Case 6:22-cv-00634-ADA-DTG Document 19 Filed 11/04/22 Page 1 of 21
`Case 6:22-cv-00634-ADA-DTG Document 19 Filed 11/04/22 Page1of 21
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACODIVISION
`
`CLOUDOFCHANGE,LLC,
`
`Vv.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`CLOVER NETWORK,INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 6:22-CV-00634-ADA-DTG
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`REDACTED PUBLIC VERSION
`
`CLOVER NETWORK, LLC’S OPPOSED MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
`TO THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA UNDER28 U.S.C. § 1404(A)
`
`CloudofChange 2020 1 of 21
`Clover Network, LLC v. CloudofChange, LLC
`IPR2023-00287
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00634-ADA-DTG Document 19 Filed 11/04/22 Page 2 of 21
`Case 6:22-cv-00634-ADA-DTG Document 19 Filed 11/04/22 Page 2 of 21
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 00... esscssecssessesesessesescessssecccscessseeseecesessesssasssesssssssesseeeseeeevesenes ili
`
`I.
`
`Il.
`
`INTRODUCTION 0... eessecsscessecsscnsesscesessesessesecscensssssesssseesssseseesesassnessoesoesaseesasenseseenees 1
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND... cessssssesssseseesesceseeeesesscsscecesseasseesceasecesseesecseceasenesseasenees 2
`
`A.
`
`B
`
`C.
`
`D
`
`E.
`
`F,
`
`The lawsuit, the asserted patents, and the accused products............::cscssssescssssessees2
`
`Clover’s witnesses and evidence are predominantly in the NDCA...............:eeeee2
`
`No Clover witness or evidence is in the WDTX....... ec eecesseseeeeseeeeeessscesenceneasenees 4
`
`Keythird-party witnesses are in the NDCA ..........cccccessessssesssssecsenseeeseseeenseseeeasenes4
`
`Plaintiff's witnesses and evidence, including all named inventors,
`are outside the WDTX uu... eeeeesecesseescessssessescsseseseeseseesesseeessesssessssesseaeseeseeteees 5
`
`There is no pendinglitigation in the WDTXinvolvingthe
`Asserted Patents that has any bearing on judicial efficiency .............ccsesesssesesseees 5
`
`TH.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ones eeesseceseeeceeseceessetssessesesceasecesasaceassceasesesseaseeesceeenesaaseceaseee 7
`
`TV. ARGUMENT... eecssscsssscssesceseseessecesesssoessscassscsseasssesceeseessesasassseacssessesssaesseeesesensaseasese 7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Plaintiff could have brought this suit in the NDCA, where Cloverresides............. 7
`
`The private interest factors strongly favor transfer to the NDCA..........eeeeeeeeees 8
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Most witnesses are located in the NDCA, and the NDCA
`is more accessibleto all other potential Witnesses.............:ccesescseeeeereeeees 8
`
`The NDCAhas subpoena power over numerous non-party
`witnesses, but the WDTX does nota... ccccssceccscesssessessecessssesssssseseseness 9
`
`Sources of proof are in the NDCAand can be moreeasily
`ACCESSEM there.........eesccscescescceccscesscecceccsccsecsecescecseacsseeeesseeseesececseceeeseeeeeeeass 10
`
`C,
`
`The public interest factors strongly favor transfer to the NDCA..............:ccseee 11
`
`1.
`
`The NDCA—where Cloveris headquartered and developed
`the Accused Products—hasthe stronger local interest .............c:ccscseseeseees 11
`
`CloudofChange 2020 2 of 21
`Clover Network, LLC v. CloudofChange, LLC
`IPR2023-00287
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00634-ADA-DTG Document 19 Filed 11/04/22 Page 3 of 21
`Case 6:22-cv-00634-ADA-DTG Document 19 Filed 11/04/22 Page 3 of 21
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS(cont.)
