throbber
1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`VS.
`
`STRATOSAUDIO, INC.
`
`
`* June 23, 2021
`*
`* CIVIL ACTION NOS.
`*
`
`* W-20-CV-1125
`HYUNDAI MOTOR AMERICA
`VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC. W-20-CV-1131
`
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE ALAN D ALBRIGHT
`MOTION HEARING (via Zoom)
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`For the Plaintiff:
`
`Jonathan J. Lamberson, Esq.
`White & Case LLP
`3000 El Camino Real
`2 Palo Alto Square, Suite 900
`Palo Alto, CA 94306
`
`Michael J. Songer, Esq.
`White & Case LLP
`701 13th Street, Nw
`Washington, DC 20005-3807
`
`Corby R. Vowell, Esq.
`Friedman, Suder & Cooke
`604 E. 4th Street, Suite 200
`Fort Worth, TX 76102
`
`Clarence Rowland, Esq.
`Ryan K Yagura, Esq.
`O'Melveny & Myers LLP
`400 South Hope Street
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`
`Darin W. Snyder, Esq.
`O'Melveny & Myers LLP
`Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111-3823
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`17
`
`For Defendant Hyundai:
`
`For Defendant Volkswagen:
`
`David Philip Whittlesey, Esq.
`Shearman & Sterling LLP
`111 Congress Ave, Suite 1700
`Austin, TX 78701
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`StratosAudio Exhibit 2004
`Volkswagen v StratosAudio
`IPR2021-00716
`Page 1 of 41
`
`

`

`2
`
`Court Reporter:
`
`Mark A. Hannemann, Esq.
`Shearman & Sterling LLP
`599 Lexington Avenue
`New York, NY 10022
`
`Kristie M. Davis, CRR, RMR
`PO Box 20994
`Waco, Texas 76702-0994
`(254) 340-6114
`
`Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography, transcript
`
`produced by computer-aided transcription.
`
`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
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`StratosAudio Exhibit 2004
`Volkswagen v StratosAudio
`IPR2021-00716
`Page 2 of 41
`
`

`

`3
`
`(June 23, 2021, 9:31 a.m.)
`
`DEPUTY CLERK: Motion hearing in Civil Action
`
`W-20-CV-1125, styled StratusAudio, Incorporated versus Hyundai
`
`Motor America, and Case No. W-20-CV-1131, styled StratosAudio,
`
`Incorporated versus Volkswagen Group of America.
`
`THE COURT: If I could have announcements from counsel,
`
`please.
`
`MR. VOWELL: Good morning, Your Honor. This is Corby
`
`Vowell with Friedman, Suder & Cooke for the plaintiff
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`StratosAudio.
`
`11
`
`MR. SNYDER: Good morning, Your Honor. This is Darin
`
`12
`
`Snyder of O'Melveny and Myers for defendant Hyundai Motor
`
`13
`
`America. My colleague Mr. Clarence Rowland is going to be
`
`14
`
`handling the argument for us today.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`THE COURT: Very good.
`
`MR. WHITTLESEY: Your Honor, David Whittlesey here from
`
`17
`
`Shearman & Sterling for Volkswagen, and with me my partner Mark
`
`18
`
`Hannemann. I think he will be taking the lead on our arguments
`
`19
`
`today.
`
`20
`
`MR. VOWELL: And, Your Honor, also on the plaintiff's side
`
`21
`
`let me let lead counsel introduce themselves.
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`MR. SONGER: Your Honor, this is Mike Songer.
`
`Thank you, Mr. Vowell.
`
`It's Mike Songer from White & Case, and I'll be handling
`
`25
`
`the venue motion.
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`StratosAudio Exhibit 2004
`Volkswagen v StratosAudio
`IPR2021-00716
`Page 3 of 41
`
`

`

`4
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`MR. LAMBERSON: Good morning, Your Honor. Jonathan
`
`Lamberson also from White & Case, and I will be handling the
`
`discovery/schedule dispute.
`
`THE COURT: What do you all suggest we take up first?
`
`MR. SONGER: I'd say the venue.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. I thought so too. I'm happy to hear
`
`the argument on the motion for transfer.
`
`MR. WHITLESEY: Your Honor, we have two -- there's two
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`motions, one for Volkswagen, one for Hyundai. Do you have any
`
`11
`
`preference as to which one goes first?
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`THE COURT: I don't.
`
`(Clarification by the reporter.)
`
`MR. HANNEMANN: All right. Thank you, Your Honor. This
`
`15
`
`is Mark Hannemann from Shearman representing Volkswagen. It's
`
`16
`
`nice to see you on the other side of the virtual bench. It's
`
`17
`
`been awhile.
`
`18
`
`Plaintiff's argument in this case would provide nationwide
`
`19
`
`venue for patent suits against wholesalers who do business
`
`20
`
`nationwide. This is exactly the opposite of Congress' intent
`
`21
`
`in passing the venue statute which is explained in, for
`
`22
`
`example, the Federal Circuit's Cray decision.
`
`23
`
`The basic problem with plaintiff's argument is that it
`
`24
`
`conflates whether someone is doing business at a place with
`
`25
`
`whether that place is their own established place of business.
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`StratosAudio Exhibit 2004
`Volkswagen v StratosAudio
`IPR2021-00716
`Page 4 of 41
`
`

`

`5
`
`I don't know that there's a lot for me to say other than that
`
`Volkswagen does not have a place of business in the Waco
`
`Division. It owns no real estate. It rents no real estate.
`
`It -- the only allegation is that its dealers are in Waco,
`
`which means that Volkswagen is doing business with its dealers,
`
`but it's not doing that business at the dealerships. And
`
`without a place of business of Volkswagen, there is no venue in
`
`this district for a patent case against Volkswagen.
`
`I can talk in more detail about the Cray case. I could
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`talk about ratification, which is something that comes up in
`
`11
`
`the plaintiff's brief, but if you have any particular questions
`
`12
`
`for me right now, I'd be happy to answer them.
`
`13
`
`THE COURT: Let me hear from -- obviously a response, but,
`
`14
`
`I mean, I think the -- I just find it a fascinating question.
`
`15
`
`I mean, I really do. You know, it's -- is Volkswagen --
`
`16
`
`Volkswagen is selling cars in the district. I mean -- well,
`
`17
`
`let me try it this way. I'll use a passive voice.
`
`18
`
`Volkswagen cars are being sold in the Western Division.
`
`19
`
`We don't have a fight over that. And they're being sold by
`
`20
`
`independent dealers. I think -- you know, I get all the facts,
`
`21
`
`but I still find it a fascinating question about whether or not
`
`22
`
`that is doing business in the Western District, and I'm happy
`
`23
`
`to hear -- let me hear from the plaintiff and then we'll go
`
`24
`
`back.
`
`25
`
`MR. SONGER: Yes, Your Honor. This is Mr. Songer.
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`StratosAudio Exhibit 2004
`Volkswagen v StratosAudio
`IPR2021-00716
`Page 5 of 41
`
`

`

`6
`
`I agree this is a fascinating issue, and they are doing
`
`business for at least two reasons in this district, and the
`
`first is -- although Mr. Hannemann just simply focused on what
`
`VW does, it ignored the wealth of evidence of what it directs
`
`its dealers to do. And those operating agreements, which we've
`
`attached to our opposition, spell out the detail to which VW
`
`goes and either ratifies, controls, adopts, directs the dealers
`
`to engage in their activities, and it goes through the list,
`
`and we've listed it out and I'm not going to go through in
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`detail, but it goes down to the detail beyond just telling you
`
`11
`
`how many cars you can have and the price that is set and you
`
`12
`
`have to use the trademarks. It goes to telling you what your
`
`13
`
`building has to look like. It goes and deals with warranties
`
`14
`
`that I'll talk about in a minute. It gives specifications for
`
`15
`
`the accounting system. It even goes so far as to detail the
`
`16
`
`type of IT equipment that should be used by the dealers that's
`
`17
`
`there. And there's 11 -- I think we listed 11 factors that are
`
`18
`
`there well beyond which was in Judge Gilstrap's Blitzsafe case
`
`19
`
`where he found both control and ratification from the
`
`20
`
`manufacturers over those dealers. But this isn't a --
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Go ahead.
`
`THE COURT: And let me ask you all this. Again, I just
`
`23
`
`find this fascinating. I mean, I -- it also makes me wonder,
`
`24
`
`and I don't think this was addressed really in TC Heartland
`
`25
`
`because it wasn't necessary, but what was the intent of
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`StratosAudio Exhibit 2004
`Volkswagen v StratosAudio
`IPR2021-00716
`Page 6 of 41
`
`

