Case 2:12-cv-02772-JPM-tmp Document 36 Filed 02/01/13 Page 1 of 14 PageID 305
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`Case No. 2:12-cv-02772-JPM-tmp
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`)))))))))))
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`LINKEDIN CORPORATION,
`
`Defendant.
`
`DEFENDANT LINKEDIN CORPORATION’S REPLY IN SUPPORT
`OF ITS MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)
`
`Glen G. Reid, Jr. (#8184)
`greid@wyattfirm.com
`Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr. (#06389)
`mvorder-bruegge@wyattfirm.com
`WYATT, TARRANT & COMBS, LLP
`The Renaissance Center
`1715 Aaron Brenner Dr., Suite 800
`Memphis, TN 38120-4367
`(901) 537-1000
`
`Counsel for Defendant
`LINKEDIN CORP.
`
`J. David Hadden
`dhadden@fenwick.com
`Darren F. Donnelly
`ddonnelly@fenwick.com
`Saina S. Shamilov
`sshamilov@fenwick.com
`Ryan J. Marton
`rmarton@fenwick.com
`Clifford Web
`cweb@fenwick.com
`Justin Hulse
`jhulse@fenwick.com
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`801 California Street, 6th Floor
`Mountain View, CA 94041
`(650) 988-8500
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02772-JPM-tmp Document 36 Filed 02/01/13 Page 2 of 14 PageID 306
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`ARGUMENT.......................................................................................................................1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`B.E.’s Choice of Forum Is Not Entitled to Deference. ............................................1
`
`The Private Interest Factors Favor Transfer to the Northern District of
`California. ................................................................................................................3
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Nearly All of the Documents Relevant to This Case Are Located in the
`Northern District of California.....................................................................3
`
`The Vast Majority of Witnesses Are Located in the Northern District
`of California.................................................................................................5
`
`The Availability of Compulsory Process to Secure the Attendance of
`Third Party Witnesses Favors Transfer........................................................7
`
`There Are No Practical Problems that Outweigh the Significant
`Benefits of Transfer. ....................................................................................8
`
`C.
`
`The Public Interest Factors Favor Transfer to the Northern District of
`California. ................................................................................................................8
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION....................................................................................................................9
`
`i
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02772-JPM-tmp Document 36 Filed 02/01/13 Page 3 of 14 PageID 307
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`
`Adoma v. Univ. of Phoenix, Inc.,
`711 F. Supp. 2d 1142 (E.D. Cal. 2010)......................................................................................6
`
`Cover v. Albany Law School of Union Univ.,
`No. 04 Civ. 0643, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13669 (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2005) ..............................6
`
`Droplets, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. 2:11-CV-392, 2012 WL 3578605 (E.D. Tex. June 27, 2012) ............................................7
`
`Esperson v. Trugeen Ltd. P’ship,
`No. 2:10-cv-02130, 2010 WL 4362794 (W.D. Tenn. Oct. 5, 2010)..........................................2
`
`Functional Pathways of Tenn., LLC v. Wilson Senior Care, Inc.,
`866 F. Supp. 2d 918 (E.D. Tenn. 2012).....................................................................................2
`
`Hunter Fan Co. v. Minka Lighting, Inc.,
`No. 06-2108, 2006 WL 1627746 (W.D. Tenn. June 12, 2006) .................................................2
`
`In re Acer Am. Corp.,
`626 F.3d 1252 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..................................................................................................4
`
`In re Genentech, Inc.,
`566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..................................................................................................4
`
`In re Hoffman-La Roche, Inc.,
`587 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..................................................................................................9
`
`In re Link_A_Media Devices Corporation
`662 F.3d 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..................................................................................................4
`
`In re Microsoft Corp.,
`630 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..................................................................................................7
`
`In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc.,
`545 F.3d 304 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc) ...................................................................................4
`
`MBCP Peerlogic LLC v. Critial Path, Inc.,
`No. 02 Civ. 3310, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23268 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2002)..............................6
`
`Morris v. Mid-Century Ins. Co.,
`No. 4:11-cv-1836, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60246 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 30, 2012) .........................2
`
`Nationwide Life Ins. Co. v. Koresko,
`No. 2:05CV1066, 2007 WL 2713783 (S.D. Ohio Sep. 14, 2007).............................................5
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02772-JPM-tmp Document 36 Filed 02/01/13 Page 4 of 14 PageID 308
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (CONT.)
