Case 6:21-cv-00933-ADA Document 45 Filed 03/04/22 Page 1 of 15
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`MYPAQ HOLDINGS LTD.,
`
`
`v.
`
`DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC. and
`DELL INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:21-CV-933-ADA
`
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY PENDING
`RESOLUTION OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR INTRA-DISTRICT
`TRANSFER OF VENUE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1021
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Dell Technologies Inc. v. MYPAQ Holdings Ltd.
` IPR2022-00311, Page 1
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00933-ADA Document 45 Filed 03/04/22 Page 2 of 15
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 1
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD.............................................................................................................................. 1
`
`III. ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................................ 2
`
`A Stay Is Not Appropriate Based on this Court’s Standing Orders, Especially
`A.
`Considering Dell’s Delay in Seeking Transfer. ................................................................................ 2
`
`B.
`
`The Stay Factors Decisively Favor MyPAQ. ...................................................................... 6
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................ 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1021
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Dell Technologies Inc. v. MYPAQ Holdings Ltd.
` IPR2022-00311, Page 2
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00933-ADA Document 45 Filed 03/04/22 Page 3 of 15
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`
`Express Mobile, Inc. v. Expedia, Inc.,
`No. 6:20-CV-801-ADA, Text Order Granting ECF No. 38 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 2, 2021) ........... 5
`
`Identity Sec. LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 1:22-CV-58-LY, ECF No. 62 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 7, 2022) ........................................................ 9
`
`In re Apple Inc.,
`979 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ........................................................................................................... 5
`
`In re Google Inc.,
`No. 2015-138, 2015 WL 5294800 (Fed. Cir. July 16, 2015) ........................................................... 5
`
`In re Nintendo Co., Ltd.,
`544 F. App’x 934 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ..................................................................................................... 5
`
`In re Radmax, Ltd.,
`720 F.3d 285 (5th Cir. 2013) ............................................................................................................... 4
`
`In re SK hynix Inc.,
`835 F. App’x 600 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ..................................................................................................... 5
`
`In re TracFone Wireless, Inc.,
`848 F. App’x 899 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ................................................................................................ 2, 5
`
`Intell. Ventures II LLC v. FedEx Corp.,
`No. 2:16-CV-00980-JRG, 2017 WL 6559172 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 22, 2017) ................................... 6
`
`Kahn v. Gen. Motors Corp.,
`889 F.2d 1078 (Fed. Cir. 1989) ........................................................................................................... 8
`
`Kajeet, Inc. v. Trend Micro, Inc.,
`No. 6:21-CV-389-ADA, 2022 WL 126490 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2022) ......................................... 8
`
`Kerr Mach. Co. v. Vulcan Indus. Holdings, LLC,
`No. 6-20-CV-00200-ADA, 2021 WL 1298932 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 7, 2021) .............................. 1, 8
`
`Neo Wireless LLC v. Dell Techs. Inc.,
`No. 6:21-CV-00024-ADA, ECF No. 60 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 20, 2022) ............................................. 4
`
`Neodron Ltd. v. Dell Techs. Inc.,
`No. 1:19-CV-00819-ADA, 2019 WL 9633629 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 16, 2019) ........................ 1, 6, 7
`
`Smith v. Michels Corp.,
`No. 2:13-CV-00185-JRG, 2013 WL 4811227 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 9, 2013) ..................................... 4
`
`
`
`ii
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1021
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Dell Technologies Inc. v. MYPAQ Holdings Ltd.