`

`7
`
`Congress when they said the venue will be where someone is
`
`doing business and does that -- you know, it's -- look. It's
`
`one thing if -- to me if Apple is having its phones sold by an
`
`AT&T dealer -- one AT&T dealer in the entire district, is Apple
`
`doing business? I mean, Apple phones are being sold, but
`
`are -- is Apple doing business? That's one question.
`
`Here you have Volkswagen dealerships to the -- I don't
`
`remember the names of the folks that are running them, but to
`
`the world, the world sees a Volkswagen dealership in the
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`district. Not an independent dealership that happen -- not
`
`11
`
`like a Walmart that happens to be selling Kleenex, but this is
`
`12
`
`a Volkswagen dealership, and is that or is that not doing
`
`13
`
`business especially where the well-known standard is, you know,
`
`14
`
`make, use, sell, make for sale -- it seems to me that that
`
`15
`
`applies here as well. And so is there -- and we've -- I've
`
`16
`
`looked at my clerks pretty carefully over the agreements that
`
`17
`
`you just talked about in terms of the control that the
`
`18
`
`defendants exercise over these folks that are operating the car
`
`19
`
`dealerships. Is there anything else you wanted to say? I
`
`20
`
`interrupted you and I'm sorry about that.
`
`21
`
`MR. SONGER: No. That's all right, Judge. You're allowed
`
`22
`
`to do that of course.
`
`23
`
`Yes. If you want the guidance on that, I would look
`
`24
`
`towards the Google case which both defendants say that we
`
`25
`
`didn't address, but we didn't need to because the agency issue
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`StratosAudio Exhibit 2004
`Volkswagen v StratosAudio
`IPR2021-00716
`Page 7 of 41
`
`

`

`8
`
`in there was addressed by Judge Gilstrap in Blitzsafe.
`
`Google -- now, I was looking at that second prong about
`
`the argument over whether you needed actual employees there or
`
`agents, and the Google Federal Circuit case came out and looked
`
`at the venue statute as it came down through Congress over the
`
`years, and it pointed out in there that things that directly
`
`affect the business such as exchange of goods, is the language,
`
`transportation, storage and those types of factors were deemed
`
`to be activities that would fall within the venue statute.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`And in Google it was distinguishing from ISPs and routine
`
`11
`
`maintenance work that was done on those servers and said, well,
`
`12
`
`the -- at that time the venue statute didn't really contemplate
`
`13
`
`that type of work, but the venue statute at that time certainly
`
`14
`
`contemplated the sale of goods, and that's what we have here in
`
`15
`
`addition to the other activities and the offer of services
`
`16
`
`through warranties and otherwise.
`
`17
`
`And that -- the Google case goes through the history of
`
`18
`
`what's there, and I believe it addresses dead on what we have
`
`19
`
`here and what's required. You have the manufacturers who sell
`
`20
`
`exclusively to their dealers and then they require the control
`
`21
`
`that we've pointed out and the consumers go and buy from those
`
`22
`
`dealers.
`
`23
`
`Also, not to be overlooked, and as was pointed out by
`
`24
`
`Judge Gilstrap in the Blitzsafe case, both VW and Hyundai
`
`25
`
`provide warranties.
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`StratosAudio Exhibit 2004
`Volkswagen v StratosAudio
`IPR2021-00716
`Page 8 of 41
`
`

