Case 2:17-cv-00676-RWS-RSP Document 99 Filed 06/21/18 Page 1 of 6 PageID #: 4478
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-00676-RWS-RSP
`
`
`
`Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
`
`vs.
`
`Intel Corporation
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT INTEL CORPORATION’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO
`CONTINUE THE HEARING ON INTEL’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR IMPROPER
`VENUE OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO TRANSFER TO THE DISTRICT OF
`OREGON
`
`On June 4, 2018, the Court initially set Defendant Intel Corporation’s (“Intel”) Motion to
`
`Dismiss for Improper Venue or, In the Alternative, to Transfer to the District of Oregon, DKT #21
`
`(“Motion to Dismiss”) for hearing on July 6, 2018 [DKT #88]. Ten days later, on June 14, 2018,
`
`counsel for Plaintiff Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 (“IP Bridge”) first contacted counsel for Intel and
`
`advised of the conflicts of Ms. Doan and Mr. Thomases for the July 6 date that are described in IP
`
`Bridge’s Motion to Continue [DKT #98 at p. 1].1 It should be noted that lead counsel for Intel
`
`also had a conflict with the hearing date set by the Court but, due to the importance of the hearing,
`
`has arranged for other counsel to handle the hearing. IP Bridge initially suggested that the hearing
`
`be moved to July 12-13.2 Intel’s counsel advised that they had a conflict with those dates, and
`
`proposed July 16 instead.3 IP Bridge reported that its counsel had a conflict with the July 16 date
`
`and proposed the week of July 23, another time period for which Intel’s counsel has scheduling
`
`
`1 See Exhibit 1; see also Exhibit 2 at p. 3
`2 See Exhibit 1.
`3 See Exhibit 2 at p.1-2 .
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00676-RWS-RSP Document 99 Filed 06/21/18 Page 2 of 6 PageID #: 4479
`
`conflicts.4 Intel then proposed July 18, but IP Bridge declined, citing conflicts for the entire week
`
`of July 16.5 IP Bridge then filed its motion seeking to continue the hearing to August 8, asking
`
`that it be consolidated with the Markman hearing previously set for that date [DKT #98]. As
`
`reflected by this exchange, Intel has tried to accommodate opposing counsel.
`
`Both the Federal and Fifth circuits have “stressed the importance of addressing motions to
`
`transfer at the outset of litigation.” In re Google Inc., 2015 WL 5294800 at *1 (Fed. Cir. July 16,
`
`2015) (citing In re Nintendo Co., Ltd., 544 F. App’x 934, 941 (Fed. Cir. 2013) and In re Horseshoe
`
`Entm’t, 337 F.3d 429, 433 (5th Cir. 2003)). The Federal Circuit has also made clear that in the
`
`context of venue motions, “delays have the ability to frustrate [the statutes’] intent to ‘prevent
`
`waste of time, energy and money’ and ‘to protect litigants, witnesses and the public against
`
`unnecessary inconvenience and expense.” Id. In In re Google, the Federal Circuit specifically
`
`noted that “pressing forward” and “conducting a Markman hearing” in a case where the venue
`
`motion at issue had been filed “approximately eight months ago” implicated these concerns. Id.
`
`IP Bridge’s desire to consolidate this hearing with the Markman hearing not only ignores this case
`
`law; it runs directly contra to it.
`
`Where Intel filed its Motion to Dismiss on December 17, 2017, and IP Bridge filed it sur-
`
`reply to same on March 22, 2018, Intel is concerned that postponing the scheduled hearing for
`
`another month, and consolidating it with the Markman hearing, may “amount to a denial of the
`
`right to have [its] request meaningfully considered.” Id. In particular, one of IP Bridge’s principal
`
`arguments in opposing Intel’s Motion to Dismiss has been that this Court has familiarity with two
`
`(2) of the nine (9) patents-in-suit by virtue of having conducted a Markman hearing on, in part,
`
`
`4 See Exhibit 2 at p. 1-2.
`5 See Exhibit 2 at p. 1.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00676-RWS-RSP Document 99 Filed 06/21/18 Page 3 of 6 PageID #: 4480
`
`claim terms in those two patents in a prior case, Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. Broadcom Limited,
`
`et al., No. 2:16-cv-00134 (E.D. Tex.) [e.g., DKT #52 at p. 2, 4, 9-10, 15-17; DKT #64 at p. 6-7].
