Case 6:21-cv-00616-ADA Document 26 Filed 09/29/21 Page 1 of 21
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`SCRAMOGE TECHNOLOGY LTD.,
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-00616-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Defendant.
`
`REDACTED DOCUMENT
`
`GOOGLE LLC’S OPPOSED MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)
`
`Page 1 of 21
`
`GOOGLE EXHIBIT 1014
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00616-ADA Document 26 Filed 09/29/21 Page 2 of 21
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1
`II. BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................... 2
`A. Relevant Third-Party Witnesses And Evidence Are in The N.D. Cal ............................. 2
`B. All of Google’s Relevant Evidence and Witnesses Are In The N.D. Cal. ...................... 3
`C. Plaintiff’s Evidence And Witnesses Are Not In The W.D. Tex. ..................................... 4
`III. ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................... 4
`A. Plaintiff Could Have Brought This Action In The N.D. Cal. .......................................... 5
`B. All Private Interest Factors Are Neutral Or Favor Transfer To The N.D. Cal. ............... 5
`1. Availability Of Compulsory Process Favors Transfer To The N.D. Cal. ......................6
`N.D. Cal. ........................................................................................................................7
`Cal. ...............................................................................................................................10
`4. There Are No Practical Problems With Transferring This Case .................................11
`C. The Public Interest Factors Also Favor Transfer ........................................................... 12
`Has None ......................................................................................................................12
`2. The Remaining Public Interest Factors Are Neutral ....................................................13
`IV. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 15
`
`1. The N.D. Cal. Has A Strong Local Interest In This Dispute, While W.D. Tex.
`
`2. Cost of Attendance For Willing Witnesses Heavily Favors Transfer To The
`
`3. Relative Ease Of Access To Sources Of Proof Favors Transfer To The N.D.
`
`-i-
`
`Page 2 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00616-ADA Document 26 Filed 09/29/21 Page 3 of 21
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`10Tales, Inc. v. TikTok Inc.,
`No. 6:20-CV-00810-ADA, 2021 WL 2043978 (W.D. Tex. May 21, 2021) ................... passim
`
`Adaptix, Inc. v. HTC Corp.,
`937 F. Supp. 2d 867 (E.D. Tex. March 28, 2013) .....................................................................6
`
`In re Adobe Inc.,
`823 F. App’x 929 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ......................................................................................9, 14
`
`Aguilar-Ayala v. Ruiz,
`973 F.2d 411 (5th Cir. 1992) .....................................................................................................6
`
`In re Apple Inc.,
`979 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2020)..........................................................................................10, 12
`
`In re Apple, Inc.,
`581 F. App’x 886 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................................7
`
`Bluebonnet Internet Media Servs., LLC v. Pandora Media, LLC,
`No. 6-20-CV-00731-ADA, 2021 WL 3134262 (W.D. Tex. July 22, 2021) ............................13
`
`Correct Transmission LLC v. ADTRAN, Inc.,
`No. 6:20-CV-00669-ADA, 2021 WL 1967985 (W.D. Tex. May 17, 2021) ...........................10
`
`In re Cray Inc.,
`871 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..................................................................................................5
`
`Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 6:18-CV-00372-ADA, 2019 WL 4743678 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 10, 2019) ............................6
`
`In re Genentech, Inc.,
`566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009)........................................................................................ passim
`
`Harland Clarke Holdings Corp. v. Milken,
`997 F. Supp. 2d 561 (W.D. Tex. 2014) ....................................................................................15
`
`In re Hoffmann-La Roche Inc.,
`587 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................12
`
`In re HP Inc.,
`826 F. App’x 899 (2020) .........................................................................................................11
`
`Koss Corp. v. Apple, Inc.,
`6:20-cv-00665-ADA, Order, ECF No. 76 (W.D. Tex. April 22, 2021) ..................................14
`
`-ii-
`
`Page 3 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00616-ADA Document 26 Filed 09/29/21 Page 4 of 21
`
`
`
`Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Med.,
`No. 6:19-cv-00672, 2020 WL 4577710 (W.D. Tex. July 2, 2020) ....................................10, 11
`
`In re Nintendo Co.,
`589 F.3d 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2009)........................................................................................2, 5, 13
`
`Parus Holdings Inc. v. LG Elecs. Inc.,
`No. 6:19-CV-00432-ADA, 2020 WL 4905809 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 20, 2020) .......................9, 14
`
`Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno,
`454 U.S. 235 (1981) ...................................................................................................................5
`
`Polaris Innovations, Ltd. v. Dell, Inc.
`No. SA-16-CV-451-XR, 2016 WL 7077069 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 5, 2016) ...................................8
`
`In re Radmax, Ltd.,
`720 F.3d 285 (5th Cir. 2013) ...................................................................................................15
`
`In re Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.,
`2 F.4th 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ........................................................................................7, 12, 13
`
`In re Toyota Motor Corp.,
`747 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................5
`
`In re Tracfone Wireless, Inc.,
`No. 2021-136, 852 Fed. Appx. 537 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 20, 2021) ..................................................9
`
`In re TS Tech USA Corp.,
`551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2008)......................................................................................5, 12, 15
`
`In re Volkswagen AG,
`371 F.3d 201 (5th Cir. 2004) .................................................................................................8, 9
`
`In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc.,
`545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc) ........................................................................... passim
`
`Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) .........................................................................................................................5
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) ............................................................................................................... passim
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1783 ..............................................................................................................................7
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1) ................................................................................................................6, 7
`
`-iii-
`
`Page 4 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00616-ADA Document 26 Filed 09/29/21 Page 5 of 21
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This Court should transfer this action against Google LLC (“Google”) brought by an Irish
`
`non-practicing entity and related to technology with no relevant ties to this District. Google
`
`respectfully requests the transfer of this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to the Northern District of
`
`California (“N.D. Cal.”). The N.D. Cal. is clearly more convenient than the Western District of
`
`Texas (“W.D. Tex.”) and is the proper venue for this action.
`
`● First, Plaintiff Scramoge Technology Limited (“Plaintiff” or “Scramoge”) alleges
`
`infringement by Google because of the custom wireless charging components
`
`found in Google’s Pixel 3, 3XL, 4, 4XL, and 5 smartphones (collectively, the “Pixel
`
`Products”). The Pixel Products’ custom wireless charging components and
`
`functionality are designed and developed in the N.D. Cal. Two of the three third-
`
`party suppliers who provide the charging components at issue to Google maintain
`
`their United States offices in the N.D. Cal. The remaining third-party supplier is in
`
`Southern California.
`
`● Second, Plaintiff has no relevant ties to the W.D. Tex. Plaintiff does not have any
`
`places of business in Texas. Plaintiff is incorporated in and operates out of Dublin,
`
`Ireland. Plaintiff is a patent assertion entity that does not make, use, sell, or offer
`
`to sell any products. Plaintiff acquired the patents-in-suit from a third party with
`
`no connection to the W.D. Tex. The original assignee of the patents-in-suit is in
`
`Seoul, Korea.
`
`The only relevant ties that Google or any third parties have are in California. Google’s
`
`headquarters are in the N.D. Cal., along with all identified relevant witnesses and sources of proof,
`
`including physical sources of proof. Additionally, the majority of the relevant third parties (two
`
`out of the three foreign suppliers of the component parts at issue), have locations in N.D. Cal.
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`Page 5 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00616-ADA Document 26 Filed 09/29/21 Page 6 of 21
`
`
`
`Accordingly, all of the relevant evidence in the United States is in California (if not the N.D. Cal.).
`
`There is no relevant evidence or witness in the W.D. Tex.
`
`Where, as here, “the transferee venue is ‘clearly more convenient’ than the venue chosen
`
`by the plaintiff,” the case should be transferred. In re Nintendo Co., 589 F.3d 1194, 1197 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2009) (quoting In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2009)).
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`This patent case involves wireless charging technology for smartphones—components
`
`developed outside this District by companies with no ties to Texas. Dkt. 1, ¶¶ 9, 16, 23, 30. Google
`
`places those components in its Pixel Products. Similar to the majority of the component vendors,
`
`Google’s relevant design, development, testing, and implementation, as well as marketing and
`
`sales, information for its Pixel Products are in the N.D. Cal.