`

`9
`
`THE COURT: I was about to ask you -- I was literally
`
`about to ask you. Who -- if I buy a Volkswagen from one of
`
`these dealers, is it the dealership or the -- or Volkswagen
`
`that is providing the warranty? It's Volkswagen, right?
`
`MR. SONGER: It's Volkswagen and it's Hyundai as well,
`
`although Hyundai also allows the dealers to offer an additional
`
`warranty on top of the manufacturer one.
`
`THE COURT: But when I go there as a purchaser of a
`
`Hyundai or a Volkswagen and I told I'm getting the 100 --
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`whatever it is, 100,00 miles, doesn't matter, and five
`
`11
`
`year/100-mile warranty, the person who is making that offer of
`
`12
`
`the warranty of the car that I'm purchasing is the car
`
`13
`
`manufacturer, correct?
`
`14
`
`MR. SONGER: That's our understanding based on the
`
`15
`
`operating agreements, and neither defendant has argued
`
`16
`
`otherwise based on those.
`
`17
`
`THE COURT: Let me hear, if I could, from anything counsel
`
`18
`
`for Volkswagen would like to say and then we'll shift over to
`
`19
`
`Hyundai.
`
`20
`
`MR. HANNEMANN: Sure. I think that the citation to the
`
`21
`
`Google case is very important. The Google case -- in the
`
`22
`
`Google case the Federal Circuit unambiguously held that there
`
`23
`
`has to be the regular physical presence of an employee at a
`
`24
`
`place for that employer -- employee's employer to be doing
`
`25
`
`business at that place, and there's no question that there's no
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`StratosAudio Exhibit 2004
`Volkswagen v StratosAudio
`IPR2021-00716
`Page 9 of 41
`
`

`

`10
`
`Volkswagen employees in the Western District of Texas. I think
`
`under the black law -- the black letter law of Google that
`
`means there's no Volkswagen place of business.
`
`Under the Cray case what the -- the Court noted that the
`
`fact that the defendant has advertised it has a place of
`
`business or even set up an office is not sufficient. The
`
`defendant must actually engage in business from that location.
`
`And so the mixup that Judge Gilstrap went through with the
`
`Blitzsafe case is he focused on wrongly, I think, on whether
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`BMW was doing business in the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`11
`
`That's not the question. The question is whether the car
`
`12
`
`manufacturers are doing business at the dealerships, not by
`
`13
`
`selling cars to the dealerships but by having somebody on the
`
`14
`
`ground in West Texas providing services from that location, and
`
`15
`
`that just simply is not the case.
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`MR. SONGER: If I may address that, Your Honor?
`
`THE COURT: Sure. Of course.
`
`MR. SONGER: Google goes beyond employees. It says agents
`
`19
`
`or employees when it's looking at that factor. So it's not
`
`20
`
`just a -- an employee with --
`
`21
`
`THE COURT: And so I understand what you mean by that, as
`
`22
`
`opposed to Volkswagen -- and correct me if I'm wrong, and the
`
`23
`
`other side can help. Your position is is that when
`
`24
`
`Volkswagen -- and I'm assuming this applies to Hyundai as
`
`25
`
`well -- in essence, the way car dealerships are set up, which
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`StratosAudio Exhibit 2004
`Volkswagen v StratosAudio
`IPR2021-00716
`Page 10 of 41
`
`

