Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 56-3 Filed 12/12/17 Page 1 of 30 PageID #: 1145
`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 56-3 Filed 12/12/17 Page 1 of 30 PageID #: 1145
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 56-3 Filed 12/12/17 Page 2 of 30 PageID #: 1146
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 110 Filed 04/15/14 Page 1 of 25 PageID #: 1842
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`ContentGuard Holdings, Inc,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Inc.; BlackBerry
`Inc.; Apple
`Amazon.com,
`Limited (fka Research In Motion Limited) and
`BlackBerry Corporation (fka Research In Motion
`Corporation); HTC Corporation
`and HTC
`America, Inc.; Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
`And Huawei Device USA,
`Inc.; Motorola
`Mobility LLC; Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and Samsung
`Telecommunications America, LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:13-cv-01112 (JRG)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`MOTION OF DEFENDANTS AMAZON.COM, INC, BLACKBERRY LIMITED,
`BLACKBERRY CORPORATION, HTC CORPORATION, HTC AMERICA, INC.,
`HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD., HUAWEI DEVICE USA, INC., MOTOROLA
`MOBILITY LLC, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC., AND SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC
`TO TRANSFER TO THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 56-3 Filed 12/12/17 Page 3 of 30 PageID #: 1147
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 110 Filed 04/15/14 Page 2 of 25 PageID #: 1843
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1
`
`PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND..................................................................................................1
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ..............................................................................................................2
`
`A.
`
`THE PARTIES.........................................................................................................2
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`7.
`
`8.
`
`ContentGuard...............................................................................................2
`
`Amazon ........................................................................................................3
`
`Apple............................................................................................................3
`
`Blackberry....................................................................................................4
`
`HTC..............................................................................................................4
`
`Huawei .........................................................................................................5
`
`Motorola.......................................................................................................5
`
`Samsung.......................................................................................................6
`
`B.
`
`NON-PARTY WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE.....................................................6
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Inventors ......................................................................................................6
`
`Google..........................................................................................................6
`
`Universal Music Group................................................................................7
`
`Adobe...........................................................................................................7
`
`APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS ..........................................................................................7
`
`ARGUMENT...................................................................................................................................8
`
`I.
`
`THE PRIVATE INTEREST FACTORS SUPPORT TRANSFER .........................9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Relative Ease of Access to Sources of Proof Favors Transfer...................10
`
`Availability of Compulsory Process Favors Transfer................................11
`
`The Cost of Attendance for Witnesses Favors Transfer. ...........................12
`
`Other Practical Considerations Favor Transfer..........................................13
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 56-3 Filed 12/12/17 Page 4 of 30 PageID #: 1148
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 110 Filed 04/15/14 Page 3 of 25 PageID #: 1844
`
`II.
`
`THE PUBLIC INTEREST FACTORS SUPPORT TRANSFER..........................14
`
`A.
`
`The Significant Local Interest in the Northern District of California
`Outweighs Any Local Interest in the Eastern District of Texas. ...............14
`
`B.
