Case 4:20-cv-02624 Document 44 Filed on 11/09/20 in TXSD Page 1 of 16
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`
`GUI GLOBAL PRODUCTS, LTD. d/b/a
`GWEE,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4:20-cv-02624-AHB
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)
`
`
`
`Defendants Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“SEA”) and Samsung Electronics Co.,
`
`Ltd. (“SEC”) (together, “Samsung”) hereby move, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), to transfer this
`
`patent infringement action to the Northern District of California (“NDCA”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This case is one of two related actions filed in this District by Plaintiff GUI Global
`
`Products, Ltd. (“GUI”) alleging infringement of the same four patents. Specifically, on July 27,
`
`2020, GUI filed this case against Samsung (the “Samsung Case”). The next day, GUI filed suit
`
`against Apple Inc. See GUI Global Prods., Ltd. d/b/a Gwee v. Apple Inc., Case No. 4:20-cv-02652
`
`(the “Apple Case”).
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`APPLE 1106
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-02624 Document 44 Filed on 11/09/20 in TXSD Page 2 of 16
`
`On November 3, 2020, Apple filed a motion to transfer its case to NDCA. Apple Case,
`
`Dkt. 40 (“Apple’s Motion”), Park Decl. Ex. A.1 Samsung files the instant motion to also transfer
`
`the Samsung Case to NDCA on two primary grounds.
`
`The first is judicial economy. In particular, GUI admits (and Samsung agrees) that the
`
`cases are related, so much that they should be consolidated. See Dkt. 39, Joint Motion to
`
`Consolidate. Accordingly, if the Apple Case is transferred to NDCA, so should the Samsung Case.
`
`The second is that, independent of Apple, Samsung has its own affiliated relevant witnesses
`
`and documents in NDCA. Specifically, the products accused of infringement in the Samsung Case
`
`(“Accused Products”) were conceptualized and designed in NDCA. Moreover, third party
`
`witnesses with information regarding prior art are also in NDCA. Therefore, in addition to judicial
`
`economy (which alone is sufficient to support transfer), the presence of witnesses and documents
`
`related to the Samsung Case further weigh strongly in favor transferring both cases to NDCA.
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest
`
`of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it
`
`might have been brought.” The purpose of § 1404(a) is to “prevent the waste of time, energy and
`
`money and to protect litigants, witnesses and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and
`
`expense.” Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964) (citing Cont’l Grain Co. v. The Barge
`
`FBL-585, et al., 364 U.S. 19, 26, 27 (1960)).
`
`In determining whether to transfer an action, a court first determines whether the claims
`
`“might have been brought” in the proposed transferee venue. In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201,
`
`202 (5th Cir. 2004) (“Volkswagen I”). If the transferee venue is proper, the court then weighs a
`
`
`1 “Park Decl.” refers to the Declaration of Jin-Suk Park, submitted herewith as Exhibit 1.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-02624 Document 44 Filed on 11/09/20 in TXSD Page 3 of 16
`
`number of public and private interest factors to determine whether the transferee venue is “clearly
`
`more convenient.” In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 315 (5th Cir. 2008) (“Volkswagen
`
`II”). A motion to transfer venue should be granted upon a showing that the transferee venue is
`
`“clearly more convenient” than the venue chosen by the plaintiff. Id.
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiffs Could Have Brought This Action In NDCA.
`
`GUI alleges proper venue in this District based on the presence of a “Samsung Experience
`
`Store” in the Houston Galleria where the Accused Products “are at least sold and offered for sale.”
`
`D.I. 1 at ¶ 19.2
`
`A similar “Samsung Experience Store” is also located in Palo Alto, CA, which is squarely
`
`in NDCA. Compare https://www.samsung.com/us/samsung-experience-store/locations/houston/
`
`(Houston store) with https://www.samsung.com/us/samsung-experience-store/locations/palo-alto/
`
`(Palo Alto store); Ex. 2, Declaration of Edward Viejo (“Viejo Decl.”) ¶ 3. Accordingly, for at least
`
`this reason, GUI could equally have brought this suit in NDCA as in this District.
`
`B.
`
`Transfer of Samsung To NDCA Best Serves the Interests of Justice and is
`Clearly More Convenient.
`
`Once the transferee venue is deemed proper, the court then weighs a number of public
`
`and private interest factors to determine transfer.
`
`1.
`
`The Public Interest Factors Favor Transfer of the Samsung Case To
`NDCA.
