Case 6:20-cv-00524-ADA Document 20 Filed 09/10/20 Page 1 of 21
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`SABLE NETWORKS, INC. and SABLE IP,
`LLC,
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`
`v.
`
`JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.
`
`Defendant
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`Civil Action No.: 6:20-cv-524-ADA
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.'S OPPOSED MOTION TO TRANSFER
`VENUE TO THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`EX1045
`Palo Alto Networks v. Sable Networks
`IPR2020-01712
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00524-ADA Document 20 Filed 09/10/20 Page 2 of 21
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiffs Have No Connection to This District. ......................................................2
`
`Defendant Juniper’s Witnesses and Sources of Proof Are in N.D. Cal. ..................2
`
`Many Third-Party Witnesses Are in N.D. Cal. ........................................................4
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ..........................................................................................................6
`
`IV. ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Venue Is Proper In The Northern District of California ..........................................6
`
`The Private Factors Support Transfer ......................................................................7
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`iii.
`
`iv.
`
`Access to Sources of Proof ..........................................................................7
`
`Ability to Compel Third-Party Witnesses....................................................9
`
`Cost of Witness Attendance .......................................................................11
`
`Other Practical Considerations ..................................................................12
`
`C.
`
`The Public Factors Support Transfer .....................................................................13
`
`i.
`
`ii.
`
`Administrative Difficulties ........................................................................13
`
`Local Interest .............................................................................................14
`
`iii.
`
`The Remaining Public Interest Factors are Neutral ...................................15
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................15
`
`
`
`
`Page | i
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00524-ADA Document 20 Filed 09/10/20 Page 3 of 21
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`In re Adobe, Inc.
`(No. 2026-126, 2020 WL 4308164 (Fed. Cir. July 28, 2020)) ........................................1,11,12
`
`Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 6:18-cv-00372-ADA, 2019 WL 4743678 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 10, 2019) .........................9,10
`
`Gemalto S.A. v. CPI Card Grp. Inc.,
`No. 15-CA-0910, 2015 WL 10818740 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 16, 2015) ........................................10
`
`In re Genentech
`566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009)........................................................................................ passim
`
`In re Google Inc.,
`No. 2017-107, 2017 WL 977038 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 23, 2017) .................................................8,13
`
`In re Hoffman-La Roche, Inc.,
`587 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................14
`
`Neil Bros. Ltd. v. World Wide Lines, Inc.,
`425 F.Supp.2d 325 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) .......................................................................................11
`
`Noble v. Geo Group, Inc.,
`2008 WL 2609208 (W.D. Tex. 2008) ......................................................................................11
`
`Parus Holdings, Inc. v. LG Elec. Inc.
`No. 6:19-cv-00432-ADA, Dkt. 161 (W.D. Tex. 2020) ...........................................................1,7
`
`TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC,
`137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017) ...............................................................................................................7
`
`In re Tech USA Corp.,
`551 F.3d 1315 (5th Cir. 2008) ...........................................................................................6,7,11
`
`In re Triton Ltd. Sec. Litig.,
`70 F.Supp.2d 678 (E.D. Tex. 1999) .........................................................................................12
`
`Uniloc USA Inc. v. Box, Inc.,
`No. 1:17-CV-754-LY, 2018 WL 2729202 (W.D. Tex. June 6, 2018).....................................14
`
`In re Volkswagen AG,
`371 F.3d 201 (5th Cir. 2004) ..............................................................................................11,13
`
`
`
`
`Page | ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00524-ADA Document 20 Filed 09/10/20 Page 4 of 21
`
`In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc.,
`545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) .............................................................................................6,7,13
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`28 U.S.C.
`§ 1400(b) ....................................................................................................................................7
`
`FEDERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P.
`45(c)(1)(A) and (B) ..................................................................................................................10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page | iii
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00524-ADA Document 20 Filed 09/10/20 Page 5 of 21
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The access to sources of proof, the availability of witnesses, the cost to obtaining
`
`witnesses’ attendance, and the local interest of the venue all demonstrate that the locus of this
`
`dispute is in the Northern District of California. The courts in In re Genentech (566 F.3d 1338
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2009)), In re Adobe, Inc. (No. 2026-126, 2020 WL 4308164 (Fed. Cir. July 28, 2020)),
`
`and Parus Holdings, Inc. v. LG Elec. Inc. (No. 6:19-cv-00432-ADA, Dkt. 161 (W.D. Tex. 2020))
`
`found the same factors weighed in favor of transfer and ordered that those cases be moved to the
`
`Northern District of California, and the same result should be found here.