`
`Page
`
`Nilssen v. Everbrite, Inc.,
`No. Civ.A. 00-189-JJF, 2001 WL 34368396 (D. Del. Feb. 16, 2001) ......................................5
`
`Norwood v. Kirkpatrick,
`349 U.S. 29 (1955).................................................................................................................1, 2
`
`Precision Franchising, LLC v. Coombs,
`No. 1:06-cv-1148, 2006 WL 3840334 (E.D. Va. Dec. 27 2006)...............................................3
`
`Riley v. Cochrane Furniture Co.,
`No. 94-cv-71016, No. 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12059 (E.D. Mich. July 7, 1994) .....................1
`
`Rinks v. Hocking,
`No. 1:10-cv-1102, 2011 WL 691242 (W.D. Mich. Feb 16, 2011) ............................................5
`
`Tuna Processors, Inc. v. Hawaii Int’l Seafood, Inc.,
`408 F. Supp. 2d 358 (E.D. Mich. 2005).....................................................................................2
`
`U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC v. Acer, Inc.,
`No. 6:09-cv-448-JDL, 2010 WL 2771842 (E.D. Tex. July 13, 2010).......................................7
`
`Union Planters Bank N.A. v. EMC Mort. Corp.,
`67 F. Supp. 2d 915 (W.D. Tenn. 1999)......................................................................................2
`
`United States ex rel. Kairos Scientia, Inc. v. Zinsser Co.,
`No. 5:10-CV-383, 2011 WL 127852 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 14, 2011) ..............................................9
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Local Patent Rule 3.2(b) ..................................................................................................................4
`
`iii
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02772-JPM-tmp Document 36 Filed 02/01/13 Page 5 of 14 PageID 309
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`B.E. does not dispute that LinkedIn, all of its witnesses, and all of its documents are lo-
`
`cated in the Northern District of California. B.E. also does not dispute that the majority of the
`
`other 18 defendants it sued in this district are located in the Northern District of California, and
`
`none of the defendants are located in Tennessee or have any evidence here. B.E. even admits
`
`that it registered to do business in Tennessee only because it decided to file lawsuits here, and it
`
`has no offices or other business operations in the State. To establish an illusion of its presence in
`
`Tennessee, however, B.E. relies on the personal residence of the inventor of the asserted patent.
`
`But the inventor’s personal residence does not and cannot establish any required presence of
`
`B.E., the company, in this district. It would be grossly unfair to subject LinkedIn and all its wit-
`
`nesses, along with the 18 other defendants, to endure the significant inconvenience of litigating
`
`in this district simply because one witness resides here.
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`B.E.’s Choice of Forum Is Not Entitled to Deference.
`
`B.E. contends that its choice of the Western District of Tennessee is entitled to “substan-
`
`tial weight” and that LinkedIn has the burden to show “that the balance of convenience strongly
`
`favors transfer.” (Dkt. No. 30 (“Opp.”) at 3-6.) This is no longer the applicable standard in the
`
`Sixth Circuit. In Norwood v. Kirkpatrick, the Supreme Court found that movants under Section
`
`1404(a) should not to be held to the higher “strongly in favor” standard applicable to the forum
`
`non conveniens doctrine. 349 U.S. 29, 39-40 (1955). Following that decision, courts in the Sixth
`
`Circuit have recognized that the only appropriate inquiry is whether the movant’s proposed fo-
`
`rum is “more convenient vis a vis the plaintiff’s initial choice.” See, e.g., Riley v. Cochrane Fur-
`
`niture Co., No. 94-cv-71016, No. 1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12059, at *5 (E.D. Mich. July 7, 1994)
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02772-JPM-tmp Document 36 Filed 02/01/13 Page 6 of 14 PageID 310
`
`(following Norwood v. Kirkpatrick, 349 U.S. 29 (1955)); Morris v. Mid-Century Ins. Co.,
`
`No. 4:11-cv-1836, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60246, at *9 (N.D. Ohio Apr. 30, 2012) (“the balance
`
`need not be ‘strongly in favor’ of the party seeking the transfer, but rather need only favor the
`
`party seeking the transfer”) (citation omitted). Even the case law that B.E. cites in its Opposition
`
`recognizes that this is now the appropriate standard. See Esperson v. Trugeen Ltd. P’ship, No.
`
`2:10-cv-02130, 2010 WL 4362794, at *2-6 (W.D. Tenn. Oct. 5, 2010) (discussing the history of
`
`“strongly favors” standard, rejecting it, and following Norwood).
`
`While the plaintiff’s choice of forum may be considered in assessing the convenience of
`
`transfer, it is not paramount or determinative. See, e.g., Functional Pathways of Tenn., LLC v.
`
`Wilson Senior Care, Inc., 866 F. Supp. 2d 918, 932 (E.D. Tenn. 2012) (rejecting contention that
`
`the plaintiff’s choice of forum should be given “great deference”); Union Planters Bank N.A. v.
`
`EMC Mort. Corp., 67 F. Supp. 2d 915, 921 (W.D. Tenn. 1999) (“the Sixth Circuit has affirmed
`
`that, when balancing the interests of a plaintiff’s choice of forum against convenience, the plain-
`
`tiff’s choice is only one factor to be considered and is not to be determinative”). This Court’s
`
`decision in Hunter Fan Co., cited by B.E., is inapposite. Hunter Fan Co. v. Minka Lighting, Inc.,
`
`No. 06-2108, 2006 WL 1627746 (W.D. Tenn. June 12, 2006). In that case, the Court explained
`
`that when a plaintiff has “little connection” to its chosen forum, as is the case here, the plaintiff’s
`
`choice of forum is not entitled any deference. Id. at *3 (distinguishing Tuna Processors, Inc. v.
`
`Hawaii Int’l Seafood, Inc., 408 F. Supp. 2d 358, 362 (E.D. Mich. 2005)).
`
`In its Opposition, B.E. conflates itself with the inventor of the asserted patent, Mr. Hoyle.
`
`But B.E. is not Mr. Hoyle. While it may be the case that Mr. Hoyle moved to Tennessee in
`
`2006, as he declares, B.E. offers nothing but a self-serving, conclusory assertion that B.E. has
`
`been in Tennessee since 2008, when Mr. Hoyle purportedly became its CEO. (Opp. at 5.) Tell-
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02772-JPM-tmp Document 36 Filed 02/01/13 Page 7 of 14 PageID 311
`
`ingly, B.E. offers no explanation of what it has been doing in Tennessee since 2008. That is be-
`
`cause B.E. has no actual place of business in Tennessee, apart from Mr. Hoyle’s residence, and
`
`has no operations here. Indeed, B.E. confirms that it only registered to do business in Tennessee
`
`because it decided to file lawsuits in this district. (Id.) B.E.’s decision to litigate in Tennessee,
`
`and its ephemeral connection to the State, does not counsel against transfer.
`
`B.
`
`The Private Interest Factors Favor Transfer to the Northern District of
`California.
`
`1.
`
`Nearly All of the Documents Relevant to This Case Are Located in the
`Northern District of California.