`
`The Northern District of California Is Relatively Less Congested............15
`
`CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................15
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 56-3 Filed 12/12/17 Page 5 of 30 PageID #: 1149
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 110 Filed 04/15/14 Page 4 of 25 PageID #: 1845
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases:
`
`
`
`Pages:
`
`Affinity Labs of Tex. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`No. 1-12-CV-557, 2013 WL 5508122 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 18, 2013) -------------------------------14
`
`Collins v. JC Penney Life Insurance Co.,
`No. C 01(cid:150)4069(cid:150)SI, 2002 WL 505931 (N.D. Cal., Apr. 1, 2002) ---------------------------------12
`
`DietGoal Innovations LLC v. Time Inc.,
`No. 2:12-CV-337-JRG-RSP, 2013 WL 1222303 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 2013)-------------------- 8
`
`Hertz Corp. v. Friend,
`559 U.S. 77 (2010) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8
`
`In re Acer Am. Corp.,
`626 F.3d 1252 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ------------------------------------------------------------------------11
`
`In re Apple Inc.,
`743 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 3, 4
`
`In re Genentech, Inc.,
`566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ---------------------------------------------------------------------9, 12
`
`In re Hoffman-La Roche Inc.,
`587 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ------------------------------------------------------------------------14
`
`In re Microsoft Corp.,
`630 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8
`
`In re Nintendo Co.,
`589 F.3d 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2009 -------------------------------------------------------------------------12
`
`In re TOA Techs., Inc.,
`543 Fed. Appx. 1006 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ----------------------------------------------------------------14
`
`In re Toyota Motor Corp.,
`No. 2014-113, __ F.3d __, __ (Fed. Cir. Apr. 3, 2014) --------------------------------------------- 8
`
`In re TS Tech USA Corp.,
`551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ------------------------------------------------------------------------13
`
`In re Volkswagen AG,
`371 F.3d 201 (5th Cir. 2004) ((cid:147)Volkswagen I(cid:148)) --------------------------------------------------7, 12
`
`In re Volkswagen of Am. Inc.,
`545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) ((cid:147)Volkswagen II(cid:148)) ---------------------------------------------- passim
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 56-3 Filed 12/12/17 Page 6 of 30 PageID #: 1150
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 110 Filed 04/15/14 Page 5 of 25 PageID #: 1846
`
`In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc.,
`566 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ------------------------------------------------------------------------13
`
`In re Zimmer Holdings, Inc.,
`609 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8
`
`Mohamed v. Mazda Motor Corp.,
`90 F. Supp. 2d 757 (E.D. Tex. 2000) -----------------------------------------------------------------12
`
`Personalweb Techs., Inc. v NEC Corp.,
`No. 6:11-CV-655 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 21, 2013) -----------------------------------------------------9, 12
`
`Peteet v. Dow Chem. Co.,
`868 F.2d 1428 (5th Cir. 1989) -------------------------------------------------------------------------13
`
`Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno,
`454 U.S. 235 (1981) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------13
`
`Refined Recommendation Corp. v. Netflix, Inc.,
`No. 07-CV-04981 (DMC), 2008 WL 474106 (D.N.J. Feb. 15, 2008) ------------------- 9, 10, 12
`
`Shifferaw v. Emson USA,
`No. 2:09-CV-54-TJW-CE, 2010 WL 1064380 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 18, 2010) ---------------------- 9
`
`Spread Spectrum Screening, LLC. v. Eastman Kodak Co.,
`No. 10 C 1101, 2010 WL 3516106 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 1, 2010) --------------------------------------10
`
`Teleconference Systems v. Proctor & Gamble Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,
`676 F. Supp. 2d 321 (D. Del. 2009)-------------------------------------------------------------------- 9
`
`Wireless Recognition Techs. LLC v. A9.com, Inc.,
`2:10-CV-364-JRG, 2:10-CV-365-JRG, 2:10-CV-577-JRG, & 2:10-CV-578-
`JRG, 2012 WL 506669 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 15, 2012)-----------------------------------------10, 13, 14
`
`Statutes
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1, 7
`
`35 U.S.C. § 299-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------14
`
`Rules
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(c)(3)(A)(ii) ---------------------------------------------------------11
`
`- iv -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 56-3 Filed 12/12/17 Page 7 of 30 PageID #: 1151
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 110 Filed 04/15/14 Page 6 of 25 PageID #: 1847
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`When a consumer wants to read a digital book, listen to music, or play a video on his or
`
`her mobile device, the consumer(cid:146)s device and account must be authorized to play that digital
`
`content. Plaintiff ContentGuard claims to have invented such digital rights management
`
`((cid:147)DRM(cid:148)) technology and filed this patent infringement suit alleging defendants infringe nine of
`
`ContentGuard(cid:146)s DRM patents. ContentGuard(cid:146)s evident venue gamesmanship(cid:150)as another U.S.
