Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 42-2 Filed 01/10/23 Page 1 of 53 PageID #: 1394
`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 42-2 Filed 01/10/23 Page 1 of 53 PagelD #: 1394
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 1
`EXHIBIT 1
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 42-2 Filed 01/10/23 Page 2 of 53 PageID #: 1395
`Case: 22-126 Document: 2-1 Page: 1 Filed: 02/23/2022
`
`No. 21-___
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`________________
`
`IN RE GOOGLE LLC, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., SAMSUNG
`ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., AND WAZE MOBILE LIMITED,
`
`Petitioners.
`
`________________
`On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to the
`United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas,
`Case Nos. 2:19-cv-00361, 2:19-cv-00359, 2:19-cv-00362
`Chief Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap
`________________
`PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GINGER D. ANDERS
`MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
`601 Massachusetts Avenue NW
`Suite 500 E
`Washington, DC 20001
`Telephone: (202) 220-1100
`Email: ginger.anders@mto.com
`
`
`Counsel for Petitioners Google LLC, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.,
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc., & Waze Mobile Limited
`
`February 22, 2022
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 42-2 Filed 01/10/23 Page 3 of 53 PageID #: 1396
`Case: 22-126 Document: 2-1 Page: 2 Filed: 02/23/2022
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
`
`Counsel for Petitioners certifies the following:
`
`
`1.
`
`3.
`
`The full name of every party represented by me is:
`Google LLC; Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Electronics
`America, Inc.; Waze Mobile Limited
`2.
`The names of the real parties in interest represented by me are:
`None other than Petitioners.
`All parent corporations and any publicly held companies that own
`10% or more of stock in the parties represented by me are:
`Google LLC: Alphabet Inc.; XXVI Holdings Inc.
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.: None
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc.: None
`Waze Mobile Limited: Acrum (Israel) Ltd.; Alphabet Inc.; Google
`LLC; Google Europe, Middle East and Africa Unlimited Company;
`Google International LLC; Google Technology Holdings LLC; KHA
`Technologies Inc.; XXVI Holdings Inc.
`4.
`The names of all law firms and the partners or associates that
`appeared for the parties now represented by me before the
`originating court or that are expected to appear in this court (and
`who have not or will not enter an appearance in this case) are:
`O’Melveny & Myers LLP (for all Petitioners): Darin W. Snyder;
`Luann L. Simmons; David S. Almeling; Mark Liang; Alexander B
`Parker; Amy Liang; Andrew Bledsoe; Bill Trac; Nancy Schroeder;
`Sorin Zaharia; Stacy Yae; Will C. Autz.
`Mann Tindel & Thompson (for all Petitioners): J. Mark Mann;
`G. Blake Thompson.
`Gillam & Smith, LLP (for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc.): Melissa R. Smith
`Baker Botts LLP (for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc.): Neil P. Sirota, Timothy S.
`Durst, Margaret M. Welsh, Katharine M. Burke, Robert L. Maier.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 42-2 Filed 01/10/23 Page 4 of 53 PageID #: 1397
`Case: 22-126 Document: 2-1 Page: 3 Filed: 02/23/2022
`
`5.
`
`The title and number of any case known to counsel to be pending
`in this or any other court or agency that will directly affect or be
`directly affected by this Court’s decision in the pending appeal is:
`None.
`6. Organizational Victims and Bankruptcy Cases: Fed. R. App. P.
`26.1(b) (organizational victims in criminal cases) and 26.1(c)
`(bankruptcy case debtors and trustees) are not applicable because
`this is not a criminal or bankruptcy case. See Fed. Cir. R.
`47.4(a)(6).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DATED: February 22, 2022
`
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Ginger D. Anders
`Ginger D. Anders
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 42-2 Filed 01/10/23 Page 5 of 53 PageID #: 1398
`Case: 22-126 Document: 2-1 Page: 4 Filed: 02/23/2022
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST .................................................................. i
`INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
`RELIEF SOUGHT ...................................................................................... 6
`ISSUES PRESENTED ............................................................................... 7
`STATEMENT OF FACTS .......................................................................... 7
`A.
`Procedural History ................................................................... 7
`B. Neither Plaintiffs nor Defendants Have Meaningful
`Ties to EDTX .......................................................................... 13
`C. AGIS’s Claims in Litigation ................................................... 14
`REASONS WHY THE WRIT SHOULD ISSUE ..................................... 15
`I. Mandamus Is Warranted in Light of the Court’s Arbitrary
`Refusal to Rule on Petitioners’ Motions to Dismiss or
`Transfer ........................................................................................... 16
`A.
`The District Court’s Long Delay in Ruling on the
`Venue Motions and Refusal to Stay the Cases Is an
`Abuse of Discretion that Entitles Petitioners to Relief ........ 17
`Petitioners Have No Other Adequate Means to Obtain
`Appropriate Relief .................................................................. 23
`C. A Stay Pending Rulings on Venue Will Not Prejudice
`AGIS ....................................................................................... 25
`II. These Consolidated Actions Clearly Merit Transfer to NDCA ..... 26
`A.
`The Private-Interest Factors Favor Transfer to NDCA ....... 28
`B.
`The Public-Interest Factors Favor Transfer to NDCA ......... 32
`III. Venue Is Improper in EDTX as to Google Because Google
`Lacks a “Regular and Established Place of Business” in the
`District ............................................................................................. 34
`A.
`Third-Party CTDI’s Flower Mound Repair Facility
`Does Not Confer Venue .......................................................... 35
`
`B.
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 42-2 Filed 01/10/23 Page 6 of 53 PageID #: 1399
`Case: 22-126 Document: 2-1 Page: 5 Filed: 02/23/2022
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(Continued)
`
`Page
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Third Party Level 3’s Optical Fiber Equipment Does
`Not Confer Venue ................................................................... 37
`Third Party-Hosted GGC Servers Do Not Confer Venue
`Under In re Google ................................................................. 38
`CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 39
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ........................................................ 41
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE .................................................................. 42
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 42-2 Filed 01/10/23 Page 7 of 53 PageID #: 1400
`Case: 22-126 Document: 2-1 Page: 6 Filed: 02/23/2022
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`2:17-cv-516 (E.D. Tex.) ......................................................................... 25
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. HTC Corp.,
`2:17-cv-514 (E.D. Tex.) ......................................................................... 25
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Huawei Device USA Inc.,
`2:17-cv-513 (E.D. Tex.) ......................................................................... 25
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`2:17-cv-515 (E.D. Tex.) ......................................................................... 25
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. ZTE Corp.,
`2:17-cv-517 (E.D. Tex.) ......................................................................... 25
`
`Andra Grp., LP v. Victoria’s Secret Stores, L.L.C.,
`6 F.4th 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................... 35
`
`In re Apple Inc.,
`456 F. App’x 907 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................ 19
`
`In re Apple Inc.,
`979 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .............................................. 5, 6, 18, 19
`
`Berry v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corp.,
`2016 WL 6092701 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 19, 2016) ....................................... 31
`
`In re Calmar, Inc.,
`854 F.2d 461 (Fed. Cir. 1988) .............................................................. 17
`
`Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court,
`542 U.S. 367 (2004) ........................................................................ 17, 23
`
`In re Cray Inc.,
`871 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ................................................ 34, 35, 38
`
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 42-2 Filed 01/10/23 Page 8 of 53 PageID #: 1401
`Case: 22-126 Document: 2-1 Page: 7 Filed: 02/23/2022
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`In re EMC Corp.,
`501 F. App’x 973 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ........................................................ 18
`
`In re Fusion-IO, Inc.,
`489 F. App’x 465 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ........................................................ 18
`
`In re Genentech, Inc.,
`566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ...................................................... 28, 30
`
`In re Google Inc.,
`2015 WL 5294800 (Fed. Cir. July 16, 2015) ........................... 5, passim
`
`In re Google Inc.,
`2017 WL 977038 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 23, 2017) ......................................... 32
`
`In re Google LLC,
`823 F. App’x 982 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .................................................. 23, 36
`
`In re Google LLC,
`949 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .......................................... 35, 37, 38, 39
`
`In re Hoffmann-La Roche Inc.,
`587 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................ 32
`
`In re Horseshoe Entm’t,
`337 F.3d 429 (5th Cir. 2003) ................................................................ 18
`
`In re HP Inc.,
`826 F. App’x 899 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .................................................... 3, 21
`
`Lynch v. Nat’l Prescription Admin., Inc.,
`795 F. App’x 68 (2d Cir. 2020) ............................................................. 36
