Case 2:12-cv-02769-JPM-tmp Document 50 Filed 02/19/13 Page 1 of 15 PageID 388
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 2:12cv2769 JPM-tmp
`
`Hon. Jon Phipps McCalla
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`FACEBOOK, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FACEBOOK, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS
`MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02769-JPM-tmp Document 50 Filed 02/19/13 Page 2 of 15 PageID 389
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`
`I. 
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1 
`II.  ARGUMENT .............................................................................................................................. 2 
`A.  B.E.’s Choice Of Forum Is Not Entitled To Deference ................................................... 2 
` 1.    B.E. Argues The Wrong Legal Standard For Transfer .............................................. 2 
` 2.    This District Is Not B.E.’s Home Forum ................................................................... 2
`a. Mr. Hoyle’s Personal Contacts Are Not Attributable To B.E. ............................... 3
`b. B.E.’s Statements Regarding Contacts Are Not Credible ...................................... 3
`B.  The Private Interest Factors Favor Transfer ..................................................................... 6 
`1.    The Relative Ease Of Access To Sources Of Proof Favors Transfer ........................ 6 
` 2.    The Convenience Of Relevant Witnesses Favors Transfer........................................ 6
`a. Mr. Hoyle Is The Only Individual Who Would Be
`
`Inconvenienced By A Transfer ............................................................................... 6
`b. Facebook Provided Adequate Detail Regarding Which Employees Are
` Knowledgeable About This Lawsuit ...................................................................... 7
`c. The Location Of Third-Party Witnesses Favors Transfer ....................................... 8
`d. B.E.’s Arguments Regarding Alleged Burdens Are Irrelevant ............................... 9
`C.  The Western District Of Tennessee Has No More Of An Interest In This
`
`Lawsuit Than Any Other Forum ...................................................................................... 9 
`D.  Transfer To The Northern District Of California Would Not Delay
`
`Disposition Of This Matter ............................................................................................ 10 
`III.  CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 10 
`
`
`-i-
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02769-JPM-tmp Document 50 Filed 02/19/13 Page 3 of 15 PageID 390
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`In re Biosearch Technologies, Inc.,
`No. 995, 2011 WL 6445102 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 22, 2011) .............................................................2
`
`In re EMC Corp.,
`677 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012)................................................................................................10
`
`Esperson v. Truegreen Ltd. Partnership,
`No. 2:10-cv-02130, 2010 WL 4362794 (W.D. Tenn. Oct. 5, 2010)..........................................2
`
`In re Genentech, Inc.,
`566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..............................................................................................6, 8
`
`Koh v. Microtek International, Inc.,
`250 F. Supp. 2d 627 (E.D. VA. 2003) ......................................................................................7
`
`In re Link_A_Media Devices Corp.,
`662 F.3d 1221, 1224 (Fed. Cir. 2011)....................................................................................6, 7
`
`In re Microsoft Corp.,
`630 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..............................................................................................3, 8
`
`In re TS Tech USA Corp.,
`551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................10
`
`In re Zimmer Holdings, Inc.,
`609 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..................................................................................................5
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(g) ...........................................................................................................................9
`
`i.
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02769-JPM-tmp Document 50 Filed 02/19/13 Page 4 of 15 PageID 391
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`B.E. Technology is a 74 person company, but its opposition to Facebook’s motion to
`
`transfer focuses exclusively on B.E.’s Chief Executive, Mr. Hoyle, and the uncorroborated
`
`assertion that “Mr. Hoyle has been physically present in this District since 2006, and B.E. since
`
`at least 2008.” (Dkt. No. 38 at 5.) B.E. disregards its other 73 members because only Mr. Hoyle
`
`resides in this District. Once all of B.E.’s members and its history of operations in Michigan and
`
`Louisiana are factored into the transfer analysis, it is apparent that B.E. has much stronger ties to
`
`other jurisdictions. B.E. is a newcomer with no substantial connections to this District, so its
`
`choice of venue is not entitled to any deference.