`
`The public factors to be considered in a motion to transfer are: “(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 law.”
`
`
`2 For the purposes of this motion and the issues in this case, Samsung does not challenge that a
`Samsung Experience Store is sufficient to establish venue.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-02624 Document 44 Filed on 11/09/20 in TXSD Page 4 of 16
`
`Volkswagen I, 371 F.3d at 203. In addition, courts in the Fifth Circuit also consider the “interest
`
`of justice” requirement of § 1404(a). See, e.g., Solofill, LLC v. Rivera, No. CV H-16-2702, 2017
`
`WL 1354146, at *4 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 13, 2017) (“Although not an explicit public interest factor in
`
`the analysis as articulated by In re Volkswagen, ‘the interest of justice’ is an important factor in
`
`the venue transfer analysis.”). Indeed, this factor, which includes judicial economy, “may be
`
`determinative to a particular transfer motion, even if the convenience of the parties and the
`
`witnesses may call for a different result.” Zoltar Satellite Sys., Inc. v. LG Elecs. Mobile Commc'ns
`
`Co., 402 F. Supp. 2d 731, 735 (E.D. Tex. 2005) (quoting Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly
`
`& Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). Particularly given the complexity of many patent
`
`infringement cases, “[a]t the end of the day, ‘judicial economy plays a paramount role in trying to
`
`maintain an orderly, effective, administration of justice.” Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Samsung
`
`Elecs. Co., No. 6:13-CV-364, 2014 WL 12570501, at *7 (W.D. Tex. June 11, 2014) (quoting In
`
`re Vistaprint Ltd., 628 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2010)).
`
`For example, in Bandspeed, Inc. v. Acer, Inc., the plaintiff filed suit against the defendant
`
`alleging patent infringement while a related case, in which the plaintiff asserted the same patents
`
`against a different set of defendants, was pending in a different district court. No. 2:10-CV-215-
`
`TJW, 2011 WL 3648453, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 15, 2011). The defendant moved to transfer the
`
`case to the district where the related cases were pending. Id. In its analysis, the court found all
`
`but one of the private and public factors were neutral, and noted that “[g]enerally, such an outcome
`
`would result in a ruling that the Defendants have not met their burden of demonstrating that the
`
`[transferee district] is clearly more convenient.” Id. at *5. Regardless, the court granted transfer
`
`and held that judicial economy was determinative because “litigating the patents-in-suit almost
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-02624 Document 44 Filed on 11/09/20 in TXSD Page 5 of 16
`
`simultaneously in this Court and the [transferee district] would be a waste of judicial resources and
`
`risk inconstant outcomes.” Id. at *4.
`
`a.
`
`Judicial Economy Alone Warrants Transfer to NDCA if the
`Apple Case is Transferred.
`
`In this case, judicial economy should be determinative. See id. at *5 (“[I]n patent cases the
`
`consideration of the interest of justice, which includes judicial economy, may be determinative to
`
`a particular transfer motion, even if the convenience of the parties and witnesses might call for a
`
`different result.”) (citations omitted); DataTreasury Corp. v. First Data Corp., 243 F. Supp. 2d
`
`591, 595 (N.D. Tex. 2003) (“Transfer is particularly appropriate where related cases involving the
`
`same issues are pending in another court.”).
`
`In particular, GUI has already agreed that the Samsung and Apple Cases have overlapping
`
`(identical) legal and factual issues and should stay together. See Dkt. 39 at 3. Therefore, as stated
`
`by GUI, having a single judge adjudicate the claims would “avoid[] potentially inconsistent
`
`decisions on, for example, claim construction, validity and priority dates for the patents-in-suit….
`
`Further, judicial efficiency will be advanced by having one court rule on common discovery issues,
`
`claim construction, validity and priority dates.” Id. See, e.g., Cont’l Grain Co., 364 U.S. at 26
`
`(“To permit a situation in which two cases involving precisely the same issues are simultaneously
`
`pending in different District Courts, leads to the wastefulness of time, energy and money that
`
`§1404(a) was designed to prevent.”); Jarvis Christian Coll. v. Exxon Corp., 845 F.2d 523, 528-29
`
`(5th Cir. 1988) (existence of related litigation in a transferee court is a factor that weighs strongly
`
`in favor of transfer); DataTreasury, 243 F. Supp. 2d. at 594 (co-pending patent litigation creates
`
`the risk of “inconsistent claim constructions of the same claims”).
