Case 6:21-cv-00933-ADA Document 43 Filed 02/25/22 Page 1 of 7
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`MYPAQ HOLDINGS LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC. and DELL
`INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`NO. 6:21-cv-00933-ADA
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSED MOTION TO STAY PENDING RESOLUTION OF
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR INTRA-DISTRICT TRANSFER OF VENUE
`
`
`
`Defendants Dell Technologies Inc. and Dell Inc. (collectively, “Dell”) respectfully request
`
`that this case be stayed pending the resolution of Dell’s Motion for Intra-District Transfer (Dkt.
`
`36) to the Austin Division. In response to Dell’s Motion, Plaintiff MyPAQ Holdings Ltd.
`
`(“MyPAQ”) gave notice that it “inten[ds] to proceed with venue discovery, which will be
`
`completed no later than May 3, 2022,” and “it will file its response brief within two weeks of
`
`completing venue discovery[.]” Dkt. 41 at 1. Accordingly, MyPAQ would not file its opposition
`
`to Dell’s Motion to Transfer until May 17—two weeks after the scheduled Markman hearing in
`
`this case. Dkt. 20 at 4. Because this case should not proceed to a Markman hearing or any other
`
`substantive phase until after Dell’s Motion to Transfer is resolved, it is appropriate to stay the non-
`
`venue aspects of this case now.
`
`It is well-established that motions to transfer should be given “top priority.” In re TracFone
`
`Wireless, Inc., 848 F. App’x 899, 900 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (nonprecedential) (quoting In re Horseshoe
`
`Ent., 337 F.3d 429, 433 (5th Cir. 2003)); see also In re Apple Inc., 979 F.3d 1332, 1337 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2020) (“once a party files a transfer motion, disposing of that motion should unquestionably take
`
`top priority”); In re Google Inc., No. 2015–138, 2015 WL 5294800, at *1–2 (Fed. Cir. July 16,
`
`2015) (nonprecedential) (directing the district court to promptly resolve transfer motion); In re
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1020
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Dell Technologies Inc. v. MYPAQ Holdings Ltd.
` IPR2022-00311, Page 1
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00933-ADA Document 43 Filed 02/25/22 Page 2 of 7
`
`Nintendo Co., Ltd., 544 F. App’x 934, 941 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (nonprecedential) (“[A] trial court
`
`must first address whether it is proper and convenient venue before addressing any substantive
`
`portion of the case.”). Following that principle, this case should not proceed further before Dell’s
`
`Motion to Transfer is resolved.
`
`Equity also favors granting a stay. Most importantly: the need for a stay comes from
`
`MyPAQ’s decision to seek three months of venue discovery, thereby delaying resolution of Dell’s
`
`Motion to Transfer. See Dkt. 41 at 1. MyPAQ also does not sell any products or services and does
`
`not compete against Dell, so any prejudice to MyPAQ from a short stay would be negligible at
`
`best. Weighed against this negligible prejudice, in the event this case is ultimately transferred to
`
`another judge in the Austin division, staying this case now before claim construction would
`
`provide that judge with an opportunity to make the claim construction ruling in this case. Dell, for
`
`its part, takes no position on the manner in which cases are assigned to judges in the Western
`
`District of Texas. However, Dell is aware that several cases that were previously transferred from
`
`the Waco Division to the Austin Division were reassigned to other judges including Hon. Lee
`
`Yeakel, Hon. Robert Pitman, and Hon. David Ezra. See, e.g., Neo Wireless LLC v. Dell Techs.
`
`Inc., No. 1:22-cv-00060-DAE (W.D. Tex.). If this case will likewise be reassigned upon transfer
`
`to the Austin Division, it would be most efficient for the judge who ultimately will preside over
`
`the case to also handle the claim construction process. Claim construction is one of the most
`
`significant events in a patent case, and it would be appropriate for the judge that is assigned to
`
`preside over the trial of the case to also make the necessary claim construction rulings in the case.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`MyPAQ filed this lawsuit in September 2021. Dkt. 1. On December 6, 2021, MyPAQ
`
`filed an Amended Complaint. Dkt. 22. Less than two months later, on February 3, 2022, Dell
`
`filed a Motion for Intra-District Transfer. Dkt. 36. MyPAQ served venue discovery requests on
`
`February 16, 2022; the same day it provided notice to the Court that it would take venue discovery,
`
`“which will be completed no later than May 3, 2022.” Dkt. 41 at 1. Under the existing schedule
`
`for this case, Dell’s Opening Claim Construction Brief is due March 2, 2022, and claim
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1020
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Dell Technologies Inc. v. MYPAQ Holdings Ltd.
` IPR2022-00311, Page 2
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00933-ADA Document 43 Filed 02/25/22 Page 3 of 7
`
`construction briefing is expected to continue through April 20, 2022. Dkt. 20 at 3. A Markman
`
`hearing is scheduled for May 4, 2022. Id. at 4. Fact discovery and other substantive deadlines
`
`follow shortly after the Markman hearing. Id.
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`The Transfer Motion Should be Resolved Before the Case Proceeds
`
`“[D]istrict courts must give promptly filed transfer motions top priority before resolving
`
`the substantive issues in the case.” TracFone Wireless, 848 F. App’x at 900. Failing to prioritize
`
`such motions can “frustrate 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)’s intent to ‘prevent the waste of time, energy, and
`
`money and to protect litigants, witnesses and the public against unnecessary inconvenience and
`
`expense.’” Google, 2015 WL 5294800 at *1 (quoting Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616
`
`(1964)). Consistent with this precedent, this Court has a formal policy to resolve inter-district
`
`transfer motions before conducting a claim construction hearing. Second Amended Standing
`
`Order Regarding Motions for Inter-District Transfer dated August 18, 2021, at 1 (“The Court will
`
`not conduct a Markman hearing until it has resolved the pending motion to transfer.”)
`
`Dell respectfully submits that these considerations warrant a stay in this case while Dell’s
`
`Motion for Transfer is resolved. For the reasons set forth in Dell’s Motion, the Austin Division—
`
`where Dell’s headquarters are located and where its and relevant third-party witnesses reside—is
`
`clearly a more convenient forum for this discovery and substantive litigation.1 But MyPAQ’s
`
`pursuit of three months of venue discovery will delay any opportunity for Dell to have this case
`
`moved to the Austin Division, potentially forcing Dell to continue litigating in a less-convenient
`
`venue. MyPAQ should not be allowed to use extensive venue discovery to frustrate the purpose
`
`of convenience analysis under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Resolving the transfer motion now is also
`
`important because this case may be assigned to a different judge following transfer.
`
`
`1 Indeed, this Court has repeatedly recognized that cases between Dell and a plaintiff without any
`connection to Waco should be transferred to the Austin Division. See Neo Wireless, ECF No. 60,
`at 14; see also Datascape, Ltd. v. Dell Techs., Inc., No. 6:19-CV-00129-ADA, 2019 WL 4254069,
`at *2–3 (W.D. Tex. June 7, 2019). MyPAQ is a foreign company from the Seychelles with
`investors in Singapore; it also has no connections to Waco. See Dkt. 4.
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1020
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Dell Technologies Inc. v. MYPAQ Holdings Ltd.
` IPR2022-00311, Page 3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00933-ADA Document 43 Filed 02/25/22 Page 4 of 7
`
`It also makes no difference that Dell’s Motion is for intra-district transfer, as opposed to
`
`inter-district transfer. The convenience analysis under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) applies equally to both
`
`inter-district and intra-district motions. See In re Radmax, Ltd., 720 F.3d 285, 288 (5th Cir. 2013)
`
`(“The § 1404(a) factors apply as much to transfers between divisions of the same district as to
`
`transfers from one district to another.”). Thus—for the same reasons that this Court would not
`
`conduct a Markman hearing while a motion to transfer to another district is pending—this case
`
`should not proceed to substantive matters while Dell’s Motion to Transfer to the Austin Division
`
`is pending. Indeed, this Court has previously granted analogous motions to stay pending intra-
`
`district transfer in other cases. See, e.g., Express Mobile, Inc. v. Expedia, Inc., No. 6:20-cv-00801-
`
`ADA, Text Order Granting ECF No. 38 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 2, 2021) (granting motion to stay pending
`
`transfer to Austin division); Sonrai Memory Ltd. v. Oracle Corp., No. 6:21-CV-00116-ADA, Text
`
`Order Granting ECF No. 44 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 2, 2022) (same).
`
`B.
`
`Equity Favors a Stay
`
`A district court has inherent authority to stay its proceedings. B&D Produce Sales, LLC v.
`
`Packman1, Inc., No. SA-16-CV-99-XR, 2016 WL 4435275, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2016).