`

`11
`
`may even be unique, a very unique business, the folks that are
`
`running the auto dealership -- again, we've talked about the
`
`sale of the car, we're talking about the warranties. Your
`
`position is that they are essentially agents -- they're not
`
`employees because they're not receiving a check directly from
`
`Volkswagen, but they are the agents of -- direct agents of
`
`Volkswagen's because they're selling the cars, they're selling
`
`the warranties, they're selling the upgrades, they're selling
`
`everything else. And so that's my -- is that my understanding
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`what your agency position is?
`
`11
`
`MR. SONGER: It is, Your Honor, and this was addressed by
`
`12
`
`Judge Gilstrap who pointed out that -- and cited the case law
`
`13
`
`to support this. And this is -- and when I say Blitzsafe, I
`
`14
`
`think we're referring to the Blitzsafe 1 decision from 2018.
`
`15
`
`But at Page star 11 he points out that and cites case law
`
`16
`
`that says: Although dealers may not be agents in the broad
`
`17
`
`sense of the term, certainly for what they're doing, it's true
`
`18
`
`that an automobile dealership -- and I'm quoting here -- may,
`
`19
`
`under certain circumstances, be an agent of the manufacturer.
`
`20
`
`And he goes through and he cites cases that talk about that
`
`21
`
`point. So that is exactly what we're saying, and it was
`
`22
`
`addressed by Judge Gilstrap and it does apply here.
`
`23
`
`MR. ROWLAND: Your Honor, can Hyundai respond to some of
`
`24
`
`these points?
`
`25
`
`THE COURT: No. I'm just -- no.
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`StratosAudio Exhibit 2004
`Volkswagen v StratosAudio
`IPR2021-00716
`Page 11 of 41
`
`

`

`12
`
`(Laughter.)
`
`THE COURT: Of course you can.
`
`Yes. I just wanted to make sure we exhausted the
`
`Volkswagen, and then obviously I'm going to give Hyundai a
`
`chance, but I was just -- one more -- if anyone wants to say
`
`anything else in either direction on behalf of Volkswagen, I'm
`
`happy to hear it and then I was about to shift to Hyundai.
`
`MR. HANNEMANN: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`I'm not aware that in any of the briefing there was an
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`allegation that the dealerships' employees are agents of
`
`11
`
`Volkswagen. And I would strenuously object. I don't know how
`
`12
`
`one strenuously objects as opposed to just a regular objection,
`
`13
`
`but I --
`
`14
`
`THE COURT: Whatever it is, you want it on the record that
`
`15
`
`your objection is -- you disagree with that strenuously.
`
`16
`
`17
`
`MR. HANNEMANN: Correct. Correct.
`
`Those are employees of the dealers. They're not agents of
`
`18
`
`Volkswagen Group of America.
`
`19
`
`THE COURT: Okay. You don't just -- as a friend of mine
`
`20
`
`would say, you deny the allegation and you despise the
`
`21
`
`alligator. I think -- I thank you. And so...
`
`22
`
`MR. HANNEMANN: I definitely do not, Your Honor. I'm
`
`23
`
`sorry to interrupt, but Mr. Songer and I go back a long way and
`
`24
`
`definitely do not despise him.
`
`25
`
`THE COURT: Okay. I'll hear from Hyundai.
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`StratosAudio Exhibit 2004
`Volkswagen v StratosAudio
`IPR2021-00716
`Page 12 of 41
`
`

`

`13
`
`MR. ROWLAND: Thank you, Your Honor.
`
`There's essentially two points that have been discussed so
`
`far. The first was the agency issue, and the second was the
`
`business of HMA issue.
`
`On the agency issue Judge Gilstrap stated that it is
`
`certainly true that dealers are not agents of manufacturers in
`
`a broad sense of the term.
`
`And then what the remainder of his decision does is it
`
`goes through some other sense of agency which is not supported
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`by the -- which is not what the Federal Circuit applies. The
`
`11
`
`Federal Circuit applies the third restatement of agency, and
`
`12
`
`that's in the Google decision.
`
`13
`
`And under the third restatement of agency, there are
`
`14
`
`several essential elements of what it requires to be an agent.
`
`15
`
`One of those essential elements is that the dealership has to
`
`16
`
`be controlled by HMA. Here there's no control because it would
`
`17
`
`be illegal for HMA to be controlling these dealerships. Texas
`
`18
`
`law provides that a distributor may not directly or indirectly
`
`19
`
`operate or control a franchise dealer or dealership. So any
`
`20
`
`argument that there's any control by HMA would be incorrect.
`
`21
`
`And if any provision of these agreements that we've been
`
`22
`
`discussing constitutes control under the agency rules, then
`
`23
`
`that provision would be illegal and would be unenforceable, and
`
`24
`
`that's the Lulirama case. Any provision in there that could
`
`25
`
`constitute control would be illegal and would be unenforceable.
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`StratosAudio Exhibit 2004
`Volkswagen v StratosAudio
`IPR2021-00716
`Page 13 of 41
`
`

