Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 46 Filed 12/29/17 Page 1 of 37 PageID #: 468
`
`
`AGIS SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:17-cv-00517-JRG
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`ZTE CORPORATION, ET AL.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS
`PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR IMPROPER VENUE
`OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO TRANSFER (DKT. NO. 38)
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 46 Filed 12/29/17 Page 2 of 37 PageID #: 469
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................1
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`F.
`
`Plaintiff AGIS Software Development, LLC ........................................................3
`
`AGIS’s Witnesses ................................................................................................4
`
`Defendants’ Connections to the Eastern District of Texas.....................................5
`
`Non-Party Witnesses ............................................................................................7
`
`This Court’s Experience With The Patents-in-Suit ...............................................8
`
`ZTA’s Prior Admission ........................................................................................8
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS ...................................................................................................9
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Venue ..................................................................................................................9
`
`Transfer Under Section 1404(a) ......................................................................... 11
`
`III.
`
`ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................ 12
`
`A.
`
`Venue is Proper as to Defendant ZTX ................................................................ 12
`
`1.
`
`ZTX “Resides” in the State of Texas ...................................................... 12
`
`B.
`
`Venue is Proper as to Defendant ZTA ................................................................ 15
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`ZTA Has Engaged in Acts of Infringement in This District ..................... 15
`
`ZTA Has a Regular and Established Place of Business in This
`District ................................................................................................... 15
`
`C.
`
`Transfer to the Northern District of California Pursuant to Sections
`1404(a) and 1406(b) Is Not Warranted ............................................................... 20
`
`1.
`
`The Private Interest Factors Weigh Against Transfer .............................. 20
`
`(a) Convenience of the Parties and Witnesses and Cost of
`Attendance for Willing Witnesses Weigh Against Transfer ........... 20
`
`(b) Access to Sources of Proof Does Not Favor Transfer ..................... 23
`
`(c) Compulsory Process Does Not Favor Transfer ............................... 25
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 46 Filed 12/29/17 Page 3 of 37 PageID #: 470
`
`2.
`
`The Public Interest Factors Weigh Against Transfer ............................... 26
`
`(a) This District Has a Substantial Interest in This Dispute .................. 26
`
`(b) Court Congestion Weighs Against Transfer ................................... 27
`
`IV.
`
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 27
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 46 Filed 12/29/17 Page 4 of 37 PageID #: 471
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Abatix Corp. v. Capra, et al.,
`No. 2:07-CV-541, 2008 WL 4427285, at *7 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 24, 2008) .............................. 23
`
`Aerielle, Inc. v. Monster Cable Prod., Inc.,
`No. 206CV382TJW, 2007 WL 951639 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 26, 2007) ...................................... 22
`
`AGCS Marine Ins. Co. v. Associated Gas & Oil Co.,
`775 F. Supp. 2d 640 (S.D.N.Y. 2011) .................................................................................. 21
`
`Aloft Media, LLC v. Adobe Sys.,
`No. 6:07–CV–355, 2008 WL 819956 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 2008) .................................. passim
`
`Am. GNC Corp. v. ZTE Corp.,
`No. 4:17-cv-00620-ALM-KPJ, 2017 WL 5157700 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 7, 2017) ........ 6, 8, 16, 18
`
`Am. GNC Corp. v. ZTE Corp.,
`No. 4:17-cv-00620-ALM-KPJ, 2017 WL 5163605 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 4, 2017)................. passim
`
`Blue Spike, LLC v. Nook Digital, LLC,
`No. 6:16-cv-1361-RWS-JDL, 2017 WL 3263871 (E.D. Tex. Jul. 28, 2017)......................... 13
`
`Blue Spike, LLC v. Texas Instruments, Inc.,
`No. 6:12-cv-499, 2014 WL 11829322 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2014) .......................................... 9
`
`Brevel Prod. Corp. v. H & B Am. Corp.,
`202 F. Supp. 824 (S.D.N.Y. 1962) ....................................................................................... 18
`
`Brunette Machine Works, Ltd. v. Kockum Industries, Inc.
