Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 47 Filed 02/27/18 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 2530
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:17-cv-514-JRG
`(LEAD)
`
`
`HTC CORPORATION,
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Defendant.
`
`DEFENDANT HTC CORPORATION’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO
`DISMISS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(B)(2) OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE,
`TRANSFER VENUE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1404(A) TO THE NORTHERN
`DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`138757362.4
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 47 Filed 02/27/18 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 2531
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`2.
`3.
`4.
`
`PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER HTC CORP. IS IMPROPER ................................ 1
`THE NDCAL IS CLEARLY THE MORE CONVENIENT FORUM .............................. 2
`A.
`The NDCAL is more convenient for third parties ................................................. 2
`1.
`AGIS’s infringement case focuses exclusively on third-party
`Google ........................................................................................................ 3
`AGIS’s claim of damages depends on third-party HTC America ............. 6
`Other third parties reside in the NDCAL ................................................... 7
`Access to sources of proof and compulsory process favors transfer
`to the NDCAL ............................................................................................ 7
`The location of the carriers should be given no weight ............................. 8
`5.
`The convenience of party witnesses favors transfer .............................................. 8
`1.
`HTC Corp.’s witnesses are all in Taiwan .................................................. 9
`2.
`AGIS vastly overstates the convenience for its party witnesses ................ 9
`AGIS’s tie is ephemeral ....................................................................................... 10
`C.
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 10
`
`B.
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`
`138757362.4
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 47 Filed 02/27/18 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 2532
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`PAGE(S)
`
`
`CASES
`
`Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Super. Ct. of Cal., Solano Cty.,
`480 U.S. 102 (1987) ...............................................................................................................1, 2
`
`Berry v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corp.,
`No. 2:16-CV-409-JRG, 2016 WL 6092701 (E.D. Tex. 2016) ..................................................9
`
`Beverly Hills Fan Co. v. Royal Sovereign Corp.,
`21 F.3d 1558 (1994) ...................................................................................................................2
`
`IDQ Operating, Inc. v. Aerospace Commc’ns Holdings Co.,
`2016 WL 5349488 (E.D. Tex. 2016) .........................................................................................2
`
`In re Volkswagen AG,
`371 F.3d 201 (5th Cir. 2004) ...................................................................................................10
`
`KlausTech, Inc. v. Admob, Inc.,
`2010 WL 11484498 (E.D. Tex. 2010) ...................................................................................3, 7
`
`MHL Tek, LLC v. Nissan Motor Co.,
`2008 WL 910012 (E.D. Tex. 2008) ...........................................................................................2
`
`Shoemake v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.,
`233 F. Supp. 2d 828 (E.D. Tex. 2002) .....................................................................................10
`
`Zenith Elecs. LLC v. Sony Corp.,
`No. 5:10–CV–184–DF, 2011 WL 13217851 (E.D. Tex. 2011) ................................................9
`
`STATUTES
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) .......................................................................................................................10
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2)..................................................................................................................10
`
`
`
`138757362.4
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 47 Filed 02/27/18 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 2533
`
`
`AGIS’s Complaint and Opposition fail to set forth the legal and factual justification that
`
`would allow this Court to exercise personal jurisdiction over HTC Corporation. AGIS relies on
`
`the existence of smartphones in Texas, but the exercise of personal jurisdiction requires more. It
`
`requires either: (a) purposeful conduct directed towards Texas, or (b) foreseeability or awareness
`
`that a product would wind up in Texas. Personal jurisdiction is improper here under either test.
`
`Moreover, the NDCAL is clearly the most convenient forum for third-party Google,
`
`AGIS’s third-party prosecuting attorney, third party HTC America, and HTC Corp. Despite
`
`AGIS’s attempt to downplay Google’s relevance, the record makes clear that Google, its
`
`applications, and its witnesses are critical and central to AGIS’s infringement case. AGIS, on the
`
`other hand, has identified only one party witness that would find trial in the EDTEX more
`
`convenient. But this individual is unlikely to have relevant information. All factors in the venue
`
`analysis weigh heavily in favor of transferring this case to the NDCAL.
`
`I.
`
`Personal jurisdiction over HTC Corp. is improper
`
`AGIS does not dispute that specific or general personal jurisdiction is improper. Instead,
`
`AGIS relies on the stream of commerce theory and argues that HTC Corp.’s smartphones end up
`
`in Texas through a “distribution network.” D.I. 40 at 11-17. AGIS argues that smartphones exist
`
`in Texas, but does not articulate or allege1 that HTC Corp. had: (a) purposeful conduct relating to
`
`or (b) had foreseeability or awareness of, smartphone sales in Texas as required under either the
`
`J. O’Connor or J. Brennan Asahi tests.2 The fact that some HTC Corp. smartphones may end up
`
`in Texas, or that HTC Corp. knowingly sells to the United States, is insufficient for a specific
`
`
`1 AGIS states that HTC Corp. admitted that it has awareness of sales in Texas. See D.I. 40 at 13
`and 15 (citing D.I. 29 at 12 and 13). There are no such admissions, however.
`2 Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Super. Ct. of Cal., Solano Cty., 480 U.S. 102, 112, 117 (1987).
`
`138757362.4
`
`-1-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 47 Filed 02/27/18 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 2534
`
`
`forum to exercise personal jurisdiction under the stream of commerce test.3
`
`AGIS’s cited authority is unavailing because each cited fact pattern had the critical
`
`O’Connor/Brennan Asahi components (purposeful conduct/foreseeability or awareness) that
`
`AGIS lacks in this case. In IDQ Operating, Inc. v. Aerospace Commc’ns Holdings Co., the
`
`defendant sold directly to Walmart with the knowledge that its products would be sold in Texas.
`
`2016 WL 5349488, *4 (E.D. Tex. 2016). MHL Tek, LLC v. Nissan Motor Co. involved an
`
`established all-BMW distribution chain, where BMWMC sold to BMW AG, who then sold to
`
`BMWNA, who then distributed to Texas. 2008 WL 910012, *1 (E.D. Tex. 2008). It was clear
`
`that BMWMC knew that its cars were being sold in Texas through its own distribution chain. In
`
`Beverly Hills Fan Co. v. Royal Sovereign Corp., defendant shipped products through its
`
`established distribution channel to Virginia, showing both a purposeful act and clear knowledge.
`
`21 F.3d 1558, 1565 (1994). Here, in contrast, HTC America imports from HTC Corp., and HTC
`
`America provides phones to third-parties. What those third parties do is outside of HTC Corp.’s
`
`guidance or control.
`
`All that AGIS has argued in this case is that HTC Corp. sells to HTC America and that
`
`HTC America sells to resellers. This is not enough for a court to exercise personal jurisdiction.
`
`II.
`
`The NDCAL is clearly the more convenient forum
`A.
`
`The NDCAL is more convenient for third parties
`
`AGIS does not contest that the NDCAL is more convenient for third-party witnesses
`
`from Google and HTC America, or Mr. Burns (the prosecuting attorney of ’055, ’838, and ’251
`
`patents). Instead, AGIS downplays their importance. But the facts of AGIS’s case-in-chief belie
`
`its venue-inspired arguments. Google and HTC America are central to AGIS’s infringement and
`
`
`3 The fact that the Delaware court may have felt it had sufficient evidence to establish purposeful
`conduct, foreseeability, or awareness of sales in Delaware is not relevant to conduct in Texas.
`
`
`138757362.4
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 47 Filed 02/27/18 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 2535
`
`
`damages case, respectively, and Mr. Burns prosecuted most of the Patents-in-Suit. Convenience
`
`to these third parties weighs heavily in favor of transfer.4
`
`1.
`
`AGIS’s infringement case focuses exclusively on third-party Google
`
`Google has all the information and witnesses critical to AGIS’s infringement case. The
`
`convenience to Google’s witnesses weighs significantly in favor of transfer to the NDCAL.
`
`The Patents-in-Suit and AGIS’s infringement contentions make Google’s central role
`
`apparent. “The heart of the invention lies in the … application programs provided in the device,”
`
`D.I. 1-3 at 6:14-15, and the heart of AGIS’s alleged invention is made by Google. Tellingly,
`
`AGIS’s infringement contentions focus squarely on Google-made applications. AGIS’s element-
`
`by-element allegations identify Find My Device (e.g., D.I. 29-33 at 29, 38, 1052, 1419-1424),
`
`Hangouts (e.g., id. at 94-96, 102), and Maps (e.g., id. at 110-116, 1063-1069, 1429-1435). AGIS
`
`also generically recites a long list of strictly Google-made applications: “Android Device
`
`Manager, Find My Phone, Find My Device, Google Latitude, Google Plus, Google Hangouts,
`
`Google Maps, Google Assistant, Google Search, Google Messages, Android Messenger, Google
`
`Allo, Google Duo, GMail, and Google Chrome.” See D.I. 29-33 at 26. All of AGIS’s identified
`
`applications are not made or modified by HTC Corp.—they are Google’s.