`
`Accordingly, keeping the Samsung Case in SDTX if the Apple Case is transferred to
`
`NDCA would result in this Court having to duplicate much of the work performed by NDCA,
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-02624 Document 44 Filed on 11/09/20 in TXSD Page 6 of 16
`
`unnecessarily consume judicial resources, and possibly lead to inconsistent adjudications of the
`
`same issues. See Zoltar Satellite Sys., Inc., 402 F. Supp. 2d at 737–39 (holding that where related
`
`litigation was pending in NDCA, but only private interest factors favored transfer to NDCA, that
`
`“most importantly the interest of justice, particularly considerations of judicial economy” favored
`
`transfer). Therefore, if the Apple Case is transferred to NDCA, under this factor alone, the
`
`Samsung Case should also be transferred.
`
`b.
`
`The Remaining Public Interest Factors Weigh in Favor of
`Transfer or Are Neutral.
`
`(i)
`
`Court congestion due to backlog of criminal cases weighs
`in favor of transfer.
`
`A further public interest factor articulated in Volkswagen I is the “administrative
`
`difficulties flowing from court congestion.” 371 F.3d at 204.
`
`As this court noted in Kilbourne v. Apple Inc., court congestion can be speculative, but
`
`statistics regarding pending criminal cases should be taken into account because of “[t]he
`
`requirement that criminal cases be given priority over civil cases.” No. CV H-17-3283, 2018 WL
`
`3954864, at *5 (S.D. Tex. July 27, 2018). Particularly due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the
`
`backlog of criminal cases has grown, and civil jury trials have been delayed.3 As of June 30, 2020,
`
`SDTX has 535 criminal felony actions per judge, while in NDCA there are 44 criminal felony
`
`
`3 See, e.g., As Courts Restore Operations, COVID-19 Creates a New Normal, United States Courts
`(August 20, 2020), https://www.uscourts.gov/news/2020/08/20/courts-restore-operations-covid-
`19-creates-new-normal (“Overshadowing much of the planning by courts is the U.S. Constitution.
`Even in a health crisis, the Sixth Amendment guarantees rights that must be provided in an open
`court of law. These include the right to confront accusers and the right to confer confidentially
`with counsel. Most critically, jury trials must be conducted in person, and the backlog is rapidly
`growing.”); Cara Byles, COVID-19 Leaves Backlogged Courts With A Justice Pile-Up, LAW360
`(March 22, 2020, 8:02 PM EDT ), https://www.law360.com/articles/1255253/covid-19-leaves-
`backlogged-courts-with-a-justice-pile-up (“In some courts, like the Southern District of Texas,
`civil jury trials were postponed before criminal trials. . . . In the Southern District of Texas, where
`judges have an average weighted caseload of 703 cases, more than twice the national average,
`Chief Judge Lee Rosenthal postponed all trials[.]”).
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-02624 Document 44 Filed on 11/09/20 in TXSD Page 7 of 16
`
`actions per judge. Park Decl. Ex. B, U.S. District Courts — National Judicial Caseload Profile.
`
`The necessary prioritization of these pending criminal cases over civil matters weighs in favor of
`
`transfer to a less busy venue. And while there may be some de minimis delay here due to the
`
`process of transferring the case, such “garden-variety” delay is not taken into account when
`
`weighing this factor. Solofill, LLC, 2017 WL 1354146, at *3 (citing In re Radmax, Ltd., 720 F.3d
`
`285, 289 (5th Cir. 2013)) (“[G]arden-variety delay associated with transfer is not to be taken into
`
`consideration when ruling on a § 1404(a) motion to transfer. If allowed, delay would militate
`
`against transfer in every case.”).
`
`(ii)
`
`NDCA is familiar with patent cases.
`
`The “familiarity of the forum with the law that will govern the case” should also be taken
`
`into account as a public interest factor. Volkswagen I, 371 F.3d at 203. To the extent the number
`
`of cases in a jurisdiction reflect familiarity, this factor also favors transfer. In particular, while
`
`both this District and NDCA are familiar with the relevant law, case statistics from the past three
`
`years show that significantly more patent cases are filed in NDCA. Park Decl. Ex. C, Docket
`
`Navigator Statistics November 5, 2020 (indicating that SDTX has had 153 patent cases since 2018
`
`and NDCA has had 775 patent cases since 2018).
`
`(iii) Other public interest factors are neutral.