` IPR2022-00311, Page 3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00933-ADA Document 45 Filed 03/04/22 Page 4 of 15
`
`Sonrai Memory Ltd. v. Oracle Corp.,
`No. 6:21-CV-00116-ADA, Text Order Granting ECF No. 44 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 2,
`2022) ....................................................................................................................................................... 5
`
`Sundell v. Cisco Sys. Inc.,
`No. 96-41191, 1997 WL 156824 (5th Cir. Mar. 20, 1997) ............................................................. 4
`
`Tex. Democratic Party v. Abbott,
`961 F.3d 389 (5th Cir. 2020) ............................................................................................................... 2
`
`USC IP P’ship, L.P. v. Facebook, Inc.,
`No. 6-20-CV-00555-ADA, 2021 WL 6201200 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2021) .................................. 6
`
`VersaTop Support Sys., LLC v. Ga. Expo, Inc.,
`921 F.3d 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2019) ........................................................................................................... 4
`
`Videolabs, Inc. v. Dell Techs. Inc.,
`No. 6:21-CV-00456-ADA, ECF No. 63 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 3, 2022) ............................................. 5
`
`WSOU Invs. LLC v. ZTE Corp.,
`No. 6:20-CV-00487-ADA, 2022 WL 479131 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 16, 2022) .......................... 2, 6, 7
`
`STATUTES
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) ............................................................................................................................................ 2
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Amended Standing Order Regarding
`Venue and Jurisdictional Discovery Limits for Patent Cases (June 8, 2021).......................... 1, 3
`
`Defendants’ Opposed Motion for Intra-District Transfer, Videolabs, Inc. v. Dell Techs. Inc.,
`No. 6:21-CV-456-ADA, ECF No. 28 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 2, 2021) ................................................. 3
`
`Notice re Venue Discovery and Briefing, Videolabs, Inc. v. Dell Techs. Inc.,
`No. 6:21-CV-456-ADA, ECF No. 29 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 13, 2021) ............................................... 3
`
`Second Amended Standing Order Regarding
`Motions for Inter-District Transfer (Aug. 18, 2021) .................................................................. 4, 5
`
`W.D. TEX. CIV. R. 1 ........................................................................................................................................... 4
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1021
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Dell Technologies Inc. v. MYPAQ Holdings Ltd.
` IPR2022-00311, Page 4
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00933-ADA Document 45 Filed 03/04/22 Page 5 of 15
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`On February 3, 2022, Defendants Dell Technologies Inc. and Dell Inc. (together, “Dell”)
`
`moved for an intra-district transfer of venue from the Waco Division to the Austin Division. See Dkt.
`
`36 (the “Transfer Motion”). Although the factual bases for the Transfer Motion, as alleged by Dell,
`
`were easily ascertainable from this lawsuit’s filing—and despite Dell agreeing “to a joint Markman
`
`hearing for this case and the Samsung case on May 4, 2022,” Dkt. 18—Dell waited five months before
`
`moving to transfer.1
`
`In response, MyPAQ Holdings Ltd. (“MyPAQ”) sought venue discovery from Dell, see Dkt
`
`41, as authorized by the Court’s standing orders, see Amended Standing Order Regarding Venue and
`
`Jurisdictional Discovery Limits for Patent Cases (“Venue Discovery Order”) (June 8, 2021), at 1.
`
`Although the Court allows three months to complete venue discovery, see id., MyPAQ intends to
`
`complete it and file its response to the Transfer Motion before the scheduled Markman hearing.
`
`Dell now moves to stay this case pending resolution of the Transfer Motion. See Dkt. 43. As
`
`demonstrated below, Dell fails to meet the high standard for a stay.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`“Whether to stay a case falls within the Court’s inherent discretional authority.” Kerr Mach. Co.
`
`v. Vulcan Indus. Holdings, LLC, No. 6:20-CV-00200-ADA, 2021 WL 1298932, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 7,
`
`2021). “In determining whether a stay is proper, a district court should consider, among other factors,
`
`(1) the potential prejudice to the non-moving party; (2) the hardship and inequity to the moving party
`
`if the action is not stayed; and (3) judicial resources.” Neodron Ltd. v. Dell Techs. Inc., No. 1:19-CV-
`
`00819-ADA, 2019 WL 9633629, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 16, 2019). To deserve a stay, “[t]he movant
`
`has the burden to make out a clear case of hardship or inequity.” WSOU Invs. LLC v. ZTE Corp., No.
`
`
`1 Dell Technologies Inc. was served with MyPAQ’s Original Complaint on September 14,
`2021. See Dkt. 8. Dell Inc. was served two days later. See Dkt. 9.
`
`
`
`1
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1021
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Dell Technologies Inc. v. MYPAQ Holdings Ltd.
` IPR2022-00311, Page 5
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00933-ADA Document 45 Filed 03/04/22 Page 6 of 15
`
`6:20-CV-00487-ADA, 2022 WL 479131, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 16, 2022) (internal quotation marks
`
`omitted).
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`This case should not be stayed. This Court’s procedures for addressing inter-district transfer
`
`motions do not support a stay pending resolution of Dell’s intra-district Transfer Motion, especially
`
`considering Dell’s significant delay in seeking to move this case to Austin. Additionally, the factors
`
`outlined in Neodron decisively favor denying a stay.