`406 U.S. 706 (1972) .............................................................................................................. 9
`
`In re Cordis Corp.,
`769 F.2d 733 (Fed. Cir. 1985).............................................................................................. 10
`
`Core Wireless Licensing, S.A.R.L. v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 6:12-CV-100-LED-JDL, 2013 WL 682849 *at 4 (E.D. Tex. 2013) ............................... 22
`
`Denver & R. G. W. R. Co. v. Brotherhood of R. R. Trainmen,
`387 U.S. 556 (1967) ............................................................................................................ 14
`
`Diem LLC v. BigCommerce, Inc.,
`No. 6:17-CV-186, 2017 WL 3187473 (E.D. Tex. Jul. 26, 2017) .............................. 10, 12, 13
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 46 Filed 12/29/17 Page 5 of 37 PageID #: 472
`
`Eidos Display, LLC v. AU Optronics Corp.,
`No. 6:11-CV-201, 2011 WL 13098296, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 21, 2011) ............................. 21
`
`Elbit Sys. Land & C4I Ltd. v. Hughes Network Sys., LLC,
`No. 2:15-CV-37, 2017 WL 2651618 (E.D. Tex. June 20, 2017) ........................................... 13
`
`etradeshow.com, Inc. v. Netopia Inc.,
`No. 3:03-CV-1380-K, 2004 WL 515552 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 30, 2004) ....................................... 9
`
`Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp.,
`353 U.S. 222 (1957) ...................................................................................................... 10, 14
`
`Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc. v. Medallion Foods, Inc.,
`867 F. Supp. 2d 859 (E.D. Tex. 2012) ..................................................................... 20, 22, 26
`
`Funk v. Stryker Corp.,
`631 F.3d 777 (5th Cir. 2011) ................................................................................................. 8
`
`Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert,
`330 U.S. 501 (1947) ............................................................................................................ 11
`
`In re Horseshoe Entm’t,
`337 F.3d 429 (5th Cir. 2003) ............................................................................................... 12
`
`Hupp v. Siroflex of Am., Inc.,
`848 F. Supp. 744 (S.D. Tex. 1994) ...................................................................................... 20
`
`Invitrogen Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., et al.,
`No. 6:08-CV-112, 2009 WL 331891, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 9, 2009) ................................... 23
`
`L. D. Schreiber Cheese Co. v. Clearfield Cheese Co.,
`495 F. Supp. 313 (W.D. Pa. 1980) ....................................................................................... 17
`
`Langton v. CBeyond Communication, LLC,
`282 F. Supp. 2d 504 (E.D. Tex. 2003) ................................................................................... 9
`
`Mangosoft Intellectual Property, Inc. v. Skype Techs. SA,
`2007 WL 2008899 (E.D. Tex. July 5, 2007) ........................................................................ 21
`
`McGah v. V-M Corp.,
`166 F. Supp. 662 (N.D. Ill. 1958) ........................................................................................ 18
`
`Mears Techs., Inc. v. Finisar Corp.,
`No. 2:13-cv-376, 2014 WL 1652603 (E.D. Tex. April 24, 2014) ......................................... 11
`
`Mohamed v. Mazda Corp.,
`90 F. Supp. 2d 757 (E.D. Tex. 2000) ............................................................................. 20, 23
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 46 Filed 12/29/17 Page 6 of 37 PageID #: 473
`
`Network-1 Sec. Sols., Inc. v. D-Link Corp.,
`433 F. Supp. 2d 795 (E.D. Tex. 2006) ................................................................................. 25
`
`Odom v. Microsoft Corp.,
`596 F. Supp. 2d 995 (E.D. Tex. 2009) ................................................................................. 24
`
`PersonalWeb Technologies, LLC v. NEC Corp. of Am., Inc.,
`No. 6:11-CV-655, 2013 WL 9600333 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 21, 2013) ........................................ 25
`
`Portsmouth Baseball Corp v. Frick,
`132 F. Supp. 922 (S.D.N.Y., June 22, 1955) ........................................................................ 14
`
`In re Princeton Digital Image Corporation,
`496 Fed. App’x 73 (Fed. Cir. 2012) en banc denied (2013) ................................................... 9
`
`Raytheon Co. v. Cray, Inc.,
`No. 2:15-CV-01554, 2017 WL 2813896 (E.D. Tex. June 29, 2017),
`mandamus granted, order vacated on other grounds sub nom. In re Cray, Inc.,
`871 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .......................................................................... 10, 11, 15, 16
`
`Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
`119 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1997) ............................................................................................ 12
`
`Rossco Holdings Inc. v. Best W. Int'l Inc.,
`No. H-06-0155, 2006 WL 1007474 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 18, 2006) ............................................. 21
`
`Shoemake v. Union Pacific R.R. Co.,
`233 F. Supp. 2d 828 (E.D. Tex. 2002) ................................................................................. 21
`
`Sperry Prod. v. Ass’n of Am. Railroads,
`132 F.2d 408 (2d Cir. 1942) .......................................................................................... 13, 14
`
`Stonite Products Co. v. Melvin Lloyd Co.,
`315 U.S. 561 (1942) ............................................................................................................ 13
`
`TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC,
`137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017) ................................................................................................. passim
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Tangome, Inc.,
`No. 6:16-CV-380, 2016 WL 9240543 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 14, 2016) ........................................ 22
`
`VCode Holdings, Inc. v. Cognex Corp.,
`No. 2:07-CV-138, 2007 WL 2238054 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 3, 2007) .......................................... 23
`
`Vertical Computer Sys., Inc. v. LG Elecs. MobileComm U.S.A., Inc.,
`No. 2:10-CV-490, 2013 WL 2241947 (E.D. Tex. May 21, 2013) ......................................... 26
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 46 Filed 12/29/17 Page 7 of 37 PageID #: 474
`
`In re Volkswagen AG,
`371 F.3d 201 (5th Cir. 2004) ......................................................................................... 11, 12
`
`In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc.,
`545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc) ................................................................................ 11
`
`Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3) ................................................................................................................ 9
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) .................................................................................................. 9, 12, 13, 14
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) .................................................................................................................. 11
`
`35 U.S.C. § 1400 ......................................................................................................................... 1
`
`Federal Employer’s Liability Act .............................................................................................. 14
`
`Other Authorities
`
`15 Wright, Miller & Cooper, Fed. Practice and Proc. § 3849 (3d ed. 2009) ............................... 11
`
`Rule 3-1(g) ................................................................................................................................ 24
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 46 Filed 12/29/17 Page 8 of 37 PageID #: 475
`
`RESPONSE TO STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED BY THE COURT
`PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE CV-7(a)(1)
`
`
`1) The Court should not dismiss this case for improper venue because [a] Defendant ZTE (TX)
`Inc. “resides” in the state of Texas and [b] Defendant ZTE (USA) Inc. has committed acts of
`infringement and has a regular and established place of business in Plano, Texas.
`
`2) The Court should not transfer this case to the Northern District of California because
`Defendants ZTE (TX) Inc. and ZTE (USA) Inc. have failed to show that the Northern District of
`California is a “clearly more convenient” venue for all parties, non-party witnesses, expert
`witnesses, or that transfer to the Northern District of California serves the interests of justice.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 46 Filed 12/29/17 Page 9 of 37 PageID #: 476
`
`Plaintiff AGIS Software Development, LLC (“AGIS”), by and through its undersigned
`
`counsel, hereby submits this response in opposition to Defendants ZTE (TX) Inc. (“ZTX”) and
`
`ZTE (USA) Inc.’s (“ZTA” together with ZTX, “Defendants”) motion to dismiss for improper
`
`venue, or in the alternative, to transfer (Dkt. No. 38) (the “Motion”). Defendants' motion should
`
`be denied in its entirety.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The Eastern District of Texas is proper venue for this action under 35 U.S.C. § 1400
`
`because each of the Defendants, ZTX and ZTA, has significant and undeniable connections to
`
`this District. Defendant ZTX is incorporated in Texas and employs at least 14 full-time
`
`employees who live and work within the Eastern District of Texas. Based on this District’s
`
`precedent, these facts are sufficient to establish that venue is proper as to ZTX, and ZTX
`
`identifies no controlling case law to the contrary. Defendant ZTA is registered to do business in
`
`Texas and maintains a regular and established place of business in this District. ZTA admitted in
`
`a prior case in this District that it established a local customer service center with iQor in Plano,
`
`Texas. While Defendants try to distance themselves from this regular and established place of
`
`business by asserting that iQor is an outside vendor, Defendants cannot deny that this facility has
`
`more than 60 customer service representatives dedicated to ZTA whose objective is to build
`
`brand loyalty and provide service exclusively to ZTA’s customers. Nor can Defendants deny
`
`that ZTA employees regularly work with iQor representatives at that service center in Plano,
`
`Texas. In fact, based in part on the activities of this very same service center, in American GNC
`
`a Court in this District recently held that venue in this District is proper for ZTA under TC
`
`Heartland. This Court should reach the same result here.
`
`Not only is venue proper in this District, but it is more convenient as well. Neither ZTX
`
`nor ZTA have identified a single potential, relevant witness located in their facilities in
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 46 Filed 12/29/17 Page 10 of 37 PageID #: 477
`
`California, nor have they identified any other specific piece of relevant evidence located there.