`
`Google, however, does not make or sell the wireless charging components that are at issue.
`
`Google designs and develops, then sources these wireless charging components in the N.D. Cal.
`
`from third-party suppliers, two of which have their U.S. offices in the N.D. Cal. (the third has its
`
`U.S. offices in Southern California). Upon receipt, Google tests and implements these components
`
`with its Pixel Products in the N.D. Cal. (Declaration of Andrew Rope (“Rope Decl.”) ¶¶ 5, 18.)
`
`Plaintiff does not dispute that it has no ties to Texas. Dkt. 1, ¶ 2. There are no relevant third parties
`
`with links to Texas.
`
`Accordingly, all relevant witnesses and evidence regarding the patents-in-suit, the accused
`
`Pixel Products, and relevant components are in California, with the vast majority in the N.D. Cal.
`
`There is no relevant evidence in the W.D. Tex.
`
`A.
`
`Relevant Third-Party Witnesses And Evidence Are in The N.D. Cal
`
`Google’s suppliers for the majority of the wireless charging components for its Pixel
`
`Products have their U.S. offices in the N.D. Cal. (Declaration of Bijal V. Vakil (“Vakil Decl.”) at
`
`-2-
`
`Page 6 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00616-ADA Document 26 Filed 09/29/21 Page 7 of 21
`
`
`
`Exs. 3, 4; see Rope Decl. ¶ 6.)1 Indeed, Google interfaces directly with employees in these N.D.
`
`Cal. offices in the design, development, and testing of the accused wireless charging components.
`
`(See Rope Decl. ¶ 6.) Accordingly, the majority of the third-party employees with technical,
`
`financial, and marketing knowledge—which would necessarily include management and sales
`
`staff—about the relevant wireless charging components within subpoena power of a United States
`
`district court, are in the N.D. Cal. Specifically:
`
`●
`
`●
`
`principal U.S. office in
`
`California (in the N.D. Cal.) (Vakil Decl. at Ex.
`
`3; see Rope Decl. ¶ 6); and,
`
` with a principal U.S. office
`
` with a
`
`in
`
`California (in the N.D. Cal.) (Vakil Decl. at Ex. 4; see Rope Decl. ¶ 6.)
`
`B.
`
`All of Google’s Relevant Evidence and Witnesses Are In The N.D. Cal.
`
`Both Google’s global headquarters (Mountain View, California) and the majority of its
`
`U.S. workforce are in the N.D. Cal. (Rope Decl. ¶ 3.) All of the Google employees likely to have
`
`relevant technical, financial, and marketing knowledge about the accused Pixel Products (and the
`
`specific technology at issue) are also there. These include the Google employees identified in the
`
`accompanying Declaration of Andrew Rope. (See id. ¶¶ 7-16.)
`
`Moreover, all of the relevant technical, financial, and marketing documents for the Pixel
`
`Products (and the Pixel’s use of wireless charging technology at issue) are located in the N.D. Cal.
`
`(Id. ¶ 18.). None of the relevant evidence that Plaintiff would use to support its claims is located
`
`in the W.D. Tex. (See id. ¶¶ 17–18.) Although Google has offices in Austin, no Google employees
`
`
`with its U.S.
`1 The third supplier to Google,
`offices located in Southern California. (Vakil Decl. at Ex. 5; see Rope Decl. ¶ 6.)
`
`-3-
`
`Page 7 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00616-ADA Document 26 Filed 09/29/21 Page 8 of 21
`
`
`
`in Austin—or anywhere else in Texas—appear knowledgeable about technical, financial, sales, or
`
`marketing issues for the accused Pixel Products. (Id.)
`
`C.
`
`Plaintiff’s Evidence And Witnesses Are Not In The W.D. Tex.
`
`Plaintiff is a patent assertion entity with no ties to the W.D. Tex. (See Vakil Decl. at Exs.
`
`1, 2, 6–9.) Plaintiff admits that “its principal place of business [is] at The Hyde Building, Suite
`
`23, The Park, Carrickmines, Dublin 18, Ireland.” Dkt. 1, ¶ 2. There is no record of Plaintiff’s
`
`registration with the Texas Secretary of State. Similarly, there is no record of Plaintiff having any
`
`physical presence in the state of Texas. (Vakil Decl. at Exs. 1, 2.)
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`“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). In the Fifth Circuit, when a movant “clearly demonstrate[s] that a transfer is
`
`‘[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, [and] in the interest of justice,’” the district court
`
`“should” grant transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304,
`
`312 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (“Volkswagen II”). To evaluate transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a),
`
`courts first consider “whether a civil action ‘might have been brought’ in the destination venue.”
`
`Id. If so, courts weigh eight private and public factors:
`
`(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; (4) all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious
`and inexpensive[;] . . . [5] the administrative difficulties flowing from court
`congestion; [6] the local interest in having localized interests decided at home;
`[7] the familiarity of the forum with the law that will govern the case; and [8] the
`avoidance of unnecessary problems of conflict of laws [or in] the application of
`foreign law.
`
`Id. at 315 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). The proposed transferee forum is
`
`“clearly more convenient” where, as here, most potential witnesses and relevant evidence are
`
`-4-
`
`Page 8 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00616-ADA Document 26 Filed 09/29/21 Page 9 of 21
`
`
`
`concentrated in the transferee district. In re Toyota Motor Corp., 747 F.3d 1338, 1341 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2014); see also Nintendo, 589 F.3d at 1198. The determination is not whether the “transferee
`
`forum is far more convenient.” Toyota, 747 F.3d at 1341 (emphasis in original). Nor does
`
`Plaintiff’s choice of venue carry any weight. Nintendo, 589 F.3d at 1200.
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiff Could Have Brought This Action In The N.D. Cal.
`
`The “preliminary question under [28 U.S.C. §] 1404(a) is whether a civil action ‘might
`
`have been brought’ in the destination venue.” Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 312. Here, there is no
`
`dispute that Google’s headquarters are in the N.D. Cal. Dkt. 1, ¶ 3. Moreover, there is also no
`
`dispute that Plaintiff could have filed this lawsuit in the N.D. Cal., where Google has a “regular
`
`and established place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b); see In re Cray Inc., 871 F.3d 1355, 1360
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`Plaintiff’s choice of venue is not relevant to this question. See In re TS Tech USA Corp.,
`
`551 F.3d 1315, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“Fifth Circuit precedent clearly forbids treating the
`
`plaintiff’s choice of venue as a distinct factor in the § 1404(a) analysis.” (citing Volkswagen II,
`
`545 F.3d at 314 n. 10)); cf. Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 256 (1981) (“Because the
`
`central purpose of any forum non conveniens inquiry is to ensure that the trial is convenient, a
`
`foreign plaintiff’s choice deserves less deference.”). Accordingly, the transfer analysis turns on
`
`weighing the private and public interest factors.
`
`B.
`
`All Private Interest Factors Are Neutral Or Favor Transfer To The N.D. Cal.
`
`The private interest factors strongly favor transfer to the N.D. Cal. First, availability of
`
`compulsory process weighs in favor of transfer, because, unlike the N.D. Cal., the W.D. Tex. lacks
`
`subpoena power over the third-party witnesses who are involved in the design, development,
`
`production, marketing, and sale of the relevant charging components at issue. Second, the cost of
`
`attendance for witnesses favors transfer because Google employees with relevant knowledge of
`
`-5-
`
`Page 9 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00616-ADA Document 26 Filed 09/29/21 Page 10 of 21
`
`
`
`the Pixel Products, and most third-party employees with knowledge of the relevant charging
`
`components, are in the N.D. Cal. Third, the relative ease of access to sources of proof favors
`
`transfer, because all relevant technical, marketing, and sales documents, as well as physical
`
`samples, both from Google and third-party component makers and vendors, are in the N.D. Cal.
`
`In contrast, this case has no connection to the W.D. Tex.
`
`1.
`
`Availability Of Compulsory Process Favors Transfer To The N.D. Cal.
`
`The private interest factor of compulsory process weighs in favor of transfer to the N.D.
`
`Cal. A court may subpoena a person to attend a trial (a) within 100 miles of where that person
`
`resides or works, or (b) within the state where that person resides or works when the witness is a
`
`party, an officer of the party, or would not incur substantial expense to attend trial. Fed. R. Civ.