`
`A. A Stay Is Not Appropriate Based on this Court’s Standing Orders, Especially
`Considering Dell’s Delay in Seeking Transfer.
`
`Dell asserts that “courts must give promptly filed transfer motions top priority before
`
`resolving the substantive issues in the case.” Dkt. 43 at 3 (quoting In re TracFone Wireless, Inc., 848 F.
`
`App’x 899, 900 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (internal quotation marks omitted)). Dell suggests that this principle
`
`“warrant[s] a stay in this case while Dell’s Motion for Transfer is resolved.” Id. In Dell’s view,
`
`“MyPAQ’s pursuit of three months of venue discovery will delay any opportunity for Dell to have
`
`this case moved to the Austin Division,” and “MyPAQ should not be allowed to use extensive venue
`
`discovery to frustrate the purpose of convenience analysis under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).” Id. “It also
`
`makes no difference,” Dell posits, that its “Motion is for intra-district transfer, as opposed to inter-
`
`district transfer.” Id. at 4. Dell’s position suffers from several maladies.
`
`First, Dell’s argument that it promptly filed the Transfer Motion is pure chutzpah.2 Dell dragged
`
`its feet for five months before moving for an intra-district transfer. Dell’s complaint that venue
`
`discovery will prejudice it by prolonging an “inconvenience” that Dell did not notice for five months
`
`is similarly rich. MyPAQ’s pursuit of venue discovery is perfectly ordinary and certainly foreseeable,
`
`
`2 “[T]he legal definition of chutzpah” most classically calls to mind “a young man, convicted
`of murdering his parents, who argues for mercy on the ground that he is an orphan.” Tex. Democratic
`Party v. Abbott, 961 F.3d 389, 412 (5th Cir. 2020).
`
`
`
`2
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1021
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Dell Technologies Inc. v. MYPAQ Holdings Ltd.
` IPR2022-00311, Page 6
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00933-ADA Document 45 Filed 03/04/22 Page 7 of 15
`
`as it was in other cases where Dell was required to participate in venue discovery after seeking intra-
`
`district transfer. See, e.g., Notice re Venue Discovery and Briefing, Videolabs, Inc. v. Dell Techs. Inc., No.
`
`6:21-CV-456-ADA, ECF No. 29 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 13, 2021). The Court’s Venue Discovery Order,
`
`which predates this case, expressly contemplates such discovery. Dell’s delay in filing the Transfer
`
`Motion is entirely to blame for the resolution of the Transfer Motion coinciding with deadlines for
`
`Markman briefing and the opening of fact discovery.3 Dell’s motion is not premised on newly identified
`
`information: The bases for the Transfer Motion should have been readily apparent from this case’s
`
`outset.4 Obviously, Dell was in no hurry to transfer this case to Austin.5 Dell cannot use its own poor
`
`planning—or worse, gamesmanship—to justify a stay.
`
`Although this Court provides up to three months to complete venue discovery, see Venue
`
`Discovery Order at 1, MyPAQ has no desire to use the entirety of that window. Rather, MyPAQ
`
`intends to complete venue discovery and respond to Dell’s Transfer Motion before the scheduled
`
`Markman hearing. MyPAQ’s ability to do that, however, depends directly on the extent of Dell’s
`
`cooperation, i.e., Dell’s timely production of requested documents and making its venue witnesses
`
`
`3 The Court entered its Scheduling Order on November 29, 2021. See Dkt. 20. The Court also
`provides a detailed exemplar schedule in its Standing Order Governing Proceedings – Patent Cases
`(Nov. 17, 2021).
`
`4 Dell bases its motion principally on (1) the location of its headquarters in Round Rock, (2)
`the location of its other campuses in Austin, and (3) its employees who reside and work in the Austin
`Division. See Transfer Motion at 6–9. Those facts have not changed in the nearly six months this case
`has been pending, and Dell has filed intra-district transfer motions in other Waco-Division-based
`cases premised on those same essential facts. See, e.g., Defendants’ Opposed Motion for Intra-District
`Transfer at 6–9, Videolabs, Inc. v. Dell Techs. Inc., No. 6:21-CV-456-ADA, ECF No. 28 (W.D. Tex. Aug.
`2, 2021).