`
`Page
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`The practical considerations factor is neutral ............:cceecsesceseeeeceteeeeeeteees 13
`
`The court congestion factor is neutral ..............cscessscessesseecessseesseseeeeneseees 14
`
`The familiarity of law and conflict-of-law factors are neutral................... 15
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION........csscssssesecsesessssessssessesescesceeesecscescnassceasesesceaeseesseaenesscsscscesseasesesseaeeaenseese 15
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE. ......cccessssessscssescescssessseesessseessccecsseaseaeseeseesesesseseseaseneaseeesseeees 16
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 0.0... ccsscsssscsecscssessesesscsessesecseescsesscsssssesseseseesesaeseeseseseesasessesesseaees 16
`
`il
`
`CloudofChange 2020 3 of 21
`Clover Network, LLC v. CloudofChange, LLC
`IPR2023-00287
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00634-ADA-DTG Document 19 Filed 11/04/22 Page 4 of 21
`
`CloudofChange, LLC v. NCR Corp.
`
`In re Acer Am. Corp.
`
`In re Apple Inc.
`
`In re Apple Inc.
`
`In re DISH Network LLC
`
`In re Genentech
`
`In re Google, LLC
`
`In re Hoffmann-La Roche Inc.
`
`In re HP Inc.
`
`In re Juniper Networks, Inc.
`
`In re Nintendo Co.
`
`In re Pandora Media, LLC
`
`In re Samsung Elecs. Co.
`
`In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc.
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00634-ADA-DTG Document 19 Filed 11/04/22 Page 5 of 21
`
`In re Fedex Corp. Servs., Inc.
`
`In re: NetScout Sys., Inc.
`
`LBT IP II LLC v. Uber Techs., Inc.
`
`LoganTree v. Apple Inc.
`
`ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel Corp.
`
`XR Commc’ns, LLC v. HP Inc.
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00634-ADA-DTG Document 19 Filed 11/04/22 Page 6 of 21
`Case 6:22-cv-00634-ADA-DTG Document 19 Filed 11/04/22 Page 6 of 21
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`CloudofChange, LLC’s infringementclaims belong in the Northern District of California
`
`(“NDCA”), where Clover Network, LLC (“Clover”)! is based and where key party and non-party
`
`witnesses and evidence are located. Accordingly, Clover movesto transfer this case to the NDCA
`
`under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
`
`This forum has no connectionto the parties, witnesses, or facts relevant to Plaintiffs claims
`
`for alleged infringement of United States Patent Nos. 9,400,640 (“’640 Patent”), 10,083,012
`
`(012 Patent”), and 11,226,793 (793 Patent”) (“Asserted Patents”). The accused Clover
`
`products were developed in California, not Texas, and certainly not in the Western District of
`
`Texas (““WDTX”). No Clover employees involved in or knowledgeable about the research,
`
`development, design, or marketing of the accused products are in this District. Plaintiff, a New
`
`York entity based in New York,has no presencein this District, aside from its legally irrelevant
`
`infringementlitigation portfolio.
`
`In fact, Plaintiff's recent disclosures confirm that it has no
`
`potential trial witness that resides in Texas.
`
`In contrast, the NDCA is where Clover’s principal place of business is located, where
`
`Clover’s relevant personnel
`
`live, and where relevant
`
`third-party witnesses are subject
`
`to
`
`compulsory process. It is also where party and non-party witnesses can moreeasily travel to attend
`
`trial. Because the NDCA is unquestionably the clearly more convenient forum, the Court should
`
`transfer this case to that venue under § 1404(a).
`
`Inc. Clover
`formerly known as Clover Network,
`1 “Clover” refers to Clover Network, LLC,
`Network, Inc. converted to Clover Network LLC in2 21, before Plaintiff filed this lawsuit. Decl.
`of Stephen Ravel, attached as Exhibit A J 3 and Ex. A-1.
`
`1
`
`CloudofChange 2020 6 of 21
`Clover Network, LLC v. CloudofChange, LLC
`IPR2023-00287
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00634-ADA-DTG Document 19 Filed 11/04/22 Page 7 of 21
`Case 6:22-cv-00634-ADA-DTG Document 19 Filed 11/04/22 Page 7 of 21
`
`Il,
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`The lawsuit, the asserted patents, and the accused products.
`
`Plaintiff's Complaint alleges that four of Clover’s point-of-sale (“POS”) products—({1)
`
`Clover Station Solo, (2) Clover Station Duo, (3) Clover Mini, and (4) Clover Dashboard (the
`
`“Accused Products”)}—infringe the Asserted Patents. Dkt. 1 ¥ 8. Plaintiff claims that it is the
`
`owner by assignment of the Asserted Patents, which are generally directed to a web-based
`
`Id.