`
`Courts consider three factors in determining if a stay is proper: “(1) any potential prejudice to the
`
`non-moving party; (2) the hardship and inequity to the moving party if the action is not stayed;
`
`and (3) the judicial resources saved by avoiding duplicative litigation.” Id. The Federal Circuit
`
`has recognized that a stay of proceedings on the merits is appropriate while a district court
`
`considers and resolves a transfer motion. See In re SK hynix Inc., 835 F. App’x 600, 601 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2021) (nonprecedential); see also Google, 2015 WL 5294800 at *1–2 (directing the district court
`
`to stay all proceedings pending completion of the transfer motion).
`
`MyPAQ would not be unfairly prejudiced by a stay. The main reason a stay is necessary
`
`is because MyPAQ has given notice that it wants three months of venue discovery before filing its
`
`opposition to Dell’s Motion to Transfer. Because MyPAQ is the cause of the delay, MyPAQ
`
`cannot complain about the need for a stay while Dell’s Motion is pending. In addition, MyPAQ
`
`does not offer any products or services, and it does not compete with Dell. In contrast, if a stay is
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1020
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Dell Technologies Inc. v. MYPAQ Holdings Ltd.
` IPR2022-00311, Page 4
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00933-ADA Document 43 Filed 02/25/22 Page 5 of 7
`
`not granted, Dell would be required to continue litigating in a less-convenient forum for several
`
`months while its transfer motion is pending—frustrating the very purpose of Dell’s Motion to
`
`Transfer.
`
`Counsel for MyPAQ also recently informed the Court by email that “foreign discovery is
`
`already going to be difficult to complete under the current discovery deadline.” Ex. A (Feb. 22,
`
`2022 email from Michael Shore). MyPAQ expressed this concern in connection with the Court’s
`
`resolution of a dispute between the parties on the scope of early discovery. Dell suggests that a
`
`stay could be crafted to allow progress on the ordered early discovery, in parallel with the venue
`
`discovery that MyPAQ recently requested. Thus, rather than harming or prejudicing MyPAQ, a
`
`brief stay of other deadlines now could ultimately facilitate MyPAQ’s efforts to pursue foreign
`
`discovery.
`
`Further, both parties could potentially be prejudiced if costly work, such as claim
`
`construction, is litigated in this Court, and then later has to be repeated or amended following a
`
`transfer. Judicial resources will also be saved by staying this action now. Because this case may
`
`be transferred—and Dell respectfully submits that it should be transferred—there is no reason for
`
`the Court to spend its judicial resources on the merits of this case now. This Court should not
`
`burden itself with the merits of this action in the short term, including claim construction, when it
`
`is uncertain whether another judge will ultimately be responsible for this case. See Apple, 979
`
`F.3d at 1338 (“Indeed, a Markman hearing and claim construction order are two of the most
`
`important and time-intensive substantive tasks a district court undertakes in a patent case.”).
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Dell hereby requests that this case be stayed, except for the
`
`resolution of Dell’s Motion to Transfer.
`
`Statement Pursuant to Local Rule CV-7.G. Counsel for the parties have conferred in a
`
`good-faith attempt to resolve the matter by agreement and no agreement could be made due to
`
`disagreements about the subject matter of the motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1020
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Dell Technologies Inc. v. MYPAQ Holdings Ltd.
` IPR2022-00311, Page 5
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00933-ADA Document 43 Filed 02/25/22 Page 6 of 7
`
`
`
`Dated: February 25, 2022
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Paula D. Heyman
`Kevin J. Meek
`Texas State Bar No. 13899600
`Paula D. Heyman
`Texas State Bar No. 24027075
`Mark Speegle
`Texas State Bar No. 24117198
`Baker Botts L.L.P.
`98 San Jacinto Blvd, Ste 1500
`Austin, TX 78701
`Telephone: (512) 322-2500
`Facsimile: (512) 322-2501
`Kevin.Meek@bakerbotts.com
`Paula.Heyman@bakerbotts.com
`Mark.Speegle@bakerbotts.com
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS DELL
`TECHNOLOGIES INC. AND DELL INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1020
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Dell Technologies Inc. v. MYPAQ Holdings Ltd.
` IPR2022-00311, Page 6
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00933-ADA Document 43 Filed 02/25/22 Page 7 of 7
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on February 25, 2022, a copy of the foregoing was
`
`served electronically, via CM/ECF, on all counsel of record.
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Paula D. Heyman
`Paula D. Heyman
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1020
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Dell Technologies Inc. v. MYPAQ Holdings Ltd.
` IPR2022-00311, Page 7
`
`