`
`5 Dell boasts that it moved for intra-district transfer “[l]ess than two months” after MyPAQ
`filed its First Amended Complaint. Dkt. 43 at 2. That is hardly laudable. In highlighting that metric,
`Dell wholly ignores the three months preceding MyPAQ’s amending its complaint, during which time
`Dell both (1) sought an extension of time to answer, see Dkt. 14, and (2) moved to dismiss MyPAQ’s
`Original Complaint, see Dkt. 17.
`
`
`
`3
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1021
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Dell Technologies Inc. v. MYPAQ Holdings Ltd.
` IPR2022-00311, Page 7
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00933-ADA Document 45 Filed 03/04/22 Page 8 of 15
`
`available for deposition. If Dell seeks to stymy MyPAQ’s reasonable efforts to obtain venue discovery,
`
`Dell should not be heard to complain about any delay in resolving the issue.
`
`Second, Dell incorrectly surmises that there are not meaningful differences between inter- and
`
`intra-district transfer motions. While the same eight-factor standard applies to both, see In re Radmax,
`
`Ltd., 720 F.3d 285, 288 (5th Cir. 2013), it does not follow from there that courts treat inter- and intra-
`
`district transfers the same. To the contrary, courts have long recognized that they possess wide latitude
`
`when considering intra-district transfer motions. See Smith v. Michels Corp., No. 2:13-CV-00185-JRG,
`
`2013 WL 4811227, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 9, 2013). Indeed, “[i]t is well-settled that trial courts have
`
`even greater discretion in granting intra-district transfers than they do in the case of inter-district transfers.”
`
`Neo Wireless LLC v. Dell Techs. Inc., No. 6:21-CV-00024-ADA, ECF No. 60, at 2 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 20,
`
`2022) (emphasis added) (citing Sundell v. Cisco Sys. Inc., No. 96-41191, 1997 WL 156824, at *1 (5th Cir.
`
`Mar. 20, 1997)).
`
`Having considered numerous inter- and intra-district transfer motions, this Court has seen fit
`
`to distinguish between the two. To that end, the Court’s relevant standing order provides as follows:
`
`When there is a pending inter-district transfer, the Court will either promptly enter an
`order resolving the pending motion(s) prior to the Markman hearing or it will
`postpone the Markman hearing until it has had the opportunity to do so. The Court
`will not conduct a Markman hearing until it has resolved the pending motion to
`transfer.
`
`Second Amended Standing Order Regarding Motions for Inter-District Transfer (“Inter-District
`
`Order”) (Aug. 18, 2021), at 1 (emphasis added). Notably, however, no corresponding standing order
`
`exists for intra-district motions to transfer. That is entirely sensible because, for several reasons, intra-
`
`district transfers are significantly less disruptive than inter-district ones. For example, in intra-district
`
`transfers, the Divisions are governed by the same core local rules, see W.D. TEX. CIV. R. 1, and the
`
`same precedent applies to non-patent issues, see, e.g., VersaTop Support Sys., LLC v. Ga. Expo, Inc., 921
`
`F.3d 1364, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2019). The cases on which Dell relies, all of which involved inter-district
`
`
`
`4
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1021
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Dell Technologies Inc. v. MYPAQ Holdings Ltd.
` IPR2022-00311, Page 8
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00933-ADA Document 45 Filed 03/04/22 Page 9 of 15
`
`transfers, are therefore of little help, especially because Dell has no grounds to believe that its motion
`
`will not receive timely consideration once it is fully briefed.6
`
`Finally, even setting aside that the Inter-District Order does not apply to intra-district transfer
`
`motions, Dell still would not be entitled to the relief it seeks. By its own terms, the Inter-District Order
`
`contemplates only a delay of the Markman hearing, not a stay of all proceedings. The Order does not
`
`purport to alter the Court’s standard Markman briefing schedule, and it expressly provides that “Fact
`
`Discovery will begin one day after the originally scheduled Markman Hearing date.” Inter-District
`
`Order at 1. Unsurprisingly, this Court does not appear ever to have stayed Markman briefing or early
`
`discovery proceedings pending resolution of an intra-district transfer motion.7 This case should not
`
`be the first. See Videolabs, Inc. v. Dell Techs. Inc., No. 6:21-CV-00456-ADA, ECF No. 63 (W.D. Tex.