`
`AGIS argues that Google’s confidential source-code is unnecessary for its infringement
`
`case, but AGIS’s infringement contentions tell an entirely different story. They reference
`
`Google’s applications while repeatedly recognizing the need for amendment after access to
`
`source code is obtained. See, e.g., D.I. 29-33 at 123, 172, 227-228, 257, 326, 436, 484, 537-538,
`
`567, 659, 707, 760-761, 790, 880, 927, 984-985, 1014, 1077, 1133, 1184-1185, 1207, 1242,
`
`1278-1279, 1311, 1391, 1450, 1506, 1528, 1562, 1638; see also id. at 123 (one of many
`
`
`4 See, e.g., KlausTech, Inc. v. Admob, Inc., 2010 WL 11484498 (E.D. Tex. 2010) (granting
`transfer when non-party witnesses and development occurred in the NDCAL).
`
`
`138757362.4
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 47 Filed 02/27/18 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 2536
`
`
`examples excerpted from AGIS’s infringement contentions shown below with annotations). In
`
`other words, the publicly available open-source code is not what is actually relevant. What is
`
`relevant, as admitted by AGIS in its contentions, is the confidential source code that AGIS still
`
`needs. This source code is unequivocally Google’s, not HTC Corp.’s,5 and is highly confidential
`
`and maintained by Google in the NDCAL.6 Google’s witnesses, not HTC Corp.’s witnesses, are
`
`essential to testify about this source code. AGIS’s open-source code argument is flat-out wrong
`
`and should be given no weight.
`
`
`
`AGIS’s infringement contentions also provide additional evidence of Google’s
`
`importance beyond establishing that Google’s confidential source code is key. As shown in
`
`annotations on the above figure, AGIS’s contentions allege infringement of an HTC Corp. phone
`
`by showing an LG phone running a Google application. AGIS’s infringement contentions repeat
`
`
`5 HTC Corp. does not receive, nor can it modify, the source code for Find My Device, Google
`Maps, and Google Hangouts. D.I. 29-1 at ¶ 7.
`6 See, e.g., 2:17-cv-00513-JRG, D.I. 74-8 at ¶ 3; 2:17-cv-00513-JRG, D.I. 74-9 at ¶ 3; 2:17-cv-
`00513-JRG, D.I. 36-6 at ¶ 10; 2:17-cv-00513-JRG, D.I. 36-6 at ¶ 8; 2:17-cv-00513-JRG, D.I. 36-
`4 at ¶ 6; 2:17-cv-00513-JRG, D.I. 36-5 at ¶6.
`
`
`138757362.4
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 47 Filed 02/27/18 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 2537
`
`
`this same theme in at least twenty-four separate instances with respect to either an LG or Huawei
`
`phone running a Google application.7 AGIS’s arguments that Google’s identified witnesses are
`
`unlikely to have relevant information, or that its confidential source code is not relevant, rings
`
`untrue considering AGIS’s own infringement contentions.
`
`Moreover, the critical, identified Google witnesses are numerous: HTC’s motion relied
`
`on a sworn Google declaration.8 D.I. 29 at 6 and 18. Google employee, Aubeer Dubey
`
`submitted a sworn declaration identifying numerous potential witnesses including: (1) Drew
`
`Rowny, the Project Manager of Android Messages; (2) Andrew Lee, the Technical Lead for
`
`Google Hangouts; and (3) Brian Johnson, the technical lead for Google Plus. 2:17-cv-00513-
`
`JRG, D.I. 36-6, ¶¶ 6-8. Other witnesses include William Luh, Technical Lead for Find My
`
`Device, 2:17-cv-00513-JRG, D.I. 36-5 at ¶ 1, Andrew Oplinger, Technical Lead for Google
`
`Maps, 2:17-cv-00513-JRG, D.I. 36-4 at ¶ 1, Daniel Resnick, Technical Lead for Google Maps,
`
`and Tom Green, Technical Program Manager responsible for Google Maps releases. Id. at ¶ 4.