`
`The balance of private and public interests weighs strongly in favor of transfer because
`
`litigating this action in the Northern District of California would be clearly more convenient for
`
`all of Facebook’s party and third-party witnesses, and no more or less convenient for B.E. and 73
`
`of its 74 members. B.E. offers no evidence to dispute Facebook’s evidence that the Northern
`
`District of California is a clearly more convenient forum because: (1) Facebook is headquartered
`
`there; (2) Facebook’s books and records primarily reside in, or are accessible from, that district;
`
`(3) Facebook’s likely witnesses primarily reside in the Northern District of California; and (4) all
`
`known third-party witnesses reside in or near the Northern District of California.
`
`B.E. asserts that a transfer would merely shift inconvenience from Facebook to B.E., but
`
`has no factual basis for this assertion. B.E. has no history of operations in this District and its
`
`members are dispersed throughout the country. Mr. Hoyle appears to be the only one of B.E.’s
`
`74 members who resides in this District, and by focusing solely on the alleged burdens that Mr.
`
`Hoyle would face as a result of a transfer, B.E. tacitly acknowledges that, on an entity-wide
`
`basis, B.E. would be largely unaffected by a transfer.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02769-JPM-tmp Document 50 Filed 02/19/13 Page 5 of 15 PageID 392
`
`As the Federal Circuit explained in In re Biosearch Technologies, Inc., “in a case
`
`featuring most witnesses and evidence closer to the transferee venue with few or no convenience
`
`factors favoring the venue chosen by the plaintiff, the trial court should grant a motion to
`
`transfer.” In re Biosearch Techs., Inc., No. 995, 2011 WL 6445102, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 22,
`
`2011) (non-precedential) (granting writ and ordering transfer). The Northern District of
`
`California encompasses the vast majority of witnesses and documentary evidence relevant to this
`
`action, so Facebook respectfully requests the Court to transfer this litigation to that district.
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`B.E.’s Choice Of Forum Is Not Entitled To Deference
`
`1.
`
`B.E. Argues The Wrong Legal Standard For Transfer
`
`B.E. argues that transfer is improper because its choice of forum is entitled to “substantial
`
`deference,” and that Facebook cannot satisfy its burden of making a “strong showing” that
`
`transfer is required. (Dkt. No. 38 at 3-4.) However, B.E. selectively cited outdated and
`
`disfavored precedents to support these arguments. As Magistrate Judge Claxton recently found
`
`in a well-reasoned and lengthy § 1404(a) transfer analysis, the weight of authority in this Circuit
`
`requires that a “movant [must] establish that the balance of the transfer factors preponderate in
`
`favor of transfer.” Esperson v. Truegreen Ltd. P’ship, No. 2:10-cv-02130, 2010 WL 4362794, at
`
`*4 (W.D. Tenn. Oct. 5, 2010), adopted 2010 WL 4337823 (W.D. Tenn. Oct. 27, 2010) (granting
`
`motion to transfer). Furthermore, Magistrate Judge Claxton concluded that “courts in this circuit
`
`do not assign plaintiff’s choice [of forum] paramount importance, but simply treat it as one factor
`
`to be weighed equally with other relevant factors.” Id. at *6 (internal quotations omitted).
`
`2.
`
`This District Is Not B.E.’s Home Forum
`
`B.E.’s choice of forum is also not entitled to deference because this District is not B.E.’s
`
`home forum. B.E. has no history of operations in this District. And while Mr. Hoyle resides
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02769-JPM-tmp Document 50 Filed 02/19/13 Page 6 of 15 PageID 393
`
`here, B.E. is the plaintiff, not Mr. Hoyle. B.E.’s other 73 members reside outside this District.
