Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 56-5 Filed 12/12/17 Page 1 of 29 PageID #: 1197
`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 56-5 Filed 12/12/17 Page 1 of 29 PageID #: 1197
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 3
`EXHIBIT 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 56-5 Filed 12/12/17 Page 2 of 29 PageID #: 1198
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 472 Filed 03/31/15 Page 1 of 28 PageID #: 26452
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:13-CV-1112-JRG
`
`§ § § § § § § § §
`
`CONTENT GUARD HOLDINGS, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`
`Before the Court are Defendants Amazon.com, Inc. (“Amazon”), Blackberry Limited and
`
`Blackberry Corporation (collectively, “Blackberry”), HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc.
`
`(collectively, “HTC”), Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. and Huawei Device USA, Inc.
`
`(collectively, “Huawei”), Motorola Mobility LLC (“Motorola”), Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
`
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC’s
`
`(collectively, “Samsung”) (collectively, the “Movants”) Joint Motion to Transfer Venue to the
`
`Northern District of California (Dkt. No. 110); and ContentGuard’s Supplemental Response to
`
`Motion to Transfer to the Northern District of California (Dkt. No. 184). Movants seek to
`
`transfer under 28 U.S.C § 1404(a) from the Eastern District of Texas (“EDTX”) to the Northern
`
`District of California (“NDCA”). Having considered the parties’ written submissions, the Court
`
`DENIES Movants’ Motion for the reasons set forth below.
`
`APPLICABLE LAW
`
`28 U.S.C § 1404(a) provides that “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the
`
`interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district court or
`
`division where it might have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). However, a motion to transfer
`
`venue should only be granted upon a showing that the transferee venue is “clearly more
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 56-5 Filed 12/12/17 Page 3 of 29 PageID #: 1199
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 472 Filed 03/31/15 Page 2 of 28 PageID #: 26453
`
`convenient” than the venue chosen by the plaintiff. In re Nintendo Co., 589 F.3d 1194, 1197
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1388, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re TS Tech USA
`
`Corp., 551 F.3d 1315, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008); In re Volkswagen of America, Inc. (Volkswagen II),
`
`545 F.3d 304, 315 (5th Cir. 2008). District courts have “broad discretion in deciding whether to
`
`order a transfer.” Balawajder v. Scott, 160 F.3d 1066, 1067 (5th Cir. 1998) (quoting Caldwell v.
`
`Palmetto State Sav. Bank, 811 F.2d 916, 919 (5th Cir. 1987)).
`
`The first inquiry when analyzing a case’s eligibility for § 1404(a) transfer is “whether the
`
`judicial district to which transfer is sought would have been a district in which the claim could
`
`have been filed.” In re Volkswagen AG (Volkswagen I), 371 F.3d 201, 203 (5th Cir. 2004). If
`
`the transferee district is a proper venue, then the Court must weigh the relative public and private
`
`factors of the current venue against the transferee venue. Id. In making such a convenience
`
`determination, the Court considers several private and public interest factors. Id. “Factors
`
`relating to the parties’ private interests include ‘[1)] relative ease of access to sources of proof;
`
`[2)] availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling, and [3)] the cost of obtaining
`
`attendance of willing, witnesses; possibility of view of premises, if view would be appropriate to
`
`the action; and [4)] all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and
`
`inexpensive.’” Atl. Marine Const. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for W. Dist. of Texas, 134 S. Ct. 568,
`
`581 n.6 (2013) (citing Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 241, n.6, (1981); Nintendo, 589
`
`F.3d at 1198; Genentech, 566 F.3d at 1342; TS Tech., 551 F.3d at 1319; Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d
`
`at 315. “Public-interest factors may include ‘[1)] the administrative difficulties flowing from
`
`court congestion; [2)] the local interest in having localized controversies decided at home; [and]
`
`[3)] the interest in having the trial of a diversity case in a forum that is at home with the law.’”
`
`Atl. Marine, 134 S. Ct. at 581 n.6 (citing Piper Aircraft, 454 U.S. at 241 n.6); Volkswagen I, 371
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 56-5 Filed 12/12/17 Page 4 of 29 PageID #: 1200
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 472 Filed 03/31/15 Page 3 of 28 PageID #: 26454
`
`F.3d at 203; Nintendo, 589 F.3d at 1198; TS Tech, 551 F.3d at 1319. Other public factors are: 4)
`
`the familiarity of the forum with the law that will govern the case; and 5) the avoidance of
`
`unnecessary problems of conflict of laws or in the application of foreign law. Volkswagen I, 371
`
`F.3d at 203; Nintendo, 589 F.3d at 1198; TS Tech, 551 F.3d at 1319. Although the private and
`
`public factors apply to most transfer cases, “they are not necessarily exhaustive or exclusive,”
`
`and no single factor is dispositive. Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 314-15.
`
`In the Fifth Circuit, the plaintiff’s choice of venue has not been considered a separate
`
`factor in this analysis. Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 314-15. However, “[t]he Court must also give
`
`some weight to the plaintiffs’ choice of forum.” Atl. Marine, 134 S. Ct. at n.6 (citing Norwood v.
`
`Kirkpatrick, 349 U.S. 29, 32 (1955)). “Plaintiffs are ordinarily allowed to select whatever forum
`
`they consider most advantageous (consistent with jurisdictional and venue limitations), [and the
`
`Supreme Court has] termed their selection the ‘plaintiff's venue privilege.’” Atl. Marine, 134 S.
`
`Ct. at 581 (citing Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 635 (1964).) In the Fifth Circuit, the
`
`“venue privilege” has been seen as contributing to the defendant’s burden in proving that the
`
`transferee venue is “clearly more convenient” than the transferor venue. Volkswagen II, 545
`
`F.3d at 315; Nintendo, 589 F.3d at 1200; TS Tech, 551 F.3d at 1319.
`
`“The idea behind § 1404(a) is that where a ‘civil action’ to vindicate a wrong—however
`
`brought in a court—presents issues and requires witnesses that make one District Court more
`
`convenient than another, the trial judge can, after findings, transfer the whole action to the more
`
`convenient court.” Van Dusen, 376 U.S. at 622 (quoting Cont'l Grain Co. v. The FBL-585, 364
`
`U.S. 19, 26 (1960)). “Section 1404(a) is intended to place discretion in the district court to
`
`adjudicate motions for transfer according to an ‘individualized, case-by-case consideration of
`
`convenience and fairness.’” Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988) (quoting
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 56-5 Filed 12/12/17 Page 5 of 29 PageID #: 1201
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 472 Filed 03/31/15 Page 4 of 28 PageID #: 26455
`
`Van Dusen, 376 U.S. at 622). Section 1404(a) requires this discretionary “individualized, case-
`
`by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.” Genentech 566 F.3d at 1346 (quoting Van
`
`Dusen, 376 U.S. at 622).
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`This suit is a suit concerning the infringement and validity of certain U.S. patents.
`
`Plaintiff ContentGuard was originally formed as a partnership between Xerox Corporation and
`
`Microsoft Corporation1 to pursue digital rights management (“DRM”) technology.2 As part of
`
`its business, ContentGuard filed and obtained various patents, including the nine patents that it
`
`asserts in this action. The Defendants in this action—Amazon, Apple, Huawei, Motorola, HTC,
`
`and Samsung3—are well-known technology companies that, among their varied businesses,
`
`provide electronic hardware and software products. Generally in this suit, ContentGuard accuses
`
`DRM aspects of certain of Defendants’ software applications (“apps”) (e.g. iTunes, Amazon
`
`Kindle, Amazon Instant Video) and hardware and software components of infringing its patent
`
`claims.
`
`1 ContentGuard is now owned by Pendrell Technologies, LLC. (Dkt. No. 2.)
`ContentGuard’s website suggests
`that may also be owned by Time Warner.
` See
`http://contentguard.com/company/ (“ContentGuard is owned by Pendrell Corporation and Time
`Warner”) (last visited January 30, 2015).
`
`2 Broadly, DRM technology, which might also be thought of as “copy protection,” seeks
`to control access (e.g. viewing, copying) to digital information, including media, such as music,
`movies, and software.
`
`3 BlackBerry Corporation (f/k/a Research In Motion Corporation), another technology
`company, was dismissed on January 21, 2015. Blackberry was a signatory to the pending
`motion. BlackBerry is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Irving,
`Texas. Irving, Texas is located to the west of Richardson, Texas in Dallas County, which is in
`the Northern District of Texas. The Court’s preliminary analysis of BlackBerry’s facts in the
`briefing, strongly suggest that including BlackBerry in this analysis would weigh against
`transfer. As the Court otherwise finds that the evidence does not favor transfer, the Court does
`not undertake the full analysis of BlackBerry’s facts and therefore excludes BlackBerry from its
`analysis.
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 56-5 Filed 12/12/17 Page 6 of 29 PageID #: 1202
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 472 Filed 03/31/15 Page 5 of 28 PageID #: 26456
`
`DECLARATIONS AND EXHIBITS
`
`Huawei:
`
`Huawei provides a declaration by Mr. James Jiang of San Diego, California, Executive
`
`Vice President for Huawei Device USA. (Jiang Decl., Dkt. No. 110-17 ¶ 1.) Mr. Jiang’s
`
`responsibilities have
`
`included marketing Huawei phones
`
`in
`
`the United States since
`
`December 2011. (Id. ¶ 3.) According to Mr. Jiang, Huawei Device USA’s headquarters is in
`
`Plano, Texas, and Huawei’s research and development of smartphones, to the extent it occurs in
`
`the U.S., is performed in either California or Washington. (Id. ¶ 5.) Mr. Jiang declares that
`
`Huawei employs one person in Washington who is involved in smartphone technology; fifty
`
`people in San Diego for the same purpose; and ten people in Cupertino, California who are
`
`responsible for sales and marketing. (Id.) Mr. Jiang declares that Huawei’s documents are
`
`equally accessible in its Plano or California facilities. (Id. ¶ 6.) The Court observes that, in
`
`contrast to the information it provides for California and Washington, Huawei provides no
`
`substantive information about its headquarters beyond the fact that it is located in Plano, Texas.
`
`ContentGuard asserts that Huawei’s headquarters are in Plano, Texas; that this facility
`
`has “been fully responsible for the sales and marketing of Huawei smartphones in the United
`
`States since December 2011”; and that Huawei’s headquarters employs significantly more
`
`employees in Plano (apparently over 600) than it does in California and Washington combined.
`
`(Resp. at 5; Dkt. No. 110-17.) ContentGuard asserts that Mr. Jiang regularly travels to Plano and
`
`argues that it is disingenuous for him to assert that he would be inconvenienced by traveling to
`
`Marshall. (Resp. at 5.) Movants’ reply that “ContentGuard’s insinuation, with no support, that
`
`Huawei could have a Plano-based employee testify rather than Mr. Jiang is pure speculation.”
`
`(Mot. Reply at 4.)
`
`ContentGuard also adds, citing to custodial information produced by Huawei, that
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 56-5 Filed 12/12/17 Page 7 of 29 PageID #: 1203
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 472 Filed 03/31/15 Page 6 of 28 PageID #: 26457
`
`“ContentGuard has been able to determine the likely geographical locations of five of the
`
`Huawei Defendants’ custodians, which are as follows: two in Plano, Texas; one in Southern
`
`California; one in Europe; and one in Asia.” (Dkt. No. 138 at 2 (citing Donahue Decl. ¶¶ 6-7,
`
`Ex. 5-6, 11).)
`
`Amazon:
`
`Amazon provides a declaration by Mr. Kevin Keller, Associate General Counsel of
`
`Lab126, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Amazon.com, Inc. (Keller Decl., Dkt. No. 124-1
`
`¶ 1.) Mr. Keller represents that Amazon is headquartered in Seattle, Washington and Lab126 is
`
`headquartered in Cupertino, California. (Id. ¶ 2.) According to Mr. Keller, the Kindle Fire
`
`product was developed at Lab126 (or under the supervision of employees at Lab126) and there
`
`are six specific witnesses at Lab126 who can testify about the Kindle Fire’s development and
`
`implementation of DRM. (Id. ¶ 3.) Mr. Keller also declares that the Kindle app was developed
`
`in Seattle as are four specific likely witnesses who can testify about the Kindle app. (Id. ¶ 4.)
`
`Mr. Keller also declares that Amazon Instant Video was similarly developed in Seattle and that
`
`the implementation on the Amazon Fire was developed in both Seattle and at Lab126. (Id. ¶ 5.)
`
`Mr. Keller declares that the likely witnesses for Amazon Instant Video are the same specific
`
`Lab126 witnesses and four specific Seattle employees. Mr. Keller declares that “nearly all of the
`
`documents relating to the development” of the Kindle Fire are located at Lab126, that those
`
`relating to the development of the Kindle app are in Seattle, and that those relating to Amazon
`
`Instant Video are in Seattle and at Lab126. (Id. ¶¶ 7-9.) Mr. Keller declares that “[t]here are no
`
`documents or other evidence relating to the Amazon products accused of infringement located in
`
`Texas.” (Id. ¶ 10.) The Court observes that Mr. Keller makes no statements as to where the
`
`additional supervised employees are located.
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 56-5 Filed 12/12/17 Page 8 of 29 PageID #: 1204
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 472 Filed 03/31/15 Page 7 of 28 PageID #: 26458
`
`Amazon also provides a declaration by Mr. Adam Riggs, Senior Technical Program
`
`Manager at Amazon.com, Inc. (Riggs Decl., Dkt. No. 110-6 ¶ 1.) Mr. Riggs declares that the
`
`“Kindle software app products accused in the complaint in the above referenced action were
`
`developed at Amazon’s offices in Seattle, Washington, or under the supervision of Amazon
`
`employees located [there].” (Id. ¶ 2.) Mr. Riggs declares that he is a developer of the Kindle
`
`app and that he and a Mr. Matt Goldberg of Seattle are likely witnesses.4 (Id. at 4.) Mr. Riggs
`
`also makes statements equivalent to those of Mr. Keller considering Lab126’s involvement with
`
`the Kindle Fire. (Id. ¶ 5.) The Court observes that Mr. Riggs makes no statements as to where
`
`the additional supervised employees are located.
`
`ContentGuard adds evidence that Amazon has a sizable office in this District, and that the
`
`office has job postings for a Cloud Infrastructure Architect, Security Specialist, IT
`
`Transformation consultant, and Solutions Architect. (Resp. at 7.) ContentGuard also asserts that
`
`Amazon’s accused Kindle devices incorporate chipsets made by Texas Instruments, which is
`
`headquartered in Dallas and maintains a fabrication plant in Richardson, Texas. (Id.)
`
`ContentGuard also asserts that Amazon is establishing microprocessor manufacturing facilities in
`
`Austin, Texas. (Id.) Movants’ reply states that ContentGuard “presents no evidence to suggest
`
`that [its Plano] activities have any connection with this case,” that “there are no Amazon
`
`employees in Texas with material evidence,” and that Movants believe that ContentGuard’s
`
`theory of infringement places less of an emphasis on hardware. (Mot. Reply at 2-3.)
`
`ContentGuard also adds, in its supplement filed shortly after briefing completed and
`
`citing to custodial information produced by Amazon, that “[t]he likely geographical locations of
`
`the Amazon Defendants’ custodians are as follows: four in the Northern District of California;
`
`4 Mr. Keller also lists Mr. Riggs and Mr. Goldberg as specific witnesses.
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 56-5 Filed 12/12/17 Page 9 of 29 PageID #: 1205
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 472 Filed 03/31/15 Page 8 of 28 PageID #: 26459
`
`ten in Seattle; one in Asia.” (Dkt. No. 184 at 3 (citing Donahue Decl. ¶¶ 10-11, Ex. 9-11).)
`
`The Court observes that Amazon does not appear to provide evidence as to its accused
`
`Music app. The Court notes that the Amazon severs associated with its Kindle, Video, and
`
`Music apps appear to also be accused in this action. It is unclear from Amazon’s declarations
`
`whether or not information concerning these servers is disclosed in Amazon’s declarations.
`
`HTC:
`
`HTC America, Inc. provides a declaration by Ms. Stephanie Bariault of Bellevue,
`
`Washington, Vice President of Operations for HTC America. (Bariault Decl., Dkt. No. 110-16 ¶
`
`1.) Ms. Bariault declares that HTC America is a Washington corporation, headquartered in
`
`Bellevue, and that HTC America imports its phones from HTC Corporation, which is a
`
`Taiwanese corporation headquartered in Taipei. (Id. ¶¶ 2-3.) Ms. Bariault declares that HTC
`
`America’s sales and marketing activities are coordinated from Bellevue; that HTC America does
`
`not sell directly to consumers; and that HTC America instead “sells mobile phones only to
`
`distributors, carriers, and third-party vendors in the United States.” (Id. ¶¶ 4, 6.) Ms. Bariault
`
`declares that HTC’s “design and operation records of its mobile phones” are “primarily located”
`
`in Washington, as are its “records relating to corporate finances and to marketing and sale[s].”
`
`Ms. Bariault declares that there are a “relatively small number of U.S.-based engineers who
`
`worked on the hardware and software design, development, integration, and manufacturability”
`
`of HTC products and that they work “out of their homes close to various customer locations.”
`
`(Id. ¶ 8.) Ms. Bariault declares that “HTC America routinely conducts business in the San
`
`Francisco Bay Area which is part of the Northern District of California.” The Court observes
`
`that Ms. Bariault does not describe if HTC regularly conducts business in any other area of the
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 56-5 Filed 12/12/17 Page 10 of 29 PageID #: 1206
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 472 Filed 03/31/15 Page 9 of 28 PageID #: 26460
`
`U.S., such as the locations of the “distributors, carriers, and third-party vendors in the United
`
`States” or the “various customer locations” where its engineers work.
`
`ContentGuard also adds, in its supplement filed shortly after briefing completed and
`
`citing to custodial information produced by HTC, that “HTC identified 21 ‘likely’ custodians,
`
`with fifteen of them identified as ‘key,’” and that “ContentGuard has been able to determine the
`
`likely geographic locations of 16 HTC custodians, which are as follows: three in Seattle; one in
`
`Boston; one Europe; and eleven in Asia. (Dkt. No. 184 at 2-3 (citing Donahue Decl. ¶¶ 8-9, Ex.
`
`7-8, 11).)
`
`The Court observes that HTC provides the Court with no information regarding the HTC
`
`Watch and HTC Watch Server that HTC has stated are also accused. (See Dkt. No. 174 at 4.)
`
`Motorola:
`
`Motorola provides a declaration by Mr. Archan Mehta, Senior Engineering Manager at
`
`Motorola Mobility, LLC. (Mehta Decl., Dkt. No. 110-19 ¶ 1.) Mr. Mehta declares that
`
`Motorola Mobility is a Delaware company with its principal place of business in Chicago,
`
`Illinois. (Id. ¶ 3.) Mr. Mehta declares that integration of apps into the Motorola Moto X
`
`smartphones in the United States occurs in either Sunnyvale, California, and Libertyville,
`
`Illinois. (Id. ¶ 3.)
`
`Motorola also provides a declaration by Mr. Ray Warren, Senior Licensing Counsel at
`
`Motorola Mobility, LLC. (Warren Decl., Dkt. No. 110-18 ¶ 1.) Mr. Warren declares that
`
`Motorola maintains “significant business operations in California” and “maintains several
`
`facilities in California, including one in Sunnyvale, California.” (Id. ¶ 2.) Mr. Warren identifies
`
`Dmitry Sokolov, an employee of Motorola’s Sunnyvale, California facilities, as a likely witness
`
`on the Moto Smartphone. (Id. ¶ 9.a.) Mr. Warren represents that “all or nearly all of the
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 56-5 Filed 12/12/17 Page 11 of 29 PageID #: 1207
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 472 Filed 03/31/15 Page 10 of 28 PageID #: 26461
`
`documents relating to Motorola Mobility’s products, general operations, and the research,
`
`design, and development of accused Moto X smartphones are available in Sunnyvale, California
`
`and Chicago, Illinois.” (Id. ¶ 10.) Mr. Warren also represents that “[f]inancial and marketing
`
`information related to the accused Moto X smartphones is located in Chicago, Illinois” as are
`
`Motorola “employees likely to have financial and marketing information relevant to the
`
`Motorola X smartphones.” (Id. ¶ 11.) The Court observes that Mr. Warren does not describe if
`
`there are other locations where Motorola’s documents are available or whether Motorola’s
`
`documents are primarily located in one location or another.
`
`ContentGuard adds evidence that 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.”
`
`(Resp. at 4; Dkt. No. 125-9.) ContentGuard asserts that the Fort Worth facility manufactures
`
`more Motorola devices than all of Motorola’s facilities in California and that Motorola’s CEO
`
`has made statements that suggest that Motorola’s Illinois engineers regularly travel to the
`
`facility. (Id.) ContentGuard observes that Motorola’s declarant provides no mention of this
`
`facility. (Id. at 5.) Movants reply that the Fort Worth facility is operated by Flextronics and that
`
`“Motorola Mobility has only 29 employees and six contractors at that facility.” (Mot. Reply
`
`at 4.)
`
`ContentGuard also adds, in its supplement filed shortly after briefing completed and
`
`citing to custodial information produced by Motorola, that “[t]he likely geographical locations of
`
`the Motorola Defendants’ custodians are as follows: eleven in the Chicago area . . . and four in
`
`Northern California.” (Dkt. No. 184 at 2 (citing Donahue Decl. ¶¶ 4-5, Ex. 3-4, 11).)
`
`Samsung:
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 56-5 Filed 12/12/17 Page 12 of 29 PageID #: 1208
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 472 Filed 03/31/15 Page 11 of 28 PageID #: 26462
`
`Samsung provides a declaration by Mr. James Botello, Sr. Director of Product
`
`Management for Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Botello Decl., Dkt. No. 110-22
`
`¶ 1.) According to Mr. Botello, Samsung Telecommunications is a “Delaware Company with a
`
`principal place of business in Richardson, Texas, and supporting facilities in the Dallas-Fort
`
`Worth area.” (Id. ¶ 3.) Mr. Botello also declares that Samsung Telecommunications has a
`
`“facility in San Diego and a sales force throughout California.” (Id.) Mr. Botello also states that
`
`Samsung Telecommunications maintains “other office facilities in Bellevue, Washington;
`
`Atlanta, Georgia; Herndon, Virginia; Overland Park. Kansas: and Bridgewater. New Jersey.”
`
`(Id.) Mr. Botello also declares that Samsung operates a Mobile Communications Lab, located in
`
`San Jose and Santa Clara, California, as part of its Samsung Research America subsidiary and
`
`that the Mobile Communications Lab employees have responsibility for technical issues related
`
`to Google software. (Id. ¶ 5.) Mr. Botello declares that prior to April 1, 2014, the Mobile
`
`Communications Lab was part of Samsung Telecommunications. (Id.) The Court observes that
`
`Mr. Botello does not provide additional locations for Samsung Researchgood America.
`
`ContentGuard notes that, while Mr. Botello’s declaration states that he is not aware of relevant
`
`documents or witnesses in this District, Mr. Botello’s statement is specific to “Google Play,
`
`Amazon Kindle or Amazon Instant Video apps” and omits Samsung’s own accused products,
`
`such as its devices and apps. (Resp. at 3.)
`
`Samsung also provides a declaration by Ms. Rami Jung, Principal Engineer for Samsung
`
`Electronics Co., Ltd. (Rami Decl., Dkt No. 110-20 ¶ 1.) According to Ms. Jung, Samsung
`
`Electronics is a Korean corporation headquartered in Suwon, and that Samsung Electronics’
`
`Korean employees have responsibilities
`
`that
`
`include
`
`the design, engineering,
`
`testing,
`
`manufacture, and assembly of Samsung Galaxy Smartphones. (Id. ¶ 3.) Ms. Jung also makes a
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 56-5 Filed 12/12/17 Page 13 of 29 PageID #: 1209
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 472 Filed 03/31/15 Page 12 of 28 PageID #: 26463
`
`declaration virtually
`
`identical
`
`to
`
`that of Mr. Botello concerning Samsung’s Mobile
`
`Communications Lab. (Id. ¶ 2.) The Court observes that Ms. Jung does not provide additional
`
`facility locations for Samsung Electronics Co.
`
`Samsung also provides a declaration by Ms. Maria Brzica, manager of the Consumer
`
`Business Division of Samsung Electronics America, Inc. According to Ms. Brzica, Samsung
`
`Electronics America is a New York Corporation with a principal place of business in Ridgefield
`
`Park, New Jersey. (Brzica Decl., Dkt. No. 110-21 ¶ 3.) Ms. Brzica declares that Samsung
`
`Electronics America employs 240 people at several facilities in California, including a team of
`
`20 in San Jose; a sales office of five in Irvine; 44 in Rancho Dominguez; and 93 in San Diego
`
`with the remainder working from home throughout the state. (Id. ¶ 4.) According to Ms. Brzica,
`
`Samsung Electronics America is only involved in the marketing, sales, service, repair,
`
`importation, and distribution of Wi-Fi only accused products. (Id. ¶ 5.) The Court observes that
`
`Ms. Brzica does not provide additional facility locations or information outside of California,
`
`such as for SEA’s New Jersey headquarters.
`
`ContentGuard adds evidence that Samsung Telecommunications America, which is
`
`headquartered in Richardson, “researches, develops and markets a variety of personal and
`
`business communications products throughout North America, including handheld wireless
`
`phones, wireless communications
`
`infrastructure systems,
`
`fiber optics and enterprise
`
`communications systems.” (Dkt. No. 125-2.) Further, ContentGuard notes this facility “work[s]
`
`with carrier network operators in the U.S. to develop and commercialize mobile devices,
`
`including the Samsung Galaxy line of smartphones” accused in this case. (Dkt. No. 125-5.)
`
`ContentGuard also notes that Samsung maintains additional facilities in Texas, including an
`
`office in Dallas, Texas that “leads Samsung’s standardization initiatives” and a facility in Austin,
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 56-5 Filed 12/12/17 Page 14 of 29 PageID #: 1210
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 472 Filed 03/31/15 Page 13 of 28 PageID #: 26464
`
`Texas, that manufactures chipsets incorporated into accused products.
`
` (Resp. at 4.)
`
`ContentGuard asserts that its infringement contentions identify a particular characteristic of
`
`accused chipsets as relevant to infringement.
`
` (Id.)
`
` Movants’ reply only dismisses
`
`ContentGuard’s arguments regarding Samsung and does not address their substance. (Mot.
`
`Reply at 4-5.)
`
`ContentGuard also adds, in its supplement filed shortly after briefing completed and
`
`citing to custodial information produced by Samsung, that “[t]he likely geographical locations of
`
`the Samsung Defendants’ custodians are as follows: two in the Dallas/Fort Worth area; four in
`
`the New York area; one in southern California; one in the Northern District of California; and
`
`seven in Asia.” (Dkt. No. 184 at 2 (citing Donahue Decl. ¶¶ 2-3, Ex. 1-2, 11).)
`
`The Court observes that Samsung provides the Court with no information regarding the
`
`Samsung Books Server, Samsung Books app, Samsung Hub Server, Samsung Hub, Vudu App,
`
`or OMA DRM that Samsung has stated are also accused. (See Dkt. No. 174 at 4.)
`
`II. The Movants’ Joint Motion to Transfer
`
`By this motion, five Defendants – two with Texas-based headquarters, two from
`
`Washington, and one from Illinois – have jointly moved the Court to transfer this case to the
`
`NDCA pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). These Defendants assert that the Northern District of
`
`California is “clearly more convenient” than the forum chosen by Plaintiff ContentGuard – also a
`
`Texas entity. The briefing and exhibits before the Court comprise 730 pages.5 The Court will
`
`examine each of the applicable private and public factors listed above, addressing the parties’
`
`specific arguments where applicable.
`
`5 In advance of determining this motion, the Court also resolved a number of motions to
`sever, which comprised over 1700 pages of briefing and exhibits. (See Dkt. No. 456.)
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 56-5 Filed 12/12/17 Page 15 of 29 PageID #: 1211
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 472 Filed 03/31/15 Page 14 of 28 PageID #: 26465
`
`A.
`
`Proper Venue
`
`The Northern District of California and the Eastern District of Texas are proper venues.
`
`B.
`
`Private Interest Factors
`
`
`
`1.
`
`Relative Ease of Access to Sources of Proof
`
`“In patent infringement cases, the bulk of the relevant evidence usually comes from the
`
`accused infringer. Consequently, the place where the defendant’s documents are kept weighs in
`
`favor of transfer to that location.” In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
`
`(citation omitted).
`
`Plaintiff ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. (“ContentGuard”) is a Texas corporation
`
`maintaining its principal place of business in Plano, Texas.6 Huawei is a Chinese company
`
`maintaining its US technology and device headquarters in Plano, Texas. Samsung is a Korean
`
`corporation with a Richardson, Texas headquarters focusing on mobile technology.7 Amazon is
`
`a Delaware corporation headquartered in Seattle, Washington.8 HTC is a Taiwanese corporation
`
`maintaining a US headquarters in Bellevue, Washington.9 Motorola is a Delaware limited
`
`liability company with its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois.10 Thus, three parties,
`
`6 Plano, Texas is located in Collin County, which is in the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`7 Richardson, Texas is located immediately south of Plano, Texas in Dallas and Collin
`counties, which are respectively in the Northern and Eastern Districts of Texas.
`
`8 Seattle, Washington is located in King County, which is in the Western District of
`Washington.
`
`9 Bellevue, Washington is located in King County, which is in the Western District of
`Washington.
`
`10 The Movants appear to have asked this Court to also take Defendant Apple Inc.
`(“Apple”) into consideration when determining their transfer request. (See, e.g., Dkt. No. 110
`at 8.) Apple, however, did not join the instant motion. Nor have the Movants identified any
`evidence in Apple’s possession that bears on the claims asserted against them. Therefore, the
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 56-5 Filed 12/12/17 Page 16 of 29 PageID #: 1212
`Case 2:13-cv-01112-JRG Document 472 Filed 03/31/15 Page 15 of 28 PageID #: 26466
`
`including the Plaintiff, maintain headquarters or a principal place of business in this District. In
`
`contrast, no party is headquartered or has a principal place of business in the Northern District of
`
`California.
`
`The Movants first argue that the Court should discount ContentGuard’s EDTX presence,
`
`because ContentGuard moved its headquarters from El Segundo, California, to Plano, Texas, in
`
`August, 2013, about four months before filing the instant action. The Court previously rejected a
`
`similar argument raised by Google, Inc. (“Google”) in a related action. (See Memorandum and
`
`Opinion at 4-5, ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. v. Google, Inc., Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-061-JRG
`
`(Apr. 16, 2014), ECF No. 38 (the “Google Transfer Order”).) There, the Court considered the
`
`un-contradicted declaration from ContentGuard’s Vice President of Product Development, who
`
`explained the three primary reasons behind ContentGuard’s move from California to Texas. (See
`
`Google Transfer Order at 5-6.) Specifically, ContentGuard was drawn to Texas because of the
`
`low cost of doing business, convenient access to telecommunication companies and
`
`manufacturers, and the high-tech talent pool. (Id.) The Court found these to be legitimate
`
`business considerations, and accordingly held that ContentGuard’s presence in Texas should be
`
`afforded proper weight in the venue analysis. (Id. at 6.)