Case 6:21-cv-00454-ADA Document 43 Filed 01/07/22 Page 1 of 17
`
`Petitioner Samsung and Google Ex-1024, 0001
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00454-ADA Document 43 Filed 01/07/22 Page 2 of 17
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 2
`A.
`No Relevant Samsung Employees or Documents Are in This District ................. 2
`B.
`Scramoge’s Evidence and Witnesses Are Not in This District .............................. 2
`C.
`Scramoge’s Allegations Against Samsung Mirror Those Against Apple
`and Google ............................................................................................................. 3
`The Original Assignee’s U.S. Headquarters,
`
`, and Prior Art Authors and Inventors Are Located
`In N.D. Cal. ............................................................................................................ 4
`LEGAL STANDARD ........................................................................................................ 4
`THIS CASE COULD HAVE BEEN FILED IN THE N.D. CAL. .................................... 5
`N.D. CAL. IS THE MOST CONVENIENT FORUM FOR THIS CASE ........................ 6
`A.
`The Private Interest Factors Heavily Favor Transfer to the N.D. Cal. .................. 6
`1.
`The Relative Access to Sources of Proof ................................................... 6
`2.
`The Availability of Compulsory Process to Secure the Attendance
`of Witnesses ............................................................................................... 7
`The Convenience of Third-Party Witnesses and Party Witnesses
`Strongly Favors Transfer ........................................................................... 8
`All Other Practical Problems That Make Trial of a Case Easy,
`Expeditious, and Inexpensive .................................................................... 9
`The Public Interest Factors Favor Transfer ......................................................... 10
`B.
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 11
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`D.
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`IV.
`V.
`
`VI.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Samsung and Google Ex-1024, 0002
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00454-ADA Document 43 Filed 01/07/22 Page 3 of 17
`
`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) .................... 6, 8, 10
`
`Action Indus., Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co.,
`358 F.3d 337 (5th Cir. 2004) ...................................................................................................... 5
`
`DynaEnergetics Eur. GMBH v. Hunting Titan, Inc.,
`No. 6:20-CV-00069-ADA, 2020 WL 3259807 (W.D. Tex. June 16, 2020) ............................ 10
`
`In re Apple Inc.,
`979 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ........................................................................................ 6, 9, 11
`
`In re Apple, Inc.,
`581 F. App’x 886 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................................. 8
`
`In re Google Inc.,
`No. 2017-107, 2017 WL 977038 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 23, 2017) ....................................................... 9
`
`In re Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.,
`2 F.4th 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ..................................................................................................... 5
`
`In re Volkswagen AG,
`371 F.3d 201 (5th Cir. 2004) ...................................................................................................... 5
`
`In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc.,
`545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) ............................................................................................. passim
`
`In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc.,
`566 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................................................................. 9
`
`Parus Holdings Inc. v. LG Elecs. Inc.,
`No. 6:19-CV-00432-ADA, 2020 WL 4905809 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 20, 2020) .............................. 9
`
`Polaris Innovations, Ltd. v. Dell, Inc.,
`No. SA-16-CV-451-XR, 2016 WL 7077069 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 5, 2016) .................................... 8
`
`Scramoge Technology Ltd. v. Apple Inc.,
`Case No. 6:21-cv-00579-ADA ................................................................................................... 1
`
`Scramoge Technology Ltd. v. Google LLC,
`Case No. 6:21-cv-00616-ADA ................................................................................................... 1
`
`Wet Sounds, Inc. v. Audio Formz, LLC,
`No. A-17-CV-141-LY, 2017 WL 4547916 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 11, 2017) ..................................... 9
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Samsung and Google Ex-1024, 0003
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00454-ADA Document 43 Filed 01/07/22 Page 4 of 17
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3) .................................................................................................................... 5
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) ........................................................................................................................ 5
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) ................................................................................................................ 1, 4, 5
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1)(A) ............................................................................................................. 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner Samsung and Google Ex-1024, 0004
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00454-ADA Document 43 Filed 01/07/22 Page 5 of 17
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“SEC”) and Samsung Electronics America,
`
`Inc. (“SEA”) (collectively, “Samsung”) seek transfer of this action to the Northern District of
`
`California (“N.D. Cal.”) under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). N.D. Cal. is a clearly more convenient forum
`
`for this action.