`
`(Dkt. No. 30-5.) B.E. claims to be an established Tennessee company, but the evidence shows
`
`that it is a loosely-organized company that has been managed from Michigan, where it has
`
`maintained a registered office more than a decade, and where its accountant, Randall Rupp,
`
`former managing member, Mark McKinley, and patent attorney, James D. Stevens, all reside.
`
`(Dkt. Nos. 30-3, 30-4, 30-10, 30-14, 30-15.)
`
`B.E. claims it was an oversight that it did not switch its principal place of business from
`
`Michigan to Tennessee in the six years from 2006 until one day prior to filing this lawsuit. That
`
`claim lacks credibility. The only reasonable inference that can be drawn from B.E.’s activities is
`
`that it moved its principal office to this District in anticipation of opposing motions to transfer
`
`under § 1404(a). Accordingly, B.E.’s contacts with this District are entitled to no weight in the
`
`transfer analysis. In re Microsoft Corp., 630 F.3d 1361, 1364-65 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that
`
`actions to establish contacts in Texas were venue manipulation and entitled to no weight).
`
`a.
`
`Mr. Hoyle’s Personal Contacts Are Not Attributable To B.E.
`
`Presumably because B.E. has no history of operations in this District, B.E. focuses on Mr.
`
`Hoyle’s personal and family contacts. Those contacts, however, are not attributable to B.E. and
`
`are not relevant to the transfer analysis. There is no evidence that B.E. and Mr. Hoyle are alter
`
`egos. Prior to switching its principal place of business to Mr. Hoyle’s residence one day before
`
`filing suit, B.E. and Mr. Hoyle have always maintained separate addresses. (Dkt. Nos. 30-4 at 2-
`
`3, Ex. 30-11.) Therefore, Mr. Hoyle’s contacts should be given only minimal consideration in
`
`the transfer analysis.
`
`b.
`
`B.E.’s Statements Regarding Contacts Are Not Credible
`
`Many of B.E.’s statements regarding its purported contacts with this forum are entitled to
`
`little or no weight because they are inconsistent with pre-suit statements it made to the State of
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02769-JPM-tmp Document 50 Filed 02/19/13 Page 7 of 15 PageID 394
`
`Michigan and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. A comparison of B.E.’s statements in its
`
`opposition brief with B.E.’s prior disclosures to the State of Michigan and the Patent Office
`
`reveals the following discrepancies:
`
`Inaccurate Claim 1: “Mr. Hoyle has been physically present in this District since 2006, and
`B.E. since 2008.” (Dkt. No. 38 at 5.)
`
`The assertion regarding Mr. Hoyle’s presence in this District is contradicted by a
`
`document B.E. filed with the Patent Office in 2011, which states that Mr. Hoyle was a resident of
`
`New Orleans, Louisiana. (Dkt. No. 30-4.) The assertion is further contradicted by Mr. Hoyle’s
`
`declaration, which states that he “took steps to establish residence [in Louisiana] while my non-
`
`B.E. work required by presence in the Memphis area.” (Dkt. No. 38-1 at 2.)
`
`B.E.’s assertions regarding its presence in this District are contradicted in numerous other
`
`ways. First, B.E. offered no documentary evidence showing that it has ever done business in
`
`Tennessee. Second, Michigan is the only state in which B.E. filed annual statements between
`
`2008 and 2012. (Dkt. No. 30-3; Dkt. No. 30-10.) Third, in 2011, B.E. filed a document with the
`
`Patent Office that identified Michigan as the location of its principal office. (Dkt. No. 30-4.)
`
`Fourth, Mr. Hoyle filed a Power of Attorney with the Patent Office in 2011 that—again—
`
`identified Michigan as B.E.’s principal office. (Dkt. No. 30-11.) Fifth, when B.E. registered to
`
`do business in Tennessee in September 2012, it answered the question regarding prior business
`
`operations in the State by marking “N/A.” (See Case 2:12-cv-02829-JPM, Dkt. No. 42-1 at 7.)