`
`B.E. does not dispute that all of LinkedIn’s relevant documents, including its source
`
`code, are maintained in the Northern District of California. (Id. at 12; see also Dkt. No. 21-2,
`
`Declaration of Ashvin Kannan (“Kannan Decl.”) ¶¶ 7-8). Nor does it dispute that the bulk of
`
`discovery in this case will be produced by LinkedIn. Instead, B.E. contends that this factor does
`
`not favor transfer because LinkedIn is “wealthy” and B.E. maintains “documents demonstrating
`
`the conception and reduction to practice of Mr. Hoyle’s inventions” in the district. (Opp. at 6.)
`
`Any financial success of LinkedIn—a company that is based in California with no business oper-
`
`ations in Tennessee—does not render this district more convenient than the Northern District of
`
`California. Precision Franchising, LLC v. Coombs, No. 1:06-cv-1148, 2006 WL 3840334, at *5
`
`(E.D. Va. Dec. 27 2006) (“Richmond is an inconvenient location for Plaintiff to pursue their suit,
`
`and the assertion that ‘forum should not matter to the Plaintiff’ because it is a successful and
`
`wealthy corporation lacks merit or legal basis”). Further, B.E.’s possession of any purported
`
`conception and reduction to practice documents does not shift the balance of convenience to
`
`Tennessee given the significant disparity between the quantities of the parties’ respective docu-
`
`ments.
`
`Under the Local Patent Rules, B.E. was obligated to produce to LinkedIn “[a]ll docu-
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02772-JPM-tmp Document 36 Filed 02/01/13 Page 8 of 14 PageID 312
`
`ments evidencing the conception and first reduction to practice of each claimed invention” on
`
`January 7, 2013. See Local Patent Rule 3.2(b) (emphasis added). B.E. made that production
`
`through its lead counsel from the Northern District of California. (Declaration of Amanda Hud-
`
`son in Support of LinkedIn’s Reply (“Hudson Decl.”) Ex. 1.) That production included only 222
`
`documents.
`
`(Id. ¶ 2.) On its face, the size of this production belies B.E.’s claim of inconven-
`
`ience, considering that the bulk of discovery in this case and a significantly greater number of
`
`documents are located in California at LinkedIn’s offices. See In re Acer Am. Corp., 626 F.3d
`
`1252, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (finding that “it is unreasonable to suggest that [plaintiff’s] evidence
`
`alone could outweigh the convenience of having the evidence from multiple defendants located
`
`within the transferee venue of trial”). But even if the existence of this small number of docu-
`
`ments in Tennessee could have represented any inconvenience, which is unlikely, that burden
`
`was effectively wiped out the second they were produced. For the purposes of this litigation,
`
`these documents are no longer in Tennessee, and they do not represent any continuing inconven-
`
`ience to litigation of this case in California.
`
`B.E.’s argument that the location of documents “is increasingly less important in deciding
`
`motions to transfer” because of the electronic nature of modern document production has been
`
`expressly rejected by the Federal Circuit. Specifically, the Federal Circuit has rejected the argu-
`
`ment that the location of documents in the era of electronic storage and transmission should not
`
`play a substantial role in the venue analysis, noting that this “would render this factor superflu-
`
`ous.” In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing In re Volkswagen of
`
`Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 316 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (en banc). Indeed, In re Link_A_Media Devices
`
`Corporation, a case B.E. cites, makes clear that “it is improper to ignore [this factor] entirely,”
`
`and that a district court’s refusal to consider the location of sources of proof on the ground that
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02772-JPM-tmp Document 36 Filed 02/01/13 Page 9 of 14 PageID 313
`
`the issue was “outdated, irrelevant, and should be given little weight” amounts to a clear abuse of
`
`discretion. 662 F.3d 1221, 1224 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (vacating and transferring to the Northern Dis-
`
`trict of California).1 This factor strongly favors transfer.
`
`2.
`
`The Vast Majority of Witnesses Are Located in the Northern District
`of California.
