Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 14 Filed 07/25/19 Page 1 of 16 PageID #: 306
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 2:19-cv-00209
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`THE HILLMAN GROUP, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`KEYME, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`KEYME, LLC’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1404
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 14 Filed 07/25/19 Page 2 of 16 PageID #: 307
`
`Table of Contents
`
`
`Page
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`C.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 2 
`A.
`KeyMe’s Witnesses And Evidence Are Located In The Southern District
`Of New York.......................................................................................................... 2 
`Hillman’s Key Duplication Operations Are Located in Ohio and Arizona ........... 3 
`Relevant Third Party Witnesses Do Not Reside In The Eastern District Of
`Texas ...................................................................................................................... 4 
`ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 4 
`A.
`Legal Standard ....................................................................................................... 5 
`B.
`This Action Could Have Been Filed In The Southern District Of New
`York ....................................................................................................................... 5 
`The Private Interest Factors Favor Transfer .......................................................... 6 
`1.
`Easier Access to Sources of Proof in the Southern District of New
`York Heavily Favors Transfer. .................................................................. 6 
`The Cost of Attendance for Willing Witnesses is Less in the
`Southern District of New York. ................................................................. 7 
`There are No Practical Problems with Transfer. ........................................ 9 
`The Availability of Compulsory Process to Secure the Attendance
`of Witnesses is Neutral. ............................................................................. 9 
`The Public Interest Factors Favor Transfer ........................................................... 9 
`1.
`The Southern District of New York has a Strong Interest in This
`Case. ........................................................................................................... 9 
`Court Congestion in This District Favors Transfer to the Southern
`District of New York. .............................................................................. 10 
`The Remaining Public Interest Factors are Neutral. ................................ 10 
`3.
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 11 
`
`2.
`
`3.
`4.
`
`2.
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 14 Filed 07/25/19 Page 3 of 16 PageID #: 308
`
`Table of Authorities
`
`
`Page
`
`Cases
`
`AGIS Software Development, LLC v. ZTE Corp.,
`No. 2:17-cv-00517-JRG, 2018 WL 4854023 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 28, 2018) .................................. 6
`
`Battee v. Ben E. Keith Co.,
`No. 17-0161, 2017 WL 1832043 (E.D. Tex. May 5, 2017)........................................................ 9
`
`Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. Xilinx, Inc.,
`No. 17-100, 2017 WL 4076052 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 14, 2017) ....................................................... 6
`
`In re Biosearch Techs., Inc.,
`452 F. App’x 986 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................................. 7
`
`In re Genentech,
`566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009)......................................................................................... 5, 7, 10
`
`In re Google,
`No. 2017-107, 2017 WL 977038 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 23, 2017) ....................................................... 8
`
`In re Hoffman-La Roche Inc.,
`587 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................... 9
`
`In re Nintendo Co.,
`589 F.3d 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2009)............................................................................................. 7, 10
`
`In re TS Tech USA Corp.,
`551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2008)......................................................................................... 5, 9, 10
`
`In re Volkswagen AG (“Volkswagen I”),
`371 F.3d 201 (5th Cir. 2004) ...................................................................................................... 7
`
`In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc. (“Volkswagen II”),
`545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) ...................................................................................................... 6
`
`On Semiconductor Corp. v. Hynix Semiconductor, Inc.,
`No. 6:09-cv-390, 2010 WL 3855520 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2010)............................................... 6
`
`Realtime Data LLC v. Teradata Operations, Inc.,
`Nos. 6:15-cv-463, 6:15-cv-470, 2016 WL 235183 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 20, 2016) ........................... 7
`
`Wireless Recognition Techs. LLC v. A9.com, Inc.,
`No. 2:10-cv-364-JRG, 2012 WL 506669 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 15, 2012) ....................................... 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 14 Filed 07/25/19 Page 4 of 16 PageID #: 309
`
`Table of Contents
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1)(A) ............................................................................................................. 9
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 14 Filed 07/25/19 Page 5 of 16 PageID #: 310
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Defendant KeyMe, LLC1 (“KeyMe”) respectfully moves to transfer this action to the
`
`Southern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404. This action should be transferred to
`
`the Southern District of New York because it is clearly more convenient than the Eastern District
`
`of Texas for the parties, witnesses, and evidence likely to be presented here.
