Case 2:12-cv-02782-JPM-cgc Document 33 Filed 02/01/13 Page 1 of 14 PageID 360
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`)
`)
`) Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-02782
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`
`)
`PANDORA MEDIA, INC.,
`)
`
`)
`Defendant.
`
`)
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`) JURY DEMAND
`
`
`)
`
`
` ____________________________________________)
`
`DEFENDANT PANDORA MEDIA, INC.’S
`REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION
`TO TRANSFER VENUE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02782-JPM-cgc Document 33 Filed 02/01/13 Page 2 of 14 PageID 361
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`II.
`
`
`
`B.E.’S CHOICE OF VENUE IS NOT ENTITLED TO DEFERENCE ............................ 2
`
`THE PRIVATE FACTORS FAVOR TRANSFER ........................................................... 3
`
`A. Witness Convenience Favors Transfer ...................................................... 3
`B.
`Availability of Compulsory Process for Non-Party Witnesses in
`California Favors Transfer ......................................................................... 6
`The Location of Sources of Proof in California Favors Transfer .............. 7
`Convenience of the Parties Favors Transfer .............................................. 9
`
`C.
`D.
`
`
`III. THE PUBLIC INTEREST FACTORS FAVOR TRANSFER ............................................ 9
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`B.
`C.
`
`
`Court Congestion Does not Weigh Against Transfer ................................ 9
`The Northern District of California Has a Strong Local Interest ............... 9
`B.E. Cannot Manufacture Venue By Filing Multiple Suits in
`One District .............................................................................................. 10
`
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 10
`
`i
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02782-JPM-cgc Document 33 Filed 02/01/13 Page 3 of 14 PageID 362
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Page
`
`
`CASES
`
`Droplets, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`2:11-CV-392, 2012 WL 3578605 (E.D. Tex. June 27, 2012) ...................................................7
`Geotag, Inc. v. Aromatique, Inc.,
` No. 2:10-cv-570, slip op. (E.D. Tex. Jan 14, 2013) ................................................................10
`Hunter Fan Co. v. Minka Lighting, Inc.,
`No.06-2108 Ml/P, 2006 WL 1627746 (W.D. Tenn. Jun 12, 1990) ...........................................2
`In re Acer America. Corp.,
`626 F.3d 1252 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 03, 2010) .................................................................................10
`In re Genentech, Inc.,
`566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. May 22, 2009) ...................................................................................4
`In re Link_A_Media Devices Corp.
`
`662 F. 3d 1221 (Fed. Cir. Dec 02, 2011) ...................................................................................8
`In re Microsoft Corp.,
`630 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. Jan 05, 2011) .................................................................................3, 7
`In re Zimmer Holdings, Inc.,
`
`609 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................................................3
`Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs,
`512 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. Jan 17, 2008) .....................................................................................7
`Int'l Commodities Exp. Corp. v. N. Pac. Lumber Co., Inc.,
`737 F. Supp. 242 (S.D.N.Y. Mar 29, 1990) ...............................................................................4
`Koh v. Microtek Int’l, Inc.,
`
`250 F.Supp. 2d 627 (E.D. Va. 2003) ........................................................................................5
`Nationwide Life Ins. Co. v. Koresko,
`2:05CV1066, 2007 WL 2713783 (S.D. Ohio, Sep. 14, 2007) ...................................................9
`Network Prot. Sciences, LLC v. Juniper Networks, Inc.,
`2:10-CV-224-JRG, 2012 WL 194382 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2012) ..............................................8
`Nilssen v. Everbrite, Inc.,
`CIV.A. 00-189-JJF, 2001 WL 34368396 (D. Del. Feb. 16, 2001) ............................................5
`NISSM Corp. v. Time Warner, Inc.,
`No. 07-20624CIV, 2008 WL 540758 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 25, 2008) ...............................................4
`Rinks v. Hocking,
`No. 1:10-CV-1102, 2011 WL 691242 (W.D. Mich. Feb 16, 2011) ..........................................5
`Robocast, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. CIV.A. 11-235-RGA, 2012 WL 628010 (D. Del. Feb. 24, 2012) ......................................6
`Tuna Processors, Inc. v. Hawaii Int'l Seafood, Inc.,
`408 F. Supp. 2d 358 (E.D. Mich. Jul 27, 2005) .........................................................................2
`U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC v. Acer, Inc.,
`6:09-CV-448-JDL, 2010 WL 2771842 (E.D. Tex. July 13, 2010) ............................................7
`Van Andel Inst. v. Thorne Research, Inc.,
`No.1:12-CV-731, 2012 WL 5511912 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 14, 2012) .........................................9
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02782-JPM-cgc Document 33 Filed 02/01/13 Page 4 of 14 PageID 363
`
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. (“B.E.”) does not dispute that the Northern District of California
`
`is the locus of operative facts in the case. Specifically, B.E. does not contest that the Northern
`
`District of California is:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the location of Pandora Media Inc.’s (“Pandora”) headquarters and the epicenter
`of Pandora’s activities that B.E. accuses of infringement;
`
`the more convenient district for the vast majority of witnesses, both party and
`non-party;
`
`the location of the vast majority of relevant documents, including the documents
`relating to Pandora’s research, design, development, marketing, and operation of
`the accused service is located.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the only district with subpoena power over multiple non-party witnesses;
`
`the more convenient location for at least 11 of the 19 defendants B.E. has asserted
`its patents against in this District1 and the home to 10 of the 19 defendants;2
`
`the location of B.E.’s lead trial counsel; and
`
` a district whose trial statistics are comparable to those of the Western District of
`Tennessee.
`
`
`B.E. fails to identify any B.E. business offices, substantial business activities, or
`
`employees located in Tennessee -- other than a single individual. B.E.’s ties to the Western
`
`District of Tennessee are not substantial and are based on:
`
`
`
`
`
`the home residence of a single employee, CEO and inventor, Martin David Hoyle;
`
` the location of documents evidently stored in Mr. Hoyle’s family home relating
`to the patent B.E. asserts; and
`
`
`
`1 These defendants include Facebook, Inc., LinkedIn Corp., Groupon, Inc., Pandora Media, Inc.,
`Barnes & Noble, Apple, Inc., Motorola Mobility Holdings LLC, Twitter, Inc., Sony Computer
`Entertainment America LLC, Sony Mobile Communications (USA) Inc., and Sony Electronics
`Inc. Two additional defendants moved to transfer to the West Coast: Spark Networks (Central
`District of California) and Microsoft (Western District of Washington).
`
` Sony Mobile Communications (USA) Inc. is headquartered in Atlanta although it moved to
`transfer to the Northern District of California.
`
` 2
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02782-JPM-cgc Document 33 Filed 02/01/13 Page 5 of 14 PageID 364
`
`
` an application for certificate of authority to do business in Tennessee filed just
`days before initiating the 19 lawsuits.
`
`
`For all of these reasons, the Northern District of California is clearly the more convenient
`
`forum and has the most compelling interest in the case.
`
`I.
`
`B.E.’S CHOICE OF VENUE IS NOT ENTITLED TO DEFERENCE
`
`B.E.’s claim that its choice of venue is entitled to deference simply because it is the
`
`plaintiff in this litigation is without basis. As this Court explained in Hunter Fan Co. v. Minka
`
`Lighting, Inc., No.06-2108 Ml/P, 2006 WL 1627746 (W.D. Tenn. Jun 12, 1990), deference is
`
`accorded to a plaintiff’s selection of forum as a “general rule,” but “’Plaintiff’s choice of forum
`
`is not entitled to the ordinary degree of deference [where] Plaintiff maintains little connection to
`
`[its chosen forum].’” 2006 WL 1627746, at *3 (W.D. Tenn. 1990) (citing Tuna Processors, Inc.