`
`Moreover, by ZTE’s own admission, the witnesses and documents related to the design and
`
`manufacture of the Accused Products are located in China, not in the Northern District of
`
`California. The Northern District of California is not more convenient––let alone “clearly more
`
`convenient”––than the Eastern District of Texas for these Chinese witnesses. In contrast, AGIS
`
`has offices in Marshall and its sister company, Advanced Ground Information Systems, Inc.
`
`(“AGIS Inc.”), maintains an office in Austin, Texas, where an AGIS witness lives and works.
`
`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. This includes AGIS’s founder, CEO and named inventor, Malcolm “Cap” Beyer. In
`
`addition, Mr. Beyer has longstanding business and personal ties to this District and to the State of
`
`Texas, as do several other AGIS Inc. employees. AGIS’s witnesses and many of the expected
`
`non-party witnesses would be greatly inconvenienced if this case were transferred to the
`
`Northern District of California.
`
`ZTX and ZTA, not Google, are the parties to this case and their substantial connections to
`
`this District weigh heavily against transfer. While AGIS has accused functionality related to
`
`Google’s Android Operating System, much of that relevant information is publicly available
`
`through either open source code or public application programming interfaces (“API”). In this
`
`case, AGIS accuses ZTE’s smartphones and tablets of infringing the Patents-in-Suit––not
`
`Google’s devices. Even if Google were to possess relevant documents and employ individuals
`
`who have knowledge about the Accused Products and functionality, Defendants have not
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 46 Filed 12/29/17 Page 11 of 37 PageID #: 478
`
`demonstrated how any specific Google witness or document would necessitate transfer to the
`
`Northern District of California.
`
`Finally, because this case has been pending for almost 6 months and closely-related suits
`
`are also being litigated in this District and are well into discovery, judicial economy weighs
`
`against transfer. For all of these reasons and those stated in more detail below, Defendants’
`
`motion should be denied.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiff AGIS Software Development, LLC
`
`AGIS’s predecessor (now sister company), 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 been the development and sale of the
`
`“LifeRing” solution, which includes software and servers that enable mobile devices to securely
`
`establish ad hoc digital networks. Id. at ¶ 12. LifeRing has been sold to military, defense, first-
`
`responder, and private industry customers since 2004. Id. AGIS Inc. also developed 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 (AGIS) which is a Texas limited liability company. Id.
`
`AGIS Inc. has offices in Lenexa, Kansas, Jupiter, Florida, and Austin, Texas. Id. at ¶ 10. AGIS
`
`holds the rights, by assignment, to each of the Patents-in-Suit and licenses its patent portfolio to
`
`AGIS Inc. Id. at ¶ 8. AGIS’s principal place of business is located at 100 W. Houston Street,
`
`Marshall, Texas. Id. at ¶ 9. All of AGIS and AGIS Inc.’s employees with the exception of one
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 46 Filed 12/29/17 Page 12 of 37 PageID #: 479
`
`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 call are located in or much closer to this District than to
`
`Northern 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, (Id.) approximately 940 miles from the
`
`courthouse in Marshall, and 2,560 miles from the courthouse in California. Declaration of
`
`Vincent Rubino (“Rubino Decl.”) attached hereto as Exhibit B, at ¶ 2. Mr. Beyer possesses
`
`highly relevant knowledge regarding the conception and reduction to practice of the Patents-in-
`
`Suit and has longstanding ties to this District. Id. 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
`
`well as ensuring compliance with rules and contractual clauses linked to intellectual property
`
`rights. Id. at ¶ 17. Mr. Sietsema lives and works in Austin, Texas, (Id.) 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 both AGIS and AGIS Inc. Beyer Decl., at ¶ 18.
`
`Mr. Blackwell manages the development of the software in AGIS Inc.’s LifeRing and ASSIST
`
`solutions. Id. Mr. Blackwell works at AGIS Inc.’s Lenexa, Kansas office and frequently travels
`
`to the Jupiter, Florida office. Id. Mr. Blackwell maintains regular communication with AGIS
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 46 Filed 12/29/17 Page 13 of 37 PageID #: 480
`
`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. 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 Clark, 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. Transfer of this action to the Northern District of California would
`
`require Mr. Armstrong to travel approximately 1,300 additional miles to testify at trial and will
`
`put him 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. Id. at ¶ 5. None of AGIS’s expected
`
`witnesses are located in the Northern District of California.