`
`district judge noted in a related proceeding(cid:150)cannot obscure the fact that there is no meaningful
`
`connection between the relevant evidence and this District. The center of gravity of this case is
`
`clearly in and near the Northern District of California, and the moving defendants therefore ask
`
`this Court to transfer it there under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
`
`PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`
`On December 18, 2013, ContentGuard filed this patent infringement action (the (cid:147)Amazon
`
`action(cid:148)), alleging that Defendants infringe nine ContentGuard patents relating to Digital Rights
`
`Management ((cid:147)DRM(cid:148)) by allegedly supporting certain apps (Amazon(cid:146)s Kindle apps, Amazon
`
`Instant Video, certain Google Play apps, and Apple(cid:146)s iTunes app), and the Unique Identifier
`
`Technology Solution ((cid:147)UITS(cid:148)) standard, on their accused devices.
`
`ContentGuard chose not to sue Google in the Amazon action, despite alleging that de-
`
`fendants infringe ContentGuard(cid:146)s patents by supporting certain Google Play apps on their ac-
`
`cused devices. (D.E. 22, Am. Compl. ¶ 52.) Google then filed a declaratory judgment action in
`
`the Northern District of California on January 31, 2014 (the (cid:147)Google California action(cid:148)), seeking
`
`a declaration that its Google Play apps do not infringe ContentGuard(cid:146)s patents. Google, Inc. v.
`
`ContentGuard Holdings, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-00498-WHA (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2014). Five days
`
`later, ContentGuard filed a mirror image action here for patent infringement against Google (the
`
`(cid:147)Google Texas action(cid:148)). ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. v. Google, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-00061-JRG-
`
`RSP (E.D. Tex. Feb. 5, 2014).
`
`ContentGuard subsequently moved to consolidate the Google Texas action with the Ama-
`
`zon action for (cid:147)discovery and case management purposes.(cid:148) (D.E. 14, Mot. to Consol. 5, Feb. 19,
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 56-3 Filed 12/12/17 Page 8 of 30 PageID #: 1152
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 110 Filed 04/15/14 Page 7 of 25 PageID #: 1848
`
`2014.) Google, in turn, filed a motion asking this Court to stay or transfer the Google Texas ac-
`
`tion to the Northern District of California, and to enjoin ContentGuard from prosecuting the
`
`Google Texas action. (D.E. 15, Mot. to Enjoin Def., Feb. 19, 2014.) For the sake of (cid:147)comity
`
`and judicial efficiency,(cid:148) District Judge William Alsup of the Northern District of California is-
`
`sued an injunction prohibiting the parties from (cid:147)filing yet further motions in Texas or otherwise
`
`seeking to anchor the controversy there until the Texas court rules on Google(cid:146)s pending motion
`
`there to transfer here.(cid:148) (D.E. 39, Order 4, Mar. 20, 2014.) Judge Alsup also requested a prompt
`
`ruling in the Google Texas action on Google(cid:146)s motion to transfer, proposing: (cid:147)If the Texas court
`
`sends the controversy here (cid:133) then the undersigned judge would be pleased to accept it and pro-
`
`ceed to a prompt schedule leading to a prompt trial.(cid:148) (Id.) In his decision, Judge Alsup observed
`
`that ContentGuard (cid:147)went to considerable effort to avoid suing Google in Texas, evidently fearing
`
`a motion to transfer, until its hand was forced by Google filing first here(cid:148) and that
`
`(cid:147)[g]amesmanship by ContentGuard may be afoot on the venue issue.(cid:148) (Id.)
`
`All three cases are in their beginning stages. Initial scheduling conferences were just
`
`held in the Amazon action and in the Google Texas action on April 7, 2014. An initial case man-
`
`agement conference will be held in the Google California action on May 1, 2014. (D.E. 11,
`
`Clerk(cid:146)s Notice Scheduling Initial Case Mgmt. Conf., Feb. 14, 2014.)