`
`In this action, an Irish entity asserts patents that it acquired from a Korean company against
`
`technology that was designed and engineered in Korea. Plaintiff Scramoge Technology Ltd.
`
`(“Scramoge”) does not conduct any business in the United States, much less in the Western District
`
`of Texas (“W.D. Tex.”), and does not appear to have any witnesses or documents in this District.
`
`Scramoge acquired the Asserted Patents1 from LG Innotek Co., Ltd., a Korean entity, where
`
`Defendant Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is also incorporated, and where the accused products
`
`and functionality were designed and engineered. In short, there is zero nexus between this action
`
`and W.D. Tex., other than Scramoge’s decision to file the complaint in this District.
`
`Further, Scramoge’s allegations mirror its allegations in separate cases against Apple Inc.
`
`(“Apple”) and Google LLC (“Google”).2 Those companies have now moved to transfer their
`
`respective cases to N.D. Cal., and judicial economy weighs strongly in favor of litigating these
`
`cases in the same court. Moreover, key third-party witnesses, including the American arm of the
`
`original assignee of the Asserted Patents,
`
`,
`
`and authors and inventors of relevant prior art reside in N.D. Cal. Accordingly, the private and
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent Nos. 9,553,476 (“the ’476 Patent”), 9,825,482 (“the ’482 Patent”), 9,997,962 (“the
`’962 Patent”), 9,843,215 (“the ’215 Patent”), 10,367,370 (“the ’370 Patent”), and 10,424,941
`(“the ’941 Patent”) (collectively, “Asserted Patents”).
`2 Scramoge Technology Ltd. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:21-cv-00579-ADA (W.D. Tex.) (“Apple
`Action”); Scramoge Technology Ltd. v. Google LLC, Case No. 6:21-cv-00616-ADA (W.D. Tex.)
`(“Google Action”).
`
`
`
`1
`
`Petitioner Samsung and Google Ex-1024, 0005
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00454-ADA Document 43 Filed 01/07/22 Page 6 of 17
`
`Petitioner Samsung and Google Ex-1024, 0006
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00454-ADA Document 43 Filed 01/07/22 Page 7 of 17
`
`
`Dublin 18, Ireland.” Dkt. 18, ¶ 2. There is no record of Scramoge’s registration with the Texas
`
`Secretary of State. Westin Decl. at Ex. 2. Similarly, there is also no record of Scramoge having
`
`any physical presence in the state of Texas. Id. at Exs. 1-2. Scramoge’s Complaint and FAC do
`
`not identify any ties or physical presence in the state of Texas. Dkt. 1, ¶ 2 and Dkt. 18, ¶ 2.
`
`C.
`
`Scramoge’s Allegations Against Samsung Mirror Those Against Apple and
`Google
`
`
`
`Scramoge’s case against Samsung is very much the same as cases against Apple and
`
`Google, for which motions to transfer are pending. Scramoge asserts infringement against
`
`Samsung of six patents, each of which is directed to wireless charging. Am. Compl., Dkt. 18, Exs.
`
`4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14. Scramoge also alleges that Apple and Google infringe four of the six Asserted
`
`Patents. In the Apple Action, Scramoge asserts the ’215, ’941, and ’962 Patents. Apple Action,
`
`Dkt. 12. In the Google Action, Scramoge asserts the ’215, ’370, and ’962 Patents. Google Action,
`
`Dkt. 1. Of the 74 claims asserted against Samsung in this litigation, 42 are also asserted against
`
`Apple, Google, or both. Westin Decl. ¶ 27.
`
`
`
`Indeed, Scramoge accuses the same components of Apple, Google, and Samsung’s
`
`smartphones and watches of infringement. For example, Scramoge alleges that the parties’
`
`accused devices include, inter alia, substrates, soft magnetic layers, magnetic sheets, wireless
`
`charging receiving coils, and magnets with predetermined intensities. Compare Westin Decl. at
`
`Exs. 4-7, with Exs. 8-12.
`
`
`
`On September 22, 2021, Google moved to transfer the Google Action to N.D. Cal. Google
`
`Action, Dkt. 22. On November 12, 2021, Apple also moved to transfer the Apple Action to N.D.
`
`Cal. Apple Action, Dkt. 37. Those motions remain pending.