`
`C. Defendants’ Connections to the Eastern District of Texas
`
`ZTX is a Texas corporation registered to do business in Texas and is a taxable entity with
`
`the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. ZTX’s sole customer is Defendant ZTE Corporation.
`
`Declaration of Chao (George) Shan (“Shan Decl.”), Dkt. 38-1, at ¶ 5. ZTX conducts research
`
`and development activities and provides technical marketing support for ZTE Corporation with
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 46 Filed 12/29/17 Page 14 of 37 PageID #: 481
`
`respect to the Accused Instrumentalities (i.e., “handsets”). Id. at ¶ 5. ZTX employs at least 14
`
`employees who live and work within the Eastern District of Texas. Id. at ¶ 14. At least 11 ZTX
`
`employees live and work within Plano, Texas. Id. At least 3 ZTX employees live and work in
`
`Allen, Texas, the same town as a key non-party witness for AGIS. Id. ZTX concedes that its
`
`documents are stored electronically on a server. Id. at ¶ 16. ZTX further concedes that this
`
`District is convenient for at least its 14 employees in this District. Id. at ¶ 17. ZTX’s operations
`
`in Texas principally concern technical marketing and research and development activities. Id. at
`
`¶ 15. While ZTX suggests that its proof relating to the development and testing of relevant
`
`products is more likely to be in its San Diego and Milpitas, California locations (Shan Decl., at
`
`¶ 16), Mr. Shan does not identify a single witness from ZTX or ZTA involved in research and
`
`development at any of these facilities in California.
`
`ZTA is a New Jersey Corporation registered to do business in Texas and is a taxable
`
`entity with the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. ZTA maintains a regular and established
`
`place of business in Plano, Texas. Am. GNC Corp. v. ZTE Corp., No. 4:17-cv-00620-ALM-KPJ,
`
`2017 WL 5163605, at *3-4 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 4, 2017), report and recommendation adopted, No.
`
`4:17-cv-00620-ALM-KPJ, 2017 WL 5157700 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 7, 2017). ZTA established a
`
`local customer service center with iQor in Plano, Texas. Rubino Decl., at ¶ 11-12; Am. GNC
`
`Corp. 2017 WL 5163605, at *4. The ZTA local customer service center has more than sixty
`
`dedicated ZTA customer service representatives whose objective is to “build brand loyalty with
`
`exceptional customer service.” Rubino Decl., at ¶ 11-12; Am. GNC Corp. 2017 WL 5163605, at
`
`*4. Additional ZTA employees visit the local customer service center regularly to work with
`
`iQor representatives. Rubino Decl., at ¶ 11-12; Am. GNC Corp. 2017 WL 5163605, at *4. ZTA
`
`has at least two full-time employees (supervisors) on site at the local customer service center.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 46 Filed 12/29/17 Page 15 of 37 PageID #: 482
`
`Am. GNC Corp. 2017 WL 5163605, at *4. ZTA’s customer-facing website seamlessly integrates
`
`with customer support provided by the local customer service center, including links to call and
`
`live chat with representatives at the local customer call service center. Id. Visitors to the
`
`website’s live chat and callers to the local call center seek assistance with the Accused
`
`Instrumentalities. See id. ZTA products are sold in the Eastern District of Texas. See id.
`
`ZTA admits that it “has employee(s) who live in the Eastern District of Texas, and one or
`
`more of those employee(s) may work from “ZTA’s employee home offices.” Mot. at 5. At the
`
`very least, the status of these employees and the nature of their activities for ZTA should be the
`
`subject of additional discovery.
`
`D.
`
`Non-Party Witnesses
`
`To the extent Google witnesses may have relevant information -- which AGIS believes
`
`they do not have -- Defendants' suggestion that relevant Google witnesses are located in
`
`California is mere speculation. For example, Google has long employed over 450 workers in
`
`Austin, some of whom should have knowledge about the Google products Defendants consider
`
`relevant. Rubino Decl., at ¶ 3-4.1 Defendants do not identify any Google employees in the
`
`Northern District of California who may have information relevant to this case, let alone
`
`necessary for transfer. This District is also more convenient for anticipated non-party witnesses
`
`from AT&T, Sprint, and Verizon whom AGIS believes will provide information about the value
`
`of the accused software. Rubino Decl., at ¶ 6-8.
`
`
`1 According to a 2017 press release, Google’s Austin employees work on products teams including, “Android, G
`Suite, Google Play, people operations, finance, engineering, and marketing.” Id. at 3-4.
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 46 Filed 12/29/17 Page 16 of 37 PageID #: 483
`
`E.