`
`Mar. 3, 2022) (scheduling Markman hearing even though intra-district transfer motion is fully briefed
`
`and motion to stay is pending). At base, Dell calls for this Court to prescribe much stronger medicine
`
`for the intra-district Transfer Motion than its standard course for more intrusive inter-district
`
`transfers. The Court should reject Dell’s invitation.
`
`
`6 See TracFone, 848 F. App’x at 899 (seeking transfer from Western District of Texas to
`Southern District of Florida); In re SK hynix Inc., 835 F. App’x 600, 600 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (seeking
`transfer from Western District of Texas to Central District of California); In re Apple Inc., 979 F.3d
`1332, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (seeking transfer from Western District of Texas to Northern District of
`California); In re Google Inc., No. 2015-138, 2015 WL 5294800, at *1 (Fed. Cir. July 16, 2015) (seeking
`stay of proceedings until court ruled on motion to transfer from the Eastern District of Texas to the
`Northern District of California); In re Nintendo Co., Ltd., 544 F. App’x 934, 935 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (seeking
`transfer from Eastern District of Texas to Western District of Washington). Those cases also involved
`delays in resolving fully briefed motions, which plainly is not the case here. See, e.g., TracFone, 848 F.
`App’x at 899 (motion fully briefed for eight months); SK hynix, 835 F. App’x at 600 (same); Apple, 979
`F.3d at 1336 (four months); Google, 2015 WL 5294800, at *1 (motion pending for eight months).
`
`7 The few cases where this Court has ordered a stay pending resolution of an intra-district
`transfer motion confirm that the stay Dell seeks here is inappropriate. In both Express Mobile, Inc. v.
`Expedia, Inc., No. 6:20-CV-801-ADA, Text Order Granting ECF No. 38 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 2, 2021),
`and Sonrai Memory Ltd. v. Oracle Corp., No. 6:21-CV-00116-ADA, Text Order Granting ECF No. 44
`(W.D. Tex. Jan. 2, 2022)—on which Dell relies—the Court only granted a stay after (1) the motion to
`transfer was fully briefed and (2) the parties filed their Markman briefs and joint claim construction
`statement. Neither fact is present here.
`
`
`
`5
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1021
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Dell Technologies Inc. v. MYPAQ Holdings Ltd.
` IPR2022-00311, Page 9
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00933-ADA Document 45 Filed 03/04/22 Page 10 of 15
`
`B. The Stay Factors Decisively Favor MyPAQ.
`
`The Court can—and should—reject Dell’s stay request based on the logic underlying the
`
`Court’s standing orders. But even putting those considerations aside, this Court still must weigh three
`
`factors before granting a stay: “(1) the potential prejudice to the non-moving party; (2) the hardship
`
`and inequity to the moving party if the action is not stayed; and (3) judicial resources.” Neodron, 2019
`
`WL 9633629, at *1. Those factors decidedly favor not staying the case.
`
`MyPAQ will suffer prejudice if this case is stayed. A stay would “destroy the current case
`
`schedule, thereby delaying discovery” and harming MyPAQ’s “right to timely enforce its patents.”
`
`WSOU, 2022 WL 479131, at *2. That harm cuts against a stay, “even when the patent holder has only
`
`sought monetary relief.” USC IP P’ship, L.P. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 6-20-CV-00555-ADA, 2021 WL
`
`6201200, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2021). MyPAQ’s status as a non-practicing entity does not
`
`undermine its strong interest in the prompt vindication of its patent rights. See, e.g., Intell. Ventures II
`
`LLC v. FedEx Corp., No. 2:16-CV-00980-JRG, 2017 WL 6559172, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 22, 2017)
`
`(“[A] plaintiff has a right to timely enforcement of its patent rights, even if the plaintiff does not
`
`practice the asserted patents, and even if the plaintiff could be made whole by money damages.”).
`
`Further, and importantly, MyPAQ would be prejudiced because a stay would allow Dell unilaterally
`
`to renege on the deal reached between Dell, Samsung, and MyPAQ setting the current schedule. See
`
`Dkt. 18 at 2 (“[T]he Parties have agreed to a joint Markman hearing for this case and the Samsung case
`
`on May 4, 2022 . . . .”). MyPAQ already agreed to a several-week delay of the Markman hearing in the
`
`Samsung case so that Dell and Samsung could proceed jointly on the later Dell schedule. Dell should
`
`not be permitted to shirk its commitment simply by filing an intra-district transfer motion.
