`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Case No. 20-cv-05504-JST
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
`TRANSFER
`
`KOSS CORPORATION,
`
`Re: ECF No. 24
`
`Defendant.
`
`On September 29, 2020, Defendant Koss Corporation filed a motion to transfer, dismiss or
`
`stay the instant action brought by Plaintiff Apple, Inc. ECF No. 24.
`
`The Court granted the motion to stay at a hearing held on November 4, 2020. ECF No. 39.
`
`The Court explained that the first-to-file rule applied because more than two weeks before this
`
`action commenced, Koss filed a complaint for patent infringement against Apple in the Western
`
`District of Texas involving claims regarding the same five patents, and Apple had briefed its
`
`breach of contract claim in its motion to strike the Texas complaint. ECF No. 42 at 35. In
`
`considering Koss’s motion to transfer, the Court held that “the Western District of Texas [was] in
`
`a better position to consider [Section] 1404(a)’s convenience factors in light of the four related
`
`cases involving the same patents that are currently pending before the same judge,” and ordered
`
`the parties to file a notice with the Court within five days of receiving an order from the Western
`
`District of Texas regarding Apple’s motion to strike “as well as any future motion to transfer.” Id.
`
`at 36.
`
`On April 5, 2021, Koss notified the Court that the Western District of Texas had denied
`
`Apple’s motion to strike the Texas complaint, ECF No. 68, and on April 29, 2021, Koss notified
`
`the Court that the Western District of Texas had “denied Apple’s Motion to Transfer,” ECF No.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`Page 1 of 2
`
`KOSS-2012
`IPR2021-00255
`
`
`
`
`
`70 at 2. Apple responded that it intends to seek reconsideration of that order and continues to
`
`oppose transfer of this case to the Western District of Texas. ECF No. 71.
`
`The court in the Western District of Texas carefully considered the public and private
`
`interest factors to determine whether the case involving the same parties and patents pending
`
`before that court should be transferred here, and explained its reasoning at length in its 29-page
`
`order denying Apple’s motion to transfer. See Koss Corp. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:20-cv-00665, ECF
`
`No. 76 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 22, 2021). For the reasons stated in the Court’s order staying this case, as
`
`well as the thoughtful § 1404 analysis of the Western District of Texas, the Court now grants
`
`Koss’s motion to transfer.
`
`The Clerk shall transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Western
`
`District of Texas.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: May 12, 2021
`
`______________________________________
`JON S. TIGAR
`United States District Judge
`
`2
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`Northern District of California
`
`United States District Court
`
`Page 2 of 2
`
`KOSS-2012
`IPR2021-00255
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