`
`Inaccurate Claim 2: “I was appointed Chief Executive Officer of B.E. in 2008 and remain
`in that position today. Since being appointed Chief Executive Officer, I have been the only
`member of B.E. with management responsibilities.” (Dkt. No. 38-1 ¶ 6.)
`
`Mr. Hoyle’s assertion is contradicted by a document that B.E. filed with the Michigan
`
`Secretary of State on March 6, 2009. More than a year after the date on which Mr. Hoyle claims
`
`he was the sole member of B.E. with management responsibilities, Mark McKinley signed an
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02769-JPM-tmp Document 50 Filed 02/19/13 Page 8 of 15 PageID 395
`
`Annual Statement that identified himself as B.E.’s “Managing Member.” (Dkt. No. 30-14.)
`
`Inaccurate Claim 3: “B.E.’s documents, including those relating to the conception and
`reduction to practice of the inventions disclosed in those patents are physically located in
`Cordova, Tennessee, and have been located in the Western District of Tennessee since I
`moved here in 2006.” (Dkt. No. 38-1 ¶ 7.)
`
`The assertion that B.E.’s documents are located in this District is only partially true. Mr.
`
`Hoyle’s declaration confirms that B.E. maintains a registered office in Michigan, and that B.E.’s
`
`accountant, Randall Rupp, resides there. (Dkt. No. 38-1 ¶ 5.) And B.E. does not dispute that its
`
`patent prosecution attorney, James D. Stevens, lives in Michigan. (Dkt. No. 30-15.) The only
`
`reasonable inference based on these contradictory statements is that B.E.’s financial records, tax
`
`records, and patent prosecution files all reside in Michigan—and elsewhere in its opposition
`
`brief, B.E. concedes as much. (Dkt. No. 38 at 6 (“[F]ew, if any, documents relevant to issues in
`
`this action are located in Michigan.”).)
`
`In similar circumstances where patent owners have colored the facts in an attempt to
`
`make their contacts with a forum seem more substantial, the Federal Circuit has not hesitated to
`
`compel transfer. In In re Zimmer Holdings, Inc., MedIdea’s business was centered in Michigan,
`
`yet it established its principal place of business in Texas shortly before filing suit. In re Zimmer
`
`Holdings, Inc., 609 F.3d 1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2010). When Zimmer moved to transfer,
`
`MedIdea argued that transfer was inappropriate because it had filed suit in its home jurisdiction.
`
`Id. The Federal Circuit ordered transfer, concluding that MedIdea was “attempting to game the
`
`system by artificially seeking to establish venue by sharing office space with another of the trial
`
`counsel’s clients.” Id. Like MedIdea, B.E. has no history of operations in this District and its
`
`principal office in Mr. Hoyle’s residence is as recent and ephemeral as MedIdea’s shared office
`
`space in the Eastern District of Texas. Id.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02769-JPM-tmp Document 50 Filed 02/19/13 Page 9 of 15 PageID 396
`
`B.
`
`The Private Interest Factors Favor Transfer
`
`1.
`
`The Relative Ease Of Access To Sources Of Proof Favors Transfer
`
`B.E. attempts to minimize the importance of access to sources of proof by arguing that
`
`the location of documents “is increasingly less important in deciding motions to transfer.” (Dkt.
`
`No. 38 at 13.) But the Federal Circuit has held that the electronic nature of documents should
`
`not play a substantial role in determining ease of access to sources of proof, noting that if it did,
`
`it “would render this factor superfluous.” In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1346 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2009). The Federal Circuit has also held that it is an abuse of discretion to fail to consider this
`
`factor. In re Link_A_Media Devices Corp., 662 F.3d 1221, 1224 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
`
`B.E. does not dispute that Facebook will supply the vast majority of relevant documents
`
`in this litigation, or that Facebook’s documents reside in, or are accessible from, the Northern
`
`District of California. (Dkt. No. 30-31 ¶ 3.) Rather, B.E. contends that its documents are located
`
`in Cordova, Tennessee, and argues that its inconvenience in transferring documents from
`
`Tennessee would offset any benefits of transfer. (Dkt. No. 38-1 ¶ 7.) But as discussed above, its
`
`assertion overstates the volume of documents that are likely located in Tennessee. The vast
`
`majority of relevant sources of proof related to this action will reside in the Northern District of
`
`California, where the allegedly infringing products were developed, so this factor favors transfer.