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`A.
`
`The Parties
`
`1.
`
`ContentGuard
`
`The Amended Complaint alleges that research leading to the invention of the Content-
`
`Guard patents was conducted at (cid:147)Xerox Corporation(cid:146)s legendary Palo Alto Research Center(cid:148) in
`
`the Northern District of California. (D.E. 22, Am. Compl. ¶¶ 2-7.)
`
`ContentGuard alleges it is a Texas corporation with a principal place of business in Pla-
`
`no, Texas. (D.E. 22, Am. Compl. ¶ 1.) However, ContentGuard only recently moved its head-
`
`quarters to Texas from El Segundo, California, in the summer of 2013, apparently in an effort to
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 56-3 Filed 12/12/17 Page 9 of 30 PageID #: 1153
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 110 Filed 04/15/14 Page 8 of 25 PageID #: 1849
`
`secure venue in this district.1
`
`(Ex. 2, Tex. Sec(cid:146)y of State Report.) Pendrell, ContentGuard(cid:146)s
`
`90.1% shareholder, has ties to the Northern District of California through its office in San Fran-
`
`cisco, California, and is headquartered in Kirkland, Washington. (See Ex. 3, Stefik Report.)
`
`2.
`
`Amazon
`
`Amazon is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Seattle, Washington. Amazon also
`
`has substantial connections with the Northern District of California that are relevant to this case.
`
`The accused Amazon hardware product, the Kindle Fire, was developed by Amazon subsidiary
`
`Lab126, which is headquartered in the Northern District of California. (Ex. 4, Keller Decl. ¶ 3;
`
`Ex. 5, Riggs Decl. ¶ 5.) Lab126 and Amazon engineers knowledgeable about the accused Kindle
`
`Fire, Kindle apps, and Amazon Instant Video are located both in Northern California and Seattle,
`
`Washington. (Ex. 4, Keller Decl. ¶¶ 3-5; Ex. 5, Riggs Decl. ¶¶ 2-5.) The knowledgeable Ama-
`
`zon employees based in Seattle travel for business to the Northern District of California, which
`
`requires only a short, non-stop flight. Those employees generally do not travel to the Eastern
`
`District of Texas, which would involve a full day of travel, as it requires at least one plane
`
`change and a significant drive. (Ex. 5, Riggs Decl. ¶ 6; Ex. 6, Wheeler Decl. ¶¶ 6-7.) No Ama-
`
`zon employees involved in the development of the accused products are located in the Eastern
`
`District of Texas. (Ex. 4, Keller Decl. ¶ 6.) Relevant documents are located in either Northern
`
`California or Seattle, not Texas. (Id. ¶¶ 7-10.)
`
`3.
`
`Apple
`
`Apple is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Cupertino, Cali-
`
`fornia, in the Northern District of California. Apple(cid:146)s management and primary research and
`
`development facilities, which employ over 13,000 people, are also located in Cupertino. See In
`
`re Apple Inc., 743 F.3d 1377, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2014). On information and belief, Apple em-
`
`ployees knowledgeable about the accused Apple products are located in the Northern District of
`
`1 ContentGuard recently alleged in litigation that it was headquartered in El Segundo, Cali-
`fornia. (Ex. 1, First Am. Compl. ¶ 1, ContentGuard Holdings, Inc., v. ZTE Corp., No. 1:12-cv-
`00206-CMH-TCB (E.D. Va. Apr. 30, 2012.)
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 56-3 Filed 12/12/17 Page 10 of 30 PageID #: 1154
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 110 Filed 04/15/14 Page 9 of 25 PageID #: 1850
`
`California and substantially all relevant evidence regarding the accused Apple products is located
`
`there. Cf. id. (discussing research, design, and development of iPad and iPhone.) Apple does not
`
`oppose transfer to the Northern District of California.
`
`4.