`POS-building system. /d. J] 2, 14. Plaintiff asserts direct and indirect infringement claims based
`
`on Clover allegedly “making, using, importing, selling, and/or offering the Accused Products”
`
`Id.
`across the United States. Jd. J] 14, 18, 20, 22.
`
`B.
`
`Clover’s witnesses and evidence are predominantly in the NDCA.
`
`Clover is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Sunnyvale,
`
`California, within the NDCA. Ex. A-1; Decl. offF 6, attached as Exhibit B. Clover
`
`Id
`has approximately 200 employeesat its Sunnyvale headquarters. 7d. Clover researched, designed,
`
`developed, and launched the Accused Products exclusively at its Sunnyvale headquarters, where
`
`most of that work continues to take place today. The Accused Products are used and sold by
`
`Jd. J] 7-8; Declaration ofee 9-12,
`merchants and distributors nationwide.
`Id.
`attached as Exhibit C; Decl. ofMg 11-13, attached as Exhibit D.
`
`Clover personnel responsible for the current research, design, and development of the
`
`Accused Products are primarily California residents who live near their office at Clover’s
`
`Sunnyvale, California headquarters. Ex. B ff 15-17; Ex. C ff 2, 7, 9-11; Ex. D Ff 2, 5, 13.
`
`Likewise, Clover personnel primarily responsible for product management, marketing, and sales
`
`of the Accused Products are in Sunnyvale, California, and some are in New York. Ex. B ff 1-3,
`
`7, 12-14, 16, 18. These Clover employees are Clover’s potential trial witnesses in this case:
`
`CloudofChange 20207 of 21
`Clover Network, LLC v. CloudofChange, LLC
`IPR2023-00287
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00634-ADA-DTG Document 19 Filed 11/04/22 Page 8 of 21
`
`See generally
`
`See generally
`
`See
`generally id.
`
`Id.
`
`Id.
`
`Id.
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00634-ADA-DTG Document 19 Filed 11/04/22 Page 9 of 21
`Case 6:22-cv-00634-ADA-DTG Document 19 Filed 11/04/22 Page 9 of 21
`
`Relevant documents relating to the research, design, and development of the Accused
`
`Products havehistorically been created in Sunnyvale, California, where the products were initially
`
`developed and launched. Ex. B { 25; Ex. C 7 14; Ex. D J 14. These documents continue to be
`
`created primarily by personnel
`
`in Sunnyvale today, and some Clover Dashboard-related
`
`documents are now created in Colorado and New York as well. Ex. D ff 13-14. Likewise,
`
`documents related to marketing and nationwide sales efforts are primarily created in both
`
`Sunnyvale and New York. Ex. B § 25. Moreover, prototypes for various developmentstages of
`
`the Clover Mini, Clover Duo, and Clover Solo are created and maintained in Clover’s hardware
`
`lab, which is located in its Sunnyvale, California headquarters. Ex. C | 15. Accordingly, most if
`
`notall custodians of Clover’s relevant evidence are in Sunnyvale and New York. Ex. B ¥ 14; Ex.
`
`Cq14; Ex.D q 14.
`
`C.
`
`No Clover witness or evidenceis in the WDTX.
`
`Clover is unaware of any potential trial witness with relevant knowledge of the Accused
`
`Products in the WDTX or anywhere else in Texas. Ex. B ff 8-9, 12; Ex. CJ 12; Ex. D § 12. The
`
`less than ten Clover employees who are based in Austin, Texas have no relevant responsibilities
`
`related to the research, design, development, marketing, or sales of the Accused Products. Ex. B
`
`8; Ex. C J 12; Ex. D Jf 11-12. And Cloverhasnotidentified a single custodian ofkey documents
`
`or evidence in the WDTXor elsewhere in Texas. Ex. B J 25; Ex. C J 14; Ex. D ¥ 14.
`
`D.
`
`Key third-party witnesses are in the NDCA.
`
`five
`Atleast five key, third-party witnesses who worked for Clover and likely have relevant
`
`knowledgeofthe research, design, and development ofthe Accused Products reside in the NDCA:
`
`(1) TEcesides in San Carlos, California.
