Case 2:20-cv-00274-JRG Document 24 Filed 12/09/20 Page 1 of 39 PageID #: 527
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
` Case No. 2:20-cv-00274-JRG
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`
`RFCYBER CORP.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC and GOOGLE PAYMENT
`CORP.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TRANSFER OR,
`IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO DISMISS FOR IMPROPER VENUE
`
`
`
`GOOG-1036 / IPR2021-00956
`GOOGLE LLC v. RFCYBER CORP. / Page 1 of 39
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00274-JRG Document 24 Filed 12/09/20 Page 2 of 39 PageID #: 528
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`Google and GPC’s Relevant Employees and Documentary
`
`Plaintiff’s Directors, Officers, and Documentary Evidence Are in
`
`Nearly All Relevant Third Parties, Including the Inventors, Are in
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`4.
`
`1.
`2.
`3.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED ..................................................................2
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................2
`The Location of the Relevant Witnesses and Evidence ...........................................2
`Evidence Are in the Northern District of California. ...................................2
`the Northern District of California. ..............................................................3
`the Northern District of California. ..............................................................3
`Plaintiff’s Venue-Related Allegations with Respect to GPC and Google ...............5
`LEGAL STANDARD ..........................................................................................................6
`Law Governing Motion to Transfer .........................................................................6
`Law Governing Motion to Dismiss..........................................................................7
`MOTION TO TRANSFER TO THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ..........7
`Plaintiff’s Alleged Ties to this District Carry No Weight. ......................................8
`The Private Interest Factors Favor Transfer. ...........................................................9
`The Convenience of the Witnesses Favors Transfer....................................9
`The Availability of Compulsory Process Favors Transfer. .......................12
`Ease of Access to Relevant Sources of Proof Favors Transfer. .................12
`Practical Considerations Weigh in Favor of Transfer................................13
`The Public Interest Factors Favor Transfer. ..........................................................14
`The Northern District of California’s Interests Favor Transfer. ................14
`The Time to Resolution Is Neutral.............................................................15
`The Remaining Public Interest Factors Are Neutral ..................................15
`The Balance of the Private and Public Interest Factors Favors Transfer ...............16
`VI. MOTION TO DISMISS OR TRANSFER FOR IMPROPER VENUE ............................16
`Within this District. ................................................................................................17
`Within this District. ................................................................................................19
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`A.
`B.
`
`A.
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiff Has Failed to Demonstrate that GPC Has a Place Of Business
`
`Plaintiff Has Failed to Demonstrate that Google Has a Place of Business
`
`i
`
`GOOG-1036 / IPR2021-00956
`GOOGLE LLC v. RFCYBER CORP. / Page 2 of 39
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00274-JRG Document 24 Filed 12/09/20 Page 3 of 39 PageID #: 529
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(Continued)
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`Google Does Not Offer Google Fi from any Physical Place of
`Business in this Disti·ict. ............................................................................ 19
`
`and, Even If It Had Not, Google
`Did Not Offer the Service from a Physical Place of Business ................... 20
`
`Google Does Not Offer Interconnect Se1vices from any Location
`in this Disti·ict, And Google Does Not Own, Operate, Or Control
`the Equipment Identified by Plaintiff. ....................................................... 21
`
`Google's Receipt of Se1vices from CTDI Does Not Establish a
`Regular and Established Place of Business of Google in this
`Disti·ict. ....................................................................................................... 21
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`CTDI Is Not Google 's Agent Because It Does Not Have
`Authority to Alter Google's Legal Relations with Third
`Persons ........................................................................................... 22
`
`CTDI Is Not Google 's Agent Because Google Does Not
`Exercise Interim Conti·ol over CTDI's Operations ........................ 24
`
`CTDI Perfonns Only Ancillaiy Se1vices for Google and
`Does Not Conduct Google's Business ........................................... 28
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiffs Remaining Allegations Do Not Satisfy the Patent Venue
`Statute ........................................................................................................ 29
`Alternatively, The Comi Should Transfer this Case to the No1ihern
`Disti·ict of California Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406 ...................................................... 30
`VII. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 30
`
`C.