`
`B.E. does not challenge that all of LinkedIn’s relevant witnesses in this case are located
`
`in the Northern District of California. B.E. instead faults LinkedIn for not specifically naming its
`
`witnesses and providing the topics of their testimony. (Opp. at 8.) LinkedIn, however, has pro-
`
`vided the information required “to enable the court to assess the materiality of evidence and the
`
`degree of inconvenience.” Rinks v. Hocking, No. 1:10-cv-1102, 2011 WL 691242, at *3 (W.D.
`
`Mich. Feb 16, 2011) (internal citation omitted); see also Nilssen v. Everbrite, Inc., No. Civ.A.
`
`00-189-JJF, 2001 WL 34368396, at *2-3 (D. Del. Feb. 16, 2001) (identification of witnesses not
`
`by name but as “employees” or “former employees of Defendant,” with “knowledge of the alleg-
`
`edly infringing designs,” “especially when fact discovery has yet to take place, is sufficient for
`
`purposes of venue transfer analysis”). LinkedIn has established that all of its witnesses reside in
`
`the Northern District of California. (Kannan Decl. ¶¶ 7-8.) B.E. cannot genuinely dispute that
`
`LinkedIn will rely on these witnesses at trial, and they will testify regarding the accused technol-
`
`ogy. It would be premature and prejudicial for LinkedIn to be required to identify the specific
`
`witnesses most appropriate to testify regarding the accused technology at this early stage in the
`
`case (only four weeks after having received B.E.’s infringement contentions and before any sub-
`
`1 The fact that LinkedIn can produce documents to B.E.’s counsel in California is irrelevant and
`would in no way lessen the inconvenience of litigating in Tennessee. If anything, the fact that
`B.E.’s counsel is based in Northern California makes clear that litigating in Northern California
`is not inconvenient for B.E. The very case B.E. relies on supports transfer to California. Na-
`tionwide Life Ins. Co. v. Koresko, No. 2:05CV1066, 2007 WL 2713783, at *6 (S.D. Ohio Sep.
`14, 2007) (ordering transfer despite plaintiff offering to accept document production in transferee
`district).
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02772-JPM-tmp Document 36 Filed 02/01/13 Page 10 of 14 PageID 314
`
`stantive discovery) in order to secure transfer to a significantly more convenient forum. (Hudson
`
`Decl. ¶ 2.) More importantly, it would be irrelevant. Because all of LinkedIn’s potential wit-
`
`nesses reside in the Northern District of California, and the topics of their testimony are not in
`
`doubt, the names of the specific witnesses add nothing to the determination of inconvenience. In
`
`cases such as this, where the undisputed facts show that the majority of the material witnesses
`
`reside in the transferee district, there is no need to identify any specific witnesses. See, e.g.,
`
`Cover v. Albany Law School of Union Univ., No. 04 Civ. 0643, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13669, at
`
`*7 (S.D.N.Y. July 8, 2005) (“where the events demonstrate that the majority of witnesses are lo-
`
`cated in the transferee district, it is unnecessary to submit a statement naming the witnesses who
`
`will specifically be inconvenienced by maintaining the present venue”); MBCP Peerlogic LLC v.
`
`Critial Path, Inc., No. 02 Civ. 3310, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23268, at *10 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 5,
`
`2002) (“Even though defendants have not provided a list that identifies potential witnesses . . .
`
`the events giving rise to this action demonstrate that the vast majority of material witnesses are in
`
`Northern California and would therefore find it more convenient to testify in California than in
`
`New York.”)
`
`The cases B.E. cites in its Opposition do not suggest a different result. None of them ad-
`
`dress a situation, like that here, where no one questions that all of the material witnesses are nec-
`
`essarily located in the transferee district. Indeed, the Adoma case cited by B.E. explicitly recog-
`
`nized that if “nearly all California potential collective action members were in the Central Dis-
`
`trict” the defendants would not have had to identify any specific witnesses for their claim of in-
`
`convenience to carry weight. Adoma v. Univ. of Phoenix, Inc., 711 F. Supp. 2d 1142, 1151 (E.D.
`
`Cal. 2010).