`
`KeyMe is a Delaware company with its headquarters in New York. KeyMe’s accused
`
`products are key duplication kiosks, which are primarily developed and entirely operated in New
`
`York. The vast majority of KeyMe employees work in KeyMe’s New York office, including
`
`potential key witnesses involved in the development of KeyMe’s accused products. There are no
`
`KeyMe employees, documents, or relevant witnesses in this District. Plaintiff, The Hillman
`
`Group, Inc. (“Hillman”) is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio. Neither
`
`Hillman nor any third party witnesses are located in this District. Hillman’s only United States
`
`office is in Ohio and its “Innovation and Manufacturing Center” is located in Arizona. In addition,
`
`Hillman’s only alleged connections to this District are manufacturing and distribution facilities
`
`that do not relate to Hillman’s key duplication kiosks—the covered products. Also, on information
`
`and belief, there are no relevant third party witnesses that reside in the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`The patent-at-issue is not asserted against other defendants in the Eastern District. Thus, this action
`
`should be transferred to the Southern District of New York.
`
`
`1 Plaintiff originally filed suit against “KeyMe, Inc.”; however, that entity no longer exists.
`KeyMe, Inc. was converted into KeyMe, LLC.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 14 Filed 07/25/19 Page 6 of 16 PageID #: 311
`
`
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`KeyMe’s Witnesses And Evidence Are Located In The Southern District Of
`New York2
`
`KeyMe is headquartered in New York, New York, within the Southern District of New
`
`York. (See Declaration of Greg Marsh (“Marsh Decl.”), filed as Exhibit A to KeyMe’s Motion to
`
`Dismiss for Improper Venue, ¶ 5.) Hillman accuses KeyMe’s key duplication kiosks, including
`
`the “KeyMe” or “Locksmith in a Box” kiosks (“Accused Products”). KeyMe develops, monitors,
`
`and operates the Accused Products at KeyMe’s headquarters located in the Southern District of
`
`New York. (Id. ¶¶ 5-6.) Key employees who work in development and operation of the Accused
`
`Products are located in the Southern District of New York, including Greg Marsh and Jimmy
`
`Abbott. (Id. ¶ 6.) The finance team, including any witnesses who may have testimony relevant to
`
`this case, are also located in the Southern District of New York. (Id. ¶ 5.) Furthermore, virtually
`
`all documentation and evidence relevant to this case are located in New York, including but not
`
`limited to technical documents concerning the design and operation of the Accused Products,
`
`source code concerning the Accused Products, research and development documents relating to
`
`the Accused Products, corporate documents, and financial documents. (Id. ¶ 19.) Additionally,
`
`KeyMe stores its electronic documentation on servers located in the New York office and on
`
`Amazon Web Servers, none of which are located in this District. (Id. ¶ 20.)
`
`On the other hand, KeyMe has no offices and no employees residing in the Eastern District
`
`of Texas. (Id. ¶ 21.) KeyMe’s only other office is in New Jersey, near the Southern District of
`
`New York. (Id. ¶ 7.) KeyMe has approximately only five employees who do not reside in New
`
`
`2 See also KeyMe’s Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue or, in the Alternative, to Transfer to
`the Southern District of New York filed contemporaneously with this Motion to Transfer.
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 14 Filed 07/25/19 Page 7 of 16 PageID #: 312
`
`
`
`York or New Jersey, but work remotely from Illinois, Florida, Wisconsin, California, and Nevada.
`
`(Id. ¶ 8.)
`
`B.
`
`Hillman’s Key Duplication Operations Are Located in Ohio and Arizona
`
`Hillman is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Cincinnati, Ohio.
`
`(Compl. ¶ 1.) In its complaint, Hillman alleges that it has three manufacturing and distribution
`
`centers located in this District. (Compl. ¶ 11.) However, Hillman’s 2019 Form 10-K only
`
`discloses two facilities3 within this District, both in Tyler, Texas. (See Ex. A, Declaration of
`
`Elizabeth Shrieves (“Shrieves Decl.”) Decl. ¶ 1; Ex. B at 3 (Hillman 10-K); see also id. at 15
`
`(listing three total facilities within Texas, only two of which are in the Eastern District).) These
`
`two manufacturing and distribution facilities do not involve Hillman’s key duplication operations
`
`and only relate to Hillman’s other product and home improvement services. (Id. at 3.)
`
`Specifically, the Tyler, Texas facilities “specialize[] in manufacturing and distributing threaded
`
`self-drilling fasteners, foam closure strips, and other accessories to the steel-frame, post-frame,
`
`and residential building markets.” (Id.)