`Jd. { 20. ae i:
`Id.
`Id.
`Clover’s co-founder and served as Clover’s CEO from 2016 to 2020. Jd. §
`20. Plaintiff is suing Clover for willful infringement based on a “Notice
`
`CloudofChange 2020 9 of 21
`Clover Network, LLC v. CloudofChange, LLC
`IPR2023-00287
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00634-ADA-DTG Document 19 Filed 11/04/22 Page 10 of 21
`Case 6:22-cv-00634-ADA-DTG Document19 Filed 11/04/22 Page 10 of 21
`
`Letter”it claims to have sent toa: 2018. See Ex. B § 19; Dkt. 1
`See
`q 23 and Ex.4.
`
`(2) MERE served as Clover’s COO from 2017 to 2021. Ex. B ¥ 23.
`ives in Los Altos, California.
`(3) a: Clover’s former Head of Product Design, and shelives in
`Id.
`San Mateo, California. /d. 21.
`(4) served as Clover’s VP of Engineering from 2013 to 2021, and
`Id.
`he lives in Mountain View, California. /d. J 22.
`(5) EEserved as Clover’s SVP, Head of Hardware from 2013 to
`2021 and resides in Campbell, California. Ex. B q 24; Ex. C ¥ 13.
`
`While these potential non-party witnesses are within the subpoena powerof the NDCA,none are
`
`subject to compulsory process in the WDTX.
`
`E.
`
`Plaintiffs witnesses and evidence, including all named inventors, are outside
`the WDTX.
`
`Plaintiff is a New York limited liability company with its principal place of business in
`
`Poughkeepsie, New York. Dkt. 1 § 2. Plaintiff's founders are Wayne Baratta and Quentin Olson,
`
`Id.
`whoalso are the only named inventors of the Asserted Patents. /d. 16. In each of the Asserted
`
`Patents (the last dated January 18, 2022), Mr. Baratta is designated as a resident of Poughkeepsie,
`
`New York, and Mr. Olson is designated as a resident of Port Townsend, Washington.
`
`Id.
`/d. at Exs.
`
`1-3. Other than litigation, Plaintiff and the named inventors do not appear to have any connection
`
`to the WDTX.
`
`F.
`
`There is no pendinglitigation in the WDTX involving the Asserted Patents
`that has any bearing on judicial efficiency.
`
`Plaintiff has previously filed complaints in this District against other defendants, alleging
`
`CloudofChange,
`infringement of two or more of the Asserted Patents. Original Compl. (Dkt. 1), CloudofChange,
`
`CloudofChange 2020 10 of 21
`Clover Network, LLC v. CloudofChange, LLC
`IPR2023-00287
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00634-ADA-DTG Document 19 Filed 11/04/22 Page 11 of 21
`
`LLC v. NCR Corp.
`
`CloudofChange, LLC v. Lightspeed POS Inc.
`
`NCR Action
`
`inter partes
`
`Compare e.g. CloudofChange, LLC v. NCR Corp.
`
`Juniper Networks, Inc.
`
`with In re
`
`LoganTree v. Apple Inc.
`
`See
`
`Inter Partes
`
`Inter Partes
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00634-ADA-DTG Document 19 Filed 11/04/22 Page 12 of 21
`
`Volkswagen of Am., Inc.
`
`Inc.
`
`Volkswagen
`
`In re
`
`In re Apple
`
`Id.
`
`In re Nintendo Co.
`
`In re HP Inc.
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00634-ADA-DTG Document 19 Filed 11/04/22 Page 13 of 21
`
`In re Juniper Networks, Inc.
`
`In re Google, LLC
`
`See Juniper
`
`See
`
`See
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00634-ADA-DTG Document 19 Filed 11/04/22 Page 14 of 21
`
`See
`
`In re Pandora Media, LLC
`
`Id.
`
`Google
`
`In re Acer Am. Corp.