`
`Intel has responded, in part, that this familiarity should be afforded less weight given that there are
`
`undisputedly seven (7) patents-in-suit for which this Court has yet to address claim construction
`
`issues. Should this Court postpone the hearing on Intel’s Motion to Dismiss to coincide with the
`
`Markman hearing, Intel’s position will be undermined, through no fault of its own. IP Bridge will
`
`then be free to assert that the Court has now heard claim construction argument on all nine (9) of
`
`the patents, and that this Court should retain the case in the interests of “judicial economy” in order
`
`to prevent duplicative effort in the proposed transferee court.
`
`In the interest of professional courtesy, counsel for Intel attempted to work amicably with
`
`IP Bridge to find a mutually agreeable date for the hearing once they were advised of IP Bridge’s
`
`conflicts with the noticed date, and proposed two alternative dates that were not agreeable to IP
`
`Bridge. However, due to substantive reasons, Intel opposes IP Bridge’s request to have the date
`
`for the hearing on its Motion to Dismiss to coincide with the Markman hearing on August 8, and
`
`respectfully requests that the hearing of its Motion to Dismiss proceed on the noticed date of July
`
`6, 2018.
`
`Notably, IP Bridge noted in its Motion to Continue the Hearing that if the Court were not
`
`inclined to move the hearing to August 8, “IP Bridge will be ready to appear and argue the [Motion
`
`to Dismiss] on July 6, 2018, but without lead and local counsel present.” [DKT #98 at p. 2]. As
`
`the Court is well aware, the mandatory presence of lead/local counsel under this Court’s orders is
`
`only invoked in cases of hearings on discovery-related motions (which the Motion to Dismiss
`
`clearly is not). Intel’s lead counsel also cannot be there. Despite these conflicts, both parties have
`
`stated on the record they can be ready for the hearing on July 6, 2018.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00676-RWS-RSP Document 99 Filed 06/21/18 Page 4 of 6 PageID #: 4481
`
`Accordingly, Intel requests that IP Bridge’s Motion to Continue the Hearing on Intel’s
`
`Motion to Dismiss be denied, and that the hearing on said motion proceed as currently noticed.
`
`Dated: June 21, 2018
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Michael E. Jones
`
`Michael E. Jones (SBN: 10929400)
`Patrick C. Clutter IV (SBN: 2403634)
`POTTER MINTON, PC
`110 North College, Suite 500
`Tyler, Texas 75702
`Tel: 903-597-8311
`Fax: 903-593-0846
`mikejones@potterminton.com
`patrickclutter@potterminton.com
`
`Gregory S. Arovas
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`601 Lexington Ave.
`New York, NY 10022
`Tel: 212-446-4800
`Fax: 212-446-4900
`gregory.arovas@kirkland.com
`
`Adam R. Alper
`Sarah E. Piepmeier
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`555 California Street
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Tel: 415-439-1400
`Fax:415-439-1500
`adam.alper@kirkland.com
`
`Michael W. De Vries
`Christopher M. Lawless
`KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
`333 South Hope Street
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`Tel: 213-680-8400
`Fax: 213-680-8500
`michael.devries@kirkland.com
`christopher.lawless@kirkland.com
`
` Attorneys for Defendant
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00676-RWS-RSP Document 99 Filed 06/21/18 Page 5 of 6 PageID #: 4482
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have
`consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s
`CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on June 21, 2018.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Michael E. Jones
`Michael E. Jones
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00676-RWS-RSP Document 99 Filed 06/21/18 Page 6 of 6 PageID #: 4483
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-00676-RWS-RSP
`
`
`
`Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1
`
`vs.
`
`Intel Corporation
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONTINUE THE HEARING ON
`INTEL’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR IMPROPER VENUE OR, IN THE
`ALTERNATIVE, TO TRANSFER TO THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
`
`
`Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Opposed Motion to Continue the Hearing on Intel’s
`
`Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue or, In the Alternative, to Transfer to the District of
`
`Oregon. The Court, after consideration, is of the opinion that said motion should be DENIED.
`
`
`
`IT IS, THERFORE, ORDERED that the hearing on Intel Corporation’s Motion to
`
`Dismiss for Improper Venue or, In the Alternative, to Transfer to the District of Oregon shall
`
`proceed as currently noticed, on Friday, July 6, 2018 at 9:00 A.M.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`