`
`P. 45(c)(1); see id. 36(b)(6) (providing for subpoenas directed to “a public or private corporation,
`
`a partnership, an association, a governmental agency, or other entity”). Because the ability to
`
`subpoena third-party witnesses to trial is crucial for evaluating a witnesses’ testimony, see 10Tales,
`
`2021 WL 2043978, at *3 (citing Aguilar-Ayala v. Ruiz, 973 F.2d 411, 419 (5th Cir. 1992),
`
`“[t]ransfer is strongly favored” where, as here, a transferee district, “has absolute subpoena power
`
`over a greater number of non-party witnesses,” Adaptix, Inc. v. HTC Corp., 937 F. Supp. 2d 867,
`
`874 (E.D. Tex. March 28, 2013). “Determining convenience requires considering ‘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.’” See 10Tales, 2021 WL 2043978, at
`
`*3 (quoting Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 6:18-CV-00372-ADA, 2019 WL 4743678, at *5 (W.D.
`
`Tex. Sept. 10, 2019)); see Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 3.
`
`Here, material third-party witnesses, such as the three third-party component suppliers,
`
`who provide Google with the components at the heart of Plaintiff’s infringement theory, have their
`
`U.S. offices in California. Supra Section II.A. Two of the three suppliers have their U.S. offices
`
`-6-
`
`Page 10 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00616-ADA Document 26 Filed 09/29/21 Page 11 of 21
`
`within the subpoena power of the N.D. Cal.—
`
`Id. The third,
`
`
`
`
`
`is in Southern California. Id. None are within the subpoena power of the W.D. Tex. Id. Further,
`
`the employees of these third-party suppliers, who can best speak to the technical and marketing
`
`aspects of the relevant charging components, are all likely in California and not in the W.D. Tex.
`
`Id.; see Fed. R. Civ. P. 36(b)(6), 45(c)(1).
`
`In contrast, Google is not aware of any relevant third-party witnesses, corporate or
`
`otherwise, in the W.D. Tex. or Texas more generally. As such, “this factor ‘weigh[s] heavily 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)); see id. (“10Tales’ failure to identify even a single relevant
`
`witness that this Court could exercise its subpoena power over, however, ultimately compels the
`
`conclusion that this factor favors transfer.”); see also In re Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 2 F.4th 1371,
`
`1379 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“[B]ecause these potential witnesses reside in Northern California, transfer
`
`ensures that the transferee court could compel these individuals to appear.”).
`
`The prior assignee and all the inventors of the asserted patents appear to be located in South
`
`Korea. See Dkt. 1 at Exhibits 1, 3, 5, and 7 (patents-in-suit); see also (Vakil Decl. at Exs. 6–9).
`
`These third-party witnesses, who reside in neither California nor Texas, will need to be subpoenaed
`
`under 28 U.S.C. § 1783 regardless. See 28 U.S.C. § 1783 (providing for “[s]ubpoena of [a] person
`
`in [a] foreign country”).
`
`In sum, there is not a single third-party witness in this District. Because there is a
`
`disproportionate number of third-party witnesses in the N.D. Cal. (two of the three suppliers of the
`
`accused technology) compared to zero in this District, this factor weighs in favor of transfer.
`
`2.
`
`Cost of Attendance For Willing Witnesses Heavily Favors Transfer To
`The N.D. Cal.
`
`-7-
`
`Page 11 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00616-ADA Document 26 Filed 09/29/21 Page 12 of 21
`
`
`
`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.” Genentech, 566 F.3d
`
`at 1343. 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). Under the Fifth Circuit’s 100-mile rule, “[w]hen
`
`the distance between an existing venue for trial. . . . and a proposed venue under § 1404(a) is more
`
`than 100 miles, the factor of inconvenience to witnesses increases in direct relationship to the
`
`additional distance to be traveled.” In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201, 204–05 (5th Cir. 2004)
`
`(“Volkswagen I”).
