Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 63 Filed 03/03/22 Page 1 of 21
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`IGT and IGT CANADA SOLUTIONS, ULC, §
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`v.
`
`ZYNGA INC.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendant.
`
`C.A. No. 6:21-cv-00331-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`DEFENDANT’S OPPOSED MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE AUSTIN
`DIVISION OF THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`IGT EXHIBIT 2025
`Zynga v. IGT, IPR2022-00199
`
`

`

`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 63 Filed 03/03/22 Page 2 of 21
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................1
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................1
`A.
`Plaintiffs, Potential Party Witnesses for Plaintiffs, and the Asserted
`Patents ......................................................................................................................1
`Defendant, the Accused Products, Potential Party Witnesses, and Evidence ..........2
`B.
`Material Third-Party Witnesses ...............................................................................5
`C.
`LEGAL STANDARD ........................................................................................................5
`ARGUMENT ......................................................................................................................6
`A.
`IGT Could Have Brought This Action in the Austin Division ................................6
`B.
`Factors Favoring Transfer ........................................................................................7
`1.
`The Relative Ease of Access to Sources of Proof Favors
`Transfer ......................................................................................................7
`The Lower Cost of Attendance in Austin for Willing Witnesses
`Favors Transfer ..........................................................................................8
`Austin’s Local Interest in Deciding This Case Favors Transfer .........11
`3.
`The Neutral Factors................................................................................................13
`1.
`The Availability of Compulsory Process to Secure the
`Attendance of Witnesses is Neutral ........................................................13
`The “All Other Practical Problems That Make Trial of a Case
`Easy, Expeditious and Inexpensive” Factor Is Neutral ........................13
`Court Congestion Is Neutral ...................................................................14
`Familiarity with the Governing Law and Conflicts of Laws Are
`Neutral ......................................................................................................15
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................15
`
`2.
`
`C.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`4.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 63 Filed 03/03/22 Page 3 of 21
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`10Tales, Inc. v. Tiktok Inc.,
`No. 6:20-CV-00810-ADA, 2021 WL 2043978 (W.D. Tex. May 21, 2021) .................... 14
`ACQIS LLC v. EMC Corp.,
`67 F. Supp. 3d 769 (E.D. Tex. 2014) .......................................................................... 13, 14
`Affinity Labs of Texas v. Samsung Elec. Co.,
`968 F. Supp. 2d 852 (E.D. Tex. 2013) .............................................................................. 13
`BCS Software, LLC v. Zoho Corp.,
`No. 6:21-cv-00051-ADA, ECF No. 40 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 9, 2021) ..................................... 6
`Datascape, Ltd. v. Dell Techs. Inc.,
`No. 6:19-CV-00129-ADA, 2019 WL 4254069 (W.D. Tex. Jun. 7, 2019) ..................... 7, 8
`Express Mobile, Inc. v. Expedia Inc.,
`No. 6:20-cv-00801-ADA, ECF No. 68 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 15, 2021) ............................. 6, 15
`Future Link Sys., LLC v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.,
`No. 20-cv-01176-ADA, 2021 WL 6015535 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 18, 2021) ...................... 6, 15
`Hammond Dev. Int’l, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. 6:19-cv-00355-ADA, 2020 WL 6136783 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2020) .......... 10, 11, 12
`In re Apple Inc.,
`979 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2020)......................................................................................... 12
`In re Genentech, Inc.,
`566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009)........................................................................... 7, 8, 14, 15
`In re Hoffmann-La Roche Inc.,
`587 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................... 12, 14
`In re Juniper Networks, Inc.,
`14 F.4th 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ......................................................................................... 14
`In re Radmax, Ltd.,
`720 F.3d 285 (5th Cir. 2013) ........................................................................................ 5, 14
`In re TS Tech USA Corp.,
`551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2008)......................................................................................... 15
`In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc.,
`545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc) .............................................................. 6, 7, 13, 15
