Case 6:21-cv-00579-ADA Document 82 Filed 05/25/22 Page 1 of 25
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`SCRAMOGE TECHNOLOGY LTD.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil No. 6:21-cv-00579-ADA
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER – PUBLIC VERSION
`
`This opinion memorializes the Court’s decision on Defendant Apple Inc.’s (“Apple” or
`
`“Defendant”) Motion to Transfer Venue from the Western District of Texas (“WDTX”) to the
`
`Northern District of California (“NDCA”) under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Dkt. No. 37. After careful
`
`consideration of the relevant facts, applicable law, and the parties’ briefs (Dkt. Nos. 67, 72), the
`
`Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Transfer and finds that Mark Rollins lacks credibility
`
`before this Court.
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`Plaintiff Scramoge Technology Ltd. (“Scramoge” or “Plaintiff”) filed this lawsuit accusing
`
`Defendant of patent infringement. Dkt. No. 1. Scramoge alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`10,622,842 (“the ’842 Patent”), 9,806,565 (“the ’565 Patent”), 10,804,740 (“the ’740 Patent”),
`
`9,843,215 (“the ’215 Patent”), and 10,424,941 (“the ’941 Patent”) (collectively, “Asserted
`
`Patents”). Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 1. Broadly speaking, these patents cover aspects of wireless charging
`
`technology including wireless power coils that inductively charge, communication antennas
`
`related to power coils, the configuration of the coil, and magnetic layers used in a wireless charger.
`
`The accused products include the iPhone 8, 8 Plus, X, XR, XS, XS Max, 11, 11 Pro, 11 Pro Max,
`
`SE (second generation), 12, 12 mini, 12 Pro, 12 Pro Max, AirPods (second generation) and
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00579-ADA Document 82 Filed 05/25/22 Page 2 of 25
`
`AirPods Pro (“Accused Products”). Id. ¶¶ 9, 23. The parties later stipulated to a dismissal of the
`
`’941 Patent from this case.
`
`Scramoge is an Irish corporation with its principal place of business in Ireland. Id. ¶ 2.
`
`Apple is a California corporation with a principal place of business in Cupertino, California
`
`and regular and established places of business at 12545 Riata Vista Circle, Austin, Texas 12801
`
`Delcour Dr., Austin, Texas; 12801 Delcour Dr., Austin, Texas; and 3121 Palm Way, Austin, Texas
`
`78758. Id. ¶¶ 5-6.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDRD
`
`In patent cases, motions to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) are governed by the law of
`
`the regional circuit. In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008). 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 or to any district or division to which all parties have consented.” “Section 1404(a)
`
`is intended to place discretion in the district court to adjudicate motions for transfer according to
`
`an ‘individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.’” Stewart Org., Inc. v.
`
`Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988) (quoting Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 622 (1964)).
`
`The preliminary question under Section 1404(a) is whether a civil action might have been
`
`brought in the transfer destination venue. In re Volkswagen, Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 312 (5th Cir. 2008)
`
`(en banc) (“Volkswagen II”). If the destination venue would have been a proper venue, then “[t]he
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00579-ADA Document 82 Filed 05/25/22 Page 3 of 25
`
`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”) (citing Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 241 n.6 (1981)). 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.” Volkswagen I, 371 F.3d at 203.
`
`The burden to prove that a case should be transferred for convenience falls on the moving
`
`party. Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 314. The burden that a movant must carry is not that the
`
`alternative venue is more convenient, but that it is clearly more convenient. Id. at 315. Although
`
`the plaintiff’s choice of forum is not a separate factor entitled to special weight, respect for the
`
`plaintiff’s choice of forum is encompassed in the movant’s elevated burden to “clearly
`
`demonstrate” that the proposed transferee forum is “clearly more convenient” than the forum in
`
`which the case was filed. Id. at 314-315. While “clearly more convenient” is not necessarily
`
`equivalent to “clear and convincing,” the moving party “must show materially more than a mere
`
`preponderance of convenience, lest the standard have no real or practical meaning.” Quest NetTech
`
`Corp. v. Apple, Inc., No. 2:19-cv-118, 2019 WL 6344267, at *7 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 27, 2019).