`
`2.
`
`The Convenience Of Relevant Witnesses Favors Transfer
`
`a.
`
`Mr. Hoyle Is The Only Individual Who Would Be
`Inconvenienced By A Transfer
`
`B.E. argues that any benefits that a transfer would convey on Facebook and third party
`
`witnesses would be offset by inconveniences to B.E.’s witnesses. This argument is misleading,
`
`and B.E. improperly conflates its convenience with the convenience of Mr. Hoyle. Mr. Hoyle is
`
`only 1/74th of B.E. B.E. offers no evidence showing that, as a whole company, it would be any
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02769-JPM-tmp Document 50 Filed 02/19/13 Page 10 of 15 PageID 397
`
`more or less convenient for B.E. if Facebook’s motion is granted.
`
`B.E. also overstates the extent of the alleged inconvenience to Mr. Hoyle. The
`
`involvement of Mr. Hoyle in this case is likely to be limited to (1) serving as a trial witness, and
`
`(2) sitting for a deposition, which can easily be taken in Tennessee even if the case is transferred.
`
`Mr. Hoyle may provide some guidance to B.E.’s counsel on the direction of this case, but B.E.’s
`
`counsel is also located in the Northern District of California. Mr. Hoyle’s purported
`
`inconvenience as a trial witness is minor when balanced against the cost and inconvenience to
`
`Facebook’s potentially numerous party witnesses with knowledge of its accused products, and
`
`the nine third-party witnesses who all reside in or near the Northern District of California.
`
`b.
`
`Facebook Provided Adequate Detail Regarding Which
`Employees Are Knowledgeable About This Lawsuit
`
`B.E. argues that Facebook’s motion must be denied because Facebook did not identify its
`
`trial witnesses by name, title, location, and the content of their testimony. (Dkt. No. 38 at 8-10.)
`
`B.E.’s argument misstates the law. B.E. cites Koh v. Microtek International, Inc. to support its
`
`argument, but fails to acknowledge that Koh granted transfer. Koh, 250 F. Supp. 2d 627, 636-
`
`637 (E.D. VA. 2003). B.E. also fails to acknowledge that Koh recognized that there is a tension
`
`in transfer motions between the duty to file early and the need to support the motion with
`
`affidavits identifying witnesses and the materiality of their testimony, when such information
`
`may not be available until later in the case. Id. Koh also recognized that courts may infer that
`
`witnesses are located near the center of the allegedly infringing activities, and that witnesses
`
`involved in design and development of accused products are material to the transfer analysis. Id.
`
`Considering that Facebook filed its motion to transfer within days after answering B.E.’s
`
`Complaint, it is unreasonable for B.E. to demand that Facebook “identify any witnesses by name,
`
`position title, location, the subject matter on which they will testify, or the burdens they would
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02769-JPM-tmp Document 50 Filed 02/19/13 Page 11 of 15 PageID 398
`
`endure by traveling to Tennessee to testify.” (Dkt. No. 38 at 9.) As the Federal Circuit held in In
`
`re Genentech, “[r]equiring a defendant to show that the potential witness has more than relevant
`
`and material information at this point in the litigation or risk facing denial of transfer on that
`
`basis is unnecessary.” In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1343-44 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing In
`
`re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 317 n. 12 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc)).