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 63 Filed 03/03/22 Page 4 of 21
`
`MicroPairing Techs. LLC v. Toyota Motor Mfg. Texas, Inc.,
`No. 6:20-CV-01001-ADA, 2021 WL 4526704 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 1, 2021) ............. 8, 11, 13
`Mid-Continent Cas. Co. v. Petroleum Sol., Inc.,
`629 F. Supp. 2d 759 (S.D. Tex. 2009) ................................................................................ 9
`Mimedx Grp., Inc. v. Tex. Human Biologics, Ltd.,
`No. 1:14-CV-464-LY, 2014 WL 12479284 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 12, 2014) ..................... 7, 12
`Neo Wireless, LLC v. Dell Technologies Inc.,
`No. 6:21-CV-00024-ADA, ECF No. 60 at 5 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 20, 2022) ....................... 8, 9
`Netlist, Inc. v. SK Hynix Inc.,
`No. 6:20-CV-00194-ADA, 2021 WL 2954095 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 2, 2021) ......................... 9
`Parus Holdings Inc. v. LG Elecs. Inc.,
`No. 6:19-CV-00432-ADA, 2020 WL 4905809 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 20, 2020) ...................... 7
`PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC v. Int’l Bus. Machines Corp.,
`No. 6:12-CV-661-JRG, 2016 WL 7852473 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 8, 2016) ............................. 13
`Sonrai Memory Ltd. v. Oracle Corp.,
`No. 6:21-CV-00116-ADA, EDF No. 48 at 6-7 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 2, 2022) ....................... 15
`Texas Data Co., LLC v. Target Brands, Inc.,
`771 F. Supp. 2d 630 (E.D. Tex. 2017) .............................................................................. 12
`Unification Techs. LLC v. Micron Tech., Inc.,
`No. 6:20-cv-00500-ADA, ECF No. 111 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 10, 2022) ............................ 5, 15
`Vir2us, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`No. 1:16-cv-01095, 2016 WL 9175603 (E.D. Va. Dec. 2, 2016) ....................................... 8
`VLSI Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp.,
`No. 6:19-CV-00254-ADA, 2019 WL 8013949 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 7, 2019) ..................... 7, 9
`Word to Info, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc.,
`No. 3:14-CV-4387-K, 2015 WL 13870507 (N.D. Tex. Jul. 23, 2015)............................. 11
`WSOU Invs. LLC v. Arista Networks, Inc.,
`No. W-20-CV-01083-ADA, 2021 WL 6015526 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 5, 2021) .................... 14
`WSOU Invs., LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`No. 6:20-cv-00454-ADA, 2021 WL 1298935 (W.D. Tex. April 7, 2021) ......................... 8
`Statutes
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) .................................................................................................................... 1, 5
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 63 Filed 03/03/22 Page 5 of 21
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiffs IGT (“IGT US”) and IGT Canada Solutions ULC (“IGT Canada”) (collectively,
`
`“IGT”) allege that the mobile games provided by Defendant Zynga Inc. (“Zynga”) infringe six of
`
`IGT’s patents. IGT US is headquartered in Las Vegas, and Zynga is headquartered in San
`
`Francisco, but both companies have offices in Austin, Texas. Zynga’s Austin office opened in
`
`2011 and currently has 231 employees, including engineers who work on the products and/or
`
`features that IGT has accused of infringement. Upon information and belief, IGT US employs
`
`approximately 199 people in its Austin office. Neither company has any facilities or presence in
`
`the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas. In addition, IGT’s venue allegations focus
`
`solely on Austin, see First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) ¶ 8 (ECF No. 7), and IGT has not
`
`identified, in its FAC or elsewhere, any office locations, witnesses, documents, or evidence in the
`
`Waco Division. Because Austin is clearly a more convenient venue than Waco, Zynga hereby
`
`moves pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) for an intra-district transfer of this case to the Austin
`
`Division.
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`A.
`Plaintiffs, Potential Party Witnesses for Plaintiffs, and the Asserted Patents
`
`IGT US is a Nevada corporation based in Las Vegas, Nevada. FAC, ¶ 2. IGT Canada is a
`
`Canadian unlimited liability company that conducts business out of New Brunswick, Canada. Id.
`
`at ¶ 3. Both are subsidiaries of International Game Technology PLC. Id. The parent company is
`
`purportedly incorporated and headquartered in the United Kingdom. See Ex. A-1 (cover of IGT
`
`PLC 2020 Annual Report).1 IGT claims to have 4,400 U.S. employees, of which 2,800 are in
`
`1 Exhibits A-1 through A-5 and A-7 through A-13 cited herein are attached to and authenticated
`by the Declaration of Christopher Childers in Support of Zynga Inc.’s Motion to Transfer Venue
`under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 63 Filed 03/03/22 Page 6 of 21
`
`Nevada and at least 199 are in the Austin area. Exs. A-2–4 (IGT corporate information); Ex. A-5
`
`(LinkedIn results for IGT-Austin). Seven of the named inventors reside in Nevada, one resides in
`
`California, and the others are located in Canada or the northeastern United States. See Asserted
`
`Patents (ECF No. 7, Exs. A–F). There are no inventors in Texas. Id. IGT has not alleged that this
`
`dispute has any connection to the Waco Division. FAC, ¶¶ 2–3, 9–13.
`
`The Asserted Patents relate to certain aspects of online gaming, including for example
`
`collusion detection, maintenance of an uninterrupted mobile gaming experience during a
`
`communications failure, and maintaining a secure virtual network in a gaming environment. FAC
`
`¶¶ 24-26, 37-39, 55-58.
`
`B.
`
`Defendant, the Accused Products, Potential Party Witnesses, and Evidence
`
`Zynga is a leading developer of popular social and mobile games with an office located in
`
`Austin, Texas. Ex. A-6, Declaration of Matthew Copeland (“Copeland Decl.”) ¶ 3. Across the
`
`six Asserted Patents, IGT has expressly charted in its infringement contentions – in various
`
`combinations – a total of twelve Zynga games (the “Accused Products”). See, e.g., IGT
`
`Preliminary Infringement Contentions (“PIC”), Ex. C at 1 (accusing Words With Friends, Words
`
`With Friends 2, Harry Potter: Puzzles & Spells, FarmVille, FarmVille 2, FarmVille 3, Zynga
`
`Poker, Hit it Rich!, Game of Thrones Slots Casino, Willy Wonka Slots, Wizard of Oz Slots, and
`
`Black Diamond Casino).2 The Accused Products are online games accessible via the Internet.
`
`Copeland Decl. ¶ 4. These games involve both a front end, such as their look and feel and the
`
`code that resides on the player’s device, and a back end, including server and other technical
`
`functionalities that communicate with the front end to ensure the game runs correctly. Id. The
`
`2 Hit It Rich! is an online slots game comprising branded virtual slot machine games including
`Mustang Money and Red, White, and BOOM. Copeland Decl. ¶ 4.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 63 Filed 03/03/22 Page 7 of 21
`
`accused functionalities relate to aspects of the games’ front and back ends. See generally FAC,
`
`PIC.
`
`Many of Zynga’s employees who are knowledgeable about the design, operation, research
`
`and development, marketing, and sales of the Accused Products reside in or around San Francisco.
`
`Copeland Decl. ¶ 5. Yet, there are also high-level employees knowledgeable about these issues
`
`located in Austin. Id. For example, Andrew Ice, Senior Vice President, Product Management,
`
`Game Design and Analytics at Zynga, is located in Zynga’s Austin office and was listed in Zynga’s
`
`Initial Disclosures as having discoverable information related to “[s]ales, marketing, advertising,
`
`and financial information with respect to accused games and general operations of Zynga.” Zynga
`
`Initial Disclosures at 3; see also Copeland Decl. ¶ 5. Matt Klepac works as a Director of
`
`Engineering for Wizard of Oz Slots in Austin, where he led the team responsible for developing
`
`the game. Copeland Decl. ¶¶ 6-7. Matt is highly knowledgeable regarding the development,
`
`function, and operation of Wizard of Oz Slots. Id. Both Harry Potter: Puzzles & Spells and Game
`
`of Thrones Slots Casino were co-developed across a number of locations, including Austin.
`
`Copeland Decl. ¶ 7. IGT has accused each of these games of infringing certain Asserted Patents.
`
`See, e.g., FAC ¶ 14; PIC, Ex. C at 1.
`
`Zynga’s Austin office also includes approximately 20 central technology engineers.
`
`Copeland Decl. ¶ 8. Central technology engineers are highly skilled engineers responsible for
`
`certain core services that are shared across multiple games. Id. For example, central technology
`
`engineers are responsible for server maintenance and communications, developing common
`
`technologies unique to Zynga games, and ensuring cross-platform optimization for mobile phones
`
`and computers. Id. Each of these subject areas is relevant to the functionalities IGT has accused
`
`of infringement. See id.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 63 Filed 03/03/22 Page 8 of 21
`
`Zynga opened its Austin office in 2011 by acquiring several local businesses and merging
`
`them. Id. at ¶ 12. The Austin office currently employs 231 people, including engineers who joined
`
`Zynga as part of the studios that merged to form the foundation for the office as it exists today.
`
`Copeland Decl. ¶ 9. Because Zynga is an international organization with offices located
`
`throughout the United States and overseas, it is important for Zynga’s Austin office to provide a
`
`temporary home for traveling employees. See Copeland Decl. ¶ 9. Zynga’s Austin office is
`
`currently in “phase 2,” a reopening phase, as the company continues to navigate uncertain working
`
`conditions during the pandemic. Id. at ¶ 10. During its “phase 2” operations, Zynga’s Austin
`
`office offers private offices where visiting employees may work complete with standing desks,
`
`multiple monitors, and access to a nearly unlimited supply of hardware devices such as device
`
`chargers and computer equipment. Id. Employees also have access to on site IT support when in
`
`the office. Id. Zynga plans to reenter “phase 3” operations in March 2022, fully reopening the
`
`Austin office’s conference rooms, catered lunches, and well-stocked kitchens. Id. at ¶ 11. Zynga’s
`
`Austin location provides a comfortable and supportive atmosphere for non-Austin-based
`
`employees to mitigate the inconveniences associated with business travel. See id. at ¶¶ 10-11.
`
`Zynga hosts an event at UT-Austin where Zynga experts judge games developed by
`
`students and also regularly sends keynote speakers to participate in events sponsored by the
`
`University. Id. at ¶ 12. Zynga organizes other local events, such as a community game developers’
`
`group and “women in business” functions, where members of the Austin community are invited
`
`to hear presentations by Zynga representatives and/or guest speakers. Id. Zynga also engages with
`
`local Austin charities by, for example, frequently offering to match employees’ gifts to local food
`
`banks. Id.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 63 Filed 03/03/22 Page 9 of 21
`
`The bulk of the relevant documents, source code, and other evidence regarding the
`
`operation, structure, function, marketing, and sales of the Accused Products are located on the west
`
`coast. Id. at ¶ 13. Yet, there is also relevant evidence in Zynga’s Austin office, and that office
`
`also offers convenient and reliable access to Zynga’s systems to retrieve the documents and code
`
`at issue in this case. Id. Visiting employees can connect to the Austin office’s WiFi, granting
`
`immediate access through the company’s firewall and security system and bypassing potential
`
`VPN or security issues that those employees could face if they were operating remotely. Id.
`
`Based on its investigation to date, Zynga is not aware of any relevant documents or
`
`witnesses located in the Waco Division. See id. at ¶ 14.
`
`C.
`
`Material Third-Party Witnesses
`
`Zynga is not aware of any material third-party witnesses who live or work in the Western
`
`District of Texas.
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) provides that “[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 . . . .” As the Fifth Circuit confirmed in In re Radmax, Ltd.,
`
`“[t]he § 1404(a) factors apply as much to transfers between divisions of the same district as to
`
`transfers from one district to another.” 720 F.3d 285, 288 (5th Cir. 2013). In Radmax, the Fifth
`
`Circuit issued a writ of mandamus and reversed a denial of intra-district transfer because “the case
`
`ha[d] no connection to the transferor forum and virtually all of the events and witnesses regarding
`
`the case . . . [were] in the transferee forum.” Id. at 290. Following the principles of Radmax, this
`
`Court has transferred multiple patent cases from the Waco Division to the Austin Division in the
`
`past year. See, e.g., Unification Techs. LLC v. Micron Tech., Inc., No. 6:20-cv-00500-ADA, ECF
`
`No. 111 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 10, 2022); Express Mobile, Inc. v. Expedia Inc., No. 6:20-cv-00801-
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 63 Filed 03/03/22 Page 10 of 21
`
`ADA, ECF No. 68 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 15, 2021); BCS Software, LLC v. Zoho Corp., No. 6:21-cv-
`
`00051-ADA, ECF No. 40 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 9, 2021); Future Link Sys., LLC v. Advanced Micro
`
`Devices, Inc., No. 20-cv-01176-ADA, 2021 WL 6015535, at *9 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 18, 2021).
`
`To resolve this motion, the Court must weigh the relative convenience of the two districts
`
`based on four private—and four public—interest factors. In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d
`
`304, 315 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (“Volkswagen II”). 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. The public-interest
`
`factors are “(1) the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion; (2) the local interest
`
`in having localized interest 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. (alteration in original).
`
`IV.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`None of the public or private factors favor retaining this case in the Waco Division, and
`
`three factors strongly favor transfer to the Austin Division, a forum that is clearly more convenient
`
`for both parties and third-party witnesses. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth below, the Court
`
`should transfer this case to the Austin Division.
`
`A.
`
`IGT Could Have Brought This Action in the Austin Division
`
`As an initial matter, IGT’s complaint confirms that this case could have been brought in
`
`the Austin Division. For example, IGT alleges many facts relating to the parties’ connections to
`
`Austin, including that Zynga has physical office space located there. FAC ¶ 8. Because IGT’s
`
`Complaint expressly ties this case to Austin, it “might have been brought” in the Austin Division
`
`to begin with (notably, still within the district where IGT chose to file its complaint). See Mimedx
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 63 Filed 03/03/22 Page 11 of 21
`
`Grp., Inc. v. Tex. Human Biologics, Ltd., No. 1:14-CV-464-LY, 2014 WL 12479284, at *1 (W.D.
`
`Tex. Aug. 12, 2014) (citing Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 312).
`
`B.
`
`Factors Favoring Transfer
`
`As explained below, three of the Volkswagen II factors favor transferring this case to the
`
`Austin Division: (1) relative ease of access to sources of proof; (2) cost of attendance for willing
`
`witnesses; and (3) local interest in deciding the case.
`
`1.
`
`The Relative Ease of Access to Sources of Proof Favors Transfer
`
`This Court has recognized that the defendant in a patent infringement case will typically
`
`have the bulk of the relevant evidence. Parus Holdings Inc. v. LG Elecs. Inc., No. 6:19-CV-00432-
`
`ADA, 2020 WL 4905809, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 20, 2020) (quoting In re Genentech, Inc., 566
`
`F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). “Consequently, the place where the defendant’s documents are
`
`kept weighs in favor of transfer to that location.” Id. Moreover, as this Court explained in
`
`Datascape, “the question is relative ease of access, not absolute ease of access.” Datascape, Ltd.
`
`v. Dell Techs. Inc., No. 6:19-CV-00129-ADA, 2019 WL 4254069, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Jun. 7, 2019)
`
`(emphasis in original).
`
`Here, Zynga’s relevant records are relatively easily accessible from its office in Austin.
`
`See supra, Section II.B. Specifically, when working in the Austin office, Zynga’s employees are
`
`automatically granted access to repositories, databases, and servers operating in the Zynga
`
`network, bypassing potential VPN and security issues they may face if working remotely.
`
`Copeland Decl. ¶ 13. Accordingly, the ease-of-access factor favors transfer. See, e.g., VLSI Tech.
`
`LLC v. Intel Corp., No. 6:19-CV-00254-ADA, 2019 WL 8013949, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 7, 2019)
`
`(granting transfer in part because Defendant Intel “has a campus in Austin, but not in Waco,
`
`[making] it [] easier to access Intel’s electronic documents from Austin than from Waco.”); Neo
`
`Wireless, LLC v. Dell Technologies Inc., No. 6:21-CV-00024-ADA, ECF No. 60 at 5 (W.D. Tex.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 63 Filed 03/03/22 Page 12 of 21
`
`Jan. 20, 2022) (“Although Neo Wireless correctly notes that these documents could easily be
`
`produced in the nearby Waco Division, they are still more easily accessible in Austin.”); see also
`
`MicroPairing Techs. LLC v. Toyota Motor Mfg. Texas, Inc., No. 6:20-CV-01001-ADA, 2021 WL
`
`4526704, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 1, 2021) (“[t]he presence of physical facilities [in San Antonio]
`
`does indeed suggest that it is easier for Toyota to access documents in San Antonio rather than
`
`Waco.”).
`
`As noted above, IGT also has an office in Austin. See supra, Section II.A. The fact that
`
`both Zynga and IGT have significant offices in Austin (and none in Waco) tilts the balance even
`
`further in favor of transfer. See, e.g., Vir2us, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 1:16-cv-01095, 2016 WL
`
`9175603, at *2 (E.D. Va. Dec. 2, 2016) (finding that access to sources of proof weighs in favor of
`
`transfer where both parties are located in the transferee forum). Moreover, neither Zynga nor IGT
`
`has identified any relevant documents located in this Division and the existence of documentary
`
`evidence located outside of both Divisions is irrelevant to the transfer analysis. See, e.g., Neo
`
`Wireless, LLC, No. 6:21-CV-00024-ADA, ECF No. 60 at 5 (“[T]he fact that no relevant evidence
`
`resides in the Waco Division…means that this factor weighs in favor of transfer to Austin.”);
`
`WSOU Invs., LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00454-ADA, 2021 WL 1298935, at *3 (W.D.