`
`III. REPEAT DECLARANT MARK ROLLINS LACKS CREDIBILITY
`
`Plaintiff argues that Apple’s Declarant, Mr. Mark Rollins, provided a vague, incomplete,
`
`and generally unreliable declaration. Dkt. No. 67, passim. On reply, Apple responds that the
`
`attacks on Mr. Rollins are “baseless.” Dkt. No. 72 at 1. The Court agrees with Plaintiff and resolves
`
`all conflicting evidence, where provided, against Mr. Rollins. The Court credits Mr. Rollins’s
`
`declaration only for its unrebutted statements.
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00579-ADA Document 82 Filed 05/25/22 Page 4 of 25
`
`Plaintiff argues that Mr. Rollins repeatedly makes the same type of vague and unreliable
`
`statements across multiple declarations. Dkt. No. 67 at 2-3 (citing to similarly vague
`
`representations in the Declaration of Mark Rollins in support of Defendant Apple Inc.’s Motion to
`
`Transfer Venue, Billjco, LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 6:21-CV-00528-ADA (W.D. Tex. Sept. 10, 2021),
`
`Dkt. No. 26-1 (describing Apple’s work on Bluetooth Low Energy iBeacon technology and
`
`products ranging from the iPhone 4s to the iPhone 12)).
`
`The Court takes these allegations seriously because Mr. Rollins frequently and repeatedly
`
`submitted unreliable and misleading declarations to this Court. E.g., Declaration of Mark Rollins
`
`in Support of Defendant Apple Inc.’s Motion to Transfer Venue, Neonode Smartphone LLC v.
`
`Apple Inc., No. 6:20-cv-00505-ADA (W.D. Tex. Nov. 5, 2020), Dkt. No. 27-3 (describing Apple’s
`
`work on user interface elements of Apple’s smartphones and iPads); Declaration of Mark Rollins,
`
`Koss Corp. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:20-cv-665-ADA (W.D. Tex. Dec. 21, 2020), Dkt. No. 34-2
`
`(describing Apple’s work on HomePods, AirPods, PowerBeats, Beats Solo, firmware, and source
`
`code); Declaration of Mark Rollins in Support of Defendant Apple Inc.’s Motion to Transfer
`
`Venue, CPC Patent Tech. PTY LTD. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:21-CV-165-ADA, (W.D. Tex. May 4,
`
`2021), Dkt. No. 22-2 (describing Apple’s work on biometric security technology); Declaration of
`
`Mark Rollins in Support of Defendant Apple Inc.’s Motion to Transfer Venue, Gesture Tech.
`
`Partners LLC v. Apple, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-121-ADA (W.D. Tex. July 30, 2021), Dkt. No. 21-1
`
`(describing Apple’s work on camera technology in products including the iPhone 5-12 and many
`
`models and generations of iPads); Declaration of Mark Rollins in Support of Defendants’ Motion
`
`to Transfer Venue, Red Rock Analytics LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 6:21-cv-346-ADA-DTG (W.D. Tex.