`
` Moreover, B.E.’s arguments regarding the alleged inadequacies in the declaration that
`
`Facebook filed in support of its motion overlook key differences between Facebook and some of
`
`the other companies that B.E. accuses of infringement. B.E.’s Complaint alleges that advertising
`
`shown on Facebook’s website (www.facebook.com) and related mobile application software
`
`infringes the patent-in-suit. (Dkt. No. 1.) Unlike B.E.’s allegations against many of the other
`
`defendants that B.E. recently sued, B.E.’s broad infringement allegations against Facebook
`
`implicate its entire business. It would be misleading for Facebook to pretend that it could
`
`identify a subset of employees as most-relevant or its trial witnesses at this early stage of the
`
`litigation. B.E.’s arguments to the contrary ignore the realities of patent infringement litigation
`
`and mischaracterize the evidentiary burden that Facebook must satisfy to obtain a transfer
`
`pursuant to § 1404(a). In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d at 1343-44.
`
`c.
`
`The Location Of Third-Party Witnesses Favors Transfer
`
`B.E. asserts that the testimony of third party witnesses is irrelevant to the validity of the
`
`patent-in-suit, and irrelevant to the transfer analysis. Contrary to B.E.’s arguments, the Federal
`
`Circuit has acknowledged that prior art inventors’ testimony is relevant, and that the location of
`
`prior art inventors in the transferee district weighs in favor of granting a motion to transfer. In re
`
`Microsoft Corp., 630 F.3d 1361, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (granting writ of mandamus in-part
`
`because the defendant’s witnesses relating to prior art were located in the transferee district).
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02769-JPM-tmp Document 50 Filed 02/19/13 Page 12 of 15 PageID 399
`
`B.E. also argues that the testimony of prior art witnesses is irrelevant to the validity of the
`
`patent-in-suit because “prior art inventor testimony may not be used to vary the words of the
`
`alleged prior art.” (Dkt. No. 38 at 11.) B.E.’s argument misapprehends the primary purpose of
`
`obtaining deposition and trial testimony from prior art witnesses. Prior art witnesses are often
`
`the only source of evidence regarding commercial products that may qualify as prior art under 35
`
`U.S.C. § 102(g), and such products often include additional invalidating features that are not
`
`described in prior art patents or publications. The availability of compulsory process to call prior
`
`art witnesses at trial is highly relevant to the transfer analysis, and the location of Facebook’s
`
`third-party prior art witnesses in or near the Northern District weighs heavily in favor of transfer.
`
`d.
`
`B.E.’s Arguments Regarding Alleged Burdens Are Irrelevant
`
`B.E. argues that Facebook is a prosperous company that can afford to defend itself in this
`
`District, whereas Mr. Hoyle would be burdened financially if this litigation is transferred. (Dkt.
`
`No. 38 at 14.) The juxtaposition of Facebook’s finances with those of Mr. Hoyle is improper and
`
`irrelevant to the transfer analysis. B.E. offered no evidence regarding its financial condition or
`
`any burdens that it faces, so there is no basis to conclude that a transfer would burden B.E.
`
`C.
`
`The Western District Of Tennessee Has No More Of An Interest In This
`Lawsuit Than Any Other Forum
`
`B.E. asserts that “this District has a local interest in deciding whether one of its resident’s
`
`patent rights have been violated and awarding an appropriate amount of damages.” (Dkt. No. 38
`
`at 16.) This argument confuses Mr. Hoyle, who is not the patent owner, with B.E., which has
`
`only an ephemeral presence in this District. B.E. also suggests that this District has a local
`
`interest in deciding its claims because “Facebook makes its social network available to
`
`Tennesseans on a massive scale.” (Dkt. No. 38 at 16.) The Federal Circuit has unequivocally
`
`rejected this argument. The citizens of this District do not have a substantial interest in this
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02769-JPM-tmp Document 50 Filed 02/19/13 Page 13 of 15 PageID 400
`
`litigation merely because Facebook’s website is available in Tennessee, as it is throughout the
`
`country. In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`B.E. also incorrectly argues that transfer should be denied because keeping multiple
`
`lawsuits in this district will convey efficiencies to the federal judicial system. B.E. cannot
`
`transform an otherwise inconvenient forum into a convenient one by bringing multiple suits in
`
`the same jurisdiction. In re EMC Corp., 677 F.3d 1351, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (cautioning
`
`against the mitigation of an individual defendant’s rights where “[e]ach defendant has simply
`
`been thrown into a mass pit with others to suit plaintiff’s convenience.”).