`
`Tex. April 7, 2021); see also Copeland Decl. ¶ 14.
`
`In sum, because access to sources of proof is “relatively easier” in Austin than it is in Waco,
`
`this factor supports transfer. See Datascape, 2019 WL 4254069, at *2.
`
`2.
`
`The Lower Cost of Attendance in Austin for Willing Witnesses Favors
`Transfer
`
`The third factor, the cost for party and non-party witnesses to attend proceedings, also
`
`favors transfer. The “single most important factor in transfer analysis” is the convenience to and
`
`cost for witnesses to travel and attend trial. In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d at 1343. This factor
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 63 Filed 03/03/22 Page 13 of 21
`
`considers all potential material and relevant witnesses, while giving more weight “to the
`
`convenience of non-party witnesses than to party witnesses.” Netlist, Inc. v. SK Hynix Inc., No.
`
`6:20-CV-00194-ADA, 2021 WL 2954095, at *6 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 2, 2021).
`
`Non-party witnesses. Potential non-party witnesses in this case include: (1) named
`
`inventors; and (2) witnesses with knowledge of prior art references and/or products. As
`
`demonstrated below, none of these potential witnesses are located in the Waco Division.
`
`First, none of the named inventors appear to be located in this District. See supra, Section
`
`II.A. Air travel to Austin is significantly more convenient since airlines offer nonstop flights and
`
`flights with short connections from Reno to Austin while flights from Reno to Dallas are slightly
`
`more expensive and require a roughly 90-minute drive to Waco. Compare Ex. A-7 (Google Flights
`
`from Reno to Austin) with Ex. A-8 (Google Flights from Reno to Dallas); Ex. A-13 (driving time
`
`between Waco and Dallas). The inventors’ relative ease of traveling to Austin as compared to
`
`Waco weighs in favor of transfer. See, e.g., Neo Wireless LLC, No. 6:21-CV-00024-ADA, ECF
`
`No. 60 at 8 (“If this Court were to assume that the witnesses would hail from Neo Wireless’
`
`Pennsylvania headquarters, they could easily fly into Austin’s international airport to attend trial
`
`and would not have to drive 90 miles to Waco.”); VLSI Tech. LLC, 2019 WL 8013949, at *4 (citing
`
`Mid-Continent Cas. Co. v. Petroleum Sol., Inc., 629 F. Supp. 2d 759, 762 (S.D. Tex. 2009))
`
`(“[b]ecause inventors’ testimony is extremely important, inventors are key witnesses and the Court
`
`gives greater weight to their convenience”).
`
`Second, Zynga is not currently aware of any third parties in the Waco Division that have
`
`relevant information about prior art patents, publications, or products. Zynga anticipates that most
`
`of the relevant prior art witnesses will be located on the west coast. For those witnesses, Austin is
`
`a more convenient venue than Waco.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 63 Filed 03/03/22 Page 14 of 21
`
`Party witnesses. None of Zynga’s or IGT’s witnesses are located in the Waco Division.
`
`Zynga’s Austin office houses at least two employees expected to testify. See supra, Section II.B.
`
`Andrew Ice, a Senior Vice President at Zynga, is expected to testify regarding Zynga’s sales,
`
`marketing, and advertising of the accused games, as well as Zynga’s general operations and
`
`financial condition. See Copeland Decl. ¶ 5. And Matt Klepac is expected to testify regarding the
`
`development and operation of the accused Wizard of Oz Slots game. See id. at ¶ 6. In addition,
`
`there are high-level Zynga employees located in Austin who are knowledgeable about the creation,
`
`marketing, sales, and development of other Accused Products. Id. at ¶ 5, 7; see supra, Section
`
`II.B. Accordingly, it is possible that additional relevant witnesses will be located in Austin as
`
`discovery proceeds. If the Court grants this motion and transfers the case to the Austin Division,
`
`both companies’ Austin-based employees can stay in their homes if the case proceeds to trial,
`
`lowering overall lodging costs. In contrast, if trial is held in Waco, these witnesses would need to
`
`pay for lodging, causing this factor to weigh in favor of transfer. See, e.g., Hammond Dev. Int’l,
`
`Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 6:19-cv-00355-ADA, 2020 WL 6136783, at *4 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 30,
`
`2020) (Where “many of [Defendant’s] witnesses may stay in their homes if the trial is in Austin
`
`thus lowering overall lodging costs, the Court concludes that this factor weighs in favor of
`
`transfer.”).