`
`Aug. 24, 2021), Dkt. No. 45-17 (describing Apple’s use of I-Q gain imbalance and 5G
`
`transceivers); Declaration of Mark Rollins in Support of Apple’s Motion to Transfer Venue,
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00579-ADA Document 82 Filed 05/25/22 Page 5 of 25
`
`Logantree LP v. Apple Inc., No. 6:21-cv-397-ADA (W.D. Tex. Sept. 3, 2021), Dkt. No. 23-1
`
`(describing Apple’s work on the Apple watch); Declaration of Mark Rollins in Support of
`
`Defendant Apple Inc.’s Motion to Transfer Venue, Identity Security LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 6:21-
`
`cv-460-ADA (W.D. Tex. Sept. 10, 2021), Dkt. No. 27-1 (describing Apple’s work on
`
`microprocessors, iPhones 5S and later, MacBooks that contain specific chips, and Secure Enclave);
`
`Declaration of Mark Rollins in Support of Defendant Apple Inc.’s Motion to Transfer Venue,
`
`Traxcell Tech., LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 6:21-cv-74-ADA (W.D. Tex. Sept. 21, 2021), Dkt. No. 34-
`
`1 (describing Apple’s work on navigation technology); Declaration of Mark Rollins in Support of
`
`Defendant Apple Inc.’s Motion for Forum Non Conveniens, MemoryWeb, LLC v. Apple, Inc., No.
`
`6:21-cv-531-ADA (W.D. Tex. Oct. 13, 2021) Dkt. No. 26-1 (describing Apple’s work on file and
`
`photo organization in iPads, iPhones, iPods, and MacBooks); Declaration of Mark Rollins in
`
`Support of Defendant Apple Inc.’s Motion to Transfer Venue, Future Link Systems, LLC v. Apple
`
`Inc., No. 6:21-cv-263-ADA-DTG (W.D. Tex. Nov. 17, 2021), Dkt. No. 36-2 (describing Apple’s
`
`work on ARM-compliant bus and interconnect technology such as AMBA and DRAM memory
`
`chips including DDR3, DDR4, GDDR5, GDDR6, and HBM); Declaration of Mark Rollins, No.
`
`6:21-cv-620-ADA (W.D. Tex. Dec. 10, 2021), Dkt. No. 23-1 (describing the use of beamforming
`
`technology in iPhones, iPads, MacBooks, Macs, and Apple TV devices); Declaration of Mark
`
`Rollins in Support of Defendant Apple Inc.’s Motion to Transfer Venue, Sonrai Memory LTD. v.
`
`Apple, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-401-ADA (W.D. Tex. Dec. 29, 2021), Dkt. No. 29-2 (describing the use
`
`of charge pump circuitry in Apple’s products); Declaration of Mark Rollins in Support of Apple
`
`Inc.’s Motion to Transfer Venue, No. 6:21-cv-603-ADA-DTG (W.D. Tex. Feb. 11, 2022), Dkt.
`
`No. 29-1 (describing Apple’s work on wireless voice and data communication technology used in
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00579-ADA Document 82 Filed 05/25/22 Page 6 of 25
`
`iPhones, iPads, Apple TV, and Apple Watch).1 He submits his declarations to support venue
`
`motions, not to qualify as a technical expert.
`
`Mark Rollins works as a finance manager at Apple and works at Apple’s office in
`
`Cupertino, California. Dkt. No. 37-1 (“Rollins Decl.”) ¶ 1. Based on the volume of his declarations,
`
`he also works as Apple’s professionally paid venue witness, preparing two or three venue
`
`declarations per month. Adequate preparation for all these declarations requires him to have spent
`
`weeks or months reviewing patent complaints, asserted patents, and infringement contentions so
`
`he could search for and review the relevant corporate documents covering technologies from
`
`Bluetooth to biometric security to OLED displays, and then identify and speak with engineers
`
`across products from the iPhone 4-12 to MacBooks to Apple Watches to AirPods. The frequency
`
`at which he supplies declarations on a wide scope of unrelated, technologically complex topics
`
`leads the Court to give him no credibility. Mr. Rollins must rely on his attorneys to selectively
`
`spoon feed him information to accomplish what he does. The Court gives this professional venue
`
`witness the same skepticism that it gives to a professional, career expert witnesses who repeatedly
`
`works only for a single client.