`
`In addition, in a related litigation between Hillman and Minute Key Inc. in the Southern
`
`District of Ohio in 2014, pertaining to Hillman’s key duplication operations, Hillman’s Initial
`
`Disclosures identified Hillman witnesses located in Tempe, Arizona, and Cincinnati, Ohio, where
`
`Hillman’s key duplication operations are run. (Ex. C, The Hillman Group, Inc. v. Minute Key Inc.,
`
`No. 1:13-cv-707, Dkt. 62-15 (W.D. Ohio).) There was no mention of any employees in Texas.
`
`(See generally id.) Hillman also has a subsidiary, Hillman Intermediate Holdings Corp., located
`
`in New York, New York within the Southern District. (Ex. D (OneStop Report).)
`
`
`3 Hillman “leases two facilities in Tyler, Texas. The first is a 139,000 square foot facility located
`at 2329 E. Commerce Street used for manufacturing and distribution. The second is a 63,000
`square foot facility located at 6357 Reynolds Road used for offices, manufacturing and
`distribution.” (Ex. B at 15.)
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 14 Filed 07/25/19 Page 8 of 16 PageID #: 313
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Relevant Third Party Witnesses Do Not Reside In The Eastern District Of
`Texas
`
`The asserted patents in this case identify two inventors, Daniel Freeman and Ari Freeman,
`
`neither of whom reside in this District. The asserted patents list Daniel Freeman as residing in
`
`Calabasas, California and Ari Freeman in San Rafael, California. (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,979,446 and
`
`9,914,179.) The prosecuting attorney for both asserted patents, Joseph Sauer, resides in Cleveland,
`
`Ohio. (Shrieves Decl. ¶ 2; Ex. E (Joseph M. Sauer Jones Day Profile).) Finally, the original
`
`assignee of both asserted patents, Minute Key Inc., is not located in this District; rather, it is
`
`headquartered in Boulder, Colorado. (Shrieves Decl. ¶ 3; Ex. F (Minute Key Inc. Headquarters).)
`
`Minute Key Inc. filed a related lawsuit against KeyMe, asserting one of the same patents, in the
`
`District of Minnesota in 2015. See Minute Key Inc. v. KeyMe, Inc., No. 0:15-cv-01599-JNE-KMM
`
`(D. Minn.).
`
`Another company, UniKey Technologies (“UniKey”), likely has relevant witnesses and
`
`documents in this case. For example, Hillman works with UniKey to create the covered products
`
`and UniKey provides phone applications that work with Hillman’s key duplication kiosks.
`
`UniKey is a Florida company, headquartered in Orlando, Florida. (Shrieves Decl. ¶ 4; Ex. G
`
`(UniKey Website).)
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`This case should be transferred to the Southern District of New York because the action
`
`could have been brought in that District, and the public and private interest factors favor the
`
`Southern District of New York. Because KeyMe’s headquarters and the vast majority of
`
`employees and documents are located in New York, the sources of proof are much easier to access
`
`in the Southern District. Conversely, KeyMe does not have any offices, employees, or documents
`
`within the Eastern District of Texas. Additionally, since the majority of witnesses with knowledge
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 14 Filed 07/25/19 Page 9 of 16 PageID #: 314
`
`
`
`relating to the design and operation of the Accused Products reside in New York, the cost of
`
`attendance for these witnesses is significantly less in the Southern District of New York as opposed
`
`to this District. There is a local interest in New York in having this dispute regarding a New York-
`
`based company decided in its home state. Moreover, the Southern District of New York has
`
`significantly less open patent cases than this District. The other factors relating to transfer are
`
`neutral. Therefore, the Southern District of New York is more convenient for both parties and
`
`witnesses and this Court should transfer this case to that District pursuant to Section 1404(a).
`
`A.
`
`Legal Standard
`
`A case should be transferred to another district under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 if the case could
`
`have been brought in that district and it would be “clearly more convenient” to resolve the case
`
`there. In re Genentech, 566 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Whether another district is more
`
`convenient is determined by analyzing “private” and “public” interest factors. In re TS Tech USA
`
`Corp., 551 F.3d 1315, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008). The private interest factors are: “(1) the relative ease
`
`of access to sources of proof; (2) the availability of compulsory process to secure the attendance
`
`of witnesses; (3) the cost of attendance for willing witnesses; and (4) all other practical problems
`
`that make a trial easy, expeditious and inexpensive.” Id. The public interest factors are: “(1) the
`
`administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion; (2) the local interest in having localized
`
`interests decided at home; (3) the familiarity of the forum with the law that will govern the case;
`
`and (4) the avoidance of unnecessary problems of conflicts of law [or in] the application of foreign
`
`law.” Id.