`
`Blackberry
`
`BlackBerry Limited is a Canadian corporation with its principal place of business in
`
`Warterloo, Ontario, Canada. (Ex. 7, Stafford Decl. ¶ 4.) BlackBerry Corporation, a wholly-
`
`owned subsidiary of BlackBerry Limited, is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
`
`business in Irving, Texas. (Id. ¶¶ 4, 6.) BlackBerry Limited and BlackBerry Corporation (to-
`
`gether, (cid:147)BlackBerry(cid:148)) do not have any offices in the Eastern District of Texas. (Id. ¶ 6.) In con-
`
`trast, BlackBerry has multiple offices in the Northern District of California, with 45 employees.
`
`(Id. ¶ 5.)
`
`5.
`
`HTC
`
`HTC Corporation is a Taiwanese corporation with its headquarters in Taipei, Taiwan.
`
`(Ex. 8, Bariault Decl. ¶ 3.) HTC Corporation is the parent company of HTC America. (Id.) HTC
`
`America is a Washington corporation with its principal place of business and headquarters in
`
`Bellevue, Washington. (Id. ¶ 2.) HTC America imports mobile phones into the United States
`
`and sells them to its customers.
`
`(Id. ¶ 4.) HTC America coordinates its sales activity in the
`
`United States from its headquarters in Bellevue, Washington, where the vast majority of its em-
`
`ployees work. (Id. ¶¶ 4, 7.) HTC America conducts substantial business in the Northern District
`
`of California related to the accused products, and its employees frequently travel and have trav-
`
`eled to that district to work on the design and development of the accused products.
`
`(Id. ¶ 9.)
`
`HTC America has no office in the Eastern District of Texas. (Id. ¶ 5.)
`
`HTC America did not research, design, or develop the accused products in Texas. (Id.
`
`¶ 7.) No HTC America engineers live or work in the Eastern District of Texas. HTC America’s
`
`records relating to corporate finances and to the marketing and sale of mobile phones also are
`
`primarily located in Washington. (Id.) No documents relevant to this action are believed to be
`
`in the Eastern District of Texas. (Id.)
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 56-3 Filed 12/12/17 Page 11 of 30 PageID #: 1155
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 110 Filed 04/15/14 Page 10 of 25 PageID #: 1851
`
`6.
`
`Huawei
`
`Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. is a Chinese company with its headquarters in Shenzhen,
`
`People(cid:146)s Republic of China. Huawei Device USA, Inc. is responsible for sales and marketing of
`
`Huawei smartphones in the United States. (Ex. 9, Jiang Decl. ¶ 3.) Although Huawei Device
`
`USA is a Texas corporation with its headquarters in Plano, Texas, all of its research and devel-
`
`opment on smartphone technology occurs in either California or Washington state. (Id. ¶ 5.) In
`
`particular, Huawei Device USA employs over 50 people at its facility in San Diego, California
`
`who are tasked with smartphone research and development, and over 10 people in Cupertino,
`
`California who are responsible for sales and marketing of Huawei smartphones in the United
`
`States, as well as some smartphone technology research and development. (Id.) Huawei Device
`
`USA documentation is equally available in California and Texas. (Id. ¶ 6.) Prior to Huawei De-
`
`vice USA(cid:146)s assumption of U.S. marketing and sales of Huawei smartphones in late 2011, Fu-
`
`turewei Technologies Inc. bore that responsibility. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 7.) Futurewei has, and has had
`
`since prior to 2011, a facility in the Northern District of California. (Id. ¶ 7.)
`
`7.
`
`Motorola
`
`Motorola Mobility LLC ((cid:147)Motorola(cid:148)) is a Delaware limited liability company with its
`
`principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. (Ex. 10, Warren Decl. ¶ 3.) Motorola does not
`
`have any offices or other facilities within this District. (Id. ¶ 4.) Motorola maintains substantial
`
`business operations and facilities in California, including in Sunnyvale, California, within the
`
`Northern District of California. (Id. ¶ 5.) None of the research, development or design for
`
`Motorola(cid:146)s Moto X smartphones took place in the District. (Id. ¶ 9.) All or nearly all of the
`
`documents relating to Motorola(cid:146)s general operations, as well as the research, design and devel-
`
`opment of the Moto X are available in Sunnyvale, California and Chicago, Illinois.2 (Id. ¶ 10.)
`
`2 The integration of Google apps into the Moto X occurred in Chicago, Illinois, Sunnyvale,
`California, and India. (Ex. 11, Mehta Decl. ¶ 6.) The Moto X did not come with Amazon(cid:146)s
`Kindle or Instant Video apps, or with Apple(cid:146)s iTunes client. (Id. ¶ 7.)
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 56-3 Filed 12/12/17 Page 12 of 30 PageID #: 1156
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 110 Filed 04/15/14 Page 11 of 25 PageID #: 1852
`
`8.
`
`Samsung
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. ((cid:147)SEC(cid:148)) is a Korean corporation with a principal place of
`
`business in Suwon, Korea. (Ex. 12, Jung Decl., ¶ 3.) SEC employees in Korea are responsible
`
`for the engineering and development of Samsung(cid:146)s Galaxy smartphones, including the accused
`
`Galaxy S4. (Id.) SEC, along with the Mobile Communications Lab ((cid:147)MCL(cid:148)) of subsidiary
`
`Samsung Research America, have primary responsibility for technical issues relating to Google
`
`applications, including Google Play, that operate on the Galaxy S4. (Id. ¶ 6.) The MCL is locat-
`
`ed in San Jose and Santa Clara, California. (Id. ¶ 7.) Prior to April 2014, the MCL was part of
`
`Defendant Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC ((cid:147)STA(cid:148)). (Id. ¶ 6.)
`
`SEC is the parent company of Samsung Electronics America, Inc. ((cid:147)SEA(cid:148)). SEA is a
`
`New York corporation with a principal place of business in Ridgefield Park, New Jersey. (Ex.
`
`13, Brzica Decl. ¶ 3.) SEA is the parent corporation of STA. STA is a Delaware company with
`
`a principal place of business in Richardson, Texas. (Ex. 14, Botello Decl. ¶ 4.) STA is involved
`
`in the development, sale, marketing, importation and distribution of certain Samsung products,
`
`including the Galaxy S4 smartphone. (Id. ¶ 4.) SEC, STA and SEA are not aware of any docu-
`
`ments or personnel with knowledge relating to the DRM features of the applications at issue lo-
`
`cated in the Eastern District of Texas. (Id. ¶ 7; Ex. 12, Jung Decl. ¶ 9; Ex. 13, Brzica Decl. ¶ 8.)
`
`B.
`
`Non-Party Witnesses and Evidence.
`
`Many non-party witnesses and related evidence are located in or near the Northern Dis-
`
`trict of California. For example:
`
`1.
`
`Inventors
`
`At least seven inventors of the patents-in-suit (none of them ContentGuard employees)
`
`reside in California. Those inventors include Mark J. Stefik, Peter Pirolli, Ralph Merkle, Mai
`
`Nguyen, Xin Wang, Thanh Ta, and Eddie Chen.
`
`(See Ex. 3; Ex. 15, the Google Texas action,
`
`D.E. 15, Mot. to Stay or Transfer Venue 12, Feb. 20, 2014.)
`
`2.
`
`Google
`
`ContentGuard alleges that each of the Defendants(cid:146) accused products and methods use one
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 56-3 Filed 12/12/17 Page 13 of 30 PageID #: 1157
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 110 Filed 04/15/14 Page 12 of 25 PageID #: 1853
`
`or more of the Google Play apps to practice the claimed inventions. (See D.E. 22, Am. Compl.
`
`¶¶ 52-53.) Google is therefore a critical non-party to this case. Google(cid:146)s principal place of busi-
`
`ness is in Mountain View, California. A majority of Google(cid:146)s employees involved in the devel-
`
`opment and management of Google Play are located in Mountain View, California, as are rele-
`
`vant documents. (See Ex. 15 at 11.) No relevant Google witnesses or documents are located in
`
`the Eastern District of Texas. Id.
`
`3.
`
`Universal Music Group
`
`ContentGuard alleges that the UITS standard practices the claimed inventions. (See D.E.
`
`22, Am. Compl. ¶¶ 54-55.) Universal Music Group developed the UITS standard with input
`
`from other companies. (See Ex. 16, UITS Information and License Page, FAQs, UITS Specifi-
`
`cation License.) Universal Music Group and its employees thus appear to be critical non-parties
`
`to this case. Universal Music Group ((cid:147)UMG(cid:148)) is headquartered in Santa Monica, California and
`
`New York, New York. (See Ex. 17, UMG FAQs.)
`
`4.
`
`Adobe
`
`Key portions of the Google Play service use technology from Adobe Systems, Inc. (See
`
`Ex. 15 at 11.) Adobe is headquartered in San Jose, California, in the Northern District of Cali-
`
`fornia, and its employee-witnesses and relevant documents are likely located there as well. (Id.)
`
`APPLICABLE LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) permits a district court to transfer an action to another district where
`
`the action might have been brought, after considering private and public factors concerning the
`
`convenience of parties and witnesses as well as the interests of each venue. See In re
`
`Volkswagen of Am. Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 315 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc) ((cid:147)Volkswagen II(cid:148)).3
`
`The private interest factors are: (1) the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (2) the
`
`3 As a threshold matter, the court must consider (cid:147)whether the judicial district to which trans-
`fer is sought would have been a district in which the claim could have been filed.(cid:148) In re
`Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201, 203 (5th Cir. 2004) ((cid:147)Volkswagen I(cid:148)). As demonstrated above,
`Defendants have sufficient, related contacts with the Northern District of California to create
`specific personal jurisdiction.
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 56-3 Filed 12/12/17 Page 14 of 30 PageID #: 1158
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 110 Filed 04/15/14 Page 13 of 25 PageID #: 1854
`
`availability of compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses; (3) the cost of attend-
`
`ance for willing witnesses; and (4) all other practical problems that make a trial easy, expedi-
`
`tious, and inexpensive. In re Zimmer Holdings, Inc., 609 F.3d 1378, 1380(cid:150)81 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
`
`The public interest factors include: (1) the administrative difficulties flowing from court conges-
`
`tion; and (2) the local interest in having localized interests decided at home.4 Id.
`
`Defendants must show that the Northern District of California is (cid:147)clearly more conven-
`
`ient.(cid:148) Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 315. However, a showing that (cid:147)the transferee forum is far
`
`more convenient . . . is not what is required.(cid:148) In re Toyota Motor Corp., No. 2014-113, __ F.3d
`
`__, __ (Fed. Cir. Apr. 3, 2014), slip op. at 5 (emphasis in original). ContentGuard(cid:146)s choice of
`
`venue (cid:147)is not a factor in this analysis.(cid:148) DietGoal Innovations LLC v. Time Inc., No. 2:12-CV-
`
`337-JRG-RSP, 2013 WL 1222303 at *1 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 2013).
`
`A plaintiff(cid:146)s connections to the forum that were (cid:147)made in anticipation of litigation and for
`
`the likely purpose of making that forum appear convenient(cid:148) should not be considered. In re Mi-
`
`crosoft Corp., 630 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Zimmer Holdings, 609 F.3d at 1381 (con-
`
`cluding that plaintiff(cid:146)s choice to file suit in the district where it claimed to have its (cid:147)principal
`
`place of business(cid:148) was not entitled to any weight because plaintiff had established an office in
`
`the forum merely to (cid:147)game the system by artificially seeking to establish venue(cid:148) there); see also
`
`Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S. 77 (2010) (courts must ensure that the purposes of jurisdictional
`
`and venue laws are not frustrated by a party(cid:146)s attempts at manipulation).
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`The Northern District of California is clearly the more convenient forum for this case.
`
`Most of the party and non-party witnesses, and the vast preponderance of relevant documents
`
`and evidence, are located in or near the Northern District of California. Little or no pertinent ev-
`
`idence is located in the Eastern District of Texas. Every private and public interest factor indi-
`
`4 The additional public interest factors are (iii) the familiarity of the forum with the govern-
`ing law, and (iv) the avoidance of problems of conflicts of laws or in the application of foreign
`law. These factors are not relevant to this case, which arises under federal patent law.
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 56-3 Filed 12/12/17 Page 15 of 30 PageID #: 1159
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 110 Filed 04/15/14 Page 14 of 25 PageID #: 1855
`
`cates that a transfer to the Northern District of California is appropriate here.
`
`I.
`
`THE PRIVATE INTEREST FACTORS SUPPORT TRANSFER
`
`When assessing the private interest factors with respect to patent infringement cases, the
`
`court must recognize that (cid:147)the bulk of the relevant evidence usually comes from the accused in-
`
`fringer.(cid:148) In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citations and quotations
`
`omitted).
`
`In evaluating a transfer motion, the Court should thus focus on the location of evi-
`
`dence relating to the (cid:147)development, manufacturing, and marketing(cid:148) of the accused instrumentali-
`
`ties. Id.; see also Refined Recommendation Corp. v. Netflix, Inc., No. 07-CV-04981 (DMC),
`
`2008 WL 474106, at *4 (D.N.J. Feb. 15, 2008) ((cid:147)[A]s a general rule, the preferred forum is that
`
`which is the center of gravity of the accused activity.(cid:148)) (citation omitted).
`
`The accused devices are alleged to infringe by supporting five software products: the
`
`Kindle app, Amazon Instant Video, certain Google Play apps, the Apple iTunes app, and soft-
`
`ware implementing the UITS standard. Evidence concerning the (cid:147)development, manufacturing
`
`[or more aptly in the software context, implementation], and marketing(cid:148) of these products lies at
`
`the heart of this case.
`
`This Court should place the greatest weight upon the software sources of proof, rather
`
`than upon proof relating to the particular device manufacturers that ContentGuard chose to name
`
`as co-defendants. See Teleconference Systems v. Proctor & Gamble Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 676
`
`F. Supp. 2d 321, 331 (D. Del. 2009) (court(cid:146)s transfer analysis focused on plaintiff and defendant
`
`Cisco, not Cisco(cid:146)s customers; resolution of dispute against Cisco would also resolve (cid:147)the validity
`
`of plaintiff(cid:146)s claims against Cisco(cid:146)s customers.(cid:148)); Personalweb Techs., Inc. v NEC Corp., No.
`
`6:11-CV-655, slip op. at 41 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 21, 2013) (customer accused of infringement based
`
`on another defendant(cid:146)s products (cid:147)will have fewer relevant documents and witnesses than either
`
`[the primary defendant] or [plaintiff](cid:148)); Shifferaw v. Emson USA, No. 2:09-CV-54-TJW-CE,
`
`2010 WL 1064380, at **3, 6 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 18, 2010) (finding claims against the retailer to be
`
`(cid:147)peripheral(cid:148) and transferring case to New York, where manufacturer defendant was located);
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 56-3 Filed 12/12/17 Page 16 of 30 PageID #: 1160
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 110 Filed 04/15/14 Page 15 of 25 PageID #: 1856
`
`Spread Spectrum Screening, LLC. v. Eastman Kodak Co., No. 10 C 1101, 2010 WL 3516106, at
`
`**1, 3, 6 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 1, 2010) (transferring action after finding that claims against customers
`
`were (cid:147)peripheral(cid:148) and that they were joined prin