`
`Mr. Rollins began working as a finance manager at Apple in 2019. Rollins Decl. ¶ 1. Based
`
`on this statement, the Court finds that he lacks personal knowledge of Apple’s operations and
`
`product development before 2019 and that he lacks personal knowledge of Apple’s operations
`
`outside of financial topics. To make up for his lack of personal knowledge, Mr. Rollins routinely
`
`makes his declaration based on a combination of his personal knowledge, his review of corporate
`
`
`
` 1
`
` This string cite omits supplemental declarations, declarations before Nov. 5, 2020, recent
`declarations not yet examined by the Court, and other various declarations submitted by Mr.
`Rollins. The quantity and scope of declarations by Mr. Rollins far exceeds what the Court identifies
`here.
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00579-ADA Document 82 Filed 05/25/22 Page 7 of 25
`
`records maintained by Apple, and discussions with Apple employees. Rollins Decl. ¶ 2. In other
`
`words, Mr. Rollins reviews attorney-selected documents and talks to attorney-selected witnesses
`
`to form his beliefs. The Rollins Declaration does not identify which corporate records Mr. Rollins
`
`reviewed.
`
`As a result of his preparation, Mr. Rollins routinely offers information about topics a
`
`financial manager would typically not know. A financial manager at Apple might naturally know
`
`about Apple’s profits, royalties, the locations of financial statements, and the locations of other
`
`Apple employees with financial information related to damages. The Rollins Declaration purports
`
`to state the locations of technical and marketing data stored typically known only to respective
`
`custodians of those documents, such as engineers and marketing personnel. Rollins Declaration
`
`¶ 7. Mr. Rollins identifies the names and locations of engineers typically known to human
`
`resources personnel or engineering managers. Id. ¶¶ 6-12. The Rollins Declaration offers expert
`
`opinions that certain engineers’ work is unrelated to the accused technology in asserted patents.
`
`Id. It offers legal predictions about witnesses who will appear at trial, as typically decided by
`
`attorneys after the conclusion of discovery. Id. ¶ 13. His attorney-assisted declarations routinely
`
`use the Bluebook format to cite documents. Id. ¶ 5 (“See, e.g.,”). The Rollins Declaration states
`
`technical facts typically known only to electrical engineers and typically admissible only after
`
`expert qualification:
`
`Qi charging uses in-band communications that enables the charged device
`to communicate with the charger. More specifically, Qi charging uses a
`power transmitting coil in the charger that is inductively coupled to a power
`receiving coil in the charged device. During the charging process, the
`charged device can, for example, alter the impedance of the power receiving
`coil which can be sensed by the charger via the inductive couple. Thus,
`during charging the charged device communicates with the charger via the
`inductive couple (i.e., in-band communications). Data including the need
`for more power, less power, device compatibility, digitized data, etc. can be
`transmitted.
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00579-ADA Document 82 Filed 05/25/22 Page 8 of 25
`
`
`
`Id. ¶ 11 n.1.
`
`Worst of all, the Rollins Declaration uses language that carefully limits the scope of
`
`declared facts to his personal, selectively fed knowledge. For example, the Mr. Rollins’s
`
`supplemental declaration states, “I am not aware of any Apple employees located in WDTX who
`
`worked on the research, design, or development of the Accused Features.” Dkt. No. 72-1 ¶ 3. Then,
`
`his qualified statements are cited by Apple’s attorneys in transfer motions as though they are
`
`authoritative truths. E.g., Dkt. No. 72 at 1 (“Apple’s sources of proof are located in or around
`
`NDCA. There are no sources of proof located in WDTX. See Mot. at 10; Rollins Decl. ¶ 3.”)2 The
`
`only evidentiary value that paragraph three of the supplemental Rollins declaration offers is that
`
`one attorney-prepared, financial manager at Apple lacks personal knowledge about the thousands
`
`of Apple engineers who work in the WDTX—information that a financial manager at Apple has
`
`no reason to know without thorough investigation. Except for a vague statement that he reviewed
`
`unidentified corporate records and spoke to certain employees, the Rollins Declaration contains
`
`no description of the methodology he used to find all Apple engineers who work in WDTX and to
`
`then determine their relevance. Rollins Decl. ¶ 2. So, Court has no reason to rely on Mr. Rollins
`
`as an authoritative or knowledgeable declarant on this topic.