`
`11
`
`GOOG-1036 / IPR2021-00956
`GOOGLE LLC v. RFCYBER CORP. / Page 3 of 39
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00274-JRG Document 24 Filed 12/09/20 Page 4 of 39 PageID #: 530
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`
`In re Acer Am. Corp.,
`626 F.3d 1252 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................14
`
`Adaptix, Inc. v. HTC Corp.,
`937 F. Supp. 2d 867 (E.D. Tex. 2013) .................................................................................9, 12
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Huawei Device USA Inc.,
`2018 WL 2329752 (E.D. Tex. May 23, 2018) ...........................................................................9
`
`AGIS Software Dev., LLC v. ZTE Corp.,
`2018 WL 4854023 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 28, 2018) ........................................................................17
`
`Amini Innovation Corp. v. Bank & Estate Liquidators, Inc.,
`512 F. Supp. 2d 1039 (S.D. Tex. 2007) .................................................................................8, 9
`
`Andra Grp., LP v. Victoria’s Secret Stores, LLC,
`2020 WL 1465894 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 26, 2020) ........................................................................18
`
`In re Apple Inc.,
`979 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2020)..................................................................................................7
`
`In re Apple, Inc.,
`581 F. App’x 886 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..........................................................................................12
`
`Arguello v. Conoco, Inc.,
`207 F.3d 803 (5th Cir. 2000) .............................................................................................24, 28
`
`ATEN Int’l Co. v. Emine Tech. Co.,
`261 F.R.D. 112 (E.D. Tex. 2009).............................................................................................15
`
`Camreta v. Greene,
`563 U.S. 692 (2011) .................................................................................................................22
`
`Carnell Const. Corp. v. Danville Redevelopment & Hous. Auth.,
`745 F.3d 703 (4th Cir. 2014) ...................................................................................................24
`
`CNE Direct, Inc. v. Blackberry Corp.,
`821 F.3d 146 (1st Cir. 2016) ....................................................................................................23
`
`In re Cray Inc.,
`871 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2017).................................................................................... 1, passim
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`GOOG-1036 / IPR2021-00956
`GOOGLE LLC v. RFCYBER CORP. / Page 4 of 39
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00274-JRG Document 24 Filed 12/09/20 Page 5 of 39 PageID #: 531
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Deep Green Wireless LLC v. Ooma, Inc.
`2017 WL 679643 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 21, 2017) ...........................................................................12
`
`In re EMC Corp.,
`501 F. App’x 973 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ..........................................................................................14
`
`EMED Techs. Corp. v. Repro-Med Sys., Inc.,
`2018 WL 2544564 (E.D. Tex. June 4, 2018) ...........................................................................18
`
`ES Distribution, LLC, v. Hangtime LLC,
`2020 WL 6689755 (D.N.J. Nov. 13, 2020) .............................................................................28
`
`In re Genentech, Inc.,
` 566
`
`F.3d 1338
` (Fed. Cir. 2009).................................................................................6, 9, 12, 15
`
`In re Google LLC,
`823 F. App’x 982 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ..........................................................................................22
`
`In re Google,
`2017 WL 977038 (Fed. Cir. 2017).....................................................................................14, 15
`
`In re Google,
`949 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2020).................................................................................. 17, passim
`
`Hoffman v. Blaski,
`363 U.S. 335 (1960) .............................................................................................................7, 14
`
`In re Hoffmann–LaRoche,
`587 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2009)............................................................................................8, 15
`
`In re HP Inc.,
`826 F. App’x 899 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ..........................................................................................14
`
`Kranos IP Corp. v. Riddell, Inc.,
`2017 WL 3704762 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 28, 2017) ........................................................................17
`
`Largan Precision Co. v. Ability Opto-Elecs. Tech. Co.,
`2020 WL 3078042 (E.D. Tex. June 10, 2020) .........................................................................15
`
`Lowery v. Estelle,
`533 F.2d 265 (5th Cir. 1976) ...................................................................................................30
`
`Lynch v. Nat’l Prescription Administrators, Inc.,
`795 F. App’x 68 (2d Cir. 2020) ...............................................................................................26
`iv
`
`
`
`
`GOOG-1036 / IPR2021-00956
`GOOGLE LLC v. RFCYBER CORP. / Page 5 of 39
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00274-JRG Document 24 Filed 12/09/20 Page 6 of 39 PageID #: 532
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Magic Cross Ranch, L.P. v. Manion,
`2012 WL 13027449 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 25, 2012)......................................................................16
`
`In re Microsoft Corp.,
`630 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..................................................................................................8
`
`O’Neill v. Dep’t of H.U.D.,
`220 F.3d 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2000)..........................................................................................22, 23
`
`Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 2:18-cv-00134-RWS, Dkt. No. 287 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 23, 2019) .......................................15
`
`Oyster Optics, LLC v. Coriant America Inc.,
`2017 WL 4225202 (E.D. Tex., Sept. 22, 2017) .......................................................................15
`
`Perry v. Burger King Corp.,
`924 F. Supp. 548 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) ..........................................................................................28
`
`Personal Audio, LLC v. Google, Inc.,
`280 F. Supp. 3d 922 (E.D. Tex. 2017) .....................................................................................19
`
`Personalized Media Commn’s, LLC v. Google LLC,
`No. 2:19-cv-00090-JRG, Dkt. 291 (E.D. Tex. July 16, 2020) .................................................22
`
`Rotec Indus., Inc. v. Mitsubishi Corp.,
`215 F.3d 1246 (Fed. Cir. 2000)..........................................................................................23, 25
`
`Scally v. Hilco Receivables, LLC,
`392 F. Supp. 2d 1036 (N.D. Ill. 2005) .....................................................................................27
`
`Seven Networks, LLC v. Google LLC,
`315 F. Supp. 3d 933 (E.D. Tex. 2018) .....................................................................................20
`
`In re Toyota,
`747 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................16
`
`In re TS Tech USA Corp.,
`551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................11
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Google LLC,
`2020 WL 3064460 (E.D. Tex. June 8, 2020) ...........................................................................11
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`2017 WL 11553227 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 22, 2017) ...................................................................7, 16
`v
`
`
`
`
`GOOG-1036 / IPR2021-00956
`GOOGLE LLC v. RFCYBER CORP. / Page 6 of 39
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00274-JRG Document 24 Filed 12/09/20 Page 7 of 39 PageID #: 533
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Valeant Pharms. N.A. LLC v. Mylan Pharms. Inc.,
`978 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2020)..................................................................................................1
`
`VLSI Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp.,
`2019 WL 8013949 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 7, 2019) ..........................................................................12
`
`In re Volkswagen AG,
`371 F.3d 201 (5th Cir. 2004) .............................................................................................11, 14
`
`In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc.,
`545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) .................................................................................................6, 7
`
`Wireless Recognition Techs. LLC v. A9.com, Inc.,
`2012 WL 506669 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 15, 2012) ...........................................................................11
`
`In re ZTE (USA) Inc.,
`890 F.3d 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2018)............................................................................................7, 17
`
`STATE CASES
`
`Smith v. Foodmaker, Inc.,
`928 S.W.2d 683 (Tex. Ct. App. 1996) .........................................................................24, 27, 28
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1400 ..............................................................................................................6, 7, 22, 28
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1404 ................................................................................................................1, 2, 6, 16
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1406 ................................................................................................................1, 2, 6, 30
`
`TREATISES
`
`Restatement (Second) of Agency (1958) ......................................................................................23
`
`Restatement (Third) of Agency (2006) ................................................................................. passim
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`GOOG-1036 / IPR2021-00956
`GOOGLE LLC v. RFCYBER CORP. / Page 7 of 39
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00274-JRG Document 24 Filed 12/09/20 Page 8 of 39 PageID #: 534
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Defendants Google LLC (“Google”) and Google Payment Corp. (“GPC”) move to transfer
`
`this action to the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404. All of the identified
`
`Google employees with relevant knowledge work in the Northern District of California. But it’s
`
`not just Google: Plaintiff’s sole director and all of the known owners and executives of its parent
`
`corporation live and work in the Northern District of California, where the claimed inventions
`
`were developed. Virtually all of the relevant, known third parties also are in the Northern District
`
`of California, including four of the five inventors and the patent agent who prosecuted all of the
`
`asserted patents. Not a single known witness or document relevant to Plaintiff’s allegations is in
`
`the Eastern District of Texas. As a result, the Northern District of California is a clearly more
`
`convenient forum for the parties and the relevant witnesses.
`
`In the alternative, Defendants move to dismiss this case for improper venue pursuant to
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) or to transfer it to the Northern District of California
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406. Neither GPC nor Google maintain a place of business in the Eastern
`
`District of Texas. Plaintiff does not allege that GPC has any place of business in this District. With
`
`respect to Google, Plaintiff merely alleges that Google provides online services to, or has entered
`
`into service agreements with, third parties that have a presence in this District. The Federal Circuit
`
`has consistently warned against such overbroad interpretations of the patent venue statute. See
`
`Valeant Pharms. N.A. LLC v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 978 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“When
`
`faced with other questions growing out of TC Heartland, we have narrowly construed the
`
`requirements of venue in patent cases.”). Neither “electronic communications from one person to
`
`another” nor “arms-length contract[s] for services” establish the “place of business” necessary to
`
`establish venue in a patent case. In re Cray Inc., 871 F.3d 1355, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`GOOG-1036 / IPR2021-00956
`GOOGLE LLC v. RFCYBER CORP. / Page 8 of 39
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00274-JRG Document 24 Filed 12/09/20 Page 9 of 39 PageID #: 535
`
`
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`
`1. Should this case be transferred to the Northern District of California pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1404(a)?
`
`2. Alternatively, should this case be dismissed or transferred under Federal Rule of Civil
`
`Procedure 12(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1406 for improper venue over Google and GPC in this District?
`
`III.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges that Google and GPC infringe five patents, which generally
`
`relate to the use of mobile devices equipped with near-field communication (“NFC”) technology
`
`to make mobile payments. Complaint (“Compl.”) ¶ 97. Plaintiff alleges that Android devices using
`
`the Google Pay application (the “Accused Functionality”) infringe the patents. Id. ¶ 98.
`
`A.
`
`The Location of the Relevant Witnesses and Evidence
`
`1.
`
`Google and GPC’s Relevant Employees and Documentary Evidence Are
`in the Northern District of California.
`
`Google and GPC are both headquartered in Mountain View, California, in the Northern
`
`District of California. Declaration of Daniel Friedland (“Friedland Decl.”) ¶ 2; Declaration of Felix
`
`-
`
`Lin (“Lin Decl.”) ¶ 2. Google employs more than
`
`California. Friedland Decl. ¶ 3. Although GPC
`
` people in the Northern District of
`
`, its officers and directors
`
`are all located in the Northern District of California. Lin Decl. ¶ 3.
`
`The individuals responsible for the research, development, and design of the Accused
`
`Functionality work in the Northern District of California. Friedland Decl. ¶¶ 4–12. Google has
`
`identified at least six Google employees who are likely to have knowledge regarding the Accused
`
`Functionality, and all of them are located in the Northern District of California. Id. ¶¶ 6–10. In
`
`addition, Google’s marketing, finance, and sales teams responsible for the Accused Functionality
`
`are located in the Northern District of California. Id. ¶ 11.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`GOOG-1036 / IPR2021-00956
`GOOGLE LLC v. RFCYBER CORP. / Page 9 of 39
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00274-JRG Document 24 Filed 12/09/20 Page 10 of 39 PageID #: 536
`
`
`
`In contrast, when Plaintiff filed its Complaint in August 2020, neither Google nor GPC
`
`owned or leased any office space, retail space, or other real property in this District (and still do
`
`not); and neither Google nor GPC had (or have now) any employees who work on the Accused
`
`Functionality in this District. Declaration of Sallie Lim (“Lim Decl.”) ¶¶ 2–4; Friedland Decl. ¶ 4.
`
`Google and GPC are not aware of any witness with relevant knowledge in the Eastern District of
`
`Texas. Friedland Decl. ¶¶ 4, 11–12.
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff’s Directors, Officers, and Documentary Evidence Are in the
`Northern District of California.
`
`Plaintiff is a wholly owned subsidiary of a parent corporation that also is named RFCyber
`
`Corp. (to avoid confusion, the parent corporation is referred to here as “RFCyber Parent”).
`
`RFCyber Parent was incorporated in California in 2003, and has its principal place of business in
`
`Fremont, California, which is in the Northern District of California. See Declaration of Zachary
`
`Briers (“Briers Decl.”) Ex. 1. The Plaintiff entity was formed on June 16, 2020, two months before
`
`filing this litigation. Id. Ex. 6. Plaintiff does not have business operations in Texas (other than
`
`litigation) and does not have any assets in the Eastern District of Texas. The Complaint alleges
`
`only that Plaintiff has a place of business at 7300 Lone Star Drive, Suite C200, Plano, TX 75024,
`
`which is the address for a communal co-working facility run by WeWork. Id. Ex. 7; Compl. ¶ 1.
`
`Plaintiff does not have any known employees. Plaintiff’s only executive and director, Hsin
`
`Pan, is located in the Northern District of California. According to public records, Mr. Pan resides
`
`in
`
`. See Briers Decl. Exs. 4, 9. Plaintiff does not have any executives or
`
`employees in Texas, and there is no indication that any relevant evidence in Plaintiff’s possession
`
`exists anywhere other than in the Northern District of California.
`
`3.
`
`Nearly All Relevant Third Parties, Including the Inventors, Are in the
`Northern District of California.
`
`In addition to Mr. Pan, three other inventors and the patent agent who prosecuted the
`3
`
`
`
`
`GOOG-1036 / IPR2021-00956
`GOOGLE LLC v. RFCYBER CORP. / Page 10 of 39
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00274-JRG Document 24 Filed 12/09/20 Page 11 of 39 PageID #: 537
`
`
`
`asserted patents are located in the Northern District of California. There are a total of five named
`
`inventors across the five asserted patents. Mr. Pan and Liang Seng Koh are listed as inventors on
`
`all five of the patents. Public records show that Mr. Pan and Mr. Koh have lived in the Northern
`
`District of California since the earliest relevant patent application was filed in 2006. See Briers
`
`Decl. Exs. 2–5, 9, 12. Fu-Liang Cho and Fu-Tong Cho are listed as inventors on three of the
`
`asserted patents, and public records demonstrate that both men also have lived in the Northern
`
`District of California since the earliest patent application was filed. See id. Exs. 2–5, 10–11. The
`
`fifth inventor, Xiangzhen Xie, who is listed as an inventor on two of the patents, appears to live in
`
`Shenzhen, China. See Compl. Ex. E (cover page).
`
`The claimed inventions stem from work carried out by RFCyber Parent’s employees at its
`
`headquarters in Fremont, California. To the extent there are any witnesses with knowledge about
`
`the conception, reduction to practice, and prosecution of the claimed inventions, those witnesses
`
`(in addition to the named inventors) likely reside in the Northern District of California. For
`
`example, all five of the asserted patents were prosecuted by Dr. Joe Zheng, a patent agent in
`
`. See Compl. Exs. A–E; Briers Decl. Ex. 14. Public records show that Dr.
`
`-
`
`Zheng continues to reside in
`
`. Briers Decl. Exs. 13–14.
`
`The PTO issued four of the five asserted patents to RFCyber Parent. See Compl. Exs. A–
`
`E. Although Plaintiff alleges that it is now the owner or exclusive licensee of the asserted patents,
`
`Compl. ¶ 1, three patents purportedly were assigned to Plaintiff only on the eve of litigation, and
`
`Plaintiff has no publicly recorded rights in the other two patents. See Briers Decl. ¶ 17. Defendants
`
`intend to take discovery regarding Plaintiff’s standing to assert the patents. Documents and
`
`witnesses relevant to this issue most likely are located in the Northern District of California, given
`
`that RFCyber Parent was the original assignee of all five patents, four inventors are in the Northern
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`GOOG-1036 / IPR2021-00956
`GOOGLE LLC v. RFCYBER CORP. / Page 11 of 39
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00274-JRG Document 24 Filed 12/09/20 Page 12 of 39 PageID #: 538
`
`
`
`District of California, and Dr. Zheng, who submitted certain assignment records to the Patent
`
`Office, also resides in the Northern District of California. Id. Ex. 9–15. Conversely, it is unlikely
`
`that any evidence relevant to standing is located in this District.
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiff’s Venue-Related Allegations with Respect to GPC and Google
`
`Plaintiff does not allege that GPC maintains a place of business or any infrastructure within
`
`the Eastern District of Texas. Nor does it allege that GPC contracted with any third party that
`
`maintains a location in this District. The only venue-related allegation asserted with respect to
`
`GPC is that there are retail stores within this District that accept Google Pay as a method of
`
`payment and such retailers must “comply with terms of service provided by [GPC].” Compl.
`
`¶¶ 32–34.
`
`Google also does not maintain any place of business or infrastructure within this District.
`
`See Lim Decl. ¶¶ 3–4. Plaintiff nevertheless alleges that Google contracted to provide services to,
`
`or received services from, third parties with a presence in the Eastern District of Texas, including:
`
`1. Google Fi. Google offers a cellular service called “Google Fi,” which allows users to
`obtain mobile service using mobile networks maintained by T-Mobile, Sprint, and U.S.
`Cellular. Declaration of Prithviraj Subburaj (“Subburaj Decl.”) ¶ 3. Plaintiff alleges
`that Google maintains “infrastructure” in this District. Compl. ¶ 41. (As explained
`below, Google does not maintain infrastructure within this District. All infrastructure
`is maintained by the network providers.)
`
`2. Starbucks. Plaintiff alleges that Google agreed to service certain wireless access points
`at Starbucks retail locations, including locations in this District. Id. ¶¶ 37–38. (As
`explained below,
`.)
`
`3. Internet Providers. Plaintiff alleges that Google entered into agreements with internet
`providers in this District to host servers referred to as “GGC servers”. Id. ¶ 13–31. (As
`explained below, Google has not had any GGC servers in this District since at least
`, approximately
` before the filing of this case.)
`
`4. Megaport. Plaintiff alleges that Google contracted with Megaport, which provides
`“interconnects” that allow Megaport customers to connect to Google over a secure
`connection, including via facilities in Carrollton and Lewisville, Texas. Id. ¶¶ 45–54.
`
`-
`
`5. CTDI. Plaintiff alleges
`
`that Google entered
`
`into a service contract with
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`GOOG-1036 / IPR2021-00956
`GOOGLE LLC v. RFCYBER CORP. / Page 12 of 39
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00274-JRG Document 24 Filed 12/09/20 Page 13 of 39 PageID #: 539
`
`
`
`Communications Test Design, Inc. (“CTDI”) to refurbish Google devices, such as Pixel
`phones. Id. ¶ 56. CTDI maintains a facility in Flower Mound, Texas. Id. ¶¶ 56–62.
`
`Plaintiff contends that the physical locations of these third parties should be deemed “regular and
`
`established place[s] of business” of Google for purposes of establishing venue under § 1400(b),
`
`see id. ¶¶ 30–31, 34, 38, 41, 54, 56—despite the fact that Google does not own or control these
`
`third parties, as discussed in more detail in Part VI below.