`

`14
`
`And the Fifth Circuit has even gone farther and has
`
`specifically held in case law that manufacturers like GM do not
`
`control dealerships and are not agents of dealerships.
`
`Dealerships are not agents of manufacturers.
`
`So we have specific Fifth Circuit law on point saying that
`
`there's no control. We have specific third restatement of
`
`agency rules which cannot be satisfied and which plaintiff does
`
`not address. They say they cited a case that addresses agency,
`
`but that case does not apply to the third restatement of
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`agency. It applies some other definition of agency which is
`
`11
`
`not what the Federal Circuit uses.
`
`12
`
`Second, just briefly on the conducting the business of
`
`13
`
`HMA, HMA is not conducting any business in this district. HMA
`
`14
`
`is a California corporation that sells cars to hundreds of
`
`15
`
`dealerships across the country. That's a distributor business.
`
`16
`
`Dealerships, in contrast, are engaged in a separate
`
`17
`
`business selling cars to consumers, and that's a retail
`
`18
`
`business. The distinction between distributing and retailing
`
`19
`
`is a codified distinction under Texas law. Under Texas law HMA
`
`20
`
`cannot be engaged in the business of buying, selling or
`
`21
`
`exchanging new motor vehicles at an established and permanent
`
`22
`
`place of business in Texas. It would be illegal for HMA to be
`
`23
`
`engaging in that business.
`
`24
`
`So I think under Texas law we have a clear distinction
`
`25
`
`between different types of business, and HMA is not conducting
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`StratosAudio Exhibit 2004
`Volkswagen v StratosAudio
`IPR2021-00716
`Page 14 of 41
`
`

`

`15
`
`a business that then dealerships are conducting in this
`
`district.
`
`And I think the third key point here, which has not been
`
`discussed too much, but the key point here is that these
`
`dealerships are independent contractors. As the Court recently
`
`held in the Adtran case, an independent contractor relationship
`
`is insufficient to satisfy the third element of Cray. These
`
`dealerships are companies such as, you know, Round Rock
`
`Hyundai. That's owned by a massive public company called
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`Penske Automotive that operates hundreds of dealerships across
`
`11
`
`the country, and it is simply incorrect to say that Hyundai
`
`12
`
`controls this massive public corporation or any of its retail
`
`13
`
`outlets. There's no basis to collapse the forums and impute
`
`14
`
`the operations of these dealerships to HMA.
`
`15
`
`Finally, the Court also addressed this warranty issue. A
`
`16
`
`warranty is an obligation to affect repairs, in essence. But
`
`17
`
`that warranty does not give HMA any control over the
`
`18
`
`dealerships, and that's really the key issue here. To
`
`19
`
`establish any sort of agency, there has to be control, and
`
`20
`
`these warranties do not allow the dealerships to control -- the
`
`21
`
`manufacturers to control the dealerships, and that's because
`
`22
`
`these agreements do not exist in a vacuum. Every material part
`
`23
`
`of the relationship between these dealerships and the
`
`24
`
`manufacturers is regulated by statute, including warranties.
`
`25
`
`The warranties, for example -- I mean, one of the key
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`StratosAudio Exhibit 2004
`Volkswagen v StratosAudio
`IPR2021-00716
`Page 15 of 41
`
`

`

`16
`
`issues of a warranty is that the manufacturer has to reimburse
`
`the dealership for warranty repairs, but those labor rates and
`
`warranty rates are governed by a statute. And to the extent
`
`dealerships are unhappy with HMA's warranty reimbursements, the
`
`Texas DMV oversees that dispute. The Texas DMV controls the
`
`warranty reimbursements. So there's no avenue for HMA to
`
`somehow affect some sort of lever of control over these
`
`dealerships through warranties.
`
`And, additionally, HMA is not affecting warranty repairs
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`in this district. That's the dealerships. They do that and
`
`11
`
`then we reimburse them. But there's no HMA employee or agent
`
`12
`
`in this district that is conducting that business. It's the
`
`13
`
`dealerships which are independent third parties.
`
`14
`
`So there's kind of three key issues: One, there's no
`
`15
`
`agent, and plaintiff has not mentioned -- I don't believe
`
`16
`
`plaintiff mentions the agency issue at all in their briefing.
`
`17
`
`They certainly don't apply the Google agency framework, and
`
`18
`
`they also don't apply the Fifth Circuit agency framework which
`
`19
`
`has a detailed set of rules for what you would need to do to
`
`20
`
`show agency.
`
`21
`
`There's also no HMA business being conducted in this
`
`22
`
`district because HMA is -- it would be illegal for HMA to be
`
`23
`
`conducting that business, and Texas has explicitly delineated
`
`24
`
`between the different types of business here.
`
`25
`
`And, third, these are independent contractors, and there's
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`StratosAudio Exhibit 2004
`Volkswagen v StratosAudio
`IPR2021-00716
`Page 16 of 41
`
`

`

`17
`
`no basis to collapse the corporate forums, and that's
`
`essentially what Judge Gilstrap did in the Blitzsafe case. And
`
`that analysis was before the Google decision which sets forth
`
`the proper legal framework and tells us that we need to apply
`
`the third restatement of agency, not Judge Gilstrap's
`
`alternative analysis in which he initially admitted that
`
`dealers are not agents of manufacturers.
`
`Does the Court have any questions about that?
`
`THE COURT: I don't.
`
`A response from plaintiff?
`
`MR. SONGER: Yes, Your Honor. Let me address them in
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`turn.
`
`13
`
`First, on the -- well, I'll address the last one on the
`
`14
`
`warranty issue and doing business.
`
`15
`
`Counsel's overlooking that, again, Judge Gilstrap went to
`
`16
`
`the statute that noted that under warranty provisions, and this
`
`17
`
`is Occupational Code 2301.251C. It's discussed on star 11 of
`
`18
`
`Blitzsafe. That they -- those manufacturers if they directly
`
`19
`
`or indirectly reimburse another person to perform warranty
`
`20
`
`repair services on a vehicle, is engaged in business in this
`
`21
`
`state regardless of whether they sell or offer for sale new
`
`22
`
`motor vehicles. So they are engaged in business by statute by
`
`23
`
`the provision of those warranty services.
`
`24
`
`The second point is on the statute, the statute -- and
`
`25
`
`both parties cited this -- it talks about how in a broad
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`StratosAudio Exhibit 2004
`Volkswagen v StratosAudio
`IPR2021-00716
`Page 17 of 41
`
`

`

`18
`
`provision that the manufacturers can't control or own and
`
`what's -- the dealerships and what's involved there.
`
`But, again, that statute was discussed and analyzed by
`
`Judge Gilstrap, and the defendants have not provided any
`
`explanation of what control means in that case in that statute
`
`that says a manufacturer can't own or control from what's
`
`there.
`
`It's also not absolute. That's a minor point. There are
`
`exemptions where a manufacturer can actually own a dealership
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`for a limited period of time -- periods of time. There's
`
`11
`
`exceptions in that statute, mainly dealing when you transfer
`
`12
`
`franchises. I don't want to overplay that as to what's
`
`13
`
`involved.
`
`14
`
`But that ties into the agency issue. And the agency issue
`
`15
`
`under Google and the Fifth Circuit, and Hyundai cited the
`
`16
`
`Cardinal Health Solutions case to support this argument, there
`
`17
`
`is an agency relationship from that case and from Hyundai's
`
`18
`
`brief, it's reply brief on Page 6. The key is, does the right
`
`19
`
`to control, which in the context of agency, do you set tasks
`
`20
`
`and dictate the means and details of the agent's work to
`
`21
`
`accomplish those tasks?
`
`22
`
`Now, Hyundai just spoke about the power to hire and fire
`
`23
`
`employees, but the quote they cited in the cases go beyond
`
`24
`
`that: Participate in the daily operations of the agent's work.
`
`25
`
`Give the agent interim instructions once work has begun.
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`StratosAudio Exhibit 2004
`Volkswagen v StratosAudio
`IPR2021-00716
`Page 18 of 41
`
`