`
`As an example of an uninformed statement, Mr. Rollins declares, “[t]o the best of my
`
`knowledge . . . the Apple employees with relevant information regarding the Accused Features
`
`and Accused Products are located in NDCA, San Diego, CA, and Auckland, New Zealand” based
`
`on his “personal knowledge, my review of corporate records . . . and/or my discussions with Apple
`
`
`
` 2
`
` Apple’s reply brief (Dkt. No. 72) uses “Rollins Decl.” to refer to Dkt. No. 72-1. Apple’s
`opening brief (Dkt. No. 37) uses “Rollins Decl.” to refer to Dkt. No. 37-1.
`
`8
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00579-ADA Document 82 Filed 05/25/22 Page 9 of 25
`
`employees.” Dkt. No. 37-1 ¶¶ 2, 17. Scramoge convincingly rebuts Mr. Rollins’s statement by
`
`identifying six relevant Apple witnesses located in Austin (Alexander Pollard, John Tolman,
`
`Matthew Marks, Jeremy Meyers, Zao Yang, and Andrew O’Connell) and by supporting each
`
`argument with evidence. Dkt. No. 67 at 7-8 (citing exhibits). Thus, Mr. Rollins must not have
`
`been given any corporate records that mention these Apple witnesses nor talked to individuals
`
`before making his declaration. The Court finds that the “best” of Mr. Rollins’s knowledge is based
`
`on a deficient investigation.
`
`In summary, the scope, content, and frequency of declarations submitted by Mr. Rollins
`
`shows that they are attorney-crafted documents full of hearsay with little to no evidentiary value.3
`
`Despite serious problems with large swatches of the Rollins Declaration, Scramoge’s Opposition
`
`only asks the Court to give no weight to certain contested parts of the Rollins Declaration. The
`
`Court finds this appropriate. In its analysis below, the Court only credits the unchallenged portions
`
`of the Rollins Declaration.
`
`IV. ANALYSIS
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiff could have brought this case in the Northern District of California
`
`The threshold determination in the § 1404(a) analysis is whether this case could initially
`
`have been brought in the destination venue. Defendant asserts that this case could have originally
`
`been brought in the NDCA because Defendant has its headquarters there. Plaintiff does not contest
`
`
`
` 3
`
` As a trial court intimately familiar with the facts in cases before it, this Court noticed Mr.
`Rollins’s offenses across many cases and has long treated Mr. Rollins with skepticism, especially
`given Apple’s history of avoiding discovery obligations. E.g., Dkt. No. 67 at 4 (describing Apple’s
`refusal to fully respond to a venue interrogatory). Scramoge is the only recent plaintiff to seriously
`challenge Apple’s repeated use of similar declarations by Mr. Rollins. The history detailed herein
`exposes the offenses in Mr. Rollins’s sealed declarations so that other courts and administrative
`agencies can similarly discount his credibility.
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00579-ADA Document 82 Filed 05/25/22 Page 10 of 25
`
`this point. This Court finds that venue would have been proper in the NDCA. Thus, the Court
`
`proceeds with its analysis of the private and public interest factors to determine if the NDCA is
`
`clearly more convenient than the WDTX.
`
`1.
`
`The private interest factors favor transfer.
`
`a. The relative ease of access to sources of proof favors transfer.
`
`“In considering the relative ease of access to proof, a court looks to where documentary
`
`evidence, such as documents and physical evidence, is stored.” Fintiv Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:18-
`
`cv-00372, 2019 WL 4743678, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 10, 2019). “[T]he question is relative ease
`
`of access, not absolute ease of access.” In re Radmax, 720 F.3d 285, 288 (5th Cir. 2013) (emphases
`
`in original). “In patent infringement cases, the bulk of the relevant evidence usually comes from
`
`the accused infringer. Consequently, the place where the defendant’s documents are kept weighs
`
`in favor of transfer to that location.” In re Apple Inc., 979 F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
`
`i. The ease of accessing physical evidence favors transfer
`
`Mr. Rollins declared that Apple’s paper files “reside on local computers and/or serves
`
`either located in or around NDCA or accessible in NDCA.” Rollins Decl. ¶¶ 7, 12, 16. Plaintiff
`
`correctly points out that this statement in the Rollins Declaration makes no sense because paper
`
`files do not reside on computers. Mr. Rollins did not identify any paper files with particularity, and
`
`Apple’s Reply did not do so either. Thus, the Court gives no weight to the location of nonexistent
`
`paper files that supposedly reside on computers.
`
`Mr. Rollins declares that “relevant hardware components associated with the Accused
`
`Features were developed and tested in California and New Zealand.” Id. ¶ 7. Plaintiff does not
`
`have evidence to the contrary but argues that Mr. Rollins’s declaration fails to identify the location
`
`of the hardware today. In its reply, Defendant fails to identify the specific nature or location of
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00579-ADA Document 82 Filed 05/25/22 Page 11 of 25
`
`hardware components today but argues that any actual hardware would still be in California or
`
`New Zealand. Because Mr. Rollins’s declaration about the testing location of the hardware remains
`
`unrebutted and because Plaintiff has not supplied the Court any evidence showing that the
`
`hardware has moved to some other location, the Court finds that it is likely that physical testing
`
`evidence remains in California and New Zealand. This vaguely identified hardware somewhere in
`
`California causes this factor to favor transfer.
`
`ii. The ease of accessing electronic evidence favors transfer
`
`Scramoge does not challenge Mr. Rollins’s personal understanding that “electronic
`
`documents concerning the Accused Features reside on local computers and/or serves either located
`
`in or around NDCA.” Rollins Decl. ¶ 7. Apple argues that Mr. Rollins must be correct because
`
`the NDCA is where the research, design, and development of the accused products took place.
`
`Scramoge argues that any electronic evidence in servers in the NDCA would be equally accessible
`
`from Apple’s campus in Austin within the WDTX. Because Mr. Rollins’s statement remains
`
`unrebutted by other evidence, the Court finds that Apple likely has some relevant electronic
`
`documents stored in the NDCA.
`
`Scramoge notes that Apple refused to respond to an interrogatory that sought to identify
`
`each of Apple’s “data servers that store documents related to any components/materials of the
`
`Accused Products.” Scramoge did not seek to compel a response to this request or ask for an
`
`adverse inference that some of these data servers are in Austin. Instead, Scramoge argues that
`
`remote access to electronic documents from Apple’s Austin campus must be convenient because
`
`Apple also remotely accesses its electronic documents from New Zealand. It true that Apple will
`
`likely have similarly easy access to its own electronic documents stored in the NDCA from Apple’s
`
`campus in Austin if Apple has employees there authorized to access the electronic documents.
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00579-ADA Document 82 Filed 05/25/22 Page 12 of 25
`
`With respect to the same defendant, the Federal Circuit ruled that the correct analysis under
`
`this factor is look to the location of Apple’s servers in combination with the locations of individuals
`
`who can access those servers. In re Apple Inc., No. 2022-128, 2022 WL 1196768, at *4 (Fed. Cir.
`
`Apr. 22, 2022) (“Apple had the capability of accessing its own electronic documents from its
`
`Austin offices. . . . But we rejected very similar reasoning in In re Apple Inc., No. 2021-181, 2021
`
`WL 5291804, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2021)”); In re Google LLC, No. 2021-178, 2021 WL
`
`5292267, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2021) (ruling a Court should also consider “the location of
`
`document custodians and location where documents are created and maintained, which may bear
`
`on the ease of retrieval.”) Under this factor, Scramoge has not identified the custodians in Austin
`
`who have access to the electronic documents in the NDCA servers. Dkt. No. 67 at 4-5. Thus, the
`
`Court finds that the electronic documents are more conveniently accessed in the NDCA. This
`
`factor weighs in favor of transfer.