`
`The remaining public interest factors that should be considered are “the local interest in
`
`having localized interests decided at home . . . [and] the avoidance of unnecessary problems of
`
`conflict of laws of the application of foreign law.” Volkswagen I, 371 F.3d at 203.
`
`The local interest factor is typically neutral “because patent issues do not give rise to a
`
`local controversy or implicate local interests.” Human Genome Scis., Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., No.
`
`CA 11-082-LPS, 2011 WL 2911797, at *11 (D. Del. July 18, 2011). “When the accused products
`
`or services are sold nationwide, the alleged injury does not create a substantial local interest in any
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-02624 Document 44 Filed on 11/09/20 in TXSD Page 8 of 16
`
`particular district.” Adaptix, Inc. v. HTC Corp. et al., 937 F. Supp. 2d 867, 878 (E.D. Tex. 2013);
`
`see also Kilbourne, 2018 WL 3954864, at *5 (same). To the extent that the Samsung Experience
`
`Store in Houston establishes a local interest in SDTX, the same interest exists in NDCA as there
`
`is a Samsung Experience Store in Palo Alto, CA. Where, as here, the plaintiff and defendant are
`
`citizens of different states, courts typically find that this factor is neutral or slightly favors transfer.
`
`Id.; Wireless Recognition Techs. LLC v. A9.com, Inc., No. 2:10-CV-364-JRG, 2012 WL 506669,
`
`at *6 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 15, 2012) (transferring a case where plaintiff brought suit in EDTX, where
`
`it was headquartered, and the defendants developed the infringing products in NDCA).
`
`This case does not present any conflict of laws issues, so this factor is also neutral.
`
`2.
`
`The Private Interest Factors Also Favor Transfer to NDCA.
`
`The private factors are: “(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.” Volkswagen I, 371 F.3d at 203. A plaintiff’s choice of venue is not a factor in
`
`the transfer analysis. Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 315. Rather, this choice is taken into account
`
`through the “clearly more convenient” standard applied by the Court in weighing the transfer
`
`request. Id.
`
`a.
`
`Samsung’s Affiliated Witnesses and Sources of Proof in NDCA
`Favor Transfer.
`
`“[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.” In re Nintendo Co., 589 F.3d 1194, 1199 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing
`
`In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2009); see also Spiegelberg v. Collegiate
`
`Licensing Co., 402 F. Supp. 2d 786, 789-90 (S.D. Tex. 2005). In particular, the location of an
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-02624 Document 44 Filed on 11/09/20 in TXSD Page 9 of 16
`
`alleged infringer’s research and development-related documents and evidence is an important
`
`factor to consider. See Nintendo, 589 F.3d at 1199-1200. While technological advances have
`
`lessened the impact of this factor, it is still entitled to weight. See Adaptix, Inc., 937 F. Supp. 2d
`
`at 872 (citing In re Genentech, 566 F.3d at 1345–46) (weighing presence of design documents for
`
`the accused products in NDCA in favor of transfer to NDCA).
`
`Here, the Accused Products (i.e., Samsung Galaxy Buds) were conceptualized and
`
`designed by Samsung affiliated teams in San Francisco, in NDCA. In particular, the following
`
`four witnesses in NDCA worked on the project:
`
`• Rhys Bonahoom
`• Sean Bornheimer
`• Seounghyun Son
`• Rob Shook
`
`The fact that these witnesses worked on the Accused Products and have relevant
`
`information in NDCA is not only evidenced by their sworn declarations, but the public record. See
`
`Ex. 3, Declaration of Rhys Bonahoom (“Bonahoom Decl.”) ¶¶ 3-4; Ex. 4, Declaration of Sean
`
`Bornheimer (“Bornheimer Decl.”) ¶¶ 3-4; Ex. 5, Declaration of Seounghyun Son (“Son Decl.”) ¶¶
`
`3-4; Ex 6, Declaration of Rob Shook (“Shook Decl.”) ¶¶ 3-4. In particular, U.S. Design Patent
`
`No. D 887,351, issued on June 16, 2020 and lists all four witnesses as inventors:
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-02624 Document 44 Filed on 11/09/20 in TXSD Page 10 of 16
`
`Park Decl. Ex. D.
`
`
`
`These four witnesses are also listed as inventors for U.S. Design Patent No. D892,086.