`
`In re Genentech
`
`see In re
`
`DISH Network LLC
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00634-ADA-DTG Document 19 Filed 11/04/22 Page 15 of 21
`Case 6:22-cv-00634-ADA-DTG Document 19 Filed 11/04/22 Page 15 of 21
`
`Here, numerouspotential non-party witnesses are subject to the subpoena powerof the
`
`NDCA,including Clover’s: (1) former CEOa. (2) former COO ee. (3)
`former SVP, Head of Hardware ee. (4) former Head of Product Design a
`aa. and (5) former Head of Hardware Engineeringa. Ex. B Jf 20-23. These
`
`witnesses likely have relevant information regarding the research, design, development, and
`
`marketing of the Accused Products, as well as the Notice Letter that Plaintiff relies on as support
`
`See id.
`for its willful infringement claims. See id.; Ex. C | 13; Dkt. 1 at 9 23 and Ex. 4.
`
`In contrast, Cloveris not aware of a single potential trial witness whoresides in or is subject
`
`to compulsory process in this District.6 Ex. B 99 8-9, 12; Ex. C J 12; Ex. D 9¥ 11-12. Neither
`
`Plaintiff nor Clover is based in the WDTX,and Plaintiff did not identify a single witness residing
`
`in the WDTX in its Initial Disclosures. Ex. A-4. Nor did Plaintiff designate any trial witness
`
`See
`residing in this District in the NCR Action. See Witness List (Dkt. 149), NCR Action (filed May
`
`19, 2021). Because the NDCA has subpoena powerover numerouspotential non-party witnesses
`
`See
`and this District does not, the compulsory process factor weighs strongly in favor of transfer. See
`
`Dish
`Dish, 2021 WL 4911981, at *3.
`
`3.
`
`Sources of proof are in the NDCA and can be moreeasily accessed
`there.
`
`“In patent infringementcases, the bulk of the relevant evidence usually comes from the
`
`Apple
`accused infringer.” Apple, 979 F.3d at 1340. In addressing the private interest factor of a venues’
`
`relative ease of access to sources of proof, courts must consider where documentsare stored, as
`
`° To the extent Plaintiff leans on Austin or Waco branchesofdistributors of Clover products, see
`see
`Dkt, 1 7,9, Clover and those distributors sell Clover products nationwide, including in Northern
`California. Ex. B ff 10-11. This Court has rightly rejected Plaintiff's reliance on nationwide
`CloudofChange, LLC
`it should do so again here. CloudofChange, LLC, 2020 WL 6439178,at. *4
`customers before, and
`(“CloudofChange has not shown any of these potential witnesses are more essential than other
`NCR Silver customers, and NCR has already identified one such customer within the proposed
`transferee venue.”).
`
`10
`
`CloudofChange 2020 15 of 21
`Clover Network, LLC v. CloudofChange, LLC
`IPR2023-00287
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00634-ADA-DTG Document 19 Filed 11/04/22 Page 16 of 21
`
`Google
`
`See
`
`XR Commc’ns, LLC v. HP Inc.
`
`Apple
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00634-ADA-DTG Document 19 Filed 11/04/22 Page 17 of 21
`
`LBT IP II LLC v. Uber Techs., Inc.
`
`In re Hoffmann-La Roche Inc.
`
`LBT
`
`see In re Fedex Corp. Servs., Inc.
`
`No
`
`See
`
`Fedex
`
`LBT
`
`See Apple
`
`no
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00634-ADA-DTG Document 19 Filed 11/04/22 Page 18 of 21
`Case 6:22-cv-00634-ADA-DTG Document19 Filed 11/04/22 Page 18 of 21
`
`responsibility for or involvement with the research, design, development, or marketing of the
`
`Accused Products. Ex. B J 8; Ex. C 7 12; Ex. D ff 11-12. At most, they suggest a mere “general
`
`See XR Commc’ns
`presence”in the District that is not entitled to any weight. See XR Commc’ns, 2022 WL 3448746,
`
`at *6 (“Google has a general presence in this District but this Court would clearly abuse its
`
`any
`discretion in according any weightto it.”) (emphasis in original).
`
`id.
`Because the “NDCAhasa local interest in this Action and this District has none,” id., the
`
`local interest factor strongly favors transfer.
`
`2.
`
`The practical considerations factor is neutral.
`
`Next, courts must consider “all other practical considerations that maketrial of a case easy,
`
`Volkswagen
`expeditious and inexpensive.” Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 314. This factor is neutral at best.