`
`This Court’s Experience With The Patents-in-Suit
`
`AGIS asserts five patents in this case, U.S. Patent Nos. 9,467,838 (the “’838 Patent”);
`
`9,445,251 (the “’251 Patent”); 9,408,055 (the “’055 Patent”); 9,749,829 (the “’829 Patent”); and
`
`8,213,970 (the “’970 Patent”) (collectively, the “Patents-in-Suit”). This Court is currently
`
`presiding over five patent infringement cases,2 including the instant case, each of which involves
`
`at least the same four, if not all, of the Patents-in-Suit. Additionally, the five patent infringement
`
`cases are closely related because they involve the same plaintiff, the same underlying
`
`technology, substantially similar accused instrumentalities and functionalities, and identical
`
`claims per patent. At this time, discovery has been well underway in the Apple case. The Court
`
`has consolidated the Huawei and LG cases and discovery in the consolidated case is also
`
`underway.
`
`F.
`
`ZTA’s Prior Admission
`
`Defendants have previously conceded that venue is proper as to ZTX in the Eastern
`
`District of Texas. Am. GNC Corp. v. ZTE Corp., No. 4:17-cv-00620-ALM-KPJ, 2017 WL
`
`5163605, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 4, 2017), report and recommendation adopted, No. 4:17-cv-
`
`00620-ALM-KPJ, 2017 WL 5157700 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 7, 2017); Ex. 1. (American GNC
`
`Corporation v. ZTE Corporation et al., No. 4:17-cv-00620-ALM-KPJ, Doc. No. 29, ¶¶ 1–2
`
`(E.D. Tex. Apr. 21, 2017)). The Court may take judicial notice of this pleading because
`
`pleadings are public records. Funk v. Stryker Corp., 631 F.3d 777, 783 (5th Cir. 2011).
`
`
`2 AGIS Software Development LLC v. Apple, Inc., 2:17-cv-00516-JRG (E.D.Tex.); AGIS Software Development
`LLC v. HTC Corporation, 2:17-cv-00514-JRG (E.D.Tex.); AGIS Software Development LLC v. LG Electronics,
`Inc., 2:17-cv-00515-JRG (E.D.Tex.); AGIS Software Development, LLC v. ZTE Corporation et al., 2:17-cv-00517-
`JRG (E.D.Tex.); AGIS Software Development LLC v. Huawei Device USA Inc. et al, 2:17-cv-00513-JRG
`(E.D.Tex.).
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00517-JRG Document 46 Filed 12/29/17 Page 17 of 37 PageID #: 484
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`A.
`
`Venue
`
`On a motion to dismiss for improper venue, a plaintiff need only present facts which,
`
`when taken as true, establish venue. Langton v. CBeyond Communication, LLC, 282 F. Supp. 2d
`
`504, 508 (E.D. Tex. 2003). Courts will accept as true uncontroverted facts in a plaintiff’s
`
`pleadings and “will resolve any conflicts in the plaintiff’s favor.” Id.; see also etradeshow.com,
`
`Inc. v. Netopia Inc., No. 3:03-CV-1380-K, 2004 WL 515552, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 30, 2004).
`
`The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held that patent infringement litigation against a
`
`foreign defendant can be brought in any district and is not limited to the requirements set forth in
`
`the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). See Brunette Machine Works, Ltd. v. Kockum
`
`Industries, Inc. 406 U.S. 706, 713-14 (1972); accord In re Princeton Digital Image Corporation,
`
`496 Fed. App’x 73 (Fed. Cir. 2012) en banc denied (2013). Rather, all foreign defendants are
`
`subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3) which provides: “For all venue purposes . . . a defendant not
`
`resident in the United States may be sued in any judicial district . . . .” (Emphasis added).
`
`Section 1391’s grant of venue for lawsuits against foreign defendants is a “principle of broad and
`
`overriding application.” Brunette, 406 U.S. at 714. A foreign defendant “cannot rely on
`
`§ 1400(b) as a shield against suit” in a particular district. Id.; see also Blue Spike, LLC v. Texas
`
`Instruments, Inc., No. 6:12-cv-499, 2014 WL 11829322, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2014)
`
`(“venue against a foreign defendant is determined in accordance with the general venue statute,
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3)”). In other words, a foreign defendant does not have an improper venue
`
`defense.
`
`Venue for domestic defendants in patent infringement cases is governed by 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1400(b). TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514, 1521 (2017).
`
`Section 1400(b) provides tha