`
`Google employees with technical, financial, and marketing knowledge of the Pixel
`
`Products are located in the N.D. Cal. (Rope Decl. ¶¶ 7–16.) The lead hardware and software
`
`engineers for the development and testing of the Pixel Products, including for implementation of
`
`the accused wireless charging component, are in the N.D. Cal. (Rope Decl. ¶¶ 7–10). Further,
`
`most, if not all, relevant third-party employees are also in the N.D. Cal. or California. Supra
`
`Section II.A. For these Google and third-party employees, “it is more convenient [] to testify at
`
`home” in the N.D. Cal. See Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 317. There is no direct flight from the Bay
`
`Area to Waco. Traveling to Waco from the Bay Area requires almost four hours of flight time,
`
`not including traveling to and from and waiting at the airport. (Vakil Decl. at Exs. 10–14.) The
`
`long trips and overnight stays in Waco will lead to lost productivity and disruption to the witnesses’
`
`lives while “being away from work, family and community.” Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 317.
`
`In contrast, should this Court transfer this case to the N.D. Cal., Google and third-party
`
`employees could readily travel back and forth between the court and their homes—a “thirty
`
`-8-
`
`Page 12 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00616-ADA Document 26 Filed 09/29/21 Page 13 of 21
`
`
`
`minutes [to] an hour” commute as compared to traveling “five or six hours one-way” to Waco.
`
`Volkswagen I, 371 F.3d at 205 (“[T]he task of scheduling fact witnesses so as to minimize the time
`
`when they are removed from their regular work or home responsibilities get 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 to an hour.”); see also Vakil Decl. at Exs. 10, 11, 12.
`
`“[T]his Court has previously recognized Google’s strong presence in the [N.D. Cal.].” See
`
`10Tales, Inc. v. TikTok Inc., No. 6:20-CV-00810-ADA, 2021 WL 2043978, at *3 (W.D. Tex. May
`
`21, 2021); see also Parus Holdings Inc. v. LG Elecs. Inc., No. 6:19-CV-00432-ADA, 2020 WL
`
`4905809, at *5-6 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 20, 2020).
`
`Further, Google is not aware of any relevant witness to this case who resides in the W.D.
`
`Tex. Indeed, Scramoge, a company with its principal place of business in Ireland, has not
`
`identified any witness or evidence in the W.D. Tex. Dkt. 1, ¶ 2; see generally id. (failing to identify
`
`any witness or evidence in the W.D. Tex., citing only the existence of Google’s Austin office for
`
`the minimum contacts required for personal jurisdiction). Those individuals who do not reside in
`
`California—whether Scramoge employees, the prior assignees, and inventors of the asserted
`
`patents, or any additional third-party witnesses—live abroad, and therefore “will be
`
`inconvenienced by extensive travel regardless of the forum,” such that “the ‘100 mile’ rule should
`
`not be rigidly applied.” 10Tales, 2021 WL 2043978, at *4 (citing Genentech, 566 F.3d at 1344).
`
`Accordingly, transfer is appropriate here because Google has “identified a significant number of
`
`its own employees as potential witnesses who reside in the [N.D. Cal],” while Plaintiff’s “own
`
`employees will be coming from outside both districts.” In re Adobe Inc., 823 F. App’x 929, 931
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2020); see also In re Tracfone Wireless, Inc., 852 Fed. Appx. 537, 538–39 (Fed. Cir.
`
`Apr. 20, 2021) (finding that the convenience of witnesses favored transfer where “no party
`
`-9-
`
`Page 13 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00616-ADA Document 26 Filed 09/29/21 Page 14 of 21
`
`
`
`identified any witness residing in the Western District of Texas” and “several of [defendant]’s
`
`likely employee witnesses resid[ed] in the transferee venue”).
`
`3.
`
`Relative Ease Of Access To Sources Of Proof Favors Transfer To The
`N.D. Cal.
`
`“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, 2021 WL 2043978, at
`
`*2 (citing In re Apple Inc., 979 F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2020)). Further, as this Court has noted,
`
`“the physical location of electronic documents does affect the outcome of this factor.” Moskowitz
`
`Family LLC v. Globus Med., No. 6:19-cv-00672, 2020 WL 4577710, at *3 n.2 (W.D. Tex. July 2,
`
`2020) (citing Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 316); see also Correct Transmission LLC v. ADTRAN,
`
`Inc., No. 6:20-CV-00669-ADA, 2021 WL 1967985, at *4 (W.D. Tex. May 17, 2021) (“[T]his
`
`factor is relevant regardless of the method of storage.”).