`
`All of these witnesses, aside from Daniel Resnick, reside in the NDCAL. 2:17-cv-00513-JRG,
`
`D.I. 36-4 at ¶¶ 1, 4; 2:17-cv-00513-JRG, D.I. 36-5 at ¶ 1; and 2:17-cv-00513-JRG, D.I. 36-6 at
`
`¶¶ 6-8. It is also apparent from these witnesses’ roles as technical leads that they have relevant
`
`technical information relating to AGIS’s infringement case.9
`
`
`7 See D.I. 29-33 at 123, 172, 227-228, 257, 436, 484, 537-538, 567, 659, 707, 760-761, 790, 880,
`927, 984-985, 1014, 1133, 1184-1185, 1278-1279, 1311, 1390, 1450, 1506, 1638.
`8 AGIS argues that HTC’s citations to parallel cases should be disregarded. See D.I. 40 at FN 9.
`AGIS provides no authority for its position, and it is nonsensical. A Google witness provided a
`sworn declaration discussing the Google products central to AGIS’s infringement contentions
`brought against all of the Android handset manufacturers. AGIS’s argument appears to be that
`HTC should have had the Google witness, resident in the NDCAL, prepare another declaration in
`the NDCAL, but there is no such legal requirement.
`9 AGIS has been aware of these witnesses and their relevance to their Google-based infringement
`claims since at least as early as November 14, 2017 (see, e.g., 2:17-cv-00513-JRG, D.I. 36-4, 36-
`5, 36-6).
`
`
`138757362.4
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 47 Filed 02/27/18 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 2538
`
`
`AGIS also argues that Google’s Austin facility has relevant witnesses because its
`
`employees allegedly work on products including “Android, G Suite, [and] Google Play.” D.I. 40
`
`at 7. But this is mere conjecture that is contradicted by AGIS’s own infringement contentions.
`
`The contentions recite numerous Google-made applications10 but exclude any applications that
`
`are allegedly worked on in Austin. Further emphasizing Austin’s lack of relevance to this case,
`
`third-party Google declarants Andrew Oplinger and William Luh state that there are no relevant
`
`witnesses in Austin or Dallas. See 2:17-cv-00513-JRG, D.I. 74-8 at ¶ 2; 2:17-cv-00513-JRG,
`
`D.I. 74-9 at ¶ 2.
`
`The NDCAL is clearly more convenient, and the factors relating to the convenience of
`
`witnesses weighs heavily in favor of transfer there. AGIS provides no colorable reason to
`
`discount the sworn declarations of third-party Google’s declarants, nor has AGIS provided any
`
`evidence to contradict the compelling evidence showing Google’s relevance to this case.
`
`2.
`
`AGIS’s claim of damages depends on third-party HTC America
`
`HTC Corp. makes no sales in the United States. Third-party HTC America, however,
`
`“imports, markets, and sells smartphones in the United States that were made by HTC Corp.”
`
`D.I. 29 at 5. Unless AGIS plans on foregoing damages in this case, HTC America’s witnesses
`
`and documents will be critical to AGIS’s damages claim.
`
`To preserve venue, however, AGIS’s opposition discounts HTC America’s witnesses
`
`Nigel Newby-House and Andrew Pudduck, proclaiming that they are not relevant. D.I. 40 at 6.
`
`But Nigel Newby-House is an Associate Vice President of Product Planning & Go-to-Market
`
`and Andrew Pudduck is a Vice President of Marketing, D.I. 29-2 at ¶ 3. They have relevant
`
`
`10 D.I. 29-33 at 26 (identifying “Android Device Manager, Find My Phone, Find My Device,
`Google Latitude, Google Plus, Google Hangouts, Google Maps, Google Assistant, Google
`Search, Google Messages, Android Messenger, Google Allo, Google Duo, GMail, and Google
`Chrome.”)
`
`
`138757362.4
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 47 Filed 02/27/18 Page 10 of 15 PageID #: 2539
`
`
`information about the accused products, including the sales and marketing of those products.
`
`Furthermore, all of third-party HTC America’s employees with relevant information are in
`
`Washington; none are in the EDTEX. D.I. 29-2 at ¶ 2. Any of HTC America’s identified and
`
`prospective witnesses would need to travel from Washington State for trial. The NDCAL is
`
`clearly more convenient for them.
`
`3.
`
`Other third parties reside in the NDCAL
`
`AGIS also discounts the relevance of third-party prosecuting attorney, Daniel Burns,
`
`stating that “HTC fails to explain the relevance or materiality of this potential witness.” D.I. 40
`
`at 22. But Mr. Burns is the prosecuting attorney of the ’055, ’838, and ’251 patents—he has
`
`knowledge regarding their prosecution, the prior art, enforceability, and AGIS’s potential claim
`
`of conception and reduction to practice. Prosecuting attorneys are, by their role as prosecuting
`
`attorneys, relevant in patent litigation matters. See, e.g., KlausTech, 2010 WL 11484498 at *3.