`
`Park Decl. Ex. E. Moreover, the development teams in San Francisco were identified by the
`
`international World Design Guide in connection with the design of the Galaxy Buds, including
`
`their charging capabilities. Park Decl. Ex. F, World Design Guide 2020 at 3.
`
`To be sure, SEC is a company based in Korea and SEA in New Jersey. So undoubtedly,
`
`there will be relevant witnesses and documents from those respective locations. However, there
`
`are currently no known relevant Samsung witnesses or documents in Houston and Samsung has
`
`no corporate presence in SDTX. Viejo Decl. ¶ 4; see Bonahoom Decl. ¶ 4; Bornheimer Decl. ¶
`
`4; Son Decl. ¶ 4; Shook Decl. ¶ 4.
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-02624 Document 44 Filed on 11/09/20 in TXSD Page 11 of 16
`
`For its part, GUI identifies only named inventor Walter Mayfield, who is also GUI’s
`
`principal, as residing in this District. Dkt. 1 at ¶¶ 2, 4, 12. Against the witnesses detailed in
`
`Apple’s motion (Park Decl. Ex. A) and the witnesses Samsung identifies in NDCA, this factor still
`
`weighs substantially in favor of transfer to NDCA. See, e.g., In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d
`
`1315, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (finding that 900 miles of additional travel to Texas tipped the
`
`convenience to witnesses factor “considerably” in favor of transfer); In re Genentech, 566 F.3d at
`
`1345 (finding the “convenience of the witnesses and parties” factor weighed “substantially in favor
`
`of transfer” where numerous material witnesses resided within NDCA and the state of California
`
`but none resided in EDTX); Solofill LLC, 2017 WL 1354146 at *4–5 (citing Cont’l Grain Co., 364
`
`U.S. at 26) (where public and private interest factors were largely neutral, the “plaintiff’s choice
`
`of forum [was] clearly outweighed by the interest of justice”).
`
`b.
`
`The Convenience and Cost of Attendance for Witnesses Favors
`Transfer.
`
`The “single most important factor in transfer analysis” is the convenience to and cost for
`
`the witnesses to travel to and attend trial, including special emphasis on the convenience of non-
`
`party witnesses. In re Genentech, 566 F.3d at 1343. Under Fifth Circuit law, “[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.” Volkswagen I, 371 F.3d at 204–05. “[I]t is an ‘obvious conclusion’ that it
`
`would be more convenient for witnesses to testify at home and that ‘[a]dditional distance 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.”’ Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 317 (quoting
`
`Volkswagen I, 371 F.3d at 205).
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-02624 Document 44 Filed on 11/09/20 in TXSD Page 12 of 16
`
`As to party witnesses, as noted above, based on allegations, Samsung believes key
`
`documentary evidence and witnesses will be in three jurisdictions—NDCA, Korea, and DNJ. As
`
`to the witnesses in NDCA, transferring the case to that District would be clearly more convenient.
`
`NDCA would also be more convenient for witnesses from Korea as there are multiple non-
`
`stop/direct flights per day from Seoul (ICN) into San Francisco (SFO), but none into Houston
`
`(IAH). See Park Decl Exs. G-H. Additionally, a recent search of flights shows that the minimum
`
`flight time from ICN to IAH is just under 16 hours. Park Decl. Ex. H. In comparison, the flight
`
`time form ICN to SFO is ~10 hour and 30 mins. Park Decl. Ex. G. Accordingly, a witness
`
`traveling round-trip from Korea would save over 10 hours in flight time alone by traveling to SFO
`
`vs. IAH.
`
`As to non-party witnesses, the inventors of key prior art systems and references appear to
`
`be located in NDCA—at Apple. In particular, the shared specification of the Asserted Patents
`
`makes repeated reference to an “Apple® Smart Case” or “Apple® Smart Cover” with which the
`
`“switching device” of the Asserted Patents is allegedly compatible. See, e.g., ’020 Patent, 20:14-
`
`19. In addition, as noted in Apple’s Motion, information about the prior art “Apple Bluetooth
`
`Headset product” and an allegedly knowledgeable witness, its Senior Director of Systems
`
`Engineering for Audio Products, is located in NDCA. See Apple Motion (Park Decl. Ex. A) at 5;
`
`Park Decl. Ex. I, Declaration of Mark Rollins in Support of Defendant Apple Inc.’s Motion to
`
`Transfer Venue Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (Apple Case, Dkt. 40-1) ¶ 10.