`
`In this dispute, the Defendant, and one of the two Plaintiffs, have bases of operations in
`
`the Northern District of California. The patents-in-suit, as well as the Accused Products were
`
`developed in that District, and the Defendant’s sales, marketing, research and development
`
`operations, as well as its documents and source code, are stored there. Defendant’s expected trial
`
`witnesses who lead the engineering, sales, and marketing of the Accused Products are all based
`
`in the Northern District of California. Third-party witnesses, including engineers from Broadcom
`
`with knowledge about some of the accused functionalities and 6 of the named inventors who
`
`may have knowledge about on-sale bar activities, are also based in that District.
`
`In contrast, the Western District of Texas has no relevant ties to the parties or the case.
`
`Plaintiffs have no presence in this District. None of the Defendant’s sources of proof or expected
`
`trial witnesses are in this District either. None of the Accused Products or the inventions claimed
`
`in patents-in-suit were researched or developed in this District. Thus, many of the factors clearly
`
`support transfer – including the convenience of Juniper’s witnesses, the cost of obtaining
`
`witnesses’ attendance, difficulty of obtaining documents and physical evidence, the location of
`
`relevant third-party witnesses, and the local interests of the District – and none of the factors
`
`DEFENDANT JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC.'S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT
`37315\13628401.1
`
`Page | 1
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00524-ADA Document 20 Filed 09/10/20 Page 6 of 21
`
`weigh against transfer. Juniper, therefore, respectfully requests that this Court grant its motion,
`
`and transfer the case to the Northern District of California.
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`A. Plaintiffs Have No Connection to This District.
`
`The first Plaintiff, Sable Networks, Inc. (“Sable Networks”), is a California corporation,
`
`with its office in Santa Clara, California, within the Northern District of California. Compl. ¶14;
`
`see also, Roybal-Reid Decl., ¶2 and Ex. A. The second Plaintiff, Sable IP, LLC (“Sable IP”) is a
`
`Delaware LLC, with a principal place of business in Minnesota. See Compl. ¶17; see also
`
`Roybal-Reid Decl. ¶3 and Ex. B (Sable Networks and Sable IP together will be referred to as
`
`“Sable”). Sable does not appear to be registered to do business in Texas, or to have any physical
`
`presence there.
`
`B. Defendant Juniper’s Witnesses and Sources of Proof Are in N.D. Cal.
`
`Defendant Juniper is also a Delaware corporation, based in Sunnyvale, California, also
`
`within the Northern District of California. Juniper conducts most of its business out of its
`
`headquarters (“HQ”), which are located approximately 11 miles from the Northern District of
`
`California’s San Jose courthouse. Decl. of Michael Bushong (“Bushong Decl.”), ¶¶2, 3.
`
`Approximately 2800 Juniper employees work out of its Sunnyvale HQ while approximately 40
`
`Juniper employees work out of the Western District of Texas. Id., ¶22.
`
`Sable accuses the following products of infringement (“Accused Products”):
`
`o The ACX series of universal metro routers;
`
`o The SRX series of service gateways and firewalls;
`
`o NFX150 network services platform;
`
`o vSRX line of virtual firewalls with vSRX 12.1X46-D10 & later;
`
`
`
`
`Page | 2
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00524-ADA Document 20 Filed 09/10/20 Page 7 of 21
`
`o MX Series Routers running Junos OS 14.1 or later; and
`
`o The EX9200 switches running Junos OS 15.1 or later.
`
`Juniper’s technical research and development teams for the Accused Products are led out
`
`of its headquarters in Sunnyvale, California, with additional support from China and India.