`
`v. Hawaii Int'l Seafood, Inc., 408 F. Supp. 2d 358, 361 (E.D. Mich. 2005)). In Hunter Fan Co.,
`
`the Court denied transfer because the plaintiff was a Tennessee based company with design,
`
`engineering, manufacturing facilities, and relevant patent records in the state. However, this
`
`Court expressly distinguished its holding in Hunter Fan Co. from that in Tuna Processors, Inc. v.
`
`Hawaii Int'l Seafood, Inc., 408 F. Supp. 2d 358 (E.D. Mich. July 27, 2005), where transfer was
`
`granted and no deference was accorded to plaintiff because plaintiff had “little connection” to the
`
`chosen forum. Id. at *1, 4; Tuna Processors, 408 F. Supp. 2d at 360.
`
`Just as in Tuna Processors, the plaintiff here, B.E., has little connection to the Western
`
`District of Tennessee. B.E. wrongly focuses on the location of Mr. Hoyle’s personal residence
`
`and the length of time his family has lived here (See Dkt. 27 (“Opp.”) at 2, 5-6), but Mr. Hoyle is
`
`not the plaintiff. B.E. is the plaintiff. B.E. maintains no office in the Western District of
`
`Tennessee, makes nothing in the district, and offers no products or services in Tennessee.
`
`Nothing in Mr. Hoyle’s declaration, B.E.’s Opposition or B.E.’s Complaint says otherwise.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02782-JPM-cgc Document 33 Filed 02/01/13 Page 6 of 14 PageID 365
`
`
`Until B.E. filed papers for authority to do business in Tennessee, which occurred just days before
`
`B.E. initiated its 19 lawsuits, there is no indication that B.E. did anything at all in this state. Mr.
`
`Hoyle’s declaration even says that B.E. decided to register do business in Tennessee when it was
`
`“preparing to file suit.” See Dkt. 27-1 (“Hoyle Decl.”) at ¶ 8.
`
`Rather, B.E. maintains a registered office in Michigan and appears to also have ties to
`
`Louisiana. See Hoyle Decl. ¶ 5; See Ex. A and C to Dkt. 39 in B.E. Tech., L.L.C. v. Apple Inc.,
`
`2:12-cv-02831. To the extent Mr. Hoyle’s personal residence is relevant to the inquiry, there is
`
`no indication that he lives in Tennessee for reasons relating to B.E. See Hoyle Decl. ¶¶ 2, 4.
`
`Rather, it appears he maintained residency in Louisiana for the purpose of the B.E. business, as
`
`reflected in a patent application filed in December 2011. See Ex. C. to Dkt 39 in B.E.
`
`Technology, L.L.C. v. Apple Inc., 2:12-cv-02831.
`
`In light of these facts, B.E.’s contentions that Tennessee is its principal place of business
`
`and that its choice of venue is entitled to deference must be rejected. See In re Microsoft Corp.,
`
`630 F.3d 1361, 1364-1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (finding plaintiff could not claim the forum state as
`
`its principal place of business where the only connection was incorporating under the laws of the
`
`forum state immediately before filing suit); In re Zimmer Holdings, Inc., 609 F.3d 1378, 1381
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2010) (no deference to plaintiff’s choice of venue because presence appeared to recent,
`
`ephemeral and an artifact of litigation).
`
`II.
`
`THE PRIVATE FACTORS FAVOR TRANSFER
`
`Even if B.E.’s choice of venue is entitled to deference, which it should not be in this case,
`
`Pandora has carried its burden of demonstrating that the balance of convenience favors transfer.
`
`A. Witness Convenience Favors Transfer.
`
`B.E. does not dispute that Pandora’s headquarters and principal place of business are in
`
`Oakland, California and that Pandora's management, primary research, development, and
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02782-JPM-cgc Document 33 Filed 02/01/13 Page 7 of 14 PageID 366
`
`
`engineering facilities all are located in Oakland. See Dkt. 19-4 (“Drucker Decl.”) at ¶¶ 4-5. Nor
`
`does B.E. dispute that most Pandora employees knowledgeable about the design, development,
`
`and operation of its Internet radio services are located in Oakland. Id. at ¶¶ 6-7.
`
`Thus, there is no dispute that key Pandora executives, engineers and software developers all
`
`are in the Northern District of California. See Drucker Decl. at ¶¶ 4-7. These Pandora
`
`employees, likely to be called at trial, are integral contributors to Pandora’s operations, and the
`
`disruption caused by taking them away from their jobs to testify in Tennessee is not offset by any
`
`corresponding inconvenience in asking B.E.’s sole Tennessee witness, Mr. Hoyle, to travel to
`
`California, especially given that California is the home of the majority of his targeted defendants
`
`and his employer’s lead counsel.
`
`B.E. urges the Court to find that the location of one witness in Tennessee outweighs the
`
`convenience of multiple witnesses located in the Northern District of California,3 but this
`
`argument should be rejected. See NISSM Corp. v. Time Warner, Inc., No. 07-20624CIV, 2008
`
`WL 540758, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 25, 2008) (granting transfer where the only resident in the
`
`forum state was the CEO/inventor of the patents but by comparison, “Defendants ha[d]
`
`numerous potentially critical witnesses residing in the Central District of California.”); Int'l
`
`Commodities Exp. Corp. v. N. Pac. Lumber Co., Inc., 737 F. Supp. 242 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 29,
`
`1990) (granting transfer where plaintiff named only one witness likely to testify in the transferor
`
`district); In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. May 22, 2009) (finding factor
`
`weighed in favor of transfer when “a substantial number of material witnesses reside within the
`
`transferee venue and the state of California”).
`
` B.E.’s primary attack -- that Pandora did not identify by name its witnesses and the
`
`
`3 There are even more witnesses located in the Northern District of California across the other
`defendants who have also moved to transfer to that venue.
`4
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02782-JPM-cgc Document 33 Filed 02/01/13 Page 8 of 14 PageID 367
`
`
`specific content of their testimony -- is equally unavailing. There is no dispute that Pandora
`
`employees who work at Pandora’s Oakland headquarters are witnesses “knowledgeable about
`
`the design, development, and operation of [the accused] services.” See Drucker Decl. at ¶ 6.
`
`The information Pandora already provided is sufficient “to enable a 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., CIV.A. 00-189-JJF, 2001 WL 34368396 (D. Del. Feb. 16, 2001) (identification
`
`of witnesses not by name but “as employees or former employees of Defendant,” with
`
`“knowledge of the allegedly infringing designs,” “especially when fact discovery has yet to take
`
`place, is sufficient for purposes of venue transfer analysis.”)
`
`None of the cases B.E. cites stand for the proposition that witnesses must be identified by
`
`name, let alone “name, position title, location, the subject matter on which they will testify, or
`
`the burdens they would endure by traveling to Tennessee to testify.” Opp. at 8. To the contrary,
`
`in Koh v. Microtek Int’l, Inc., a case on which B.E. relies (Opp. at 8), the court explained that:
`
`there is a tension in transfer motions between the duty to file such motions early
`in the action and the need to support that motion with affidavits identifying
`witnesses and the materiality of their testimony, information which may not be
`known until later in the case. . . . . Furthermore, it is permissible to infer, absent
`any contrary evidence from the non-movant, that witnesses are located at or
`near the center of the allegedly infringing activities and that witnesses involved in the
`design and manufacture of the accused products are material.
`
`Id., 250 F.Supp. 2d 627, 636-37 (E.D. Va. 2003) (emphasis added, citations and internal
`
`quotations omitted). This tension is present here, where Pandora filed its motion to transfer on
`
`December 26, 2012, before B.E. served its Initial Infringement Contentions on January 7, 2013
`
`and before Pandora had information about B.E’s infringement contentions other than those
`
`contained in the bare notice-pleading complaint.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02782-JPM-cgc Document 33 Filed 02/01/13 Page 9 of 14 PageID 368
`
`
`With B.E.’s infringement contentions now in hand, and to the extent the actual names and
`
`titles of the Pandora witnesses matter (which they should not), Pandora identifies the following
`
`people in the Oakland, California area who might testify at a trial on behalf of Pandora because
`
`they are knowledgeable about Pandora and its operations: Anthony Calzaretta, Creative
`
`Director; Tom Conrad, Chief Technology Officer; Joseph Kennedy, President and Chief Executive
`
`Officer; Christopher Martin, Vice President of Engineering; and Tim Westergren, Chief Strategy
`
`Officer and founder. See Declaration of Matt Morgan at ¶3. Pandora additionally expects that
`
`other Pandora executives, engineers and employees in the Oakland area also could testify on
`
`behalf of Pandora.
`
`B.
`
`Availability of Compulsory Process for Non-Party Witnesses in California
`Favors Transfer.
`
`B.E. does not dispute the Northern District of California’s subpoena power over
`
`numerous non-party witnesses and does not claim that there are non-party witnesses located
`
`within the subpoena power of this Court. Instead, B.E. questions whether the non-party
`
`witnesses identified by Pandora as being located in the Northern District of California are
`
`actually located there, without providing any counterevidence to show they are not.
`
`In submitting the names and last known locations for its potential prior art witnesses,
`
`Pandora provided this Court with sufficient information to conclude that this factor weighs in
`
`favor of transfer. Robocast, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. CIV.A. 11-235-RGA, 2012 WL 628010, at
`
`*3 (D. Del. Feb. 24, 2012) (factor favors transfer where defendants’ submitted the last known
`
`locations for their prior art witnesses, and there was “statistically greater likelihood that such
`
`witnesses would be within the subpoena power of the Northern District of California than within
`
`the subpoena power of the District of Delaware.”) Additionally, it appears that at least six prior
`
`art witnesses reside in the Northern District of California and that all but one of the prior art
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02782-JPM-cgc Document 33 Filed 02/01/13 Page 10 of 14 PageID 369
`
`
`patents have either an inventor or assignee who resides in the District. See B.E. Tech., L.L.C. v.
`
`Google, Inc., C.A. No. 2:12-CV-02830, Dkt. 37-5, Ex. I.
`
`B.E.’s argument that the location of these prior art witnesses should not be entitled “great
`
`weight” because Pandora has not established that the potential testimony is “material and
`
`important” since it “is almost certain to be limited by the time of trial,” should also be rejected.
`
`See Opp. at 10-12. The potential that testimony may be limited in scope has no bearing on the
`
`materiality of that testimony. Regardless, B.E.’s claim is incorrect, and the only case B.E. cites
`
`in support of its position is inapposite. See Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs, 512 F.3d 1363,
`
`1375 (Fed. Cir. Jan 17, 2008) (affirming summary judgment order limiting prior art inventor’s
`
`testimony on the ground that inventor could not give scientific testimony if he had not been
`
`disclosed as an expert). Courts routinely acknowledge the importance of a prior art inventor’s
`
`testimony, and use the location of prior art inventors in the transferee district as a factor in
`
`granting motions to transfer. See, e.g., Microsoft., 630 F.3d at 1363 (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 district].”); U.S. Ethernet Innovations,
`
`LLC v. Acer, Inc., 6:09-CV-448-JDL, 2010 WL 2771842 (E.D. Tex. July 13, 2010); Droplets,
`
`Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2:11-CV-392, 2012 WL 3578605, at *4 (E.D. Tex. June 27, 2012)
`
`(location of “many prior art inventors with knowledge and documents relevant to the validity
`
`issue…in the Northern District of California” “weigh[ed] heavily in favor of transfer”).
`
`C.
`
`The Location of Sources of Proof in California Favors Transfer.
`
`The volume of potentially relevant documents located in California vastly exceeds the
`
`volume of documents in Tennessee. The Northern District of California is the location of the
`
`great majority of the considerable Pandora documents related to the design, development,
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02782-JPM-cgc Document 33 Filed 02/01/13 Page 11 of 14 PageID 370
`
`
`operation and manufacture of the Pandora accused services. See Drucker Decl. at ¶ 9.
`
`In contrast, Tennessee is the location of B.E.’s documents related to conception and
`
`reduction to practice of the two patents.4 Hoyle Decl. at ¶ 7. Because of the number and volume
`
`of documents in California far exceed B.E.’s documents in Tennessee, this factor weighs in favor
`
`of transfer. See Network Prot. Sciences, LLC v. Juniper Networks, Inc., 2:10-CV-224-JRG, 2012
`
`WL 194382 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2012) (factor weighed in favor of transfer where “there is no
`
`indication that Plaintiff’s documents in Texas are substantial enough, whether in terms of volume
`
`or importance, to counter [defendants’] documents 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 was
`
`rejected by the Federal Circuit. In re Link_A_Media Devices Corporation, 662 F. 3d 1221 (Fed.
`
`Cir. Dec. 02, 2011), 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 the issue was “outdated, irrelevant, and should be given little weight” amounts to a
`
`clear abuse of discretion. Id. at 1224 (vacating and transferring to the Northern District of
`
`California).5
`
`
`4 Tellingly, B.E. reveals nothing about the volume of documents involved, but given that the
`documents evidently are stored at Mr. Hoyle’s personal residence, and that they have already
`been moved at least twice in the past 7 years, they are nowhere near as voluminous as the
`documents located in California. See Hoyle Decl. ¶¶ 3-5, 7. Indeed, B.E.’s LPR 3.2 document
`production accompanying its initial infringement contentions in this case, which was supposed to
`include documents regarding conception and reduction to practice, totaled a little over 200
`documents.
`5 B.E. also suggests that the possibility that Pandora will produce documents to B.E.’s counsel in
`California should render this factor neutral. This, of course, is irrelevant and would in no way
`lessen the inconvenience of litigating in Tennessee. Indeed, the case B.E. relies on to make its
`argument actually supports Pandora’s position. Nationwide Life Ins. Co. v. Koresko,
`2:05CV1066, 2007 WL 2713783 (S.D. Ohio, Sep. 14, 2007) (ordering transfer despite Plaintiff
`offering to accept document production in transferor district).
`8
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02782-JPM-cgc Document 33 Filed 02/01/13 Page 12 of 14 PageID 371
`
`
`D.
`
`Convenience of the Parties Favors Transfer.
`
`Contrary to B.E.’s arguments that it is reasonable to require large companies to litigate in
`
`jurisdictions in which they regularly conduct business (Opp. at 7, 13), the relevant inquiry in a
`
`transfer analysis is convenience. In any event, it is also reasonable for B.E. to litigate in the
`
`district that is more convenient for the majority of the 19 defendants it has chosen to sue.6
`
`III. THE PUBLIC INTEREST FACTORS FAVOR TRANSFER
`
`A.
`
`Court Congestion Does Not Weigh Against Transfer.
`
`Plaintiff argues that the Western District of Tennessee has a shorter median time from
`
`filing to trial, and fewer intellectual property cases, but neglects to mention that the average
`
`docket of pending cases per judge was higher in this District. See Dkt. 19-5, Ex. E. Regardless,
`
`given the statistics provided by Pandora in its opening brief, and the fact that this case is
`
`governed by a special set of local rules, overall, this factor is neutral. See Van Andel Inst. v.
`
`Thorne Research, Inc., 1:12-CV-731, 2012 WL 5511912, at *4 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 14, 2012).
`
`B.
`
`The Northern District of California Has a Strong Local Interest.
`
`B.E.’s claim that this District has a strong interest in this case because Pandora “makes its
`
`internet radio services available to users across the United States, including the State of
`
`Tennessee” should also be rejected, because “the sale of an accused product that is offered
`
`nationwide does not create a substantial interest in any venue.” In re Acer Am. Corp., 626 F.3d
`
`1252, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Because Pandora and the center of its activities are located in the
`
`Northern District of California, that Court has a stronger legal interest in the underlying suit.
`
`
` B.E. claims it would suffer significant financial burden if the case were transferred, because it
`would be forced to pay for Mr. Hoyle’s travel, and because Mr. Hoyle might lose consulting
`opportunities while travelling. This argument should not be given weight because the loss of
`consulting opportunities, even if realized, would affect Mr. Hoyle, not B.E. Moreover, B.E. has
`selected counsel in the Northern District of California, and has chosen to embark on a litigation
`campaign against 19 defendants.
`
` 6
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02782-JPM-cgc Document 33 Filed 02/01/13 Page 13 of 14 PageID 372
`
`
`C.
`
`B.E. Cannot Manufacture Venue By Filing Multiple Suits in One District.
`
`B.E. cannot manufacture venue relative to Pandora by filing multiple lawsuits in this
`
`District and then arguing that because there are so many cases, it would be most efficient to keep
`
`all the cases together in this district, consolidated in some manner. (Opp. at 17; Patent
`
`Scheduling Conference Notice, Dkt. 24). If B.E. were correct, a plaintiff could avoid venue
`
`transfers by filing multiple lawsuits in one district. See Geotag, Inc. v. Aromatique, Inc., No.
`
`2:10-cv-570, slip op. at 10 (E.D. Tex. Jan 14, 2013) (attached as Exhibit H to Dkt. 39 in B.E.
`
`Tech., L.L.C. v. Apple Inc., 2:12-cv-02831). B.E.’s efficiency argument does not make sense,
`
`and it is not consistent with B.E.’s arguments elsewhere that the venue analysis is a comparison
`
`of convenience to B.E. to convenience to Pandora only. If B.E.’s consolidation argument – that
`
`it would be more efficient to all the parties to consolidate – is correct, then the venue analysis
`
`must also consider efficiencies to all the parties. Here, the majority of the defendants are based in
`
`the Northern District of California and seek transfer there. 7
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons set forth above, this Court should grant Pandora’s motion to transfer.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Glen G. Reid, Jr._______
`Glen G. Reid, Jr. (#8184)
`WYATT, TARRANT & COMBS, LLP
`1715 Aaron Brenner Drive, Suite 800
`Memphis, TN 38120-4367
`Phone: 901.537.1000
`Facsimile: 901.537.1010
`greid@wyattfirm.com
`
`
`
`7 Pandora would oppose consolidation of trial proceedings should B.E. seek that. However,
`recognizing that considerations of efficiency and judicial economy may counsel in favor of
`coordinating dates as well as consolidating Markman proceedings, Pandora submits that that the
`cases should proceed in the location most convenient for the majority of defendants. That
`location is the Northern District of California.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02782-JPM-cgc Document 33 Filed 02/01/13 Page 14 of 14 PageID 373
`
`
`/Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr.________
`Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr. (#06389)
`WYATT, TARRANT & COMBS, LLP
`1715 Aaron Brenner Drive, Suite 800
`Memphis, TN 38120-4367
`Phone: 901.537.1000
`Facsimile: 901.537.1010
`mvorder-bruegge@wyattfirm.com
`
`
`BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD.
`
`J. Pieter van Es
`Matthew P. Becker
`Azuka C. Dike
`Dargaye H. Churnet
`Ten S. Wacker Dr. Ste. 3000
`Chicago, IL 60606
`(312) 463-5000
`
`pvanes@bannerwitcoff.com
`mbecker@bannerwitcoff.com
`adike@bannerwitcoff.com
`dchurnet@bannerwitcoff.com
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`
`11