`

`19
`
`Inspect the progress or receive reports. Make suggestions or
`
`recommendations, et cetera.
`
`And the point is is that what both parties have done is
`
`effectively ignore their operating agreements and the wealth of
`
`information that's in there at exactly what the manufacturers
`
`require the dealers to do. They just go and say, well, they're
`
`not agents because here's something that says it, but look at
`
`the means and details that are being performed by the
`
`dealerships that Hyundai controls. They set again the facility
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`standards on what the building looks like. They set the
`
`11
`
`inventory levels. They tell the types of parts and quantities
`
`12
`
`you have to carry. They require training. They require that's
`
`13
`
`there. They set prices for maintenance. They set minimum
`
`14
`
`working capital.
`
`15
`
`Again, Hyundai has access to its dealers' IT systems
`
`16
`
`that's there. So, and, again, I'm not going to go through all
`
`17
`
`the points that we raised because Your Honor and the clerks
`
`18
`
`read those agreements and read the briefs. But the key on that
`
`19
`
`agency, even as Hyundai points out, is -- are the -- is their
`
`20
`
`control over the means and details of the agent's work, and
`
`21
`
`that clearly is there based on what they do in those operating
`
`22
`
`agreements and what they require their role as it relates to
`
`23
`
`the dealerships and what's involved there.
`
`24
`
`25
`
`THE COURT: Anything else from -- yeah. Of course.
`
`MR. ROWLAND: Great. So there are a number of significant
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`StratosAudio Exhibit 2004
`Volkswagen v StratosAudio
`IPR2021-00716
`Page 19 of 41
`
`

`

`20
`
`issues I want to address there.
`
`First, on the conducting business through warranties, the
`
`statute says that for purposes of the statutes, it's conducting
`
`business, but there's no identified established place of
`
`business. The venue statute focuses on a physical place of
`
`business where an HMA employee or agent is conducting business.
`
`This sort of general sense of conducting business is not
`
`focused on a physical location within the district, which is
`
`what the venue statute is focused on. So I don't think that
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`gets us over the hill.
`
`11
`
`Second, counsel said the defendants have not provided any
`
`12
`
`definition of control. We did provide a definition of control
`
`13
`
`and so did the Federal Circuit in the Google case. The
`
`14
`
`definition of control is brought in through the third
`
`15
`
`restatement of agency which the Federal Circuit applied and
`
`16
`
`also which the Fifth Circuit applies. So there's a clear
`
`17
`
`definition of control offered in our briefing.
`
`18
`
`Additionally, counsel said that there are exemptions where
`
`19
`
`HMA could somehow own or control a franchise, but those
`
`20
`
`exemptions are not relevant in this case. Those exemptions
`
`21
`
`relate to facilitating a peaceful like transfer of the
`
`22
`
`dealership to a different dealer which is a short term thing
`
`23
`
`that there are no facts, you know, in this case suggesting that
`
`24
`
`HMA has some sort of temporary ownership of one of these
`
`25
`
`dealerships. HMA submitted a declaration stating that we do
`
`KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
`
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)
`
`StratosAudio Exhibit 2004
`Volkswagen v StratosAudio
`IPR2021-00716
`Page 20 of 41
`
`

`

`21
`
`not own any of the dealerships. So none of those exceptions
`
`that counsel referenced would be relevant here.
`
`Additionally, counsel missed parts and misread the
`
`Cardinal Health case. He said that -- on Page 6 of our brief
`
`we include a block quote which specifies rights of control.
`
`And there are essentially two parts to that paragraph. The
`
`first part of the paragraph lists examples of things that can
`
`constitute control. The second part of the paragraph after the
`
`word "that go beyond" -- the phrase that "go beyond the pow

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket