Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 56-4 Filed 12/12/17 Page 1 of 22 PageID #: 1175
`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 56-4 Filed 12/12/17 Page 1 of 22 PageID #: 1175
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 2
`EXHIBIT 2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 56-4 Filed 12/12/17 Page 2 of 22 PageID #: 1176
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 125 Filed 05/02/14 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 2194
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-01112-JRG
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`ContentGuard Holdings, Inc.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Amazon.com, Inc.; Apple Inc.; BlackBerry
`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.
`
`PLAINTIFF CONTENTGUARD HOLDINGS, INC.(cid:146)S RESPONSE TO MOTION TO
`TRANSFER TO THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (DKT. 110)
`
`McKool 949090v1
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 56-4 Filed 12/12/17 Page 3 of 22 PageID #: 1177
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 125 Filed 05/02/14 Page 2 of 17 PageID #: 2195
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Virtually all of the arguments raised in Moving Defendants(cid:146)1 Motion to Transfer (Dkt.
`
`110) were considered and rejected by this Court in its Memorandum Opinion and Order denying
`
`Google Inc.(cid:146)s Motion to Transfer (the (cid:147)Google Transfer Opinion(cid:148)) filed in the co-pending
`
`ContentGuard Holdings Inc. v. Google Inc. litigation. If anything, Moving Defendants, who ask
`
`this Court to adopt a transfer-all-of-us-or-none-of-us Order (see Dkt. 110-01), present an even
`
`more tenuous case for transfer. Most notably, three of the six groups of Moving Defendants
`
`include companies headquartered in Texas (Samsung, Huawei, and BlackBerry), either within
`
`this District or immediately outside it, and a fourth Moving Defendant (Motorola) manufactures
`
`infringing devices in Fort Worth, Texas, just miles away from this District. Meanwhile, not a
`
`single Moving Defendant is headquartered in the Northern District of California, and,
`
`ironically, the only Defendant whose headquarters are located in that forum (Apple) has chosen
`
`not to seek transfer, thereby conceding that this Court is a convenient forum.
`
`At bottom, Moving Defendants seek a transfer from the State many of them chose as their
`
`U.S. corporate headquarters and where all of them conduct relevant business. But the mere fact
`
`that some evidence is located in the Northern District of California is not sufficient to deem that
`
`forum clearly more convenient, and that is particularly true given that, as the Court has already
`
`found, ContentGuard has a (cid:147)legitimate(cid:148) and (cid:147)extensive(cid:148) presence in Plano. Google Transfer
`
`Opinion at 5, 6. Consistent with precedent, ContentGuard respectfully requests that the Court
`
`deny the Motion. See PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. NEC Corp. of Am., Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS 46296, at *75 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 21, 2013) ((cid:147)As much as they try, the HP Defendants
`
`cannot avoid the fact that [one of their subsidiaries] is headquartered in the Eastern District of
`
`1 The Moving Defendants include all defendant groups except for Apple Inc. ((cid:147)Apple(cid:148)): (1)
`Amazon.com, Inc. ((cid:147)Amazon(cid:148)); (2) BlackBerry Limited and BlackBerry Corporation
`((cid:147)BlackBerry(cid:148)); (3) HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc. ((cid:147)HTC(cid:148)); (4) Huawei
`Technologies Co., Ltd. and Huawei Device USA, Inc. ((cid:147)Huawei(cid:148)); (5) Motorola Mobility LLC
`((cid:147)Motorola(cid:148)); and (6) Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics America, Inc., and
`Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC ((cid:147)Samsung(cid:148)). Apple has not filed a motion to
`transfer.
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 56-4 Filed 12/12/17 Page 4 of 22 PageID #: 1178
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 125 Filed 05/02/14 Page 3 of 17 PageID #: 2196
`
`Texas . . . . HPES, a wholly-owned subsidiary of HP, employs over 5000 people at its
`
`headquarters in the Eastern District of Texas. This fact alone, coupled with PersonalWeb(cid:146)s Tyler
`
`location, makes transfer inappropriate.(cid:148)).
`
`II.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a party seeking transfer must prove that the transferee forum
`
`is (cid:147)clearly more convenient(cid:148) than the venue chosen by the plaintiff. In re Volkswagen of Am.,
`
`Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 315 (5th Cir. 2008). This is a (cid:147)significant burden,(cid:148) which is not met when
`
`transfer would merely shift the inconvenience from one district to another. Thomas Swan & Co.
`
`v. Finisar Corp., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 773, at *10 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 6, 2014); see also Kahn v.
`
`Gen. Motors Corp., 889 F.2d 1078, 1083 (Fed. Cir. 1989). Moving Defendants, who seek
`
`transfer collectively rather than based on individual circumstances, have not come remotely close
`
`to meeting their burden.
`
`A.
`
`The Convenience of the Parties and Witnesses Does Not Favor Transfer
`
`1. The relative ease of access to sources of proof does not favor transfer
`
`Moving Defendants(cid:146) assertions that (cid:147)the Northern District of California would provide
`
`easier access to sources of relevant and important proof(cid:148) (Dkt. 110 at 10) rely on a sleight of
`
`hand. That is, Moving Defendants deem as relevant every connection, however slight, they and
`
`ContentGuard have to the West Coast, but at the same time ignore or dismiss as irrelevant the
`
`extensive connections this dispute has with the Eastern District of Texas or with locations
`
`immediately adjacent, including the Western and Northern Districts. An unbiased review of the
`
`record,2 however, underscores the correctness of this Court(cid:146)s conclusion that proof relevant to
`
`this dispute is located not only in California, but also in Texas. Google Transfer Opinion at 6.
`
`2 ContentGuard submits that facts available in the public record and Moving Defendants(cid:146) own
`submissions to the Court amply establish that heaps of relevant evidence are located in the
`Eastern District of Texas or its close vicinity. To the extent that the Court nonetheless concludes
`that the showing herein is insufficient, ContentGuard respectfully requests an opportunity to seek
`targeted discovery from Moving Defendants for purposes of supplementing the record.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 56-4 Filed 12/12/17 Page 5 of 22 PageID #: 1179
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 125 Filed 05/02/14 Page 4 of 17 PageID #: 2197
`
`Thus, a transfer to California would impermissibly shift inconvenience from one district to
`
`another.
`
`Samsung. Defendant Samsung is headquartered in Richardson, Texas, within the
`
`Eastern District of Texas. Dkt. 110-22 ¶ 3. In its Richardson facilities, Samsung (cid:147)researches,
`
`develops and markets a variety of personal and business products throughout North America
`
`including handheld wireless phones, wireless communications infrastructure systems and
`
`enterprise communications systems.(cid:148) Lelutiu Decl. Ex. 1. From its Richardson facilities,
`
`Samsung (cid:147)work[s] with the carrier network operators in the U.S. to develop and commercialize
`
`mobile devices, including the Samsung Galaxy line of smartphones(cid:148) that ContentGuard has
`
`accused in this case. Dkt. 110-22 ¶ 4. From its Richardson facilities, Samsung (cid:147)also conducts
`
`. . . sales and marketing activities in the U.S. for Samsung-branded mobile devices.(cid:148) Dkt. 110-
`
`22 ¶ 4. Prior to April 2014, Samsung(cid:146)s Richardson facilities also housed Samsung(cid:146)s Mobile
`
`Communications Lab, which (cid:147)work[ed] with Google on technical issues relating to . . . Google
`
`Mobile Services, including the Google Play applications(cid:148) that ContentGuard has accused in this
`
`case. Dkt. 110-22 ¶ 4. Moving Defendants do not deny that Samsung(cid:146)s Richardson facilities
`
`contain relevant evidence concerning the operation and marketing of the Samsung accused
`
`products. And while Samsung(cid:146)s declarant James Botello states that he is (cid:147)not aware of any
`
`S[amsung] documents or witnesses with relevant knowledge relating to the DRM features in the
`
`Google Play, Amazon Kindle or Amazon Instant Video apps . . . in the Eastern District(cid:148) (Dkt.
`
`110-22 ¶ 7 (emphasis added)), Mr. Botello(cid:146)s carefully-constructed statement is at best a half-
`
`truth. Evidence concerning and witnesses knowledgeable about the DRM features of
`
`Samsung(cid:146)s own accused products, i.e., Samsung devices, as well as a content-distribution
`
`service known as Samsung Hub, are located in Richardson, as demonstrated by publicly-
`
`available documents. Lelutiu Decl. Exs. 2, 3. Finally, Moving Defendants do not deny that
`
`Samsung(cid:146)s Richardson facilities contain relevant evidence concerning other important topics,
`
`such as Samsung(cid:146)s licensing activities. Significantly, Samsung and its ultimate Korean parent
`
`(Defendant Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.) have regularly availed themselves of the Eastern
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 56-4 Filed 12/12/17 Page 6 of 22 PageID #: 1180
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 125 Filed 05/02/14 Page 5 of 17 PageID #: 2198
`
`District forum and have even opposed motions seeking transfer to the Northern District of
`
`California.3
`
`Samsung(cid:146)s connections to the Northern and Western Districts of Texas are also
`
`compelling.
`
` Samsung maintains an office
`
`in Dallas, Texas
`
`that (cid:147)leads Samsung(cid:146)s
`
`standardization initiatives(cid:148) in various forums (Lelutiu Decl. Ex. 4), which are relevant because
`
`ContentGuard(cid:146)s claims include allegations related to (cid:147)the Unique Identifier Technology Solution
`
`((cid:145)UITS(cid:146)) standard(cid:148) that is practiced by Moving Defendants(cid:146) accused products. Dkt. 110 at 1.
`
`Furthermore, Samsung maintains manufacturing facilities in Austin, Texas, where it makes
`
`chipsets incorporated in many Samsung accused products. Lelutiu Decl. Ex. 5. In its
`
`Infringement Contentions, ContentGuard specifically identifies particular characteristics of the
`
`accused devices(cid:146) chipsets as meeting an important limitation of certain asserted claims (e.g.,
`
`Lelutiu Decl. Ex. 6), and thus discovery concerning Samsung chipsets will be required to support
`
`ContentGuard(cid:146)s claims.
`
`Motorola. Although headquartered in Illinois, Defendant Motorola makes infringing
`
`devices in Fort Worth, Texas, just miles away from the Eastern District of Texas, at a rate of
`
`100,000 units per week. Lelutiu Decl. Ex. 7. Motorola(cid:146)s Fort Worth facility employs
`
`approximately 2,500 employees (id.), significantly more than all of Motorola(cid:146)s California
`
`facilities combined (see Dkt. 110-18 ¶ 5). Motorola(cid:146)s CEO has noted that the Fort Worth facility
`
`offers (cid:147)benefits to the company from an engineering standpoint(cid:148) because having the
`
`(cid:147)manufacturing close by,(cid:148) i.e., near Motorola(cid:146)s Illinois headquarters, (cid:147)lets engineers make quick
`
`changes and tweaks to the design and look of the device much faster than if it were located
`
`overseas.(cid:148) Lelutiu Decl. Ex. 7. These statements compel the conclusion that Motorola
`
`engineers involved in product development efforts regularly travel to Fort Worth. Moreover,
`
`given that the (cid:147)final device assembly(cid:148) for Motorola(cid:146)s MotoX devices, which ContentGuard has
`
`3 See, e.g., Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. v. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., No. 2:03-cv-00440, Dkt. 4 at
`2 (claiming that (cid:147)venue is proper in [the Eastern District](cid:148)); Samsung Elecs. Co. v. Sandisk
`Corp., No. 9:02-cv-00058, Dkt. 36 (Samsung motion to seal its opposition to Sandisk(cid:146)s motion
`to transfer venue to the Northern District of California).
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 56-4 Filed 12/12/17 Page 7 of 22 PageID #: 1181
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 125 Filed 05/02/14 Page 6 of 17 PageID #: 2199
`
`accused of infringement, occurs in Fort Worth, there can be no doubt that extensive testing of
`
`those products occurs in Texas. Motorola(cid:146)s declarant Ray Warren, who fails to acknowledge
`
`Motorola(cid:146)s significant presence just miles away from the Eastern District of Texas, identifies a
`
`single California-based witness allegedly relevant to this case, Dmitry Sokolov. Dkt. 110-18 ¶ 9.
`
`Mr. Warren, however, does not assert that Mr. Sokolov would be inconvenienced if he had to
`
`attend trial in this Court.
`
`Huawei. Defendant Huawei has (cid:147)its headquarters in Plano, Texas.(cid:148) Dkt. 110-17 ¶ 5.
`
`Huawei(cid:146)s Plano facilities have (cid:147)been fully responsible for sales and marketing of Huawei
`
`smartphones in the United States since December 2011.(cid:148) Dkt. 110-17 ¶ 3. Huawei(cid:146)s Plano
`
`headquarters employs hundreds of employees (Lelutiu Decl. Ex. 8), significantly more than
`
`Huawei(cid:146)s California and Washington facilities combined (Dkt. 110-17 ¶ 5). See also Thomas
`
`Swan, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 773, at *3 (noting that Huawei maintains 650 employees in the
`
`Eastern District). Huawei(cid:146)s declarant James Jiang asserts that no Plano-based Huawei
`
`(cid:147)employees are involved in the research and development for smartphone technology.(cid:148) Dkt.
`
`110-17 ¶ 5. That may well be true presently, but Mr. Jiang fails to acknowledge that, for years,
`
`Huawei conducted its research and development activities in Plano. Lelutiu Decl. Ex. 8.
`
`Moreover, Mr. Jiang fails to identify a single Huawei employee knowledgeable about the
`
`operation of the accused Huawei devices who would be inconvenienced by a court appearance in
`
`Marshall, Texas and concedes that all of Huawei(cid:146)s (cid:147)records and documents relating to
`
`development, sales, and marketing of its smartphones are . . . accessible in . . . Plano.(cid:148) Dkt. 110-
`
`17 ¶ 7. Mr. Jiang, who lives in San Diego, California but regularly travels to Plano, asserts that
`
`he would be inconvenienced if he were required to travel to Marshall. Id. ¶ 9. Mr. Jiang,
`
`however, fails to explain why Huawei could not rely on one of its numerous senior Plano-based
`
`employees (see, e.g., Lelutiu Decl. Ex. 9) to provide testimony regarding (cid:147)sales and marketing of
`
`Huawei smartphones in the United States.(cid:148) Dkt. 110-17 ¶ 8.
`
`HTC. In another case involving the same type of products at issue here, this Court found
`
`that Defendant HTC has (cid:147)employees with offices and documents in Texas,(cid:148) including
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 56-4 Filed 12/12/17 Page 8 of 22 PageID #: 1182
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 125 Filed 05/02/14 Page 7 of 17 PageID #: 2200
`
`(cid:147)employees with information relevant to the testing, performance, sales and/or marketing of
`
`HTC accused devices.(cid:148) Wi-Lan Inc. v. HTC Corp., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99635, at *25 (E.D.
`
`Tex. July 17, 2013). While HTC(cid:146)s declarant Stephanie Bariault notes that (cid:147)no HTC America
`
`engineers live or work in the Eastern District of Texas(cid:148) (Dkt. 110-16 ¶ 8 (emphasis added)), she
`
`does not dispute the findings of fact the Court made in Wi-Lan. Further, Ms. Bariault fails to
`
`identify a single HTC employee knowledgeable about the operation of the accused HTC devices
`
`who would be inconvenienced by a court appearance in Marshall.
`
`BlackBerry. Defendant BlackBerry is (cid:147)headquartered in Irving Texas,(cid:148) mere miles away
`
`from the Eastern District of Texas. MobileMedia Ideas LLC v. Research in Motion Limited, No.
`
`2:10-cv-113-TJW (E.D. Tex. Aug. 30, 2011), Dkt. 106 at 4. (cid:147)[T]he majority of documents
`
`relevant to the structure, function, operation, licensing, manufacture, and sale of the accused
`
`products are either located at or available electronically at [BlackBerry(cid:146)s] Irving office.(cid:148) Id.
`
`Despite some recent layoffs, BlackBerry(cid:146)s Irving headquarters still employs several hundred
`
`employees (Lelutiu Decl. Ex. 10), significantly more than all of BlackBerry(cid:146)s California offices
`
`combined (Dkt. 110-15 ¶ 5). BlackBerry(cid:146)s Irving headquarters continues to be a (cid:147)core location(cid:148)
`
`and still houses the (cid:147)global licensing office(cid:148) for the entire BlackBerry organization. Lelutiu
`
`Decl. Ex. 10. James Baker, ContentGuard(cid:146)s Vice President of Licensing, had substantive
`
`licensing interactions with BlackBerry licensing representatives in Dallas and Irving. Baker
`
`Decl. ¶ 3. Senior BlackBerry(cid:146)s declarant Luke Stafford, who works in the Dallas/Fort Worth
`
`area (Lelutiu Decl. Ex.11), fails to identify a single California-based witness of any relevance to
`
`this case, let alone someone who would be inconvenienced by a court appearance in Marshall.
`
`Importantly, Blackberry and its Canadian parent (Defendant BlackBerry Limited) have regularly
`
`used Texas federal courts to bring patent enforcement actions.4
`
`4 See, e.g., Research in Motion, Ltd. v. Visto Corp., No. 3:06-cv-0783-D (N.D. Tex.); Research
`in Motion, Ltd. v. Eastman Kodak Co., No. 3:08-cv-2075-K (N.D. Tex.); Research in Motion
`Ltd. v. Motorola, Inc., No. 3:08-cv-0284-K (N.D. Tex.).
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 56-4 Filed 12/12/17 Page 9 of 22 PageID #: 1183
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 125 Filed 05/02/14 Page 8 of 17 PageID #: 2201
`
`Apple. Defendant Apple has conceded that this forum is convenient, and for good
`
`reason. Apple has a substantial connection to Austin, Texas, where it maintains more than 3,500
`
`employees and manufactures devices that infringe ContentGuard(cid:146)s patents. Lelutiu Decl. Exs.
`
`12, 13. Apple is also in the process of making Austin its new (cid:147)Americas Operations Center.(cid:148)
`
`Lelutiu Decl. Ex. 12. In addition, some of the Apple devices that ContentGuard has accused of
`
`infringement incorporate chipsets made by Defendant Samsung(cid:146)s Austin-based chip plant.
`
`Lelutiu Decl. Ex. 14. As explained above, in its Infringement Contentions, ContentGuard
`
`specifically identifies particular characteristics of the accused devices(cid:146) chipsets as meeting an
`
`important limitation of certain asserted claims (e.g., Lelutiu Decl. Ex. 15), and thus discovery
`
`concerning Samsung chipsets will be required to support ContentGuard(cid:146)s claims against Apple.
`
`Amazon. Defendant Amazon maintains an office in Plano, and is actively recruiting
`
`engineering talent for that office. Lelutiu Decl. Exs. 16, 17. Many of Amazon(cid:146)s accused Kindle
`
`tablets incorporate chipsets made by Texas Instruments, a company headquartered in Dallas that
`
`maintains a fabrication plant in Richardson, within the Eastern District of Texas. Lelutiu Decl.
`
`Exs. 18, 19. As noted, in its Infringement Contentions, ContentGuard specifically identifies
`
`particular characteristics of the accused devices(cid:146) chipsets as meeting an important limitation of
`
`certain asserted claims (e.g., Lelutiu Decl. Ex. 20), and thus discovery concerning Texas
`
`Instruments chipsets will be required to support ContentGuard(cid:146)s claims against Amazon. In
`
`addition, press reports indicate that Amazon has recently hired a number of high-profile chip
`
`engineers in the Austin area, including the former CTO of an Austin-based chipmaker, whose
`
`new title at Amazon is (cid:147)principal engineer, silicon optimization.(cid:148) Lelutiu Decl. Ex. 21. Press
`
`reports further indicate that Amazon (cid:147)is going to soon start designing its own microprocessors in
`
`Austin.(cid:148) Id. Only one of the California or Washington-based witnesses identified in the
`
`declarations submitted by Amazon employees claims that he will be inconvenienced by having
`
`to appear before this Court. Dkt. 110-06 ¶ 6.
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 56-4 Filed 12/12/17 Page 10 of 22 PageID #: 1184
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 125 Filed 05/02/14 Page 9 of 17 PageID #: 2202
`
`ContentGuard. In the Google Transfer Opinion, this Court made extensive findings of
`
`fact that eviscerate Moving Defendants(cid:146) arguments that ContentGuard(cid:146)s presence in the Eastern
`
`District of Texas is entitled to no weight.5 Specifically, the Court found that ContentGuard(cid:146)s
`
`home office houses hard-copy documents, electronic servers, as well as key
`personnel such as Vice President of Licensing and General Manager James Baker,
`Senior Research Engineer Mai Vu6 and Michael Raley, and Engineer Jeremy Tan.
`Ms. Vu is also the named inventor of two of the patents-in-suit. . . . Additionally,
`Scott Richardson(cid:151)ContentGuard(cid:146)s Vice President of Product Development, and
`Chief Product Officer
`for ContentGuard(cid:146)s parent company, Pendrell
`Corporation(cid:151)spends forty percent of his time in ContentGuard(cid:146)s Plano Office
`managing the development of new products. . . . ContentGuard(cid:146)s presence in
`Texas, though fairly recent, appears to have been made out of legitimate business
`considerations and has not been shown to be an (cid:147)artifact of litigation.(cid:148) . . . The
`un-contradicted declaration of Mr. Scott Richardson, Vice President of Product
`Development of ContentGuard demonstrates that ContentGuard moved from
`California to Texas for three primary reasons: (1) doing business in Plano, Texas
`costs less; (2) North Texas is home to (cid:147)a corridor of telecommunication
`companies and companies that manufacture telecommunications and digital
`technologies, making it a good place to develop relationships with customers; and
`(3) due
`to
`the presence of
`these
`telecommunications companies and
`manufacturers, ContentGuard considers this area suitable for finding new talents
`. . . . The Court is not persuaded that the timing of ContentGuard(cid:146)s move from
`California to Texas alone demonstrates an improper motive to manipulate venue.
`
`Google Transfer Opinion at 3-6. Thus, ContentGuard(cid:146)s presence in Texas is entitled to proper
`
`weight in the venue analysis,7 as this Court held in the Google Transfer Opinion. Id. at 6.
`
`5 Moving Defendants claim that ContentGuard(cid:146)s majority shareholder, Pendrell has an office in
`San Francisco. The evidence cited (Dkt. 110-04) does not support this claim, nor could it since
`the claim is not true. While Ovidian, a Pendrell subsidiary, has a Berkeley, California office,
`Ovidian is (cid:147)an intellectual property (IP) business solutions firm(cid:148) that has no relevance to this
`case. Lelutiu Decl. Ex. 22. Indeed, Ovidian(cid:146)s Berkeley office is no more relevant here than the
`numerous fulfillment centers that Amazon maintains throughout the State of Texas
`6 Relying on the LinkedIn profile of a (cid:147)Mai Nguyen,(cid:148) and ignoring the sworn testimony
`ContentGuard had provided to the Court, Moving Defendants claim that Ms. Vu lives in
`California. Dkt. 110-04. That is incorrect. Ms. Vu lives in Plano. See Vu Decl. ¶¶ 2-3.
`7 It is frankly disingenuous for Moving Defendants to question ContentGuard(cid:146)s motives in
`relocating to Texas, given that many Moving Defendants are taking advantage of the favorable
`business environment in Texas and are in the process of growing their presence in the State. It is
`a matter of public record that many companies, including companies based in California, have
`recently moved significant operations to Texas for many of the same reasons that compelled
`ContentGuard to do the same: (cid:147)No income tax, much, much lower workers(cid:146) compensation fees,
`lower insurance fees probably, lower housing costs.(cid:148) Lelutiu Decl. Ex. 23; see also
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 56-4 Filed 12/12/17 Page 11 of 22 PageID #: 1185
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 125 Filed 05/02/14 Page 10 of 17 PageID #: 2203
`
`In sum, Moving Defendants(cid:146) assertion that (cid:147)there is no meaningful connection between
`
`the relevant evidence and this District(cid:148) (Dkt. 110 at 1) does not even pass the straight-face test.
`
`The record establishes that ample, relevant evidence concerning the operation, manufacture, sale,
`
`and marketing of accused devices, as well as Moving Defendants(cid:146) licensing activities, exists in
`
`Texas, and much of it in this District.8 Indeed, Samsung, Huawei, and BlackBerry are
`
`headquartered in Texas, while Motorola makes infringing devices just miles away from this
`
`District. No amount of spin, half-truths, and carefully-constructed statements can change the
`
`simple fact that, as this Court and the Federal Circuit have observed, (cid:147)the bulk of the discovery
`
`material relating to a corporate party is located at the corporate headquarters.(cid:148) Uniloc USA, Inc.
`
`v. Distinctive Dev. Ltd., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115752, at *8 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2013) (citing In
`
`re Acer Am. Corp., 626 F.3d 1252, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). Indeed, this Court(cid:146)s precedent is not
`
`kind to defendants that seek transfer to a venue that is not their (cid:147)home.(cid:148) As Chief Judge Davis
`
`observed in PersonalWeb,
`
`Amazon spends considerable briefing addressing its lack of ties to the Eastern
`District of Texas, but its ties to the Northern District of California are minimal at
`best, since Amazon is a Seattle company, and all its ties are to Seattle. . . . This
`does not make it (cid:147)clearly more convenient(cid:148) for Amazon and PersonalWeb to
`litigate in the Northern District of California. As a defendant seeking transfer to a
`venue that is not its home, Amazon faces a greater challenge than a defendant
`seeking to transfer an action to its home forum.
`
`PersonalWeb, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46296, at *70-71. ContentGuard(cid:146)s (cid:147)legitimate(cid:148) and
`
`(cid:147)extensive(cid:148) presence in Plano (Google Transfer Opinion at 5, 6) further underscore the lack of
`
`featuring a Samsung executive
`(video
`http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fl4iJSJC9WY
`explaining the reasons why Samsung chose Richardson as its U.S. headquarters).
`8 Furthermore, a substantial amount of relevant evidence is located outside both Texas and
`California. Motorola is headquartered in Illinois; Amazon is headquartered in Washington;
`Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. is headquartered in China; HTC Corporation is headquartered in
`Taiwan; and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is headquartered in South Korea. Given that
`evidence is scattered throughout the United States and Asia, transfer is not appropriate. Stragent
`LLC v. Audi AG, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 79688, at *23 (E.D. Tex. July 18, 2011) (holding that
`transfer would not be substantially more convenient (cid:147)[b]ecause the relevant evidence is located
`in multiple states, including the transferor forum(cid:148)); Network-1 Sec. Solutions, Inc. v. D-Link
`Corp., 433 F. Supp. 2d 795, 800 (E.D. Tex. 2006) (denying transfer where witnesses were not
`localized in one geographical area).
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 56-4 Filed 12/12/17 Page 12 of 22 PageID #: 1186
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 125 Filed 05/02/14 Page 11 of 17 PageID #: 2204
`
`merit of Moving Defendants(cid:146) transfer bid. See PersonalWeb, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46296, at
`
`*75 ((cid:147)As much as they try, the HP Defendants cannot avoid the fact that [one of their
`
`subsidiaries] is headquartered in the Eastern District of Texas . . . . HPES, a wholly-owned
`
`subsidiary of HP, employs over 5000 people at its headquarters in the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`This fact alone, coupled with PersonalWeb(cid:146)s Tyler location, makes transfer inappropriate.(cid:148)).
`
`2. Availability of compulsory process does not favor transfer
`
`Moving Defendants argue that they will need to subpoena unnamed witnesses affiliated
`
`with Google, Adobe Systems, Inc., and Universal Music Group. Dkt. 110 at 6-7. These
`
`conclusory assertions do not justify a transfer order.
`
`As an initial matter, Moving Defendants(cid:146) reference to unidentified witnesses allegedly
`
`located in California bears no evidentiary weight. As the Court found in its Google Transfer
`
`Opinion, these type of assertions are (cid:147)difficult to evaluate(cid:148) since Moving Defendants did not
`
`(cid:147)identif[y] specific witnesses or their relevance the instant case.(cid:148) See Internet Machs. LLC v.
`
`Alienware Corp., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66207, at *22 (E.D. Tex. June 7, 2011) (finding that a
`
`party must at least identify witnesses who would require compulsory process); ColorQuick,
`
`L.L.C. v. Vistaprint Ltd., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136226, at *18-19 (E.D. Tex. July 22, 2010)
`
`(finding that (cid:147)vague allusions to third-party witnesses are insufficient.(cid:148)). Furthermore, Moving
`
`Defendants ignore that Google is a party to litigation co-pending before this Court, in which the
`
`Court denied a motion to transfer. Thus, Google witnesses will most certainly appear before this
`
`Court, and will be available to Moving Defendants as well. Significantly, Motorola is a wholly-
`
`owned Google subsidiary, and it is represented by the same lawyers who represent Google in the
`
`co-pending ContentGuard v. Google litigation.
`
`Moving Defendants(cid:146) reliance on the California presence of a number of inventors is
`
`similarly unavailing. As this Court noted in its Google Transfer Opinion, (cid:147)[s]even out of the
`
`nine non-party inventors . . . have declared their willingness to voluntarily appear in person at
`
`trial (cid:145)if [the case] is held in Texas.(cid:146) These seven inventors have not expressed similar
`
`willingness to voluntarily appear at trial should the case be tried in NDCA. As such, despite the
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 56-4 Filed 12/12/17 Page 13 of 22 PageID #: 1187
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 125 Filed 05/02/14 Page 12 of 17 PageID #: 2205
`
`availability of compulsory process at NDCA for the three inventors residing there, transferring
`
`the case to NDCA may actually result in a lesser attendance of these non-party witnesses.(cid:148)
`
`Google Transfer Opinion at 8-9 (emphasis in the original).
`
`Finally, Moving Defendants ignore that many relevant third-party witnesses are located
`
`in Texas or outside California, such that transferring this case would not secure the attendance of
`
`every relevant third-party witness. Moving Defendants ignore the presence within this District
`
`of Texas Instruments chip designers such as Scott Eisenhart, who have relevant information
`
`concerning chipsets that Amazon incorporates in its infringing devices. Lelutiu Decl. Ex. 24.
`
`Moving Defendants likewise seek to minimize the presence in or close to the Eastern District of
`
`Texas of several telecommunications companies,9 arguing that they are (cid:147)peripheral witnesses.(cid:148)
`
`Dkt. 110 at 12 n.7. But that characterization of telecommunications companies is contradicted
`
`by Defendant Samsung(cid:146)s own declaration, which states that Samsung (cid:147)work[s] with the carrier
`
`network operators . . . to develop and commercialize mobile devices.(cid:148) Dkt. 110-22 ¶ 4. Thus,
`
`by Moving Defendants(cid:146) own admission, network carriers are in possession of relevant
`
`information that concerns the development of infringing devices, as well as consumer demand
`
`for those devices. Moving Defendants also point to unidentified Universal Music Group
`
`witnesses, but they fail to acknowledge that the person most likely to have relevant information
`
`regarding the UITS standard, Rio Caraeff, is located in New York. Lelutiu Decl. Exs. 25, 26.
`
`Similarly, Moving Defendants point to California-based inventors of the patents-in-suit (virtually
`
`all of whom have agreed voluntarily to appear at trial(cid:151)(cid:147)if [the case] is held in Texas(cid:148)), but fail
`
`to mention Bijan Tadayon, an inventor who lives in the Washington, D.C. area. Lelutiu Decl.
`
`Ex. 27. Moving Defendants similarly fail to consider ContentGuard(cid:146)s patent prosecution
`
`counsel, Marc S. Kaufman and Stephen M. Hertzler, who are based in Washington, D.C. Lelutiu
`
`9 For instance, AT&T Service, Inc. and