`
`Dell disagrees, arguing that “[t]he 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.” Dkt. 43 at 4. But, as explained above, MyPAQ fully intends to file its response to Dell’s
`
`
`
`6
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1021
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Dell Technologies Inc. v. MYPAQ Holdings Ltd.
` IPR2022-00311, Page 10
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00933-ADA Document 45 Filed 03/04/22 Page 11 of 15
`
`transfer motion such that the motion will be fully briefed before the scheduled Markman hearing.
`
`Nonetheless, Dell contends that “[b]ecause MyPAQ is the cause of the delay, MyPAQ cannot
`
`complain about the need for a stay while Dell’s Motion is pending.” Id. That is, again, rich. It was Dell,
`
`not MyPAQ, that waited five months to seek a transfer to Austin. MyPAQ merely requested discovery
`
`that the Court’s Venue Discovery Order authorized it to seek. If Dell wants to divine the source of
`
`any delay, it need only find a mirror.
`
`Dell also suggests that a stay would not prejudice MyPAQ because “a brief stay of other
`
`deadlines now could ultimately facilitate MyPAQ’s efforts to pursue foreign discovery.” Id. at 5.
`
`Nonsense. Just a week ago, the Court (1) ordered Dell to produce the early discovery requested by
`
`MyPAQ “on a rolling basis and as fast as practicably possible” and (2) instructed the parties to provide
`
`an update on Dell’s progress within two weeks. Dkt. 42 at 4. MyPAQ does not need a stay to be
`
`“crafted to allow progress on the ordered early discovery”—Dell simply needs to obey this Court’s
`
`unequivocal order. Dkt. 43 at 5. Consistent with that order, Dell’s production of the early discovery
`
`should be substantially complete by the time this stay motion is fully briefed, and “Dell has little excuse
`
`for delay.” Dkt. 42 at 4.8
`
`Considering the possible harm to MyPAQ, Dell “must show a clear hardship or inequity should
`
`the case proceed.” Neodron, 2019 WL 9633629, at *2 (emphasis added). Dell doesn’t come close. The
`
`only hardship Dell identifies is that it “would be required to continue litigating in a less-convenient
`
`forum for several months while its transfer motion is pending.” Dkt. 43 at 5. But “typical costs
`
`associated with discovery and defending a suit do not warrant a stay.” WSOU, 2022 WL 479131, at
`
`
`8 Despite the Court’s admonition, the only information Dell has provided thus far are the
`names, addresses, and emails for its contacts at each Taiwanese manufacturer. Dell has not yet
`produced any of the documents the Court’s order compels it to turn over. Dell’s counsel most recently
`reported that it was still “collecting supply agreements” as well as “the ordered information identifying
`charging devices, quantities, and prices for those devices.” Put simply, the rolling production the Court
`ordered has not yet started rolling, and Dell has provided no date for its completion.
`
`
`
`7
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1021
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Dell Technologies Inc. v. MYPAQ Holdings Ltd.
` IPR2022-00311, Page 11
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00933-ADA Document 45 Filed 03/04/22 Page 12 of 15
`
`*2. Dell never expressed any qualms about litigating in Waco for nearly five months, during which
`
`time Dell (1) twice moved to dismiss, (2) served its preliminary invalidity contentions, (3) exchanged
`
`terms and proposed constructions for Markman, and (4) twice opposed MyPAQ’s reasonable requests
`
`for early discovery. Two days ago, Dell filed its opening Markman brief. See Dkt 44. Dell does not
`
`claim—nor could it—that any of its witnesses who will allegedly be inconvenienced will be involved
`
`in this litigation before the Transfer Motion is resolved, other than to participate in venue discovery
`
`necessitated by the Transfer Motion.9 Staying this case now would serve only to delay resolution of
`
`important issues, including claim construction and foreign discovery. Such delay “would only benefit”
`
`Dell. Kerr, 2021 WL 1298932, at *2.