`
`B.
`
`This Action Could Have Been Filed In The Southern District Of New York
`
`This action could have been brought in the Southern District of New York because that is
`
`where KeyMe maintains its headquarters, conducts its business, and where it employs the majority
`
`of its employees. See In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc. (“Volkswagen II”), 545 F.3d 304, 312 (5th
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 14 Filed 07/25/19 Page 10 of 16 PageID #: 315
`
`
`
`Cir. 2008) (en banc) (holding “[t]he preliminary question under § 1404(a) is whether a civil action
`
`‘might have been brought’ in the destination venue”); see also AGIS Software Development, LLC
`
`v. ZTE Corp., No. 2:17-cv-00517-JRG, 2018 WL 4854023, *5 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 28, 2018)
`
`(concluding that the case could have been brought in the district where the defendants’ principal
`
`place of business and office was located). Thus, whether this case should be transferred depends
`
`on weighing the private and public interest factors as discussed below.
`
`C.
`
`The Private Interest Factors Favor Transfer
`
`1.
`
`Easier Access to Sources of Proof in the Southern District of New York
`Heavily Favors Transfer.
`
`The bulk of relevant documents in this case will be found in New York, which is the situs
`
`of the Accused Products’ development and operation. (Marsh Decl. ¶¶ 5-6, 18-20.) See On
`
`Semiconductor Corp. v. Hynix Semiconductor, Inc., No. 6:09-cv-390, 2010 WL 3855520, *2 (E.D.
`
`Tex. Sept. 30, 2010) (This factor “turn[s] upon which party . . . will most probably have the greater
`
`volume of documents relevant to the litigation and their presumed location in relation to the
`
`transferee and transferor venues.”). Not surprisingly, the “bulk of relevant evidence will likely
`
`come from [KeyMe] as the accused infringer.” Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. Xilinx, Inc., No. 17-
`
`100, 2017 WL 4076052, *3 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 14, 2017); see also On Semiconductor, 2010 WL
`
`3855520 at *4 (finding transfer appropriate where the “majority of [defendants’] U.S. documents
`
`appear to be closer to the [transferee venue] than the Eastern District of Texas”). Specifically,
`
`technical documentation relating to the design, development, and operation of the Accused
`
`Products will be found in New York, along with source code, prototypes, research and
`
`development documents, analytics documents, data, engineering documents, documentation
`
`regarding KeyMe’s intellectual property, company records, marketing records, financial records,
`
`sales records, human resources documentation, and documents regarding legal activities. (Id. ¶
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 14 Filed 07/25/19 Page 11 of 16 PageID #: 316
`
`
`
`19.) Additionally, some of KeyMe’s servers which host electronic versions of these documents
`
`are located in KeyMe’s New York office. (Id. ¶ 20.) KeyMe does not rely on any servers located
`
`within the Eastern District of Texas. (Id.) Therefore, virtually all documents and evidence will be
`
`found in the Southern District of New York where KeyMe’s employees live and work.
`
`On the other hand, KeyMe is not aware of any relevant evidence in the Eastern District of
`
`Texas. Witnesses knowledgeable about Hillman’s key duplication operations are in Ohio and
`
`Arizona. (See Ex. C.) Furthermore, Hillman’s alleged ties with this District via three distribution
`
`centers should be discounted because the asserted technology in this case “has no connection with
`
`Texas.” In re Biosearch Techs., Inc., 452 F. App’x 986, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Hillman’s two
`
`manufacturing and distribution centers in Tyler, Texas do not relate to Hillman’s key duplication
`
`operations and only pertain to accessories for residential building markets; therefore, they have no
`
`bearing on this litigation. (See Ex. B at 3, 15 (describing the Tyler, Texas facilities as
`
`“specializ[ing] in manufacturing and distributing threaded self-drilling fasteners, foam closure
`
`strips, and other accessories to the steel-frame, post-frame, and residential building markets”).) In
`
`sum, KeyMe is unaware of any documentary evidence existing in this District.
`
`2.
`
`The Cost of Attendance for Willing Witnesses is Less in the Southern
`District of New York.
`
`The Southern District of New York is far more convenient for the potential party witnesses,
`
`which weighs heavily in favor of transfer. In re Nintendo Co., 589 F.3d 1194, 1198 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2009) (finding the “contrast in relevance, convenience, and fairness between the two venues” to
`
`be “stark”) (internal citation omitted.); see also Genentech, 566 F.3d at 1343 (“The convenience
`
`of the witnesses is probably the single most important factor in transfer analysis.”) (citation and
`
`quotation marks omitted). Under the Fifth Circuit’s 100-mile rule, “[w]hen the distance between
`
`an existing venue for trial of a matter and a proposed venue under § 1404(a) is more than 100
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 14 Filed 07/25/19 Page 12 of 16 PageID #: 317
`
`
`
`miles, the factor of inconvenience to witnesses increases in direct relationship to the additional
`
`distances to be traveled.” In re Volkswagen AG (“Volkswagen I”), 371 F.3d 201, 204-05 (5th Cir.
`
`2004) (per curiam); see also Realtime Data LLC v. Teradata Operations, Inc., Nos. 6:15-cv-463,
`
`6:15-cv-470, 2016 WL 235183, *5 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 20, 2016) (concluding that allowing witnesses
`
`to “remain in their home state . . . significantly minimize[s] the cost, time, and expense of travel
`
`to attend trial, which is the very purpose of § 1404(a)”) (citation and internal quotation marks
`
`omitted).
`
`KeyMe’s employees with knowledge of the Accused Products’ development and operation
`
`are predominantly located in New York. (Marsh Decl. ¶¶ 5-6); see also In re Google, No. 2017-
`
`107, 2017 WL 977038, *3 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 23, 2017) (finding the “vast majority of [defendant’s]
`
`employees—in particular those responsible for projects relating to the accused products—work
`
`and reside in” transferee district which weighed heavily in favor of transfer). Requiring these
`
`witnesses to travel approximately 1,500 miles to the Eastern District of Texas would disrupt those
`
`employees’ lives and KeyMe’s business. (Ex. H (Google Maps); see also Shrieves Decl. ¶ 5.)
`
`KeyMe is a small company focused entirely on key duplication with only 100 total employees.
`
`(Marsh Decl. ¶¶ 5, 7, 8.) If essential employees are required to travel across the country as
`
`witnesses, KeyMe’s business and ability to monitor its duplication kiosks would be disrupted.
`
`Hillman’s employees with knowledge about the covered products are likely to be found in
`
`Cincinnati, Ohio, where Hillman maintains its principal place of business. (Compl. ¶ 1.) For these
`
`witnesses, the Southern District of New York is more convenient than this District, requiring
`
`Hillman employees to travel approximately 640 miles to New York versus approximately 900
`
`miles to the Eastern District of Texas. (Compare Ex. I (Google Maps) with Ex. J (Google Maps);
`
`see also Shrieves Decl. ¶¶ 6-7.) Employees of third party companies, likewise, cannot be found
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 14 Filed 07/25/19 Page 13 of 16 PageID #: 318
`
`
`
`in this District; rather, UniKey employees are located in Florida and Minute Key employees are
`
`located in Colorado. (See Exs. G and F.) Moreover, inventors of the asserted patents are in
`
`California and the prosecuting attorney of those patents is located in Ohio. (See U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`8,979,446 and 9,914,179.) Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of transfer. See Genentech,
`
`566 F.3d at 1345; In re TS Tech. USA Corp., 551 F.3d at 1321.
`
`3.
`
`There are No Practical Problems with Transfer.
`
`KeyMe has filed this Motion to Transfer concurrently with its Motion to Dismiss for
`
`Improper Venue, thus, there is no risk of wasted work or inconsistent holdings from transfer. See
`
`Battee v. Ben E. Keith Co., No. 17-0161, 2017 WL 1832043, *2 (E.D. Tex. May 5, 2017).
`
`Furthermore, discovery in this case is still in its infancy. Hillman has not separately filed any other
`
`cases against any other defendants in this District pertaining to the same technology or asserted
`
`patents. Therefore, there are no practical problems with transferring this case to the Southern
`
`District of New York.
`
`4.
`
`The Availability of Compulsory Process to Secure the Attendance of
`Witnesses is Neutral.