`
`No practical considerations maketrial in this District easy, expeditious, or inexpensive,
`
`notwithstanding Plaintiff’s prior litigation in this District. The Federal Circuit has rejected that
`
`the “mere co-pendency of infringementsuits in a particular district automatically tips the balance
`
`In re NetScout Sys., Inc.
`in the non-movant’s favor.” In re NetScout Sys., Inc., No. 2021-173, 2021 WL 4771756,at *5
`
`see Dish
`(Fed. Cir. Oct. 13, 2021); see Dish, 2021 WL 4911981, at *3 (same). This is because “cases
`
`involving the same patents but different defendants, products, and witnesses will not necessarily
`
`ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel Corp.
`be expedited by being in the same court.” ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00108-
`
`see XR Commc’ns
`ADA,2021 WL 401989,at *6 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 26, 2021) (Albright, J.); see XR Commc’ns, 2022
`
`WL 3448746,at *8-9 (similar). When the remaining factors favor transfer, moreover, co-pending
`
`litigation is “simply not sufficient to justify overriding the inconvenience to the parties and the
`
`Dish
`witnesses.” Dish, 2021 WL 4911981, at *4 (citation omitted).
`
`Here, the NCR and Lightspeed Actions cannottip the transfer scales. First, Plaintiff did
`
`See
`not even assert infringement for one of the patents at issue here in the NCR Action. See NCR
`
`Action Compl.
`
`1 (alleging infringement of the ’640 and ’012 Patents, but not the ’793 Patent).
`
`13
`
`CloudofChange 2020 18 of 21
`Clover Network, LLC v. CloudofChange, LLC
`IPR2023-00287
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00634-ADA-DTG Document 19 Filed 11/04/22 Page 19 of 21
`
`.
`
`In re Apple Inc.
`
`compare
`
`with
`
`and
`
`with
`
`and
`
`with
`
`ParkerVision
`
`See id. NetScout
`
`In re Samsung Elecs. Co.
`
`Dish
`
`see XR Commc’ns
`
`XR Commc’ns
`
`Juniper
`
`Id.
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00634-ADA-DTG Document 19 Filed 11/04/22 Page 20 of 21
`Case 6:22-cv-00634-ADA-DTG Document 19 Filed 11/04/22 Page 20 of 21
`
`“factors weigh in favor of transfer or are neutral, then the speed of the transferee district should
`
`Id.
`not alone outweigh all of those other factors.” /d. (citation omitted).
`
`Here, this Court and the Federal Circuit have recently found that “[a]ny difference in docket
`
`Id. Juniper
`congestion and time-to-trial” between this District and the NDCAis “negligible.” Jd.; Juniper, 14
`
`LoganTree
`F.4th at 1322 (same); LoganTree, 2022 WL 1491097, at *8 (same). That assessment—made by
`
`LoganTree
`Juniper
`this Court and the Federal Circuit in September 2021 (Juniper), May 2022 (LoganTree), and
`
`XR Commc’ns
`August 2022 (XR Commc’ns), respectively—is equally true today. As a result, this “most
`
`speculative” factor is neutral and cannotjustify retaining the case in the WDTX.
`
`4.
`
`Thefamiliarity of law and conflict-of-law factors are neutral.
`
`The final public interest factors—“familiarity of the forum with the law that will govern
`
`the case; and ... the avoidance of unnecessary problemsof conflict of lawsorin the application of
`
`foreign law”—do not sway the analysis in either direction. Both this Court and the NDCA are
`
`familiar with the law that will govern this case, and there are no conflict of laws or foreign law
`
`considerations at issue. Accordingly, these factors are neutral.
`
`Vv.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Asset forth above, the private and public interest factors, on balance, strongly favor
`
`transfer. Because the center of gravity of this case is in the NDCA, the NDCAisthe clearly more
`
`convenient forum. Accordingly, Clover respectfully requests that the Court transfer this case to
`
`the NDCAunder 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
`
`15
`
`CloudofChange 2020 20 of 21
`Clover Network, LLC v. CloudofChange, LLC
`IPR2023-00287
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00634-ADA-DTG Document 19 Filed 11/04/22 Page 21 of 21
`
`/s/ J. Stephen Ravel
`
`Attorneys for Clover Network, Inc.
`
`/s/ J. Stephen Ravel
`
`/s/ J. Stephen Ravel
`
`