`
`4.
`
`Access to sources of proof and compulsory process favors transfer to
`the NDCAL
`
`With respect to the compulsory process factor, AGIS argues that HTC Corp. failed to
`
`identify unwilling witnesses. See D.I. 40 at 27. This is not the standard, and HTC Corp. cannot
`
`predict whether Google’s witnesses or Mr. Burns will refuse to testify. That is the point of this
`
`factor—HTC Corp. has no control over them, but the NDCAL does. See, e.g., KlausTech, 2010
`
`WL 11484498 at *3 (granting motion to transfer when prosecuting attorney and other third
`
`parties were in the absolute subpoena power of the NDCAL). This factor weighs heavily in
`
`favor of transfer.
`
`With respect to the sources of proof, as explained in section II.A.1 supra, Google’s
`
`technical documentation and source code is maintained in the NDCAL and this source code is
`
`highly relevant to AGIS’s claims of infringement. AGIS argues that files can be transferred
`
`
`138757362.4
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 47 Filed 02/27/18 Page 11 of 15 PageID #: 2540
`
`
`electronically, see, e.g., D.I. 40 at 25, but Google will not electronically transfer its highly
`
`confidential proprietary source code that is maintained in Mountain View to HTC Corp. or
`
`AGIS. See 2:17-cv-00513-JRG, D.I. 36-6 at ¶ 8, D.I. 36-4 at ¶ 6, D.I. 36-5 at ¶6. The fact that
`
`Google’s source code is highly confidential and maintained in Mountain View heavily favors
`
`transfer to the NDCAL.
`
`5.
`
`The location of the cell phone service providers should be given no
`weight
`
`AGIS argues that the cell phone service providers are relevant to the transfer analysis
`
`because they may have data regarding marketing information relating to the accused
`
`applications, Find My Device, Google Maps, and Google Hangouts. See D.I. 40 at 31; see also
`
`id. at 7. But AGIS’s allegations are purely speculative: it is highly unlikely that a cell phone
`
`service provider will have market demand information relating to Google-made applications.
`
`Certainly, AGIS has not provided any evidence supporting this speculative theory. Furthermore,
`
`AGIS’s infringement contentions highlight the lack of the cell phone service provider’s
`
`relevance to this case. The contentions repeatedly describe the cell phone service providers only
`
`in context of being a generic Internet service provider for phones running Google Maps. See D.I.
`
`29-33 at 155, 467, 690, 910. Additionally, AGIS has not identified a single cell phone service
`
`provider-related witness. The location of the cell phone service providers (or any of their
`
`speculative witnesses) should not be considered in the transfer analysis.
`
`B.
`
`The convenience of party witnesses favors transfer
`
`HTC Corp.’s potential witnesses and employees are all in Taiwan. AGIS’s opposition, in
`
`contrast, only identifies a single, likely irrelevant, AGIS witness in this district. This weighs in
`
`favor of transfer.
`
`
`138757362.4
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 47 Filed 02/27/18 Page 12 of 15 PageID #: 2541
`
`
`1.
`
`HTC Corp.’s witnesses are all in Taiwan
`
`AGIS discounts HTC Corp.’s potential witnesses, but this argument is unavailing given
`
`that HTC Corp. is a Taiwanese company. The vast majority of its employees are located in
`
`Taiwan. D.I. 29-1 at ¶ 3. Any potential HTC Corp. witness will be Taiwan-based and will have
`
`to travel to San Francisco or Marshall for trial. This Court should consider difficulties in travel
`
`from Asia in the transfer analysis, see Zenith Elecs. LLC v. Sony Corp., No. 5:10–CV–184–DF,
`
`2011 WL 13217851, at *8 (E.D. Tex. 2011), and San Francisco is far more convenient for HTC
`
`Corp.’s witnesses.
`
`2.
`
`AGIS vastly overstates the convenience for its party witnesses
`
`AGIS has identified one single witness in this district—Eric Armstrong. D.I. 40 at 5.
`
`But AGIS provides no explanation as to why Mr. Armstrong is now relevant for this case when
`
`he was not relevant throughout the entirely of the Florida Case that went to trial. AGIS half-
`
`heartedly claims, in a footnote, that his exclusion in the Florida Case is “irrelevant” because that
`
`case involved different patents. D.I. 40 at 22, FN11. But AGIS’s explanation is deceptive at
`
`best, and insufficient—the Florida Case involved patents from the same family and same
`
`technology as the Patents-in-Suit. D.I. 29 at 15. AGIS cannot articulate why, or how,
`
`Mr. Armstrong is now relevant, because he is not relevant. This Court should therefore give
`
`little weight to Mr. Armstrong’s presence in Allen, Texas.
`
`This Court should also give little weight to AGIS’s hired expert, Joseph McAlexander.
`
`D.I. 40 at 22. The location of AGIS’s now-anticipated trial expert should not weigh in the venue
`
`determination. See Berry v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., No. 2:16-CV-409-JRG, 2016 WL 6092701,
`
`*3 (E.D. Tex. 2016) (“the convenience of expert witnesses weighs little in the venue analysis”);
`
`see also Shoemake v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 233 F. Supp. 2d 828, 833 (E.D. Tex. 2002) (“it
`
`cannot be said that [an anticipated trial expert] should be considered ‘key witnesses’ or even
`
`
`138757362.4
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 47 Filed 02/27/18 Page 13 of 15 PageID #: 2542
`
`
`witnesses as of this date, for that matter”).
`
`AGIS’s other party witnesses only benefit slightly if trial occurred in the EDTEX.
`
`AGIS’s argument incorrectly focuses squarely on straight-line distance,11 and ignores the
`
`practicalities of travel-time, which should be considered. In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201,
`
`n.3 (5th Cir. 2004) (considering connecting airports from San Antonio, Texas to Shreveport,
`
`Louisiana and travel time). AGIS’s party witnesses save a negligible amount of time: (a) Lenexa
`
`witness Mrs. Clark saves 17 minutes; (b) Austin witness Mr. Sietsema saves one hour; (c) and
`
`Southern Florida witnesses Messrs. Beyer, Blackwell, Beyer II, and Mr. Wisneski and
`
`Mrs. Beyer save two hours. See D.I. 29 at 21-23. The time savings is negligible when compared
`
`to the convenience to third-party Google’s witnesses, third-party Mr. Burns, third-party HTC
`
`America’s witnesses, and HTC Corp.’s witnesses.
`
`C.
`
`AGIS’s tie is ephemeral
`
`AGIS speciously claims that it conducts business in this district, but it has not identified
`
`anyone that works at its “principal place of business” at 100 W. Houston St. in Marshall, D.I. 40-
`
`1 at ¶ 9, nor has it described the business it conducts there. AGIS also overestimates the
`
`significance of its documents that are allegedly in Marshall. If there are any documents, they had
`
`to have been shipped shortly before AGIS filed suit. AGIS “headquarters” was contrived for
`
`venue purposes, and venue purposes only.
`
`III. Conclusion
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the Court should dismiss HTC Corp. under Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`12(b)(2) or, in the alternative, transfer this case to the NDCAL pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
`
`
`11 See D.I. 40 at 21 (citing In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201, 204–05 (5th Cir. 2004)).
`
`
`138757362.4
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 47 Filed 02/27/18 Page 14 of 15 PageID #: 2543
`
`
`Dated: February 27, 2018
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Miguel J. Bombach
`Matthew C. Bernstein, (Lead Attorney)
`CA State Bar No. 199240
`mbernstein@perkinscoie.com
`Miguel J. Bombach
`CA State Bar No. 274287
`mbombach@perkinscoie.com
`James Young Hurt (Pro Hac Vice)
`CA State Bar No. 312390
`PERKINS COIE LLP
`11988 El Camino Real, Suite 350
`San Diego, CA 92130-2594
`Tel: (858) 720-5700
`Fax: (858) 720-5799
`
`Eric Findlay
`State Bar No. 00789886
`efindlay@findlaycraft.com
`FINDLAY CRAFT, P.C.
`102 N. College Ave., Suite 900
`Tyler, TX 75702
`Tel: (903) 534-1100
`Fax: (903) 534-1137
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
`HTC CORPORATION
`
`
`
`
`
`138757362.4
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 47 Filed 02/27/18 Page 15 of 15 PageID #: 2544
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing
`
`document has been served on February 27, 2018, to all counsel of record who are deemed to
`
`have consented to electronic service via the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Miguel J. Bombach
` Miguel J. Bombach
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`138757362.4
`
`-1-
`
`