`
`A court may compel a non-party witness to attend depositions or trial within 100 miles
`
`from his or her residence. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1)(A). KeyMe is not aware of any third-party
`
`witnesses in this District, in Texas, or within this Court’s subpoena power. KeyMe is similarly
`
`unaware of any third party witnesses located in the Southern District of New York. Thus, this
`
`factor is neutral.
`
`D.
`
`The Public Interest Factors Favor Transfer
`
`1.
`
`The Southern District of New York has a Strong Interest in This Case.
`
`KeyMe’s activities related to the Accused Products are primarily located in the Southern
`
`District of New York. See Part III.C.1 supra. The Accused Products were developed, and are
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 14 Filed 07/25/19 Page 14 of 16 PageID #: 319
`
`
`
`monitored, in New York and the employees knowledgeable about the Accused Products reside in
`
`or near the Southern District of New York. As a result, this case “calls into question the work and
`
`reputation of several individuals residing in or near that district and who presumably conduct
`
`business in that community.” In re Hoffman-La Roche Inc., 587 F.3d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2009);
`
`see also Wireless Recognition Techs. LLC v. A9.com, Inc., No. 2:10-cv-364-JRG, 2012 WL
`
`506669, *6 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 15, 2012). Conversely, “[n]o parties, witnesses, or evidence have any
`
`material connection to the venue chosen by the plaintiff.” Nintendo, 589 F.3d at 1198.
`
`Additionally, the fact that KeyMe’s key duplication kiosks are placed in stores across the United
`
`States, including this District, is not sufficient to establish “a meaningful connection to the
`
`case . . . .” Id. This factor strongly favors transfer.
`
`2.
`
`Court Congestion in This District Favors Transfer to the Southern
`District of New York.
`
`Another factor considered in transfer analysis is “[t]he speed with which a case can come
`
`to trial and be resolved.” Genentech, 566 F.3d at 1347. Regarding open patent cases, the Southern
`
`District of New York has approximately 122 compared to this District’s 480 open patent cases.
`
`(See Shrieves Decl. ¶ 8; Ex. K (Lex Machina).) The overall time from filing to final disposition
`
`of a patent case for these two districts is similar. (See id.) Thus, this factor weighs slightly in
`
`favor of transfer as well.
`
`3.
`
`The Remaining Public Interest Factors are Neutral.
`
`The remaining public interest factors are neutral. Because this case arises under federal
`
`patent law, both districts are familiar with and can apply the federal patent laws to this patent
`
`infringement case. In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d at 1320. Therefore, these remaining factors
`
`are neutral.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 14 Filed 07/25/19 Page 15 of 16 PageID #: 320
`
`
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, KeyMe respectfully requests that the Court transfer this action
`
`to the Southern District of New York.
`
`Dated: July 25, 2019
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Deron R. Dacus
`Deron R. Dacus (Bar No. 00790553)
`The Dacus Firm, PC
`821 ESE Loop 323
`Suite 430
`Tyler, TX 75701
`Tel. 903.705.1177
`Fax 903.581.2543
`Email: ddacus@dacusfirm.com
`
`Michael G. Rhodes
`Cooley LLP
`101 California Street, 5th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Tel: 415.693.2000
`Fax: 415.693.2222
`Email: rhodesmg@cooley.com
`
`Stephen R. Smith
`Cooley LLP
`1299 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Suite 700
`Washington, DC 20004
`Tel: 202.842.7800
`Fax: 202.842.7899
`Email: stephen.smith@cooley.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant KeyMe, LLC
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:19-cv-00209-JRG Document 14 Filed 07/25/19 Page 16 of 16 PageID #: 321
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
`
`I hereby certify that counsel for KeyMe has complied with the meet and confer
`
`requirement in Local Rule CV-7(h). The personal conference required by Local Rule CV-7(h)
`
`was conducted on July 24, 2019 via telephonic conference with the following participants:
`
`Stephen Smith for KeyMe and Ryan Quinn and Chris Isaac for Hillman.
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Stephen Smith
`Stephen Smith
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that all counsel of record, who are deemed to have consented to
`
`electronic service are being served on this 25 day of July, 2019, with a copy of this document via
`
`the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3). Any other counsel of record will be
`
`served by electronic mail, facsimile transmission and/or first class mail on this same date.
`
`/s/ Deron R. Dacus
`Deron R. Dacus
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`