`
`Samsung expects discovery regarding these (prior art) systems from Apple. To note,
`
`though it happens that Apple is in the related case, and so the consideration of these witnesses may
`
`be duplicative of the considerations already before the Court (e.g., based on the arguments in
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-02624 Document 44 Filed on 11/09/20 in TXSD Page 13 of 16
`
`Apple’s Motion), as to Samsung’s Case, Apple’s employees are third parties. Accordingly, as to
`
`the Samsung Case, Samsung would need to engage in third party discovery.
`
`Admittedly, the specific relevance of the “Apple® Smart Case,” “Apple® Smart Cover,”
`
`or “Apple Bluetooth Headset Product” (and any documents from NDCA/Apple) is not clear nor
`
`confirmed. That said, these are known/admitted prior art devices with direct relevance to the
`
`patents-in-suit (as discussed in the specification) and so should merit consideration.
`
`c.
`
`The Availability of Compulsory Process Strongly Favors
`Transfer.
`
`Another private interest factor to consider is the Court’s ability to compel non-party
`
`witnesses to attend trial. Volkswagen I, 371 F.3d at 203. As noted above, certain expected prior
`
`art witnesses are at Apple. Even if this case were consolidated with the Apple Case for pretrial
`
`purposes, these third-party (to Samsung) witnesses would need to be subpoenaed to attend
`
`Samsung’s trial and are only subject to compulsory process in NDCA.
`
`In contrast, GUI’s principal Mr. Mayfield is likely to be a willing witness. And Samsung
`
`is unaware of any potential third party witnesses for GUI. Thus, this factor weighs strongly for
`
`transfer.
`
`III. VENUE DISCOVERY IS UNNECESSARY
`
`During the Parties’ meet and confer regarding this motion, GUI stated that it intends to
`
`seek venue discovery. When Samsung inquired into why venue discovery was necessary, GUI
`
`only spoke generally about venue and could not articulate any specific scope of relevant
`
`discovery. Indeed, there are no issues that warrant venue discovery here. In particular, as noted
`
`above, GUI relies solely on the Samsung Experience Store, a retail store, in Houston to establish
`
`venue. Dkt. 1 ¶ 19. Moreover, that NDCA is more convenient is verified by declaration and
`
`publicly available information, as is the lack of other Samsung offices, documents, or witnesses
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-02624 Document 44 Filed on 11/09/20 in TXSD Page 14 of 16
`
`in this district. Viejo Decl. ¶ 4; Bonahoom Decl. ¶ 4; Bornheimer Decl. ¶ 4; Son Decl. ¶ 4;
`
`Shook Decl. ¶ 4; Exs. D-F.
`
`Thus, venue discovery would be an unjustified waste of time and resources.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Samsung respectfully requests that the Court transfer this
`
`action to NDCA. In addition, should GUI seek it, the Court should deny any request for venue
`
`discovery.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-02624 Document 44 Filed on 11/09/20 in TXSD Page 15 of 16
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted:
`
`
`/s/ Jin-Suk Park
`Jin-Suk Park
`Attorney-in-Charge
`DC Bar No. 484378
`jin.park@arnoldporter.com
`Paul Margulies
`DC Bar No. 1000297
`paul.margulies@arnoldporter.com
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER
`LLP
`601 Massachusetts Ave., NW
`Washington, DC 20001
`Tel: 202.942.5000
`Fax: 202.942.5999
`
`Christopher M. Odell
`Texas Bar No. 24037205
`Christopher.odell@arnoldporter.com
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER
`LLP
`700 Louisiana Street, Suite 4000
`Houston, TX 77002-2755
`Tel: 713.576.2400
`Fax: 713.576.2499
`
`John H. Barr, Jr.
`Texas Bar No. 00783605
`S.D. Tex. Fed. ID. No. 15407
`jbarr@pattersonsheridan.com
`Patterson & Sheridan LLP
`24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
`Houston, TX 77046
`Tel: 713.577.4821
`Fax: 713.623.4846
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Samsung
`Electronics Co., Ltd., and Samsung
`Electronics America, Inc.