`
`No matter what the names of LinkedIn’s witnesses are, they will have to take multi-leg
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02772-JPM-tmp Document 36 Filed 02/01/13 Page 11 of 14 PageID 315
`
`flights to Tennessee to testify at trial, likely involving overnight stays away from family and
`
`work. The same is almost certainly true of witnesses in the other 18 actions filed by B.E. B.E.’s
`
`single Tennessee witness, with a financial interest in this litigation, cannot counterbalance this
`
`inconvenience. And in fact, transferring this case to California will reduce B.E.’s litigation ex-
`
`penses as it would not need to pay for its Northern Californian lead counsel to travel to Tennes-
`
`see to attend case proceedings. This factor favors transfer.
`
`3.
`
`The Availability of Compulsory Process to Secure the Attendance of
`Third Party Witnesses Favors Transfer.
`
`B.E. concedes that if this case is not transferred, LinkedIn will be unable to ensure the at-
`
`tendance at trial of third party prior art witnesses who reside in the Northern District of Califor-
`
`nia. (Opp. at 12.) B.E. argues, however, that these third party witnesses are not important be-
`
`cause, in its words, prior art inventor testimony “may not be used to vary the words of the al-
`
`leged prior art.” 2 (Opp. at 10.) While this is true as far as it goes, it ignores the fact that prior art
`
`witness testimony gives context necessary for the jury to assess the prior art and invalidity of the
`
`asserted patents. Such testimony is enormously important in presenting an effective invalidity
`
`case and cannot be ignored. See, e.g., In re Microsoft Corp., 630 F.3d 1361, 1363 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2011) (vacating district court’s order denying motion to transfer on the grounds that, inter alia,
`
`“all of [defendant’s] witnesses relating to…prior art…technology reside in the [transferee dis-
`
`trict].”); U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC v. Acer, Inc., No. 6:09-cv-448-JDL, 2010 WL 2771842,
`
`at *9 (E.D. Tex. July 13, 2010) (granting transfer where “there are potentially important non-
`
`party witnesses such as inventors, prior art witnesses, and the prosecuting attorney [in the trans-
`
`feree district]”); Droplets, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:11-CV-392, 2012 WL 3578605, at *4
`
`2 If B.E.’s argument were accepted, it would drastically undermine its rationale for litigating in
`this district as its only identified witness, and connection to the district, is the inventor of the as-
`serted patent who cannot, according to B.E., “vary the words of” the asserted patent.
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02772-JPM-tmp Document 36 Filed 02/01/13 Page 12 of 14 PageID 316
`
`(E.D. Tex. June 27, 2012) (granting transfer and finding the location of “many prior art inventors
`
`with knowledge and documents relevant to the validity issue…in the Northern District of Cali-
`
`fornia” “weigh[ed] heavily in favor of a transfer”). If this case remains in this district, LinkedIn
`
`will be unable to secure the attendance of any of these prior art witnesses at trial and its invalidi-
`
`ty case will be severely prejudiced.
`
`B.E. also urges the Court to disregard these prior art witnesses because LinkedIn did not
`
`offer evidence of residence beyond their respective patents and patent applications and has not
`
`determined whether they will be unwilling to travel to Tennessee for trial. (Opp. at 11.) Even
`
`assuming that these documents were not sufficient to identify the witnesses’ likely current resi-
`
`dences, based on easily accessible public documents, at least four of the named inventors and
`
`four assignees are still located in the Northern District of California. (Hudson Decl. Exs. 2-8.) It
`
`is highly doubtful that all of these important prior art witnesses would be willing to voluntarily
`
`travel across the country to testify at trial in Tennessee. This factor favors transfer.
`
`4.
`
`There Are No Practical Problems that Outweigh the Significant Bene-
`fits of Transfer.
`
`B.E. does not identify any practical problems that would flow from transfer of this case to
`
`the Northern District of California. Nearly all of the defendants in B.E.’s 19 suits have moved to
`
`transfer to the Northern District of California (at least as an alternative). The Northern District
`
`of California has substantial experience in managing large patent cases, and any efficiency that
`
`can be ensured by keeping these cases in the Western District of Tennessee can also be had by
`
`transferring them to the Northern District of California. This factor too favors transfer.