`
`
`
`3
`
`Petitioner Samsung and Google Ex-1024, 0007
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00454-ADA Document 43 Filed 01/07/22 Page 8 of 17
`
`
`
`D.
`
`
`The Original Assignee’s U.S. Headquarters,
`, and Prior Art Authors and Inventors Are Located In
`
`N.D. Cal.
`
`The North American headquarters of the original owner of the asserted patents is located
`
`in N.D. Cal. LG Innotek USA., Inc. is a subsidiary of LG Innotek Co., Ltd. and has its principal
`
`U.S. office in San Jose, California in N.D. Cal. Westin Decl. at Exs. 13-14. LG Innotek USA.,
`
`Inc. and its employees in the N.D. Cal. are likely to have relevant documents concerning the
`
`alleged inventions of the Asserted Patents.
`
`In addition,
`
`
`
`
`
`Decl. at Ex. 15; see
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Westin
`
`
`
`
`
`Finally, relevant prior art authors and inventors are located in the N.D. Cal. For example,
`
`Tabuchi Electronic Company of America, the American arm of the inventor of early wireless
`
`charging pacemakers and the Tabuchi Pacemaker System, is headquartered in San Jose,
`
`California in N.D. Cal. Westin Decl. at Ex. 16. As another example, Mojo Mobility, Inc.,
`
`another original assignee of relevant wireless charging prior art, is in Santa Clara, California in
`
`N.D. Cal. Id. at Ex. 17.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), “For 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 . . . .” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). “The preliminary question under § 1404(a)
`
`is whether a civil action ‘might have been brought’ in the destination venue.” In re Volkswagen
`
`
`
`4
`
`Petitioner Samsung and Google Ex-1024, 0008
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00454-ADA Document 43 Filed 01/07/22 Page 9 of 17
`
`
`of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 312 (5th Cir. 2008) (Volkswagen II) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)).
`
`“The determination of ‘convenience’ turns on a number of public and private interest
`
`factors, none of which can be said to be of dispositive weight.” Action Indus., Inc. v. U.S. Fid. &
`
`Guar. Co., 358 F.3d 337, 340 (5th Cir. 2004). The private factors include: “(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.” In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201,
`
`203 (5th Cir. 2004) (Volkswagen I). The public factors include: “(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 of the application of foreign law.” Id.
`
`IV.
`
`THIS CASE COULD HAVE BEEN FILED IN THE N.D. CAL.
`
`A patent infringement case may be brought 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).
`
`
`
` Additionally, SEC is a foreign corporation, so venue is
`
`proper in any district, including N.D. Cal. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3). Thus, this case could have
`
`been brought in the N.D. Cal. See also In re Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 2 F.4th 1371, 1379 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2021) (holding that patent infringement action against SEC and SEA could have been
`
`brought in N.D. Cal.).
`
`
`
`5
`
`Petitioner Samsung and Google Ex-1024, 0009
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00454-ADA Document 43 Filed 01/07/22 Page 10 of 17
`
`
`V.
`
`N.D. CAL. IS THE MOST CONVENIENT FORUM FOR THIS CASE
`A.
`
`The Private Interest Factors Heavily Favor Transfer to the N.D. Cal.
`1.
`
`The Relative Access to Sources of Proof
`
`
`
`Access to proof will be easier in N.D. Cal. “[T]he sources of proof requirement is a
`
`meaningful factor” in the transfer analysis. In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 316 (5th
`
`Cir. 2008) (Volkswagen II). “In patent infringement cases, the bulk of the relevant evidence
`
`usually comes from the accused infringer. Consequently, the place where the defendant’s
`
`documents,” and other physical evidence “are kept weighs in favor of transfer to that location.”
`
`10Tales, Inc. v. TikTok Inc., No. 6:20-CV-00810-ADA, 2021 WL 2043978, at *2 (W.D. Tex. May
`
`21, 2021) (citing In re Apple Inc., 979 F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2020)).
`
`
`
`Here, relevant documents are located in the N.D. Cal. and Korea. LG Innotek USA, Inc.,
`
`a likely source of information and documents concerning the alleged inventions of the Asserted
`
`Patents, is located in San Jose, California in the N.D. Cal. Westin Decl. at Ex. 13.
