`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`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-2007
`IPR2021-00693
`
`
`
`Case 4:20-cv-05504-JST Document 72 Filed 05/12/21 Page 2 of 2
`
`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-2007
`IPR2021-00693
`
`