`
`Several of Zynga’s likely trial witnesses live in or around San Francisco, where Zynga’s
`
`headquarters is located. See Copeland Decl. ¶ 5. For those witnesses, having the ability to work
`
`and perform job related duties at Zynga’s Austin office would limit the disruption to their jobs that
`
`a patent trial would entail. Beginning in March 2022, Zynga’s Austin office will offer the
`
`following amenities to minimize the disruptions to employees’ livelihoods associated with travel:
`
`conference rooms, catered lunches, fully stocked kitchens, standing desks, multiple monitors, and
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 63 Filed 03/03/22 Page 15 of 21
`
`on-site IT support, plus access to necessary hardware devices. Id. at ¶¶ 10-11. Moreover, travel
`
`to Austin is more convenient for San Franciscans than travel to Waco. Compare Ex. A-7 (Google
`
`Flights from Reno to Austin) with Ex. A-8 (Google Flights from Reno to Dallas); Ex. A-13 (driving
`
`time between Waco and Dallas). Thus, it is clearly more convenient for Zynga’s witnesses to
`
`attend trial in Austin than Waco.
`
`IGT also maintains an Austin office and likely offers similar benefits to its traveling
`
`employees. See supra, Section II.A. As this Court has previously discussed, the availability of an
`
`office in Austin where out-of-state employees from other offices may work to limit disruptions to
`
`their job duties weighs in “strong favor” of transfer. See Hammond, 2020 WL 6136783, at *4
`
`(finding the convenience of witnesses weighed in strong favor of transfer to Austin, where the
`
`defendant had offices in Austin, and out of town witnesses “can work in the Austin offices”); see
`
`also MicroPairing, 2021 WL 4526704, at *4 (finding that the availability of a manufacturing plant
`
`in the transferee district “limits disruptions” to traveling employees’ “regular duties brought about
`
`by court proceedings.”).
`
`3.
`
`Austin’s Local Interest in Deciding This Case Favors Transfer
`
`This factor strongly favors transfer due to IGT’s and Zynga’s connections to the Austin
`
`community as compared to their lack of any connections to Waco. See MicroPairing, 2021 WL
`
`4526704, at *6 (citing Word to Info, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 3:14-CV-4387-K, 2015 WL
`
`13870507, at *4 (N.D. Tex. Jul. 23, 2015)). The Austin Division has a strong local interest in this
`
`matter because Zynga has over 200 employees who live in or near Austin (see supra, Section II.B),
`
`and there are connections between Austin and the events that gave rise to this suit. For example,
`
`nine engineers in Austin work on current features of Zynga Poker, which IGT has accused of
`
`infringing five of the six Asserted Patents. See Copeland Decl. ¶ 7. In addition, the Wizard of Oz
`
`Slots game was developed in Austin (Copeland Decl. ¶ 7) and Harry Potter: Puzzles & Spells and
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00331-ADA Document 63 Filed 03/03/22 Page 16 of 21
`
`Game of Thrones Slots Casino were co-developed by engineers in multiple locations, including
`
`Austin. Copeland Decl. ¶ 7. Austin’s local interest in this case is also exemplified by Zynga’s
`
`various collaborations with the University of Texas (Copeland Decl. ¶ 12) and generous
`
`contributions to and involvement with local charities. Id.; see supra, Section II.B.3
`
`Upon information and belief, IGT employs at least 199 people in its Austin office. See
`
`supra, Section II.A. IGT’s employees in Austin likely work on products that practice the patents
`
`that IGT has accused Zynga of infringing. Accordingly, the Austin Division has a local interest in
`
`this litigation based on IGT’s contacts as well.
`
`In contrast to both parties’ connections to Austin, neither has any connection to Waco. See
`
`Copeland Decl. ¶ 14; see also generally IGT’s FAC (where IGT emphasizes this dispute’s
`
`connection to Austin and does not identify any connections to Waco). The outcome of this case
`
`will impact local Austin interests more so than local Waco interests because it “calls into question
`
`the work and reputation of several individuals residing” in Austin, and, therefore, this factor
`
`strongly weighs in favor of transfer. In re Apple Inc., 979 F.3d 1332, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2020); see
`
`Mimedx, 2