`
` Supra Section II.D.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In contrast, Samsung has no relevant sources of proof in W.D. Tex. While Scramoge’s
`
`FAC identifies non-parties Samsung Austin Semiconductor (“SAS”), Samsung SARC (“SARC”),
`
`and Samsung Semiconductor Inc. (“SSI”) as having offices and employees in W.D. Tex., it does
`
`not and cannot allege that the named defendants SEC and SEA do. Indeed,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`Petitioner Samsung and Google Ex-1024, 0010
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00454-ADA Document 43 Filed 01/07/22 Page 11 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`; see also In re Medtronic, Inc., No. 2022-107, 2021 WL
`
`
`
`6112980, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 27, 2021) (affirming finding that facility of subsidiary Medtronic
`
`Vascular was not a regular and established place of business of parent Medtronic, Inc.).
`
`Scramoge also does not appear to conduct any business activities in this District. See supra
`
`Section II.B. Further, the named inventors of the Asserted Patents are all listed as residing in
`
`Korea, as is LG Innotek Co., Ltd., the original assignee. Dkts. 18-4, 18-6, 18-8, 18-10, 18-12, 18-
`
`14.
`
`Accordingly, the documents and physical evidence important to the adjudication of this
`
`dispute are located outside of this district in the N.D. Cal. and Korea. This factor weighs in favor
`
`of transfer to the N.D. Cal.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`The Availability of Compulsory Process to Secure the Attendance of
`Witnesses
`
`
`
`Likely third-party witnesses for this case are clustered in N.D. Cal. and none are in W.D.
`
`Tex. When deciding a transfer motion, the Court considers the availability of compulsory process
`
`to secure the attendance of witnesses, particularly non-party witnesses whose attendance may need
`
`to be secured by a court order. In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 316 (5th Cir. 2008)
`
`(Volkswagen II). A court may subpoena a witness to attend trial only “within 100 miles of where
`
`the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`45(c)(1)(A).
`
`
`
`The availability of compulsory process weighs heavily in favor of transfer. As discussed
`
`above in connection with the first factor, third-party witnesses from LG Innotek USA., Inc.,
`
`, and prior art authors and inventors reside in N.D. Cal. No witness yet identified resides
`
`in W.D. Tex. or is subject to the Court’s subpoena power. As such, “this factor ‘weigh[s] heavily
`
`
`
`7
`
`Petitioner Samsung and Google Ex-1024, 0011
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00454-ADA Document 43 Filed 01/07/22 Page 12 of 17
`
`
`in favor of transfer,’” because “‘more third-party witnesses reside within the transferee venue than
`
`reside in the transferor venue.’” 10Tales, 2021 WL 2043978, at *3 (quoting In re Apple, Inc., 581
`
`F. App’x 886, 889 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
`
`3.
`
`The Convenience of Third-Party Witnesses and Party Witnesses
`Strongly Favors Transfer
`
`
`
`Witness convenience would be served by a transfer to N.D. Cal. The “convenience and
`
`cost” for witnesses to travel and attend trial is “an important factor” in determining whether the
`
`transferee forum is “clearly more convenient.” In re Genentech, 566 F.3d 1338, 1343 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2009). Further, while Courts “routinely afford more weight to the convenience and cost for non-
`
`party witnesses,” they may “also appropriately consider[] the cost of attendance of all willing
`
`witnesses.” Polaris Innovations, Ltd. v. Dell, Inc., No. SA-16-CV-451-XR, 2016 WL 7077069,
`
`at *6 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 5, 2016) (citations omitted).
`
`
`
`The convenience of witnesses weighs in favor of transfer to N.D. Cal. As detailed in
`
`Section II.D, third-party witnesses reside in the N.D. Cal.,
`
`
`
`, the original patentee’s U.S. subsidiary LG Innotek USA., Inc., and various prior art
`
`authors and inventors. For these third-party witnesses, “it is more convenient [] to testify at home”
`
`in N.D. Cal than in W.D. Tex. See Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 317. A search of publicly available
`
`flight information shows no direct flight from the Bay Area to Waco. Westin Decl. ¶ 19. Traveling
`
`to Waco from the Bay Area requires nearly five and a half hours of flight time, not including
`
`traveling to, from, and waiting at the airport. Westin Decl. ¶ 19, Ex. 18. Courts in this District
`
`have recognized that “the task of scheduling fact witnesses so as to minimize the time when they
`
`are removed from their regular work or home responsibilities gets increasingly difficult and
`
`complicated when the travel time from their home or work site to the court facility is five or six
`
`hours one-way as opposed to 30 minutes or an hour.” Wet Sounds, Inc. v. Audio Formz, LLC, No.