`
`b. The availability of compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses
`
`favors transfer.
`
`Under the Federal Rules, a court may subpoena a witness to attend trial only (a) “within
`
`100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person”; or
`
`(b) “within the state where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in
`
`person, if the person . . . is commanded to attend a trial and would not incur substantial expense.”
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1)(A), (B)(ii); Gemalto S.A. v. CPI Card Grp. Inc., No. 15-CA-0910, 2015
`
`WL 10818740, at *4 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 16, 2015). Under this factor, the Court focuses on non-party
`
`witnesses whose attendance may need to be secured by a court order.” Fintiv Inc., No. 6:18-cv-
`
`00372, 2019 WL 4743678 at *14 (citing Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 316). This factor “weigh[s]
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00579-ADA Document 82 Filed 05/25/22 Page 13 of 25
`
`heavily in favor of transfer when more third-party witnesses reside within the transferee venue
`
`than reside in the transferor venue.” In re Apple, 581 F. App’x 886, 889 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`Apple argues that Afshin Partovi of Sunnyvale, California is a potential prior art witness
`
`subject to the subpoena power of the NDCA. The Court finds Afshin Partovi irrelevant under this
`
`factor because Scramoge dropped the patent that Afshin Partovi is relevant to.
`
`Ms. Fan Wang was Apple’s power design lead and has relevant knowledge of Apple’s
`
`power adapter designs. She left apple to start a company called Alpha Cen Inc. Scramoge argues
`
`that she resides in Austin, Texas because her LinkedIn profile lists her location as “Austin, Texas,
`
`United States.” Dkt. No. 67-4. Apple argues that she resides in Shanghai, China because the
`
`LinkedIn page lists Alpha Cen Inc.’s location as Shanghai, China. Apple’s Reply cites to the
`
`Rollins Declaration to confirm Ms. Wang’s location in Shanghai. Dkt. No. 72 at 3. Here, the Court
`
`finds Mr. Rollins’s declaration and his supplemental declaration are wrong in view of Scramoge’s
`
`evidence that Ms. Wang is in Austin. Ms. Wang’s LinkedIn page shows her personal location as
`
`Austin, Texas and her company’s location in Shanghai. Dkt. No. 67-4. The Court takes judicial
`
`notice that clicking on the “Alpha Cen” logo on the exhibited LinkedIn page navigates to the
`
`company’s LinkedIn web page, which contains an “About” tab that shows Alpha Cen Inc. has
`
`locations
`
`in both Shanghai and Austin.
`
`Id.; Alpha Cen
`
`Inc.: About, LINKEDIN,
`
`https://www.linkedin.com/company/alpha-cen-inc/about (last visited May 4, 2022). The Court
`
`find that Ms. Wang resides in Austin, Texas. Ms. Wang’s presence in Austin weighs against
`
`transfer and exemplifies how Mr. Rollins lacks the knowledge needed to give the types of
`
`statements that Apple relies on. The “discussions with Apple employees” Mr. Rollins used to form
`
`the basis of his knowledge must not have included discussions with any of Ms. Wang’s power
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00579-ADA Document 82 Filed 05/25/22 Page 14 of 25
`
`design colleagues in Austin. Dkt. No. 37-1 ¶ 2. Mr. Rollins must not have been provided any
`
`“corporate records” about power design employees in Austin, either. Id.
`
`Apple argues that four other prior art witnesses reside in the NDCA. Apple raises these
`
`witnesses for the first time in its reply. Scramoge did not seek leave to respond in a sur-reply, move
`
`to strike new arguments raised on reply, or otherwise rebut this argument. Thus, the Court finds
`
`that four relevant prior art witnesses reside in the NDCA’s subpoena power.
`
`In conclusion, the ability to compel four witnesses in the NDCA outweighs the ability to
`
`compel Ms. Wang here in Austin. This factor favors transfer.