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A.
`
`Law Governing Motion to Transfer
`
`A court may transfer a case to any district where the case could have been brought.
`
`§§ 1404(a), 1406(a). In this case, Fifth Circuit law governs the transfer analysis. See In re
`
`Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1341–42 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (holding that regional circuit law
`
`governs § 1404(a) motion). 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. In re
`
`Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 315 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (“Volkswagen II”).1
`
`In assessing whether the defendant has demonstrated that transfer is appropriate, courts in
`
`the Fifth Circuit weigh “private” and “public” interest factors. Id. “The private interest 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.” Id. at 315.
`
`“The public interest factors 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.” Id.
`
`
`1 Citations and internal quotation marks omitted unless otherwise noted.
`
`6
`
`
`GOOG-1036 / IPR2021-00956
`GOOGLE LLC v. RFCYBER CORP. / Page 13 of 39
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00274-JRG Document 24 Filed 12/09/20 Page 14 of 39 PageID #: 540
`
`
`
`“These factors are to be decided based on the situation which existed when suit was
`
`instituted.” Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 2017 WL 11553227, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 22, 2017)
`
`(quoting Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 343 (1960)). “[O]nce a party files a transfer motion,
`
`disposing of that motion should unquestionably take top priority.” In re Apple Inc., 979 F.3d 1332,
`
`1337 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
`
`B.
`
`Law Governing Motion to Dismiss
`
`In a patent case, venue is proper only “in the judicial district where the defendant resides,
`
`or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place
`
`of business.” § 1400(b). Federal Circuit law governs the §1400(b) analysis. In re Cray Inc., 871
`
`F.3d 1355, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`“The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing proper venue.” In re ZTE (USA) Inc., 890
`
`F.3d 1008, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2018). To show that the defendant maintains “a regular and established
`
`place of business” in the venue, the plaintiff must prove three elements: “(1) there must be a
`
`physical place in the district; (2) it must be a regular and established place of business; and (3) it
`
`must be the place of the defendant.” In re Cray, 871 F.3d at 1360. “If any statutory requirement is
`
`not satisfied, venue is improper.” Id. It is important “not to conflate showings that may be sufficient
`
`for other purposes, e.g., personal jurisdiction or the general venue statute, with the necessary
`
`showing to establish proper venue in patent cases.” Id. at 1361. For example, “the mere presence
`
`of a contractual relationship between” the defendant and a contractor “does not necessarily make”
`
`the contractor’s location “a regular and established place of business” of the defendant. In re ZTE,
`
`890 F.3d at 1015.
`
`V. MOTION TO TRANSFER TO THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`This case would be more conveniently litigated in the Northern District of California,
`
`where Google, GPC, and RFCyber Parent are all headquartered and where virtually all of the
`
`7
`
`
`GOOG-1036 / IPR2021-00956
`GOOGLE LLC v. RFCYBER CORP. / Page 14 of 39
`
`

`

`Case 2:20-cv-00274-JRG Document 24 Filed 12/09/20 Page 15 of 39 PageID #: 541
`
`
`
`relevant witnesses are located. The Fifth Circuit’s private and public factors weigh heavily in favor
`
`of transfer to the Northern District of California.
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiff’s Alleged Ties to this District Carry No Weight.
`
`Before turning to the public and private factors, it is important to note that Plaintiff’s
`
`alleged ties to the Eastern District of Texas should be accorded no weight in the analysis. Plaintiff
`
`incorporated in Texas only two months before filing this litigation and has no known business in
`
`Texas. Plaintiff does not have any known employees in Texas, and all of its directors and
`
`executives reside near the headquarters of RFCyber Parent in Fremont, California, which is only
`
`twenty miles from Google’s headquarters in Mountain View, California, both of which are in the
`
`Northern District of California.
`
`The Federal Circuit has ordered transfer in similar circumstances. For example, in In re
`
`Microsoft Corp., 630 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011), the plaintiff ostensib