`
`Specifically, the ACX series of products was designed and developed in the U.S. and China, by a
`
`team led out of Sunnyvale, California. Id., ¶6. Both the hardware and the software for SRX series
`
`products were designed in Sunnyvale, California with contributions from workers in India and
`
`China, where the SRX products are now supported. Id., ¶5. The hardware and software for the
`
`NFX150 product was designed and developed out of Sunnyvale, California, and support for the
`
`product is now provided from India and China. Id., ¶7. Vijay Talati (Vice President of
`
`Engineering), Rakesh Dubey (Senior Vice President of Engineering), Arun Viswanathan (Vice
`
`President of Engineering), Alampoondi Natarajoan (Senior Vice President of Engineering), and
`
`Ashwin Kovummal (Vice President of Engineering) are all based out of the Sunnyvale,
`
`California office and are knowledgeable about the design, development, testing, and/or operation
`
`of one or more of the Accused Products. Id., ¶11. One or more of these executives may testify
`
`regarding these topics. There are no Juniper employees with relevant knowledge regarding the
`
`design and development of the Accused Products who work or reside in Texas. Id., ¶¶11, 12.
`
`Juniper stores most of its technical documents and source code in Sunnyvale, California
`
`including those related to the Accused Products. Id., ¶10. Other source code repositories are
`
`located in Juniper’s facilities in Massachusetts and Bangalore, India. Id. Importantly, none of
`
`Juniper’s technical documents or source code is stored in Texas. Id.
`
`Juniper’s sales and marketing efforts are also directed from its Sunnyvale, California HQ
`
`as well. Id., ¶14. Mike Marcellin (Juniper’s Chief Marketing Officer) and Shelly Gupta (its Vice
`
`
`
`
`Page | 3
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00524-ADA Document 20 Filed 09/10/20 Page 8 of 21
`
`President of Finance) are based out of the Sunnyvale, California office and are knowledgeable
`
`about the marketing and sales of one or more of the Accused Products. Id., ¶13. One or more of
`
`these executives may testify regarding these topics. Documents concerning the sales, costs, and
`
`marketing of the Accused Products are also stored in Sunnyvale, California. Id., Decl., ¶15.
`
`Juniper has handfuls of “Support Engineers” scattered throughout the country, including
`
`some based in the Austin, Texas area. Id., ¶¶19, 20. Support Engineers provide initial technical
`
`support for customers based anywhere in the United States, who call the company regarding a
`
`problem with any Juniper product. Id., ¶19. The Support Engineers are supervised out of
`
`California, and whenever they cannot resolve a customer’s concern, the problem is elevated to
`
`Juniper’s Engineering team led out of Sunnyvale, California. Id., ¶20. Support Engineers are not
`
`specific to any product, nor are they involved in the design, development, marketing, or sale of
`
`any Juniper products in any location. Id., ¶19. Juniper also has an office in Austin, Texas,
`
`primarily to service a networking start-up company called Mist Systems that Juniper acquired in
`
`2019. Id., ¶21. Mist makes artificial intelligence-powered wireless LANs (local area networks),
`
`and their products are not accused in this case. Id., ¶21. Mist does not design or develop any of
`
`the Accused Products. Id., ¶21.
`
`C. Many Third-Party Witnesses Are in N.D. Cal.
`
`Sable asserts that Juniper’s ACX routers infringe the ’431 patent in part by “using the
`
`buffer for damping jitter associated with the microflow.” Compl. ¶98. That functionality is
`
`provided by the processors and associated software provided by Broadcom, a third-party
`
`processor company based in San Jose, California, in the Northern District of California. Bushong
`
`Decl. ¶¶16-18. Specifically, that accused functionality in the ACX 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000
`
`series is provided in part by the Broadcom Enduro chips and associated software, and in the
`
`
`
`
`Page | 4
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00524-ADA Document 20 Filed 09/10/20 Page 9 of 21
`
`ACX 5448 and 7170 devices, it is provided by the Broadcom Qumran MX chips and associated
`
`software. Id., ¶¶16, 17. Jim Biello and Joe Clutter are two Broadcom employees with knowledge
`
`about the design and operation of the Broadcom chips and associated software that are found in
`
`the accused Juniper ACX devices, and both Biello and Clutter work out of Broadcom’s Northern
`
`California offices. Id., ¶18.
`
`Several inventors of Sable’s patents are also located in the Northern District of California
`
`and while they do not appear to be currently employed Sable, they were at one time employed by
`
`Sable or the original assignee of the patents, Caspian Networks. Roybal-Reid Decl., ¶¶6-9, 11,
`
`13, and Exs. E-H, J, L; Compl., Ex. C. Caspian Networks was a networking company based in
`
`the Northern District of California that developed routing and switching products like the Apeiro
`
`IP superswitch. The Apeiro may have embodied some of the claimed inventions in the patents-
`
`in-suit, and multiple carrier customers have used the Apeiro in trials since 2001—before the
`
`applications for the ’932, ’775, ’358,1 ’593, and ’790 patents-in-suit were even filed. Roybal-
`
`Reid Decl., ¶15 and Ex. N. Indeed, at least one of the inventors—Faizel Lakhani—was quoted in
`
`a press article about the Apeiro. Roybal-Reid Decl., ¶16 and Ex. N. In addition to Lakhani
`
`(’358), named inventors Surya K. Pappu (’775, ’790), Sharad Murthy (’775, ’790), Bert Tanaka
`
`(’358), Riad Hartani (‘358) and Gary Croke (‘358) all worked at Caspian during the time frame
`
`when the Apeiro was developed, offered for sale, and put to use with customers, and these six (6)
`
`inventors appear to still be in the Northern District of California.2 Roybal-Reid Decl., ¶¶6-9, 11,
`
`
`
`1 Caspian filed the application for the ’358 patent in July 2002, claiming priority back to
`a provisional application dated in July 2001.
`2 Lawrence Roberts, named inventor on the ’431 patent and founder of Caspian
`Networks, resided in in Northern California prior to his passing in 2018. Roybal-Reid Decl., ¶4
`and Exs. C, C2. To the extent his estate has any relevant documents left, they are likely to be
`found in Northern California. Caspian Networks closed in 2006.
`
`
`
`Page | 5
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00524-ADA Document 20 Filed 09/10/20 Page 10 of 21
`
`13 and Exs. E-H, J, L. Juniper intends to call these third-party inventors to testify at trial
`
`regarding the potential on-sale bar issues surrounding the Apeiro, the development of the
`
`claimed inventions, and the state of the art at the time of the claimed invention.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A case should be transferred when the proposed forum is “clearly more convenient” than
`
`the plaintiff’s chosen venue. In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 315 (5th Cir. 2008). In
`
`the Fifth Circuit, a court assessing this question weighs the following “private factors”: (1) the
`
`relative ease of access to sources of proof; (2) the availability of compulsory process to secure
`
`the attendance of witnesses; (3) the cost of attendance for willing witnesses; and (4) all other
`
`practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious, and inexpensive.”3 Id.
`
`The Fifth Circuit considers the following “public factors” as well in a transfer analysis:
`
`(1) the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion; (2) the local interest in having
`
`localized interests decided at home; (3) the familiarity of the forum with the law that will govern
`
`the case; and (4) the avoidance of unnecessary problems of conflict of laws or in the application
`
`of foreign laws. Id.
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`A. Venue Is Proper In The Northern District of California
`
`In a patent case, venue is proper in the district where the defendant resides, as well as the
`
`district where the defendant is alleged to have committed its acts of infringement and has a
`
`regular and established place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). “A domestic corporation ‘resides’
`
`only in its state of incorporation for purposes of the patent venue statute.” TC Heartland LLC v.
`
`
`
`3 Notably, the Fifth Circuit “clearly forbids treating a plaintiff’s choice of venue as a
`distinct factor in the § 1404 analysis.” In re Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315, 1320 (5th Cir.
`2008) (citation omitted).
`
`
`
`Page | 6
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00524-ADA Document 20 Filed 09/10/20 Page 11 of 21
`
`Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514, 1517 (2017). As Juniper is based in
`
`Sunnyvale, California, this lawsuit could have been brought in the Northern District of
`
`California.
`
`B. The Private Factors Support Transfer
`
`In this case, several private factors clearly weigh in support of transfer, and none weigh
`
`against transfer.
`
`i. Access to Sources of Proof
`
`The location of evidence in another district remains “a meaningful factor in the analysis,”
`
`notwithstanding advances in electronic transfer and storage of information. Volkswagen of Am,,
`
`545 F.3d at 316. Indeed, the Genentech court found that where “the petitioners identified all of
`
`its [sic] evidence in California,” and “no evidence [wa]s housed within the state of Texas,” the
`
`district court “clearly erred” in finding that this factor was neutral. 566 F.3d at 1345-1346.
`
`Furthermore, Juniper’s evidence should be the primary consideration in this analysis, because
`
`“[i]n patent infringement cases, the bulk of the relevant evidence usually comes from the accused
`
`infringer. Consequently, the place where the defendant’s documents are kept weighs in favor of
`
`transfer to that location.” Id. at 1345. The fact that much of this information is stored
`
`electronically does not affect the analysis of this factor. In Re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d
`
`1315, 1320-21 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (holding that the trial court erred in finding this factor neutral
`
`because many of the documents were stored electronically when “the vast majority of physical
`
`and documentary evidence” was located in the transferee venue); see also, Parus Holdings, Case
`
`No. 6:19-cv-00432-ADA, Dkt. 161 at 5-6.
`
`Here, Juniper is headquartered in the Northern District of California. Most of Juniper’s
`
`physical and documentary evidence regarding the development, manufacturing, sales, and
`
`
`
`
`Page | 7
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00524-ADA Document 20 Filed 09/10/20 Page 12 of 21
`
`marketing of the Accused Products are stored at Juniper’s Northern California headquarters,
`
`along with its source code. In addition to documentary evidence, the Juniper employees with
`
`knowledge of the design and development and who lead the sales and marketing of the Accused
`
`Products are in California or overseas in India or China. The location of these employees, alone,
`
`is sufficient to tip this factor significantly in Juniper’s favor. In re Google Inc., No. 2017-107,
`
`2017 WL 977038, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 23, 2017) (reversing denial of a motion to transfer where
`
`the “vast majority of[the petitioner’s] employees – in particular those responsible for projects
`
`relating to the accused products – work[ed] and reside[d] in the Northern District of
`
`California.”).
`
`Further, while Sable is expected to rely on the existence of Juniper’s Austin office (see
`
`Compl. ¶22), that office does not create a meaningful tie to this venue. The referenced office is,
`
`in fact, operated by Mist Systems, Inc. (“Mist”) - a separate company acquired by Juniper in
`
`2019 that develops AI-powered wireless access points. Roybal-Reid Decl., ¶¶20, 21, and Exs. S,
`
`T. Mist is not a party in this case, and it offers an entirely different set of products, none of which
`
`are accused in this case. See Bushong Decl., ¶21. None of its employees have knowledge about
`
`the accused technologies in this case. Id.
`
`In addition to physical or documentary evidence, the majority of Juniper’s witnesses with
`
`knowledge about the Accused Products are also based in or around the Northern District of
`
`California, which further supports transfer to that district. For party witnesses, the court looks at
`
`the totality of circumstances, including but not limited to a witness’s title and relevant
`
`experience, the likelihood that a witness may have relevant information, the number of
`
`witnesses, the location of those witnesses, whether the testimony of the witnesses goes to an
`
`element of a claim, the amount of public information available to the parties, and related factors.
`
`
`
`
`Page | 8
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00524-ADA Document 20 Filed 09/10/20 Page 13 of 21
`
`Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 6:18-cv-00372-ADA, 2019 WL 4743678, at *4 (W.D. Tex. Sept.
`
`10, 2019). Juniper’s potential witnesses include Rakesh Dubey (Senior Vice President of
`
`Engineering), Arun Viswanathan (Vice President of Engineering), Alampoondi Natarajoan
`
`(Senior Vice President of Engineering), and Ashwin Kovummal (Vice President of Engineering),
`
`all of whom have knowledge about the design and development of one or more of the Accused
`
`Products. Bushong Decl., ¶11. Conversely, there are no current employees with relevant
`
`knowledge about the design or development of the Accused Products who are based in W.D.
`
`Texas. Id., ¶12. Mike Marcellin (Chief Marketing Officer) and Shelly Gupta (VP, Finance) are
`
`based out of the Sunnyvale, California office and have knowledge or information about the
`
`marketing and sales of one or more of the Accused Products. Id. ¶¶13, 15.
`
`The fact that Juniper’s evidence is overwhelmingly in California is sufficient to satisfy
`
`the inquiry under this factor. However, in this case, Plaintiff Sable Networks, Inc. is also based
`
`in the Northern District of California. Compl. ¶14. Any relevant documents it has are likely
`
`stored there, and any witnesses employed by Sable Networks likely reside in that District.
`
`Plaintiff Sable IP, LLC is a Delaware entity based in Minnesota formed only in April 2020 most
`
`likely to serve as a holding company for the patents-in-suit. Compl. ¶17; Roybal-Reid Decl. . ¶3
`
`and Ex. B. As the Northern District of California provides superior access to both parties’
`
`sources of proof, this factor clearly supports transfer.
`
`ii. Ability to Compel Third-Party Witnesses
`
`The second private factor also weighs in favor of transfer. “In this factor, the Court
`
`considers the availability of compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses,
`
`particularly non-party witnesses whose attendance may need to be secured by a court order.”
`
`Fintiv, 2019 WL 4743678, at *5. See also, In re Genentech, 566 F.3d at 1345 (“The fact that the
`
`
`
`
`Page | 9
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00524-ADA Document 20 Filed 09/10/20 Page 14 of 21
`
`transferee venue is a venue with usable subpoena power here weighs in favor of transfer, and not
`
`only slightly.”). A court may subpoena a witness to attend trial only (a) “within 100 miles of
`
`where the person resides, is employed or regularly transacts business in person.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`45(c)(1)(A) and (B). Where neither party has compulsory process available within the original
`
`venue, but at least one party would have compulsory process available for witnesses in the
`
`transferee district, that weighs in favor of transfer. See Gemalto S.A. v. CPI Card Grp. Inc., No.
`
`15-CA-0910, 2015 WL 10818740, at *4 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 16, 2015).
`
`Broadcom will likely have technical information relevant to this case because the
`
`buffering functionalities in the accused Juniper ACX routers, which Sable asserts is an infringing
`
`feature in its complaint (¶¶94-99), are provided by Broadcom chips and associated software. Jim
`
`Biello and Joe Clutter of Broadcom both have relevant information about the design and
`
`operation of the Broadcom chips and associated software, and they work out of Broadcom’s San
`
`Jose, California office. Bushong Decl. ¶18. They are both outside the subpoena power of this
`
`court but can be compelled to testify in California.
`
`Six of the currently living inventors of Sable’s patents appear to be based within the
`
`Northern District of California as well. Roybal-Reid Decl. ¶¶6-9, 11, 13 and Exs. E-H, J, L.
`
`Juniper intends to call these individuals to testify as witnesses regarding potential on-sale bar
`
`issues surrounding the use of the Apeiro product sold by Caspian Networks, the development of
`
`the claimed inventions, and the state of the art at the time the patent applications were filed.
`
`These six inventors-Lakhani, Croke, Hartani, Tanaka, Murthy and Pappu-will not be subject to
`
`the subpoena power of a Texas court, but can be compelled to testify in California. This factor
`
`definitively weighs in favor of transfer. See Adobe, 2020 WL 4308164, at *2 (finding error
`
`where the district court “failed to accord proper weight” to witness convenience where, in
`
`
`
`
`Page | 10
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00524-ADA Document 20 Filed 09/10/20 Page 15 of 21
`
`addition to the defendant company, “the inventor and his company were in Northern California,”
`
`and no “potential witness or location in the Western District of Texas [had] relevant evidence.”).
`
`iii. Cost of Witness Attendance
`
`“The convenience of the witnesses is probably the single most important factor in transfer
`
`analysis.” Genentech, 566 F.3d at 1343 (quoting Neil Bros. Ltd. v. World Wide Lines, Inc., 425
`
`F.Supp.2d 325, 329 (E.D.N.Y. 2006)); TS Tech, 551 F.3d at 1320 (finding error because the
`
`district court did not “considerably weigh this factor in favor of transfer” where the “identified
`
`witnesses would need to travel a significantly further distance from home to attend trial in
`
`Texas”); Noble v. Geo Group, Inc., 2008 WL 2609208, *5 (W.D. Tex. 2008) (“The convenience
`
`of the witnesses has often been cited as the most important factor in determining whether a case
`
`should be transferred pursuant to § 1404(a)”).
`
`The further distance from home “means additional travel time; additional travel time
`
`increases the probability for meal and lodging expenses; and additional travel time with
`
`overnight stays increases the time which these fact witnesses must be away from their regular
`
`employment.” In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201, 205 (5th Cir. 2004). Considering this fact,
`
`the Fifth Circuit established a “100-mile” rule, holding that “[w]hen 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 204-05.
`
`While all witnesses are considered under this factor, the convenience of non-party
`
`witnesses is given particular weight. See, e.g., In re Triton Ltd. Sec. Litig., 70 F.Supp.2d 678, 690
`
`(E.D. Tex. 1999). Here, as discussed above, a large number of relevant non-party witnesses live
`
`
`
`
`Page | 11
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00524-ADA Document 20 Filed 09/10/20 Page 16 of 21
`
`in the Northern District of California, and are easily within 100 miles of its San Jose courthouse.
`
`In contrast, there appear to be no relevant witnesses in the Western District of Texas.
`
`In addition to the non-party witnesses, the party witnesses are overwhelmingly based in
`
`the Northern District, as discussed above in section IV.B.i. While some of Juniper’s engineers
`
`are based overseas, the critical consideration is not whether “all of the witnesses” reside in the
`
`transferee district, but whether a “substantial number” are based there. Genentech, 566 F.3d at
`
`1345 (emphasis in original). Here, the majority of party and non-party witnesses are based in the
`
`Northern District of California, within a relatively short distance of the transferee court. Bushong
`
`Decl., ¶¶2-3, 11-13 18. To the extent Juniper employees outside California with relevant
`
`knowledge of the Accused Products are needed for this case, they are based in Bangalore, India
`
`or Beijing, China. Id., ¶¶5-8. For these witnesses, California remains a more convenient forum
`
`than this district given that Bangalore and Beijing are closer by distance to San Jose, California
`
`than Waco, Texas. Roybal-Reid Decl. ¶17 and Ex. P. Thus, this critical factor heavily supports
`
`transfer. See Adobe, 2020 WL 4308164, at *3 (finding that Northern California would be more
`
`convenient where the Defendant “identified a significant number of its own employees as
`
`potential witnesses who reside in the Northern District of California,” while the Plaintiff’s
`
`employees would be “coming from outside both districts.”).
`
`iv. Other Practical Considerations
`
`Sable cannot overcome all the factors that weigh in favor of transfer by arguing that it is
`
`more efficient to keep the Juniper case in this District because Sable filed two other concurrent
`
`cases against Cisco and Dell in this District. This argument has been squarely rejected by the
`
`Federal Circuit in In re Google:
`
`Based on the district court’s rationale, therefore, the mere co-
`pendency of related suits
`in a particular district would
`
`Page | 12
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00524-ADA Document 20 Filed 09/10/20 Page 17 of 21
`
`automatically tip the balance in non-movant’s favor regardless of
`the existence of co-pending
`transfer motions and
`their
`underlying merits. This cannot be correct. If it were, at best, the
`outcome of the transfer analysis could simply depend on the order
`in which the district court rules on each of the respective pending
`motions. At worst, it means that no matter what the order decided,
`all motions would be doomed to failure.
`
`In re Google, No. 2017-107, 2017 WL 977038, at *2. (Fed. Cir. Feb. 23, 2017) (internal citations
`
`omitted; emphasis added). In addition, any efficiency argument put forth by Sable is undermined
`
`by the fact that Sable has filed three (3) additional cases involving many of the same patents in
`
`the Eastern District of Texas. Thus, this factor is neutral.
`
`C. The Public Factors Support Transfer
`
`The public factors include: “(1) the administrative difficulties flowing from court
`
`congestion; (2) the local interest in having localized interests decided at home; (3) the familiarity
`
`of the forum with the law that will govern the case; and (4) the avoidance of unnecessary
`
`problems of conflict of laws or in the application of foreign laws.” Volkswagen of Am., 545 F.3d
`
`at 315; Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d at 201.
`
`i. Administrative Difficulties
`
`Here, the first public interest factor – administrative difficulties created by court
`
`congestion – supports tra