`
`
`
`8
`
`Petitioner Samsung and Google Ex-1024, 0012
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00454-ADA Document 43 Filed 01/07/22 Page 13 of 17
`
`
`A-17-CV-141-LY, 2017 WL 4547916, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 11, 2017). Accordingly, N.D. Cal.
`
`is a clearly more convenient venue for these third-party witnesses. See Westin Decl. at ¶¶ 22-25,
`
`Exs. 21-24.
`
`It is also much more convenient for Samsung’s Korea-based witnesses to travel to the Bay
`
`Area (a single nonstop flight of about 10 hours) than to Waco, Texas, which requires over 15 hours
`
`of travel and multiple flights. Westin Decl. at ¶¶ 20-21, Exs. 19-20. This factor weighs in favor
`
`of transfer.
`
`4.
`
`All Other Practical Problems That Make Trial of a Case Easy,
`Expeditious, and Inexpensive
`
`
`
`Judicial economy weighs in favor of litigating this matter with Apple and Google in the
`
`N.D. Cal. “It is beyond question that the ability to transfer a case to a district with numerous cases
`
`involving some overlapping issues weighs at least slightly in favor of such a transfer.” In re Apple
`
`Inc., 979 F.3d 1332, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2020). The Federal Circuit has long held that, even if cases
`
`“may not involve precisely the same issues,” judicial efficiency favors transfer when “there will
`
`be significant overlap and a familiarity with the patents [that] could preserve time and resources.”
`
`In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 566 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009). This Court also considers
`
`the presence of co-pending motions to transfer in related cases. Parus Holdings Inc. v. LG Elecs.
`
`Inc., No. 6:19-CV-00432-ADA, 2020 WL 4905809, at *7 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 20, 2020). See also In
`
`re Google Inc., No. 2017-107, 2017 WL 977038, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 23, 2017) (judicial economy,
`
`including co-pending litigation, “can play a significant role” in the transfer analysis).
`
`As detailed in Section II.C., Scramoge’s infringement allegations against Samsung overlap
`
`with its allegations against Apple and Google, including four overlapping patents and similar
`
`accused products and infringement allegations. And Apple and Google have also filed motions to
`
`transfer to N.D. Cal. Accordingly, if the Court grants Apple and Google’s motions, this case
`
`
`
`9
`
`Petitioner Samsung and Google Ex-1024, 0013
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00454-ADA Document 43 Filed 01/07/22 Page 14 of 17
`
`
`should be transferred to effect a consolidation of these related cases. See DynaEnergetics Eur.
`
`GMBH v. Hunting Titan, Inc., No. 6:20-CV-00069-ADA, 2020 WL 3259807, at *5 (W.D. Tex.
`
`June 16, 2020) (transferring case to consolidate with another related case pending in another
`
`district because “the Court finds that a likelihood of substantial overlap exists between the two
`
`cases.”).
`
`Judicial economy favors the same court adjudicating the three overlapping patents,
`
`preventing potentially inconsistent rulings and conserving judicial resources. As noted above in
`
`Section II.C., the majority of the claims asserted against Samsung are also asserted against Apple
`
`and/or Google. Moreover, Scramoge and Samsung have identified ten claim terms from the six
`
`asserted patents for claim construction; Apple or Google will seek construction of eight of those
`
`same claim terms. Westin Decl. at Ex. 25.
`
`There also are no practical problems associated with transfer. This case is in its infancy,
`
`and neither discovery nor a Markman hearing has occurred. Thus, a transfer to N.D. Cal. will not
`
`result in any delay. 10Tales, 2021 WL 2043978, at *5 (“[T]ransfer at this stage of the litigation
`
`would not likely create any meaningful delays.”).
`
`B.
`
`The Public Interest Factors Favor Transfer
`
`The public interest factors also weigh in favor of transfer. First, N.D. Cal. has a greater
`
`local interest. Key witnesses, including the American arm of the original assignee of the patents,
`
`prior art authors and inventors, and
`
`
`
`are located in N.D. Cal. By contrast, W.D. Tex. has little local interest in this dispute. Scramoge
`
`is not based in this District and does not appear to conduct any form of business in this District.