`
`C.
`
`The Public Interest Factors Favor Transfer to the Northern District of
`California.
`
`B.E. also fails to cogently challenge that the relevant public interest factors favor transfer
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02772-JPM-tmp Document 36 Filed 02/01/13 Page 13 of 14 PageID 317
`
`to the Northern District of California. As to the relative congestion of the courts in the Western
`
`District of Tennessee and the Northern District of California, B.E. argues that because cases take
`
`longer to proceed to trial in the Northern District, this case should not be transferred. (Opp. at
`
`14-15.) B.E., however, ignores that the median time to final disposition of a case in the Western
`
`District of Tennessee is longer than in the Northern District of Tennessee. (Dkt. 21-3 Ex. 14.)
`
`As such, this factor is neutral. See, e.g., United States ex rel. Kairos Scientia, Inc. v. Zinsser Co.,
`
`No. 5:10-CV-383, 2011 WL 127852, at *7 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 14, 2011) (finding that where the
`
`median time to trial was shorter, but the average docket of pending cases per judge and the aver-
`
`age life span of a case was longer in the transferring district, the “facts favor neither transfer nor
`
`retention”).
`
`In terms of the relative local interests of the two districts, B.E. contends that the Western
`
`District of Tennessee has a substantial interest in this dispute because it involves the invention of
`
`a resident, Mr. Hoyle. (Opp. at 15.) That purported invention, however, has nothing to do with
`
`Tennessee. It is indisputable that the alleged invention was conceived and reduced to practice in
`
`Louisiana and assigned to a company in Michigan with no presence in Tennessee until the day
`
`before this lawsuit was filed. LinkedIn, however, is and has always been headquartered in the
`
`Northern District of California. (Kannan Decl. ¶ 4.) The technology accused of infringing in
`
`this case was developed in the Northern District of California by developers who reside there.
`
`(Id. ¶ 7.) It is the center of gravity of the accused infringing activity, and California has a strong
`
`local interest in adjudicating B.E.’s allegations against its citizens. See In re Hoffman-La Roche,
`
`Inc., 587 F.3d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2009). This factor favors transfer.
`
`III.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Because the location of the single witness with an interest in this litigation and 222 doc-
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02772-JPM-tmp Document 36 Filed 02/01/13 Page 14 of 14 PageID 318
`
`uments that have already been produced do not outweigh the significant inconveniences to
`
`LinkedIn and its witnesses posed by litigating this case in the Western District of Tennessee,
`
`LinkedIn respectfully requests that the Court transfer this case to the Northern District of Cali-
`
`fornia where LinkedIn and its employees reside, the accused technology was developed, and the
`
`bulk of discovery is located.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Glen G. Reid, Jr
`/s/
`Glen G. Reid, Jr. (#8184)
`Email: greid@wyattfirm.com
`Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr. (#06389)
`mvorder-bruegge@wyattfirm.com
`WYATT, TARRANT & COMBS, LLP
`The Renaissance Center
`1715 Aaron Brenner Dr., Suite 800
`Memphis, TN 38120-4367
`Ph: 901.537-1000; Fax: 901.537.1010
`-and-
`J. David Hadden
`Email: dhadden@fenwick.com
`Darren F. Donnelly
`Email: ddonnelly@fenwick.com
`Saina S. Shamilov
`Email: sshamilov@fenwick.com
`Ryan J. Marton
`Email: rmarton@fenwick.com
`Clifford Webb
`Email: cwebb@fenwick.com
`Justin G. Hulse
`Email: jhulse@fenwick.com
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`801 California Street, 6th Floor
`Mountain View, CA 94041
`Ph: 650.988-8500; Fax: 650.938.5200
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`LINKEDIN CORPORATION
`
`10