`
`D.
`
`Transfer To The Northern District Of California Would Not Delay
`Disposition Of This Matter
`
`B.E. asserts that Facebook’s motion should be denied because “transfer to the Northern
`
`District of California would likely delay trial of this case by at least one year,” but Federal Court
`
`Case Management Statistics do not bear out its argument. (Dkt. No. 38 at 15.) B.E. focuses on
`
`the median time to trial, but very few cases reach trial, so a more relevant statistic is the average
`
`time from filing to disposition. The average time to disposition in the Northern District of
`
`California is two months faster than the average time to disposition in this District. (Dkt. No. 30-
`
`30.) B.E.’s statistics fail to show that this lawsuit would be resolved any more quickly in this
`
`District than the Northern District of California. At the most, B.E.’s statistics suggest that
`
`Federal Court Case Management Statistics are equivocal regarding which district would resolve
`
`B.E.’s claims the quickest, and therefore, this factor is neutral to the transfer analysis.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons set forth above, Facebook respectfully requests that this case be
`
`transferred to the Northern District of California.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02769-JPM-tmp Document 50 Filed 02/19/13 Page 14 of 15 PageID 401
`
`Dated: February 19, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted:
`
`/s/ Orion Armon
`
`Heidi Keefe (pro hac vice)
`hkeefe@cooley.com
`Mark Weinstein (pro hac vice motion to be filed)
`mweinstein@cooley.com
`COOLEY LLP
`3175 Hanover Street
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130
`Telephone: (650) 843-5000
`Facsimile: (650) 849-7400
`
`Orion Armon (pro hac vice)
`oarmon@cooley.com
`Sara Radke (pro hac vice)
`sradke@cooley.com
`COOLEY LLP
`380 Interlocken Crescent, Suite 900
`Broomfield, CO 80021
`Telephone: (720) 566-4000
`Facsimile: (720) 566-4099
`
`Heather J. Hubbard (TN # 23699)
`Laura P. Merritt (TN # 26482)
`WALLER LANSDEN DORTCH & DAVIS, LLP
`Nashville City Center
`511 Union St., Suite 2700
`Nashville, TN 37219-8966
`615-850-6024
`Fax: 615-244-6804
`heather.hubbard@wallerlaw.com
`laura.merritt@wallerlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Counsel for Defendant Facebook, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02769-JPM-tmp Document 50 Filed 02/19/13 Page 15 of 15 PageID 402
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing FACEBOOK, INC.’S REPLY BRIEF IN
`
`SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1404(A)
`
`has been served this 19TH day of February, 2013, on the following counsel of record via the
`
`Court’s Electronic Filing System:
`
`Craig Robert Kaufman  
`Robert Edward Freitas
`Qudus B. Olaniran
`Hsiang Hong Lin
`FREITAS TSENG & KAUFMAN, LLP
`100 Marine Parkway, Suite 200
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`650-593-6300
`ckaufman@ftklaw.com
`rfreitas@ftklaw.com
`qolaniran@ftklaw.com
`jlin@ftklaw.com
`
`  
`
`Adam Calhoun Simpson 
`Richard M. Carter
`MARTIN TATE MORROW & MARSTON
`International Place, Tower II
`6410 Poplar Avenue, Suite 1000
`Memphis, TN 38119
`901-522-9000
`asimpson@martintate.com
`rcarter@martintate.com 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/Orion Armon
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`388374 v2/CO