`
`Dkt. 18, ¶ 2; Westin Decl. at Exs. 1-2. Scramoge also has no physical presence in the United
`
`States, nor has it conducted any apparent business in the United States. Westin Decl. at Exs. 1-2.
`
`Scramoge’s infringement allegations in its Complaint and FAC (see, e.g., Dkts. 1, 18) also have
`
`
`
`10
`
`Petitioner Samsung and Google Ex-1024, 0014
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00454-ADA Document 43 Filed 01/07/22 Page 15 of 17
`
`
`no connection to W.D. Tex. that is unique to this district. See Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 318
`
`(noting these types of connections “could apply virtually to any judicial district or division in the
`
`United States; it leaves no room for consideration of those actually affected—directly and
`
`indirectly—by the controversies and events giving rise to a case.”). Second, the Federal Circuit
`
`has found the median time to trial between N.D. Cal. and W.D. Tex. very similar—25.9 months
`
`for N.D. Cal. versus 25.3 months for W.D. Tex.—which was found to be “comparable.” In re
`
`Apple Inc., 979 F.3d at 1343. Also this District has more than twice as many pending patent
`
`cases as the N.D. Cal.6 Finally, familiarity with governing law and conflict of laws factors are
`
`neutral as both N.D. Cal. and this District are familiar with, and will apply, federal patent law.
`
`VI. CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Samsung respectfully requests the Court transfer this case to the
`
`N.D. Cal.
`
`Dated: December 31, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/s/ John C. Kappos
`Ryan K. Yagura (Tex. Bar No. 24075933)
`ryagura@omm.com
`Nicholas J. Whilt (admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`nwhilt@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`400 S. Hope Street
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Telephone: 213-430-6000
`Facsimile: 213-430-6407
`
`John C. Kappos (admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`jkappos@omm.com
`Cameron W. Westin (admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`cwestin@omm.com
`
`
`6 In N.D. Cal., there are 305 patent cases pending. In comparison, there are 848 patent cases
`pending in W.D. Tex.—nearly three times more open patent cases (Lex Machina W.D. Tex. Case
`List) (last updated Nov. 11, 2021). In just this Court alone, there are 815 open patent cases—
`over two times more than all nineteen Article III judges in N.D. Cal. (Lex Machina Judge
`Albright Case List) (last updated Nov. 11, 2021).
`
`
`
`11
`
`Petitioner Samsung and Google Ex-1024, 0015
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00454-ADA Document 43 Filed 01/07/22 Page 16 of 17
`
`
`
`Bo Moon (admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`bmoon@omm.com
`Meng Xu (admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`mxu@omm.com
`Andrew S. Bledsoe (admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`abledsoe@omm.com
` O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`610 Newport Center Drive, 17th Floor
`Newport Beach, California 92660
`Telephone: 949-823-6900
`Facsimile: 949-823-6994
`
`Timothy S. Durst (Tex. Bar. No. 786924)
`tdurst@omm.com
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`2501 North Harwood Street, Suite 1700
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Telephone: 972-360-1900
`Facsimile: 972-360-1901
`
`Melissa Richard Smith
`GILLAM AND SMITH LLP (Tex. Bar No.
`24001351)
`303 South Washington Avenue
`Marshall, TX 75670
`Telephone: 903-934-8450
`Facsimile: 903-934-9257
`
`
`
`Counsel for Samsung Electronics, Co., Ltd. and
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`Petitioner Samsung and Google Ex-1024, 0016
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00454-ADA Document 43 Filed 01/07/22 Page 17 of 17
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
`
`I certify that on December 2, 2021, counsel for Samsung and counsel for Scramoge met
`
`and conferred regarding the issues raised in this motion. On December 7, 2021, Scramoge’s
`
`counsel indicated they opposed the motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ John C. Kappos
`John C. Kappos
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`This is to certify that a true and correct copy of this document has been served via email to
`
`counsel of record for Plaintiff Scramoge Technology Ltd. in accordance with the Federal Rules of
`
`Civil Procedure on December 31, 2021.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ John C. Kappos
`John C. Kappos
`
`
`
`13
`
`Petitioner Samsung and Google Ex-1024, 0017
`
`