`
`Here, all the relevant sources of physical proof are in the N.D. Cal. Specifically, the design,
`
`development, testing, and implementation of the wireless charging components in the Pixel
`
`Products occur in the N.D. Cal.,
`
`
`
` (Rope Decl. ¶¶ 7–10, 18.) Further, the U.S. offices of the
`
`majority of the third-party suppliers (likely along with their documents and physical samples) are
`
`all in the N.D. Cal. Supra Section II.A. The remaining third-party supplier is in Southern
`
`California. Id. Google is not aware of any relevant documents or physical evidence kept in the
`
`W.D. Tex. concerning the design, development, testing, implementation, or marketing and
`
`financials, for the accused Pixel Products and wireless charging components. (Rope Decl. ¶ 17–
`
`18.)
`
`-10-
`
`Page 14 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00616-ADA Document 26 Filed 09/29/21 Page 15 of 21
`
`
`
`In contrast, Google is unaware of relevant sources of proof in the W.D. Tex. While Google
`
`has offices and employees in the W.D. Tex.—specifically, Austin—this does not alter the fact that
`
`“the physical documentation relating to the substantive focus of the complaint” comes from
`
`Google and third-party vendor “operations in California.” 10Tales, 2021 WL 2043978, at *2.
`
`Further, Plaintiff does not appear to carry any business activities in this District. See supra Section
`
`II.C. Plaintiff has not—and cannot—identify any documents or physical evidence in this District
`
`relevant to the claims at issue. To the extent that any documents or physical evidence important
`
`to the adjudication of this dispute exist, they are located in the N.D. Cal. See 10Tales, 2021 WL
`
`2043978, at *2.
`
`Accordingly, this factor favors transfer. See In re HP Inc., 826 F. App’x 899, 902 (2020)
`
`(mandating transfer to the N.D. Cal. where most physical sources of proof were present in the N.D.
`
`Cal., and none were in the Eastern District of Texas); 10Tales, 2021 WL 2043978, at *2 (“Thus,
`
`to avoid burdening the defendant with unnecessary transportation costs of physical evidence and
`
`documentation, the prudent conclusion is that this factor weighs in favor of transfer.”).
`
`4.
`
`There Are No Practical Problems With Transferring This Case
`
`“[T]his Court has previously held that the last private interest factor favors transfer when
`
`most witnesses are present in the transferee forum and the plaintiff has no presence in the Western
`
`District.” Correct Transmission, 2021 WL 1967985, at *5. This factor weighs in favor of transfer
`
`because all of the potential Google and third-party witnesses, and physical evidence, are in the
`
`N.D. Cal., and Plaintiff has no witnesses or documents in the W.D. Tex. See supra Sections II.A,
`
`II.C.
`
`This factor also “considers problems such as those rationally based on judicial economy
`
`which will weigh heavily in favor of or against transfer.” Moskowitz, 2020 WL 4577710, at *5.
`
`So far, here, the Court has not yet entered a scheduling order and the sole pending motion on the
`
`-11-
`
`Page 15 of 21
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00616-ADA Document 26 Filed 09/29/21 Page 16 of 21
`
`
`
`docket is Google’s Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Request for Permanent Injunction.
`
`Therefore, overall, this factor favors transfer.
`
`C.
`
`The Public Interest Factors Also Favor Transfer
`1.
`
`The N.D. Cal. Has A Strong Local Interest In This Dispute, While W.D.
`Tex. Has None
`
`There can be no dispute that the N.D. Cal. has a strong local interest in this case “because
`
`the cause of action calls into question the work and reputation of several individuals residing in or
`
`near that district.” In re Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., 587 F.3d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Google’s
`
`founding office and its current global headquarters are in the N.D. Cal. Google also designed the
`
`accused Pixel Products there, and its personnel, documentary records, and ongoing activities
`
`relating to the Pixel Products are there. Supra Section I.B. This strong connection of the accused
`
`instrumentalities to the N.D. Cal. means that it has a “far stronger local interest in the case than
`
`the Western District of Texas.”