`
`
`
`Dated: November 9, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`15
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-02624 Document 44 Filed on 11/09/20 in TXSD Page 16 of 16
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Jin-Suk Park
`Jin-Suk Park
`
`I hereby certify that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented electronic
`service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s CM/ECF system, including
`per Local Rule CV-5.1.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
`
`I hereby certify that counsel for Defendants has conferred with counsel for Plaintiff the
`relief requested in this motion. Specifically, on October 29, 2020, lead and local counsel for both
`Plaintiff and Defendants conferred telephonically to discuss the facts and issues relevant to this
`motion. The parties could not come to agreement, and Plaintiff stated it opposes the relief
`requested.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Jin-Suk Park
`Jin-Suk Park
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-02624 Document 44-1 Filed on 11/09/20 in TXSD Page 1 of 1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`GUI GLOBAL PRODUCTS, LTD. d/b/a
`GWEE,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`4:20-cv-02624-AHB
`
`[PROPOSED] ORDER
`
`Having considered Defendants Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung
`
`Electronics Co., Ltd.’s (together, “Samsung”) Motion to Transfer Venue to the Northern District
`
`of California Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and the related briefing, the Court hereby GRANTS
`
`Samsung’s Motion.
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), the Court hereby transfers this case to the Northern
`
`District of California.
`
`It is so ORDERED.
`
`The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to transfer the case to the Northern District of
`
`California.
`
`SIGNED this ___ day of November, 2020
`
`UNITED STATES JUDGE ALFRED H. BENNETT
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-02624 Document 44-2 Filed on 11/09/20 in TXSD Page 1 of 112
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`18
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-02624 Document 44-2 Filed on 11/09/20 in TXSD Page 2 of 112
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`GUI GLOBAL PRODUCTS, LTD. d/b/a
`GWEE,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`AND SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`4:20-cv-02624-AHB
`
`DECLARATION OF JIN-SUK PARK IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
`TRANSFER VENUE TO THE
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)
`
`I, Jin-Suk Park, am a Partner at the firm Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, counsel of
`
`record for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“SEC”) and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`(“SEA”) (together, “Samsung”). I make this declaration in support of Samsung’s Motion to
`
`Transfer Venue to the Northern District of California. I state that the following is true and correct
`
`to the best of my knowledge and belief:
`
`1.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of Apple Inc.’s Motion to
`
`Transfer Venue to the Northern District of California, filed on November 3, 2020 in GUI Global
`
`Prods., Ltd. d/b/a/ Gwee v. Apple Inc., Case No. 4:20-cv-02652 (“Apple Case”), Dkt. 40.
`
`2.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a true and correct copy of excerpts from the June
`
`30, 2020 National Judicial Caseload Profiles for the Southern District of Texas and the Northern
`
`19
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-02624 Document 44-2 Filed on 11/09/20 in TXSD Page 3 of 112
`
`District of California, retrieved from https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/
`
`files/data_tables/fcms_na_distprofile0630.2020.pdf.
`
`3.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of Case Statistics for the
`
`Southern District of Texas and Northern District of California from Docket Navigator, retrieved
`
`from http://docketnavigator.com/ on November 5, 2020.
`
`4.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of United States Design
`
`Patent No. D887,351.
`
`5.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of United States Design
`
`Patent No. D892,086.
`
`6.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit F is a true and correct copy of an iF World Design
`
`Guide 2020 website, available at https://ifworlddesignguide.com/search?q=galaxy%2Bbuds&
`
`search=galaxy%20buds#/page/entry/282749-galaxy-buds.
`
`7.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of a search for flights from
`
`Seoul, South Korea (ICN) to San Francisco, California (SFO) on http://www.expedia.com.
`
`8.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of a search for flights from
`
`Seoul, South Korea (ICN) to Houston, Texas (IAH) on http://www.expedia.com.
`
`9.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of Mark
`
`Rollins in Support of Defendant Apple Inc.’s Motion, filed in the Apple Case at Dkt. 40-1.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
`
`2
`
`20
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-02624 Document 44-2 Filed on 11/09/20 in TXSD Page 4 of 112
`
`Dated: November 9, 2020
`
`
`
`/s/ Jin-Suk Park
`Jin-Suk Park
`
`3
`
`21
`
`

`

`Case 4:20-cv-02624 Document 44-2 Filed on 11/09/20 in TXSD Page 5 of 112
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`22
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-02652 Document 40 Filed on 11/03/20 in TXSD Page 1 of 24Case 4:20-cv-02624 Document 44-2 Filed on 11/09/20 in TXSD Page 6 of 112
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`HOUSTON DIVISION
`
`
`GUI GLOBAL PRODUCTS, LTD. d/b/a
`GWEE
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`Defe