throbber
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.”

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket