Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 68 Filed 12/29/17 Page 1 of 41 PageID #: 1407
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`HUAWEI DEVICE USA INC., HUAWEI
`DEVICE CO., LTD. AND HUAWEI
`DEVICE (DONGGUAN) CO., LTD.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`Case No. 2:17-cv-513-JRG
`(LEAD CASE)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:17-cv-515-JRG
`(CONSOLIDATED CASE)
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LG ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`PLAINTIFF AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT, LLC’S OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANT LG ELECTRONICS, INC.’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR
`LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO TRANSFER
`VENUE TO THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (DKT. 46)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 68 Filed 12/29/17 Page 2 of 41 PageID #: 1408
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`AGIS Software Development, LLC, AGIS, Inc., and AGIS Holdings,
`LLC ......................................................................................................................... 3
`
`AGIS’s Witnesses ................................................................................................... 4
`
`LGEKR’s Contact with the District ........................................................................ 6
`
`LGEKR’s Witnesses ............................................................................................... 6
`
`Other Non-Party Witnesses..................................................................................... 7
`
`Other Related Co-Pending Litigations in This Court ............................................. 7
`
`III.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS ...................................................................................................... 8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Personal Jurisdiction ............................................................................................... 8
`
`Transfer Under Section 1404(a)............................................................................ 10
`
`IV.
`
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................... 11
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`LGEKR is Subject to Personal Jurisdiction Under the Stream of
`Commerce Theory ................................................................................................ 11
`
`Transfer to the Northern District of California Is Not Warranted ........................ 17
`
`1.
`
`Each of the Private Interest Factors Weigh Against Transfer................... 18
`
`(a) Convenience of the Parties and Witnesses and Cost of
`Attendance for Willing Witnesses Weigh Against
`Transfer ......................................................................................... 18
`
`(b) Access to Sources of Proof Does Not Favor Transfer ..................... 22
`
`(c) Availability of Compulsory Process Does Not Favor
`Transfer ......................................................................................... 25
`
`(d) LGEKR’s Case Law Does Not Necessitate Transfer ...................... 26
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Judicial Economy Weighs Against Transfer............................................. 27
`
`The Public Interest Factors Weigh Against Transfer ................................ 28
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 68 Filed 12/29/17 Page 3 of 41 PageID #: 1409
`
`(a) This District’s Strong Localized Interest in this Dispute
`Weighs Against Transfer .............................................................. 28
`
`(b) Court Congestion Weighs Against Transfer .................................... 29
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 30
`
`V.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 68 Filed 12/29/17 Page 4 of 41 PageID #: 1410
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Abatix Corp. v. Capra,
`No. 2:07-cv-541, 2008 WL 4427285 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 24, 2008)......................................18, 19
`
`Affinity Labs of Tex. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd. et al.,
`968 F. Supp. 2d 852 (E.D. Tex. 2013) .....................................................................................27
`
`Aloft Media, LLC v. Adobe Sys.,
`No. 6:07–CV–355, 2008 WL 819956 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 2008) ................................... passim
`
`In re Apple, Inc.,
`456 Fed. App’x 907 (Fed. Cir. 2012).......................................................................................17
`
`Asahi Metal Ind. Co., Ltd. v. Chang Shin Rubber Ind. Co., Ltd.,
`480 U.S. 102 (1987) .................................................................................................................14
`
`ATEN Int’l Co. v. Emine Tech. Co.,
`261 F.R.D. 112 (E.D. Tex. 2009)..................................................................................... passim
`
`Autobytel, Inc. v. Insweb Corp.,
`No. 2:07-CV-524, 2009 WL 901482 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2009) ..........................................8, 9
`
`Beijing Zhongyi Zhongbiao Elec. Info. Tech. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`No. 4:12-cv-4077, 2013 WL 3808009 (W.D. Ark. July 22, 2013) ..........................................23
`
`Beverly Hills Fan Co. v. Royal Sovereign Corp.,
`21 F.3d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1994).......................................................................................... passim
`
`Bluestone Innovations, LLC v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`940 F. Supp. 2d 310 (E.D. Va. 2013) ......................................................................................27
`
`BNSF Ry. Co. v. OOCL (USA), Inc.,
`667 F. Supp. 2d 703 (N.D. Tex. 2009) ....................................................................................26
`
`Breckenridge Pharm., Inc. v. Metabolite Labs., Inc.,
`444 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2006)................................................................................................10
`
`Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz,
`471 U.S. 462 (1985) .............................................................................................................9, 16
`
`Catalina Mktg. Corp. v. LDM Grp. LLC,
`No. 2:07-CV-477 (TJW), 2008 WL 4239758 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 9, 2008) ................................18
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 68 Filed 12/29/17 Page 5 of 41 PageID #: 1411
`
`Celgard, LLC v. SK Innovation Co.,
`792 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2015)................................................................................................15
`
`Cell & Network Selection, LLC v. AT & T Mobility LLC,
`No. 6:11-CV-706 LED-JDL, 2013 WL 1855972, at *6 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 29,
`2013) ........................................................................................................................................17
`
`Centre One v. Vonage Holdings Corp.,
`No. 6:08-CV-467, 2009 WL 2461003 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 10, 2009) ..........................................26
`
`ColorQuick, L.L.C. v. Vistaprint Ltd.,
`No. 6:09-CV-323, 2010 WL 5136050 (E.D. Tex. Jul. 22, 2010) ............................................28
`
`Continental Grain Co. v. The FBL-585,
`364 U.S. 19 (1960) ...................................................................................................................27
`
`In re D–Link Corp.,
`183 Fed. App’x 967 (Fed. Cir. 2006).......................................................................................21
`
`Eidos Display, LLC v. AU Optronics Corp.,
`No. 6:11CV201 LED-JDL, 2011 WL 13098296, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 21,
`2011) ........................................................................................................................................24
`
`Fellowship Filtering Techs., LLC v. Alibaba.com, Inc.,
`No. 2:15-CV-2049-JRG, 2016 WL 6917272 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 1, 2016) .................................15
`
`Fujinomaki v. Google Inc. et al.,
`No. 2:15-cv-1381-JRG-RSP, 2016 WL 2807798 (E.D. Tex. May. 13, 2016) ........................26
`
`In re Genentech, Inc.,
`566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................29
`
`Genetic Implant Sys., Inc. v. Core–Vent Corp.,
`123 F.3d 1455 (Fed. Cir. 1997)..................................................................................................8
`
`GSK Tech., Inc. v. Schneider Elec., S.A.,
`No. 6:06–cv–361, 2007 WL 788343 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 14, 2007) .......................................12, 17
`
`Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert,
`330 U.S. 501 (1947), superseded by statute on other grounds ................................................10
`
`In re Hoffmann-LaRoche, Inc.,
`587 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................25
`
`In re Horseshoe Entm’t,
`337 F.3d 429 (5th Cir. 2003) ...................................................................................................11
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 68 Filed 12/29/17 Page 6 of 41 PageID #: 1412
`
`Hupp v. Siroflex of Am., Inc.,
`848 F. Supp. 744 (S.D. Tex. 1994) ..........................................................................................18
`
`Icon Health & Fitness, Inc. v. Horizon Fitness, Inc.,
`No. 5:08-CV-26, 2009 WL 1025467 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 26, 2009) ..............................................9
`
`IDQ Operating, Inc. v. Aerospace Commc’ns Holdings Co.,
`No. 6:15-CV-781, 2016 WL 5349488 (E.D. Tex. Jun. 10, 2016), report and
`recommendation adopted sub nom. Armor All/STP Prod. Co. v. Aerospace
`Commc’ns Holdings Co., Ltd, No. 6:15-CV-781, 2016 WL 5338715 (E.D.
`Tex. Sept. 23, 2016) ......................................................................................................... passim
`
`Innovative Display Techs. LLC v. BMW of N. Am., LLC,
`No. 2:14-CV-00106-JRG, 2015 WL 1459188 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2015) ..............................28
`
`Int’l Shoe Co. v. State of Wash., Office of Unemployment Comp. & Placement,
`326 U.S. 310 (1945) ...................................................................................................................9
`
`Invitrogen Corp., v. Gen. Elec. Co.,
`No. 6:08-CV-112, 2009 WL 331891 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 2, 2009) ...............................................22
`
`J2 Glob. Commc’ns, Inc. v. Protus IP Sols., Inc.,
`No. CIV.A. 6:08-CV-211, 2008 WL 5378010 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 23, 2008) ..............................26
`
`Jacobs Chuck Mfg. Co. v. Shandong Weida Mach. Co.,
`No. Civ.A. 2:05-CV-185, 2005 WL 3299718 (E.D. Tex. 2005), at *8 .............................15, 16
`
`Johnson v. Armour-Eckrich Meats, LLC,
`No. 2:07 CV 498, 2008 WL 4239565 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 9, 2008) ............................................18
`
`Mangosoft Intellectual Property, Inc. v. Skype Techs. SA,
`No. 2:06-CV-390, 2007 WL 2008899, at *2 (E.D. Tex. July 5, 2007) ...................................21
`
`Mears Techs., Inc. v. Finisar Corp.,
`No. 2:13-cv-376-JRG, 2014 WL 1652603 (E.D. Tex. April 24, 2014) ...................................10
`
`MHL Tek, LLC v. Nissan Motor Co.,
`No. 2:07-cv-289, 2009 WL 440627 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 23, 2009) ...................................20, 21, 24
`
`MHL Tek, LLC v. Nissan Motor Co.,
`No. 2:07-CV-289 (TJW), 2008 WL 910012 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 2, 2008) ........................... passim
`
`Mohamed v. Volvo Corp.,
`90 F. Supp. 2d 757 (E.D. Tex. 2000) .......................................................................................18
`
`Network-1 Sec. Solutions, Inc. v. D-Link Corp.,
`433 F. Supp. 2d 795 (E.D. Tex. 2006), mandamus denied, 183 Fed. App’x 967
`(Fed. Cir. 2006) ........................................................................................................................22
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 68 Filed 12/29/17 Page 7 of 41 PageID #: 1413
`
`Norman IP Holdings, LLC v. Casio Computer Co., Ltd.,
`No. 6:09-cv-270, 2010 WL 4238879 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 27, 2010, at *6 ....................................28
`
`Odom v. Microsoft Corp.,
`596 F. Supp. 2d 995 (E.D. Tex. 2009) .....................................................................................23
`
`Optimum Power Sols. LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`794 F. Supp. 2d 696 (E.D. Tex. 2011) ...............................................................................25, 26
`
`PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC v. NEC Corp. of Am., Inc.,
`No. 6:11-CV-655, 2013 WL 9600333 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 21, 2013) ..........................................25
`
`Porto Tech. Co., Ltd. v. Samsung Elec. Am., Inc.,
`No. 14-cv-456-JRG, 2016 WL 937388 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2016) .........................................22
`
`Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`119 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1997)................................................................................................11
`
`Rothschild Storage Retrieval Innovations, LLC v. LG Elecs., Inc. et al.,
`No. 14-cv-22654-DPG, 2015 WL 11233067 (S.D. Fla. Jun. 3, 2015) ....................................27
`
`RPost Holdings, Inc. v. StrongMail Sys., Inc.,
`No. 2:12-CV-515-JRG, 2013 WL 4495119 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2013)............................24, 26
`
`Silent Drive, Inc. v. Strong Indus.,
`326 F.3d 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2003)..................................................................................................8
`
`Solocron Educ., LLC v. Healthstream, Inc.,
`No. 2:16-CV-16-JRG, 2016 WL 9137458 (E.D. Tex. Jun. 7, 2016) .......................................17
`
`Stragent, LLC v. Pioneer Elecs. (USA) Inc.,
`No. 6:11CV278 LED-JDL, 2013 WL 8467476, at *6 (E.D. Tex. May 8, 2013) ....................17
`
`Thurmond v. Compaq Computer Corp.,
`No. 1:99-CV-0711(TH), 2000 WL 33795090 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 1, 2000) ..........................16, 28
`
`U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`No. 6:12-CV-398 MHS-JDL, 2013 WL 1363613, at *6 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 2,
`2013) ........................................................................................................................................17
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Distinctive Dev. Ltd.,
`964 F. Supp. 2d 638, 646 (E.D. Tex. 2013) .............................................................................23
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Tangome, Inc.,
`No. 6:16-CV-380-JRG, 2016 WL 9240543 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 14, 2016)..................................24
`
`VCode Holdings, Inc. v. Cognex Corp.,
`No. 2:07-CV-138, 2007 WL 2238054 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 3, 2007) ............................................23
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 68 Filed 12/29/17 Page 8 of 41 PageID #: 1414
`
`Vertical Computer Sys., Inc. v. LG Elecs. MobileComm U.S.A., Inc.,
`No. 2:10-CV-490-JRG, 2013 WL 2241947 (E.D. Tex. May 21, 2013) ..................................29
`
`In re Vistaprint Ltd.,
`628 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................27
`
`In re Volkswagen AG,
`371 F.3d 201 (5th Cir. 2004) .............................................................................................10, 11
`
`In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc.,
`545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc) ...................................................................................10
`
`In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc.,
`566 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..........................................................................................27, 28
`
`World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson,
`444 U.S. 286 (1980) .................................................................................................................16
`
`In re Zimmer Holdings, Inc.,
`609 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................28
`
`Zitovault, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. 6:15-cv-152-JRG, 2015 WL 11089482 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 4, 2015) ....................................23
`
`Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) .................................................................................................................10, 27
`
`Other Authorities
`
`15 Wright, Miller & Cooper, Fed. Practice and Proc. § 3849 (3d ed. 2009) .................................10
`
`Rule 26(a).........................................................................................................................................2
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 68 Filed 12/29/17 Page 9 of 41 PageID #: 1415
`
`RESPONSE TO STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED BY THE COURT
`PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE CV-7(a)(1)
`
`1) Personal jurisdiction is proper over Defendant LG Electronics, Inc. because it placed the
`Accused Products into the stream of commerce with the knowledge or reasonable
`expectation that the Accused Products would be sold in Texas.
`
`2) The Court should decline to transfer this case to the Northern District of California
`because Defendant LG Electronics, Inc. has failed to show that transfer to the Northern
`District of California is “clearly more convenient” for all parties, non-party witnesses,
`expert witnesses, and in the interest of justice.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 68 Filed 12/29/17 Page 10 of 41 PageID #: 1416
`
`Plaintiff AGIS Software Development, LLC (“AGIS”), by and through its undersigned
`
`counsel, hereby submits this response in opposition to LG Electronics, Inc.’s (“LGEKR”)
`
`Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction; or in the alternative, to transfer for
`
`convenience to the Northern District of California (Dkt. 46) (the “Motion”).
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`LGEKR has failed to show that it is not subject to this Court’s personal jurisdiction or
`
`that convenience justifies transferring this case to the Northern District of California. LGEKR
`
`argues that it cannot be subject to personal jurisdiction because it does not directly market, offer,
`
`or sell its Accused Products in Texas, claiming instead that its California subsidiary, LG
`
`Electronics MobileComm U.S.A., Inc. (“LGEMU”), is responsible for these acts. However, it is
`
`well-established that because LGEKR intentionally places the Accused Products into the stream
`
`of commerce with knowledge that they will eventually be sold in Texas, LGEKR is, in fact,
`
`subject to the personal jurisdiction of this Court, and its motion to dismiss should be denied.
`
`LGEKR admits that it established a distribution channel with LGEMU through which LGEMU
`
`acquires the accused devices from LGEKR and imports them into the United States “for sale to
`
`national mobile phone carriers, retailers, and distributors, who in turn sell those devices to end
`
`users throughout the nation.” Dkt. 46-1, at ¶¶ 4-6 (emphasis added); see also Dkt. 46, at 6.
`
`LGEKR does not and cannot realistically dispute that it is aware that, through LGEMU’s
`
`distribution, the accused devices will be sold in Texas.
`
`LGEKR’s alternative request, for transfer to the Northern District of California, should
`
`also be denied. Neither AGIS nor LGEKR has any presence in or connection to California. As
`
`LGEKR admits, it is a South Korean corporation with a principal place of business in Seoul,
`
`Korea that maintains all operations outside of the United States. None of LGEKR’s documents
`
`and records regarding the design, manufacture or development of the Accused Products are in
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 68 Filed 12/29/17 Page 11 of 41 PageID #: 1417
`
`the proposed transferee district. Likewise, LGEKR offers no evidence that key witnesses are
`
`located in the Northern District of California. In fact, LGEKR identified no witnesses from any
`
`LG entity in its Rule 26(a) initial disclosures. On this motion, LGEKR submits only a
`
`declaration from Juseong Ryu, an LGEKR employee responsible for patent licensing, who states
`
`that two employees of LG entities based in the U.S. may have relevant knowledge, and only one
`
`of those employees is located in the Northern District of California. Dkt. 46-1 at ¶¶8, 9.1
`
`LGEKR also relies on the location of two non-parties in support of its request to transfer
`
`venue, but this too is no basis for transfer. LGEKR’s repeated references to non-party Life360
`
`are simply misleading. While the Complaint refers to Android-based “Find My Phone”
`
`technology (see, e.g., Declaration of Vincent Rubino (“Rubino Decl.”), attached hereto as
`
`Exhibit B, at ¶ 13., the Complaint does not name or otherwise mention Life360. AGIS’s
`
`infringement contentions served on November 28, 2017 do not accuse or name any Life360
`
`products. Despite the fact that LGEKR is well aware that the location of any Life360 witnesses
`
`is irrelevant to venue in this case, it repeatedly urges this Court to transfer venue in part based on
`
`the location of Life360 witnesses (Mot. at 3, 8 and 21). Additionally, LGEKR relies on the
`
`location and convenience of non-party Google, asserting that relevant information from Google
`
`regarding the Accused Products is located in or near Google’s headquarters in Northern
`
`California. While AGIS has accused functionality related to Google’s Android Operating
`
`System, much of that information is publicly available through either open source code or public
`
`application programming interfaces (“API”). In this case, AGIS accuses LGEKR’s mobile
`
`phone devices of infringing the Patents-in-Suit––not Google’s devices. Even if Google
`
`1 The other employee, Michael Henson, appears to be based in San Diego. LGEKR also attaches as exhibits
`declarations submitted by Cecilia Son, an employee of LGEMU and Hongsun Yoon, a Senior IP Counsel at LG
`Electronics U.S.A. Inc., that were submitted in prior actions unrelated to this one. Dkt. 46-3, Exhs. 2, 3. LGEKR
`does not state that it intends to rely upon any of these individuals as witnesses at trial.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 68 Filed 12/29/17 Page 12 of 41 PageID #: 1418
`
`possesses relevant documents and employs individuals who have knowledge about the Accused
`
`Products and functionality, LGEKR has not demonstrated why any specific Google witness or
`
`document would necessitate transfer to the Northern District of California.
`
`In contrast, AGIS’s witnesses and many of the expected non-party witnesses would be
`
`severely inconvenienced if this case were transferred to the Northern District of California.
`
`AGIS has significant ties to this District. AGIS and its related companies have offices in
`
`Marshall and Austin, Texas, and AGIS’s founder, CEO, and named inventor, Malcom “Cap”
`
`Beyer, has long-standing business and personal ties to this District and to the State of Texas, as
`
`do several other employees of AGIS’s sister company, AGIS, Inc. AGIS, Inc. maintains an
`
`office in Austin, Texas, where an AGIS witness lives and works. Moreover, AGIS regularly
`
`works with a consultant in Allen, Texas who is likely to be a key witness regarding software
`
`development for products related to the Patents-in-Suit. All of AGIS’s other key fact witnesses
`
`are located in either Jupiter, Florida or Lenexa, Kansas, which are both substantially closer to the
`
`courthouse in Marshall, Texas than to the Northern District of California, including Mr. Beyer.
`
`Finally, because this case has been pending for nearly six months and is already well into
`
`discovery, and because closely-related suits are also being litigated in this District, judicial
`
`economy weighs against transfer. For all of these reasons and those stated in more detail below,
`
`LGEKR’s Motion should be denied in its entirety.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`AGIS Software Development, LLC, AGIS, Inc., and AGIS Holdings, LLC
`
`AGIS, Inc. was founded by former U.S. Marine Cap Beyer in 2004. Declaration of
`
`Malcolm K. Beyer (“Beyer Decl.”) attached hereto as Exhibit A, at ¶ 4. AGIS, Inc.’s primary
`
`business has revolved around offering the “LifeRing” solution which includes software and
`
`servers that enable mobile devices to securely establish ad hoc digital networks. Id. at ¶ 12.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 68 Filed 12/29/17 Page 13 of 41 PageID #: 1419
`
`LifeRing has been sold to military, defense, first-responder, and private industry customers since
`
`2004. Id. AGIS Inc. also offers a smartphone-based emergency broadcast and response
`
`command control system for first responders called “ASSIST.” Id.
`
`In 2017, Mr. Beyer and the other AGIS Inc. shareholders formed AGIS Holdings,
`
`Incorporated (“AGIS Holdings”), a Florida corporation. Id. at ¶ 7. AGIS Holdings consists of
`
`two subsidiaries, AGIS Inc. and Plaintiff, which is a Texas limited liability company. Id. AGIS
`
`holds the rights, by assignment, to each of the Patents-in-Suit and licenses its patent portfolio to
`
`AGIS Inc. AGIS’s principal place of business is located at 100 W. Houston Street, Marshall,
`
`Texas. Id. at ¶ 9. AGIS Inc. has offices in Lenexa, Kansas, Jupiter, Florida, and Austin, Texas.
`
`Id. at ¶ 10. All of AGIS and AGIS Inc.’s employees with the exception of one are located
`
`significantly closer to this District than the Northern District of California. See id. at ¶¶ 4-6, 10-
`
`11, 14-20.
`
`B.
`
`AGIS’s Witnesses
`
`The witnesses AGIS expects to rely on are located in or much closer to this District than
`
`to the Northern District of California. Mr. Beyer, who is AGIS’s CEO, will be one of AGIS’s
`
`primary witnesses. Beyer Decl., at ¶ 5. Mr. Beyer lives in Jupiter, Florida, approximately 940
`
`miles from the courthouse in Marshall, and 2,560 miles from the courthouse in California. Id., at
`
`¶ 5; Rubino Decl., at ¶ 2. Mr. Beyer possesses highly relevant knowledge regarding conception
`
`and reduction to practice of the Patents-in-Suit and has longstanding ties to this District. Beyer
`
`Decl., at ¶ 5. Mr. Beyer’s family has owned over 2,500 acres of land in Bowie County since
`
`1867 and he has personally owned 412 acres of land in Bowie County since 2001. Id. at ¶ 22.
`
`David Sietsema is expected to be another key fact witness in this case. Mr. Sietsema has
`
`worked for AGIS Inc. and its related companies for more than 10 years. Id. at ¶ 17. His
`
`responsibilities include overseeing contracts and licenses for AGIS and its related entities, as
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 68 Filed 12/29/17 Page 14 of 41 PageID #: 1420
`
`well as ensuring contractual compliance related to intellectual property rights. Id. at ¶ 17.
`
`Mr. Sietsema lives and works in Austin, Texas, 1,200 miles closer to the courthouse in Marshall
`
`than the courthouse in the Northern District of California. Rubino Decl., at ¶ 2.
`
`Sandel Blackwell is expected to be another key witness for AGIS. Mr. Blackwell is the
`
`President of AGIS Inc. and a Director of AGIS Inc. and AGIS. Beyer Decl., at ¶ 18.
`
`Mr. Blackwell manages the development of the software included in the LifeRing and Assist
`
`solutions. Id. Mr. Blackwell works at AGIS Inc.’s Lenexa, Kansas office, as well at its office in
`
`Jupiter, Florida. Id. Mr. Blackwell maintains regular communication with AGIS Inc.’s
`
`programmers and software developers in Florida, Kansas, and Texas, and regularly works with
`
`an AGIS consultant in this District. Id. Mr. Blackwell’s office in Lenexa, Kansas is 444 miles
`
`from Marshall and 1,498 miles to the Northern District of California. Rubino Decl., at ¶ 2.
`
`Mr. Blackwell owns land in Jasper County, Texas, has close personal ties to Texas, and travels
`
`here frequently. Beyer Decl. at ¶ 18.
`
`An important non-party witness for AGIS will be Eric Armstrong, a former AGIS Inc.
`
`employee, who is now a full-time consultant for AGIS and AGIS Inc. Id. at ¶ ¶ 15-16.
`
`Mr. Armstrong is responsible for designing and developing client-side and server-side software
`
`for the LifeRing and Assist solutions. Id. at ¶ 16. Mr. Armstrong lives and works in Allen,
`
`Texas in this District. Id. at ¶ 15. Mr. Armstrong works closely with Mr. Blackwell and AGIS
`
`Inc. employees, such as Rebecca Clarke, regarding software development and quality assurance.
`
`Id. at ¶ 16. Mr. Armstrong is expected to have documents relevant to this action in his office in
`
`this District, including e-mails regarding the development of software and marketing which are
`
`stored on his computer. Id. Transfer to the Northern District of California will require Mr.
`
`Armstrong to travel approximately 1,300 additional miles to testify at trial and will put him
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 68 Filed 12/29/17 Page 15 of 41 PageID #: 1421
`
`beyond the subpoena power of the court. See Rubino Decl., at ¶ 2. Another important non-party
`
`witness for AGIS will be its technical expert, Joseph C. McAlexander, whose office is located at
`
`101 Renner Trail # 350, Richardson, Texas which is located in this District. Id. at ¶ 5. None of
`
`AGIS’s expected witnesses are located in the Northern District of California.
`
`C.
`
`LGEKR’s Contact with the District
`
`LGEKR admits that it has a close relationship with U.S. subsidiary LGEMU. See, e.g.,
`
`Dkt. 46-1, at ¶ 5. . LGEKR admits that it manufactures products containing the accused devices
`
`abroad, and that LGEMU acquires the accused devices from LGEKR and imports them into the
`
`United States “for sale to national mobile phone carriers, retailers, and distributors, who in turn
`
`sell those devices to end users throughout the nation.” Dkt. 46-1, at ¶¶ 4-6 (emphasis added);
`
`see also Dkt. 46, at 6. LGEKR’s nationwide distribution includes sales in Texas. See Dkt. 46, at
`
`7. LGEKR cannot dispute that it places the Accused Products into the steam of commerce
`
`through a distribution channel it established with other LG entities, with knowledge that, through
`
`LGEMU’s distribution, the accused devices will be sold nationwide, including in Texas.
`
`D.
`
`LGEKR’s Witnesses
`
`LGEKR admits that all of its employees and technical evidence are located outside the
`
`United States, primarily in South Korea, and not in the Northern District of California. Dkt. 46,
`
`at 5. LGEKR also asserts that its U.S. subsidiaries, LGEMU and LGEMR, are California
`
`corporations with offices in the Northern District of California. While LGEKR suggests that
`
`employees of LGEMU and LGEMR located in Northern California are involved in the Android
`
`OS certification for the Accused Products (Dkt. 46-1, at ¶ 8), it fails to identify how these
`
`employees are relevant to this action. LGEKR merely identifies two LGEMU employees,
`
`Cecilia Son and Michael Henson (Dkt. 46-1, at ¶¶ 8-9), as “examples” of employees who are
`
`responsible for quality, testing, and management of the accused devices, but does not state that
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00513-JRG Document 68 Filed 12/29/17 Page 16 of 41 PageID #: 1422
`
`either is likely to have relevant knowledge nor does it describe their potential testimony that may
`
`be relevant to this case. LGEKR also suggests that “Android-related certification documents and
`
`records are physically present in or electronically accessible at the Northern California office[,]”
`
`but does not identify how this evidence is relevant. Notably, LG has not identified any LGEKR,
`
`LGEMU, or LGEMR documents or witnesses in its initial disclosures. Rubino Decl., at ¶ 11.
`
`E.
`
`Other Non-Party Witnesses
`
`LGEKR also contends that potential non-party witnesses, such as Google, are located in
`
`and around the Northern District of California. However, LGEKR fails to identify how any
`
`evidence or testimony from Google witnesses will be relevant to this action. In fact, Google also
`
`maintains a large office location in Austin, Texas, where it has long employed over 450
`
`individuals. Rubino Decl., at ¶¶ 3-4. If Google proves to be a relevant third party at all,
`
`Google’s Austin, Texas employees would be likely to have relevant information because,
`
`according to a 2017 press release, Google’s Austin employees work on product teams including
`
`“Android, G Suite, Google Play, people operations, finance, engineering, and marketing.” Id.
`
`Anticipated non-party witnesses from AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon, whom AGIS believes
`
`will provide key information about the value of the accused software, are also located closer to
`
`this District than to the Northern District of California. Rubino Decl., at ¶¶ 6-8. AT&T’s
`
`headquarters are located in Dallas; Sprint’s headquarters are located in Overland, Kansas; and
`
`Verizon’s hea