`
`c. The cost of attendance and convenience for willing witnesses slightly favors
`
`transfer.
`
`The most important factor in the transfer analysis is the convenience of the witnesses. In
`
`re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d at 1342. When analyzing this factor, the Court should consider all
`
`potential materials and relevant witnesses. Alacritech Inc. v. CenturyLink, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-
`
`00693, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152438, 2017 WL 4155236, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 19, 2017).
`
`This factor appropriately considers the cost of attendance of all willing witnesses including
`
`both party and non-party witnesses. In re Pandora, No. 2021-172, 2021 WL 4772805, at *2-3
`
`(Fed. Cir. Oct. 13, 2021). “Courts properly give 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).
`
`“When the distance between an existing venue for trial of a matter and a proposed venue
`
`under §1404(a) is more than 100 miles, the factor or inconvenience to witnesses increases in direct
`
`relationship to the additional distance to be travelled.” Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at
`
`317 (quoting Volkswagen I, 371 F.3d at 203). The Federal Circuit has stated that courts should not
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00579-ADA Document 82 Filed 05/25/22 Page 15 of 25
`
`apply this 100-mile rule “rigidly” in some cases where witnesses would be required to travel a
`
`significant distance no matter where they testify. In re Apple, 979 F.3d at 1342 (discussing
`
`witnesses traveling from New York) (citing Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 317).
`
`“[T]he inquiry should focus on the cost and inconvenience imposed on the witnesses by
`
`requiring them to travel to a distant forum and to be away from their homes and work for an
`
`extended period of time.” In re Google, LLC, No. 2021-170, slip op. at 9 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 27, 2021).
`
`The Federal Circuit indicated that time away from an individual’s home is a more important metric
`
`than distance. Id. Time and distance frequently and naturally overlap because witnesses usually
`
`take more time to travel farther away, thereby increasing the time away from home.
`
`i. Apple’s witnesses identified by Scramoge
`
`Mr. Hartnett lives in Austin and works on the design of in-band communication systems
`
`used for the communications between the iPhone inductive charging module and the charger. Dkt.
`
`No. 37-1 ¶ 11. Mr. Hartnett thus has relevant information to infringement of the ’565 Patent, which
`
`claims “a short-range communication antenna” as an element of a wireless power receiver. His
`
`knowledge of communications between the iPhone inductive charging module relates to
`
`infringement of the claimed antenna. Apple admits that Mr. Hartnett works on a communication
`
`system that has power transmit and receive coils but argues that Mr. Hartnett’s work is not relevant
`
`because his work does not involve an NFC antenna. The Court finds this argument unconvincing
`
`because the claim element covers any “short-range communication antenna,” not just an NFC
`
`antenna. In a supplemental declaration, Mr. Rollins admits that Mr. Hartnett [---REDACTED---]
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00579-ADA Document 82 Filed 05/25/22 Page 16 of 25
`
`Dkt. No. 72-1 ¶ 4. This supplemental declaration supports Scramoge’s argument that Mr. Hartnett
`
`is relevant to the patented technology.4
`
`Scramoge identifies six other relevant Apple witnesses located in Austin, including
`
`Alexander Pollard, John Tolman, Matthew Marks, Jeremy Meyers, Zao Yang, and Andrew
`
`O’Connell. Alexander Pollard is a global supply manager who “manages the supply of certain
`
`components in the iPhone related to inductive charging.” Dkt. No. 67-1 ¶ 5; Dkt. No. 67-5. John
`
`Tolman is an engineering product manager who worked on wireless charging technology. Dkt. No.
`
`67-6. Matthew Marks is a global supply manager for Apple and has relevant information about
`
`Apple’s costs of manufacturing the accused wireless chargers. Dkt. No. 67-7; Dkt. No. 67-8 at 7.
`
`Jeremy Meyers is a senior manager in battery product development and is responsible for
`
`managing technology development programs and ne