`
`Finally, Dell posits that “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.” Dkt. 43 at 5. That is rank speculation. Even if this case is transferred to Austin—and
`
`MyPAQ fervently maintains that it should not be—Dell offers absolutely no basis to conclude that
`
`judicial resources will be wasted if this case proceeds while the Transfer Motion is pending. Frankly,
`
`the opposite is far more likely to be true. Foreign discovery and claim construction will need to be
`
`conducted no matter the presiding judge and moving those processes forward now would serve “the strong
`
`public policy favoring expeditious resolution of litigation.” Kahn v. Gen. Motors Corp., 889 F.2d 1078,
`
`1080 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Completing Markman briefing and initiating foreign discovery would accrue to
`
`the benefit of the transferee judge, whose docket would receive a more mature case and who would
`
`be entitled to consider any claim construction briefing filed in this matter. See, e.g., Identity Sec. LLC v.
`
`
`9 As this Court has repeatedly recognized, “[t]he most important factor in the transfer analysis
`is the convenience of the witnesses.” Kajeet, Inc. v. Trend Micro, Inc., No. 6:21-CV-389-ADA, 2022 WL
`126490, at *4 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2022) (denying inter-district transfer and reserving judgment on
`intra-district transfer motion). It is therefore unclear how this forum is less convenient for Dell at this
`stage of the case.
`
`
`
`8
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1021
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Dell Technologies Inc. v. MYPAQ Holdings Ltd.
` IPR2022-00311, Page 12
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00933-ADA Document 45 Filed 03/04/22 Page 13 of 15
`
`Apple, Inc., No. 1:22-CV-58-LY, ECF No. 62 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 7, 2022) (scheduling Markman hearing
`
`based on claim-construction briefs filed before transfer).
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`In sum, for the reasons explained above, Dell has not carried its burden to establish a stay is
`
`warranted pending resolution of the Transfer Motion, which seeks to shift this case about 20 miles
`
`south of Dell’s headquarters to overcome some imagined hardship of having to litigate about 85 miles
`
`to the north. Accordingly, Dell’s motion should be denied. If the Court is inclined to grant Dell’s
`
`motion, however, MyPAQ submits that the Inter-District Order’s terms should control. And under
`
`that Order, Markman briefing and fact discovery—including the early discovery the Court has already
`
`ordered Dell to produce—should proceed as scheduled.
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1021
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Dell Technologies Inc. v. MYPAQ Holdings Ltd.
` IPR2022-00311, Page 13
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00933-ADA Document 45 Filed 03/04/22 Page 14 of 15
`
`Dated: March 4, 2022
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Scott T. Glass
`
`Charles Ainsworth (Texas 00783521)
`Robert Christopher Bunt (Texas 00787165)
`PARKER, BUNT & AINSWORTH, P.C.
`100 E. Ferguson, Suite 418
`Tyler, Texas 75702
`Tel: (903) 531-3535
`charley@pbatyler.com
`rcbunt@pbatyler.com
`
`Alfonso G. Chan (Texas 24012408)
`Michael W. Shore (Texas 18294915)
`Halima Shukri Ndai (Texas 24105486)
`SHORE CHAN LLP
`901 Main Street, Suite 3300
`Dallas, Texas 75202
`Tel: (214) 593-9110
`Fax: (214) 593-9111
`achan@shorechan.com
`mshore@shorechan.com
`hndai@shorechan.com
`
`Brian D. Melton (Texas 24010620)
`Krisina J. Zuñiga (Texas 24098664)
`Scott T. Glass (Texas 24121287)
`SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
`1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 5100
`Houston, Texas 77002
`Tel: (713) 651-9366
`Fax: (713) 654-6666
`bmelton@susmangodfrey.com
`kzuniga@susmangodfrey.com
`sglass@susmangodfrey.com
`
`Steven M. Shepard (New York 5291232)
`SUSMAN GODFREY LLP
`1301 Avenue of the Americas, 32nd Floor
`New York, New York 10019
`Tel: (212) 336-8330
`Fax: (212) 336-8340
`sshepard@susmangodfrey.com
`
`COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF
`MYPAQ HOLDINGS LTD.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1021
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Dell Technologies Inc. v. MYPAQ Holdings Ltd.
` IPR2022-00311, Page 14
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00933-ADA Document 45 Filed 03/04/22 Page 15 of 15
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on March 4, 2022, all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented
`
`to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s CM/ECF system.
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Scott T. Glass
`Scott T. Glass
`
`
`
`11
`
`SAMSUNG EXHIBIT 1021
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Dell Technologies Inc. v. MYPAQ Holdings Ltd.
` IPR2022-00311, Page 15
`
`