Case 2:12-cv-02832-JPM-tmp Document 32 Filed 01/29/13 Page 1 of 15 PageID 331
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`
`SPARK NETWORKS, INC.
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S REPLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
`ITS MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`AND FOR EXPEDITED HEARING
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No: 2:12-cv-02832-JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02832-JPM-tmp Document 32 Filed 01/29/13 Page 2 of 15 PageID 332
`
`
`
`
`
`I. 
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`ARGUMENT..................................................................................................................... 2 
`
`A. 
`
`B. 
`
`B.E.’s Choice Of Forum Is Not Entitled To Any Weight....................................... 2 
`
`All Private Interests Weigh Strongly In Favor Of Transfer.................................... 4 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`4. 
`
`Party Witnesses........................................................................................... 4 
`
`Non-Party Witnesses................................................................................... 6 
`
`Location Of Sources Of Proof .................................................................... 8 
`
`Costs And Expenses.................................................................................... 9 
`
`C. 
`
`Public Interest Factors Weigh Strongly In Favor Of Transfer................................ 9 
`
`1. 
`
`2. 
`
`Time To Trial Is, At Worst, Neutral ........................................................... 9 
`
`The Central District Of California Has A Greater Interest In This Case
`Than Does This Judicial District............................................................... 10 
`
`II. 
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................... 10 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02832-JPM-tmp Document 32 Filed 01/29/13 Page 3 of 15 PageID 333
`
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Civix-DDI, LLC v. Loopnet, Inc.,
`2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123821 (E. D. Va. 2012)......................................................................3
`
`Hanning v. New England Mut. Life Ins. Co.,
`710 F. Supp. 213 (S.D. Ohio 1989) ...........................................................................................4
`
`Howmedica Osteonics Corp. v. Wright Medical Tech., Inc.,
`540 F.3d 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..................................................................................................4
`
`Hunter Fan Co. v. Minka Lighting, Inc.,
`2006 WL 1627746 (W.D. Tennessee 2006) ........................................................................3, 10
`
`Imagepoint, Inc. v. Keyser Indus., Inc.,
`2005 WL 1242067 (E.D. Tenn. May 25, 2005).........................................................................4
`
`In re Link_A_Media
`Devices Corp., 662 F.3d 1221, 1224 (Fed. Cir. 2011)...............................................................9
`
`Innogenetics, N.V. v. Abbott Labs,
`512 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..................................................................................................7
`
`Koh v. Microtek Int’l, Inc.,
`250 F. Supp. 2d 627 (E.D.Va. 2003) .....................................................................................5, 6
`
`Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Aspect Telecommunications Corp., 1997 WKL 476356
`(E.D. Pa. Aug. 20, 1997)..........................................................................................................10
`
`Pragmatus AV, LLC v. Facebook, Inc.,
`769 F. Supp. 2d 991 (E.D. Va. 2011) ........................................................................................3
`
`Rinks v. Hocking,
`2011 WL 691242 (W.D. Mich. Feb. 16, 2011)..........................................................................5
`
`Van Andel Inst. v. Thorne Research, Inc.,
`2012 WL 5511912 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 14, 2012).....................................................................10
`
`STATUTES
`
`38 U.S.C. § 1404(a) .........................................................................................................................1
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02832-JPM-tmp Document 32 Filed 01/29/13 Page 4 of 15 PageID 334
`
`
`B.E. admits that this action could have been brought in either the Central or
`
`Northern Districts of California (B.E. Opp. 4).1 This admission is fatal to B.E.’s opposition to
`
`transfer, because B.E. otherwise does little more than cherry pick the facts and law in an attempt
`
`to create arguments against transfer where there are none.
`
`B.E. does not dispute that the Central District of California is the location of
`
`Spark's headquarters, the location of its relevant documents including those concerning the
`
`research, design, operation, marketing and sales of its multiple accused computer systems and
`
`services, the center of gravity of the activities B.E. accuses of infringement, the most convenient
`
`district for Spark's party witnesses, and a district that has trial subpoena power over the 6 non-
`
`party individual and corporate witnesses Spark has identified. Thus, the Central District – or
`
`alternatively the contiguously located Northern District where Google (whose computers serve
`
`advertisements to Spark's users) is located, and where even B.E.'s lead trial counsel is located –
`
`is where this case should be. These California districts are the ones with the most compelling
`
`interest in this case.
`
`B.E.’s entire argument to avoid transfer is based on the fact that a single witness –
`
`Mr. Hoyle, the inventor of the ‘314 patent and the CEO of B.E. – has lived here since 2006.
`
`B.E., however, does not come to grips with its almost complete lack of activity here, including:
`
`(1) B.E. is a non-practicing entity (“NPE”) whose business is licensing its patents, and not
`
`making or selling anything here; (2) B.E.’s “principal” address here is Mr. Hoyle’s private home;
`
`(3) B.E. has had offices in Michigan since at least 2001; and (4) B.E. had 74 members as of the
`
`start of this lawsuit, yet only Mr. Hoyle is alleged to live in Tennessee.
`
`As explained in Spark's opening brief, the foregoing factors demonstrate that the
`
`
`1
`References to “B.E. Opp. __” are to the indicated pages of Plaintiff’s Memorandum In Opposition To
`Defendant’s Motion To Transfer Venue Pursuant To 38 U.S.C. § 1404(a). See D.I. 26.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02832-JPM-tmp Document 32 Filed 01/29/13 Page 5 of 15 PageID 335
`
`
`Central (or, alternatively, Northern) District of California is not simply an equally convenient
`
`forum as here, but an overwhelmingly more convenient one.
`
`I.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`B.E.’s Choice Of Forum Is Not Entitled To Any Weight
`
`B.E. relies on the presence in this Judicial District of the ‘314 patent’s inventor,
`
`Mr. Hoyle, for its entire argument that its chosen venue is entitled to substantial weight. (B.E.
`
`Opp. 4-6) B.E.’s inflated description of its nexus to Tennessee is disingenuous.
`
`First, the plaintiff here is B.E., not Mr. Doyle. And B.E. has no tangible business
`
`at all in Tennessee. B.E. is a non-practicing entity (“NPE”), a company that conducts no tangible
`
`business activities – no manufacturing, no marketing, no sales – other than licensing its patents.
`
`B.E.’s own lead trial counsel admitted that B.E. “doesn’t make anything”: “‘This is a company
`
`that was formed by the inventor,’ Freitas said, ‘and it’s a company that is enforcing patents that
`
`were issued to the inventor.’” (Stroy 2nd Dec. Ex. 20)2 Not surprisingly, B.E.’s Complaint does
`
`not identify any business address for its principal place of business. (D.I. 1, Complaint ¶ 2) The
`
`Tennessee Department of State, however, identifies B.E.’s “principal” address in Tennessee to be
`
`Mr. Hoyle’s private home on Walnut Grove Lake. (Stroy 2nd Dec. Ex. 21)
`
`What’s more, B.E. has no workforce here. The only local employee or member
`
`B.E. identifies is its CEO, Mr. Hoyle. Yet, the Tennessee Department of State says B.E. has 74
`
`members. (D.I. 20-8) None of these people is asserted by B.E. as being in Tennessee. Instead,
`
`B.E. just ignores them. Spark does not know where they all are, but does know that B.E. has for
`
`years – since at least 2001 – maintained offices in Michigan. (Stroy 2nd Dec. Ex. 25, 26, 27)
`
`B.E. tries in vain to explain away its having manufactured venue in this Judicial
`
`
`2
`References to “(Stroy 2nd Dec. ¶ __, Ex. __)” are to the indicated paragraph and exhibit attached to the
`Second Declaration of Brandon Stroy, submitted herewith.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02832-JPM-tmp Document 32 Filed 01/29/13 Page 6 of 15 PageID 336
`
`
`District by filing to do business here only the day before commencing its 19 lawsuit campaign.
`
`B.E. says Mr. Hoyle “discovered” that B.E. had not filed to do business here when he was
`
`preparing to bring this action/ (B.E. Opp. 6) But this isn’t a case in which a company was doing
`
`business in Tennessee for years, and suddenly realized it had failed to file with the Secretary of
`
`State. B.E. cannot allege that. Rather, B.E.’s litigation-eve filing to do business in Tennessee is
`
`exactly what it appears to be: B.E. was not doing any business in Tennessee for all the years Mr.
`
`Hoyle claims to have lived here, but instead filed to do business simply to create venue.
`
`Under these circumstances, as previously explained (Spark Mem. 16-17),3 B.E.’s
`
`choice of forum deserves no weight. See also Pragmatus AV, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., 769 F.
`
`Supp. 2d 991, 995 (E.D. Va. 2011) (plaintiff NPE’s choice of forum given “minimal weight”
`
`because it was formed in the district five months before filing suit, and had only one co-owner
`
`employee in the district); and Civix-DDI, LLC v. Loopnet, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123821,
`
`*11-*14 (E. D. Va. 2012) (NPE’s choice of forum “will not be given great weight” where it has
`
`“no manufacturing facilities, operations, offices, or employees that are located in this district
`
`besides its principal, … who owns a home in Alexandria”).
`
`B.E.’s authorities are not to the contrary. B.E. cites this Court’s decision in
`
`Hunter Fan Co. v. Minka Lighting, Inc., 2006 WL 1627746 at *2 (W.D. Tennessee 2006) for the
`
`proposition that a plaintiff’s choice of forum should be given particular weight. (B.E. Opp. 4)
`
`That case, however, did not involve an NPE that established venue the day before filing 19
`
`lawsuits, but rather a plaintiff having its “design, engineering, and manufacturing facilities … in
`
`Memphis” and the invention of the patent in suit was “‘conceived of, produced, and marketed’ in
`
`
`3
`References to “Spark Mem. __” are to the indicated page of Defendant’s Memorandum In Support of Its
`Motion To Transfer Venue To The Central District Of California And For Expedited Hearing (D.I. 20).
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02832-JPM-tmp Document 32 Filed 01/29/13 Page 7 of 15 PageID 337
`
`
`Memphis” Id. 4 B.E. does not assert that the invention of the ‘314 patent was made in
`
`Tennessee. Inventor Hoyle did not move to Tennessee until 2006, 6 years after the ‘314 patent
`
`application was filed. (D.I. 20-3; Hoyle Dec. ¶ 3)
`
`B.
`
`All Private Interests Weigh Strongly In Favor Of Transfer
`
`1.
`
`Party Witnesses
`
`B.E.’s One Witness. B.E.’s assertion that the convenience of party witnesses
`
`favor this venue (B.E. Opp. 6-7) is meritless. Again, B.E. relies on only one witness, inventor
`
`Hoyle. But just because Mr. Hoyle is the named inventor does not necessarily make his
`
`testimony relevant. For instance, an inventor's testimony is not relevant to claim construction or
`
`the scope of a claim (as may be important in infringement and invalidity contexts). Howmedica
`
`Osteonics Corp. v. Wright Medical Tech., Inc., 540 F.3d 1337, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (we “give
`
`no deference to the testimony of the inventor about the meaning of the claims,”) (citation
`
`omitted). And while B.E. unfairly criticizes Spark for not sufficiently particularizing the
`
`testimony of its California witnesses (infra), B.E. says nothing at all about what Mr. Hoyle
`
`might testify about as an alleged “likely … key witness” regarding any issue in the case. ( B.E.
`
`Opp. 5; Hoyle Dec. passim)
`
`Spark’s Multiple Witnesses. B.E. criticizes Spark for not identifying specific
`
`names of its party witnesses knowledgeable about how Spark’s software and systems work, and
`
`about damages and other issues, who would likely testify in this action. (B.E. Opp. 8-9) But this
`
`is a patent case. The patent claims at issue concern a method for presenting “demographically-
`
`targeted advertising to a computer user” and require, among other things, “providing a server that
`
`is accessible via a computer network.” (D.I. 20-3, claim 11) Spark submitted declarations from
`
`
`4
`Nor did Imagepoint, Inc. v. Keyser Indus., Inc., 2005 WL 1242067 (E.D. Tenn. May 25, 2005) or Hanning
`v. New England Mut. Life Ins. Co., 710 F. Supp. 213 (S.D. Ohio 1989), also relied on by B.E. (B.E. Opp. 4), involve
`an NPE plaintiff.
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02832-JPM-tmp Document 32 Filed 01/29/13 Page 8 of 15 PageID 338
`
`
`its General Counsel, Joshua Kreinberg, and its Chief Information Officer, Gregory Franchina,
`
`establishing that (1) Spark’s allegedly infringing computer systems and software are located at or
`
`accessible from Spark’s Beverly Hills, California headquarters, and (2) Spark's employees
`
`knowledgeable about how those systems work, and about Spark’s finances, are employed in
`
`Beverly Hills. (Spark Mem. 4,10) The testimony of such witnesses – irrespective of who they
`
`actually are – about how Spark’s systems work and Spark’s finances will plainly be relevant to
`
`infringement and damages issues in this case.
`
`B.E.’s own cases establish that more specificity about Spark’s California-based
`
`party witnesses was not required. B.E. relies on Rinks v. Hocking, 2011 WL 691242, *3 (W.D.
`
`Mich. Feb. 16, 2011), but the court there said it is only necessary to provide “‘by affidavit or
`
`otherwise, sufficient details respecting the witnesses and their potential testimony to enable the
`
`court to assess the materiality of evidence and the degree of inconvenience’” (citing Koh v.
`
`Microtek Int’l, Inc., 250 F. Supp. 2d 627, 637 (E.D.Va. 2003). Rinks further explained:
`
`Particularized information is necessary to enable a court to ascertain how much
`weight to give a claim of inconvenience. Id. Inconvenience to a witness whose
`testimony is cumulative or tangential is not entitled to great weight. By contrast,
`greater weight must be accorded inconvenience to witnesses whose testimony is
`central to the claim or whose credibility is likely to be an important issue. …
`Consequently, the materiality and importance of the testimony of prospective
`witnesses, and not merely the number of witnesses, is crucial to this inquiry.
`
`(Emphasis added.) Plainly, the testimony of Spark’s employees about how its systems work and
`
`its finances relative to those systems will neither be cumulative nor tangential but, rather, central
`
`to the issues in this case. Nowhere does B.E. assert otherwise.
`
`Koh v. Microtek, on which B.E. also relies ( B.R. Opp. 7), is to the same effect.
`
`Koh was a patent case in which the defendant identified 3 witnesses but “failed to specifically set
`
`out their potential testimony, how that testimony will be material and non-cumulative, or the
`
`degree to which it will be inconvenient to access that testimony in this district.” Koh, 250
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02832-JPM-tmp Document 32 Filed 01/29/13 Page 9 of 15 PageID 339
`
`
`F.Supp. at 636. The court said, however (emphasis added, citations omitted):
`
`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.
`
`The “tension” referred to by Koh is evident here. Spark’s ability to be more
`
`specific about its witnesses was limited because B.E.’s Complaint did not identify which of
`
`Sparks’ at least 27 websites (see Stroy 2nd Dec. Ex. 23, pp. 3-4) were accused of infringement
`
`(D.I. 1, Complaint ¶¶ 9-11). B.E. first did so in its Infringement Contentions pursuant to LPR
`
`3.1 served January 7, 2013 – 17 days after Spark’s transfer motion was filed on December 21,
`
`2012 (Stroy 2nd Dec. Ex. 22, pp. 2-3) B.E. for the first time identified 5 Spark websites as
`
`“accused instrumentalities” (Id., p. 3). These 5 websites implicate two different Spark computer
`
`systems (Franchina 2nd Dec. ¶ 5). Based on this additional information, Spark is now able to
`
`more specifically identify several employees by name in addition to Mr. Kreinberg and Mr.
`
`Franchina – including software engineering manager Gustavo Sandrigo, CFO Brett Zane, and
`
`CEO Greg Liberman – that will likely testify in this action concerning facts relevant to at least
`
`non-infringement and damages. All of these witnesses work in Beverly Hills, and are key
`
`employees of Spark whose extended absence would materially prejudice Spark’s business
`
`operations. (See, Franchina 2nd Dec. ¶¶ 6-8; Kreinberg 2nd Dec. ¶¶ 5-6)
`
`2.
`
`Non-Party Witnesses
`
`In addition to its California-based party witnesses, Spark named 5 individual
`
`witnesses in California who Spark expects will testify on invalidity issues (see Spark Mem. 6).
`
`Spark also identified a sixth non-party corporate witness, California-based Google and its
`
`engineers as witnesses who will testify on issues relating to non-infringement, because it is
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02832-JPM-tmp Document 32 Filed 01/29/13 Page 10 of 15 PageID 340
`
`
`Google – not Spark – who sends ads to users of Spark’s websites via Google’s Dart For
`
`Publishers service. (Spark Mem. 5) B.E.’s attempt to minimize the importance of these
`
`witnesses to the issues in this case is meritless.
`
`Invalidity Witnesses. B.E. says the prior art witnesses Spark identified will be
`
`limited to testifying only about the actual words and content of their patents. (B.E. Opp. 10)
`
`This is not true. As Spark explained at length in its opening memorandum (pp. 5-6), these
`
`witnesses are expected to testify about the underlying work that led to their patents, and the sale
`
`and offer for sale of systems embodying their inventions, to establish that work, and those sales,
`
`as independent invalidating prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and/or 102(g). Innogenetics, N.V.
`
`v. Abbott Labs, 512 F.3d 1363, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2008), cited by B.E. (see B.E. Opp. 10), is
`
`inapposite to this testimony. That case had nothing to do with establishing prior art under 35
`
`U.S.C. §§ 102(b) or (g). Rather, the court restricted a prior art inventor’s testimony to the actual
`
`words and content of his patent application because an expert report was required for the
`
`particular type of testimony he was to give, but had not been submitted for the inventor. Id.
`
`Non-Infringement Witnesses. B.E.’s position regarding the California-based
`
`testimony of Google and its engineers rings just as hollow. B.E. says Spark “fails to establish
`
`that its infringement arises exclusively from its use of Google’s ‘Dart For Publishers’ service, as
`
`opposed to instrumentalities it designed, developed, and operates.” (B.E. Mem. 10; emphasis
`
`added) This is not correct. The Franchina declaration, to which B.E. cites (id.), says the
`
`opposite – that “advertising displayed to users of Spark’s websites are served by Google Inc.
`
`through …. Dart For Publishers” (emphasis added). Unquestionably, Google’s testimony in
`
`California about how Google is providing a service for Spark’s users that B.E. has charged with
`
`infringement will be key evidence in this case. And even if Spark were serving ads to its users
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02832-JPM-tmp Document 32 Filed 01/29/13 Page 11 of 15 PageID 341
`
`
`also, the person most knowledgeable about that would be Spark’s software engineers based in
`
`the Central District of California (supra, p. 6). Either way, B.E. loses this argument.
`
`Finally, B.E. says that the third-party witnesses can be subpoenaed to produce
`
`documents and testify at deposition in their home districts. (B.E. Mem 11) This is irrelevant.
`
`Under this theory, the ability to subpoena for deposition would effectively eliminate the factor of
`
`non-party witness location. What's important, instead, is B.E.’s concession that Spark cannot
`
`compel any of the several identified third-party witnesses to testify at trial in Tennessee, but it
`
`could if this case were transferred to California. (B.E. Opp. 11-12) Moreover, no case says that
`
`Spark needs to show that any of these third-party witnesses is unwilling to testify in Tennessee
`
`(B.E. Opp. 11). And given the brief length of time this case has been pending (Spark’s Answer
`
`was filed only last month), any suggestion such proof is necessary does not merit a response.
`
`3.
`
`Location Of Sources Of Proof
`
`Spark’s opening memorandum established that all of its documents are located at
`
`or accessible from its headquarters in California. And, the Federal Circuit cases Spark marshaled
`
`recognize that in patent cases like this one, the majority of documents from the parties will come
`
`from the accused infringer, weighing in favor of transfer. (Spark Mem. 11)
`
`B.E. says that Spark ignored B.E.’s documents, which it says are maintained here.
`
`(B.E. Opp. 12) But at the time this motion was filed, Spark was not aware of any B.E.
`
`documents in Tennessee. Following Spark’s motion, B.E. produced to Spark a total of only 2873
`
`pages of documents with its Infringement Contentions. And of these, 708 pages were publicly
`
`available copies of the patent-in-suit, patents in the other 18 lawsuits brought by B.E., and patent
`
`prosecution histories. (Stroy 2nd Dec. ¶ 6) In contrast, Spark expects to produce many tens of
`
`thousands of pages of source code and other documents. (Franchina 2nd Dec. ¶ 10)
`
`While it is true that advances in technology is making the locations of documents
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02832-JPM-tmp Document 32 Filed 01/29/13 Page 12 of 15 PageID 342
`
`
`somewhat less important in the transfer analysis, as B.E. says (B.E. Opp. 13), the factor remains
`
`relevant. A Federal Circuit case cited by B.E., In re Link_A_Media Devices Corp., 662 F.3d
`
`1221, 1224 (Fed. Cir. 2011), establishes this. Criticizing a lower court for having ignored as
`
`“outdated” and “irrelevant” the locations of documents in a transfer analysis, the Federal Circuit
`
`said that, “while advances in technology may alter the weight given to [location of documents], it
`
`is improper to ignore [this factor] entirely.” Id.
`
`4.
`
`Costs And Expenses
`
`B.E. asserts inventor Hoyle would be financially burdened if the case were
`
`transferred to California, because he is a consultant who charges by the hour and he would lose
`
`consulting opportunities and hours. (B.E. Opp. 14) But nowhere does B.E. assert that it – the
`
`Plaintiff – would be financially burdened. And as a consultant, Mr. Hoyle would certainly be
`
`able to work while in transit.
`
`C.
`
`Public Interest Factors Weigh Strongly In Favor Of Transfer
`
`1.
`
`Time To Trial Is, At Worst, Neutral
`
`B.E. focuses on docket congestion as between this Court and Spark’s proposed
`
`transferee courts, saying that transfer to the Northern District of California would “likely delay
`
`trial of this case by at least one year.” (B.E. Opp. 14-15) However, Spark seeks transfer to the
`
`Central District of California, and B.E. concedes that the times to trial as between the Central
`
`District and this District are insubstantially different. (B.E. Opp. 14-15)
`
`As for the Northern District of California, to which Spark would consent in view
`
`of the other defendants' motions seeking to transfer there, B.E. neglects that the average docket
`
`of pending case per judge was actually higher in this District. Plus, the previous year's statistics
`
`do not provide an accurate snapshot of court congestion. In 2010, the District had a longer
`
`median time to trial than California's Northern District. Thus, transfer to the alternative Northern
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02832-JPM-tmp Document 32 Filed 01/29/13 Page 13 of 15 PageID 343
`
`
`District cannot be said to adversely impact time to trial. See Van Andel Inst. v. Thorne Research,
`
`Inc., 2012 WL 5511912, at *4 (W.D. Mich. Nov. 14, 2012) (median time slightly in favor of
`
`plaintiff but, taken as a whole, the public interest factors appeared neutral).
`
`2.
`
`The Central District Of California Has A Greater
`Interest In This Case Than Does This Judicial District
`
`Compared with Spark’s substantial presence in California, B.E.’s presence here is
`
`at best minimal (supra, pp. 2-4). California is the center of gravity of this case. (Spark Mem. 4-
`
`5) B.E.’s attempt to diminish this fact, and the weight that it should be accorded, fails.
`
`B.E. relies on Hunter Fan, 2006 WL 1627746, at *3, for the assertion that the
`
`center of gravity in a patent case is given little weight when a plaintiff brings suit in its home
`
`forum. But that is not this case. This is not B.E.’s “home forum” in any real sense of the phrase.
`
`B.E. is incorporated in Delaware, has had since 2001 a place of business in Saginaw, Michigan
`
`for “The development, sale, and licensing of information technology products and services,”
`
`since 2006 another place of business in Bay City, Michigan, and only first applied “for a
`
`certificate of authority to transact business in the State of Tennessee” on the day before filing its
`
`first lawsuit charging patent infringement against the 19 defendants. (D.I. 20-8; Stroy 2nd Dec.
`
`Ex. 24) Unlike the case in Hunter Fan, 2006 WL 1627746, at *3, B.E. does not have “a
`
`substantial connection to this forum.”
`
`Nor does Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Aspect Telecommunications Corp., 1997
`
`WKL 476356 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 20, 1997), support B.E.’s position (B.E. Opp. 16). Lucent
`
`recognizes that the center of gravity test is one factor to consider, and is given substantial weight
`
`when the plaintiff is caught forum shopping. Lucent, thus, also supports transferring this case.
`
`II.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For all the foregoing reasons, Spark's motion to transfer should be granted.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02832-JPM-tmp Document 32 Filed 01/29/13 Page 14 of 15 PageID 344
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`s/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
`
`s/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
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02832-JPM-tmp Document 32 Filed 01/29/13 Page 15 of 15 PageID 345
`
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Laurence S. Rogers (admission pending)
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`1211 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`Phone: 212.596.9033
`Facsimile: 212-596-9090
`Laurence.Rogers@ropesgray.com
`
`Brandon H. Stroy (admission pending)
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`1900 University Avenue
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303
`Phone: 650.617.4028
`Facsimile: 650.617.4090
`Brandon.Stroy@ropesgray.com
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The foregoing document was filed under the Court’s CM/ECF system, automatically
`
`effecting service on counsel of record for all other parties who have appeared in this action on
`
`the date of such service.
`
`
`
`60317970.1
`1/29/2013 2:01 pm
`
`s/Glen G. Reid, Jr.
`Glen G. Reid, Jr.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12