com
`Rose S. Lee, Admitted Pro Hac Vice
`roselee@mofo.com
`Matthew C. Callahan, Admitted Pro Hac Vice
`mcallahan@mofo.com
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`707 Wilshire Boulevard
`Los Angeles, CA 90017-3543
`T: (213) 892-5200
`F: (213) 892-5454
`
`Elizabeth Ann Patterson, Admitted Pro Hac Vice
`MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
`425 Market Street
`San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
`T: (415) 268-7000
`F: (415) 268-7522
`
`J. Stephen Ravel
`Texas State Bar No. 16584975
`steve.ravel@kellyhart.com
`KELLY HART & HALLMAN LLP
`303 Colorado, Suite 2000
`Austin, Texas 78701
`T: (512) 495-6429
`
`Attorneys for Defendant, APPLE INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`IPR2020-00686
`Apple EX1034 Page 15
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00432-ADA Document 42 Filed 12/09/19 Page 16 of 17
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
`
`Pursuant to Local Rule CV-7 (i), on December 9, 2019, the parties conferred in a good
`
`faith effort to resolve the matter by agreement. Plaintiff opposes the relief sought. Accordingly,
`
`the matter is submitted to the Court for resolution.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Rose S. Lee
` Rose S. Lee
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00686
`Apple EX1034 Page 16
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00432-ADA Document 42 Filed 12/09/19 Page 17 of 17
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing was served upon
`
`all counsel of record via the Court’s ECF system on December 9, 2019.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Bita Rahebi
`Bita Rahebi
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`IPR2020-00686
`Apple EX1034 Page 17
`
`