`
`In re Netflix, Inc.,
`2022 WL 167470 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 19, 2022) ......................................... 33
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 42-2 Filed 01/10/23 Page 9 of 53 PageID #: 1402
`Case: 22-126 Document: 2-1 Page: 8 Filed: 02/23/2022
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`In re Nintendo Co.,
`544 F. App’x 934 (Fed. Cir. 2013) .................................................... 2, 19
`
`In re Nintendo Co.,
`589 F.3d 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................ 26
`
`Personalized Media Commc’ns, LLC v. Google LLC,
`No. 2:19-cv-00090-JRG, Dkt. 291 (E.D. Tex. July 16, 2020) .............. 36
`
`In re Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`2 F.4th 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ......................................................... 32, 33
`
`In re SK hynix Inc.,
`835 F. App’x 600 (Fed. Cir. 2021) .......................................... 5, 6, 18, 24
`
`In re TracFone Wireless, Inc.,
`848 F. App’x 899 (Fed. Cir. 2021) .................................................... 5, 21
`
`In re TS Tech USA Corp.,
`551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................................................ 5, 16
`
`Van Dusen v. Barrack,
`376 U.S. 612 (1964) .............................................................................. 18
`
`VirtualAgility Inc. v. Salesforce.com, Inc.,
`759 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................ 26
`
`Vocalife LLC v. Harman Int’l Indus. Inc.,
`No. 2:21-cv-00123-JRG (E.D. Tex.) ..................................................... 11
`
`In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc.,
`545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) .............................................. 17, 23, 27, 28
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3) ............................................................................... 27
`
`
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 42-2 Filed 01/10/23 Page 10 of 53 PageID #:
`Case: 22-126 Document: 2-1 Page: 9 Filed: 02/23/2022
`1403
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) ................................................................................... 34
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) ..................................................................... 8, 9, 18, 27
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1406.......................................................................................... 8
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Dorothy Atkins, “Lyft Judge Rips ‘Ridiculous’ AGIS Bid to
`Kick IP Suit to Texas,” Law360 (Jan. 27, 2022) ................................. 29
`
`U.S. District Courts–Combined Civil and Criminal Federal
`Court Management Statistics (Sept. 30, 2021), available
`at https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics/table/na/federal-
`court-management-statistics/2021/09/30-1 ......................................... 33
`
`
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 42-2 Filed 01/10/23 Page 11 of 53 PageID #:
`Case: 22-126 Document: 2-1 Page: 10 Filed: 02/23/2022
`1404
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Petitioners respectfully request that this Court issue a writ of
`
`mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern District
`
`of Texas (“EDTX”) directing the district court immediately to stay
`
`proceedings in these cases until it rules on venue-transfer motions filed
`
`by all three Petitioners and the improper-venue motion filed by Google,
`
`which have been pending since early 2020. The district court, having
`
`refused to rule on those motions despite Petitioners’ repeated
`
`requests—and despite the conclusion of both discovery and claim
`
`construction—recently denied the venue motions without prejudice and
`
`set a trial date of June 6, 2022, less than four months from now.
`
`Petitioners were therefore forced to move to reinstate their venue
`
`motions in an attempt to obtain a long-delayed ruling. Last week, the
`
`district court granted reinstatement of the transfer motions, but rather
`
`than staying the actions so the venue disputes could be resolved in an
`
`orderly manner, the Court granted a second round of supplemental
`
`discovery and third round of briefing on Google’s improper-venue
`
`motion and simply reset the trial against Google for August 22—while
`
`keeping the June 6 trial date in place for Samsung and Waze.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 42-2 Filed 01/10/23 Page 12 of 53 PageID #:
`Case: 22-126 Document: 2-1 Page: 11 Filed: 02/23/2022
`1405
`
`
`
`Petitioners now face continued uncertainty as to when and whether
`
`their venue motions might be resolved, even as they simultaneously
`
`embark on costly and burdensome trial preparation. The district court
`
`has thus not only deprived Petitioners of their right to have venue
`
`adjudicated “before addressing any substantive portion of the case,” In
`
`re Nintendo Co., 544 F. App’x 934, 941 (Fed. Cir. 2013); the court is also
`
`threatening Petitioners’ ability to obtain any meaningful adjudication of
`
`venue at all. Mandamus is unquestionably warranted.
`
`Petitioners filed motions challenging venue in these formerly
`
`consolidated cases shortly after the complaints were filed in February
`
`and March 2020. Over the next year, the district court declined to rule
`
`on the motions or stay the case, and Petitioners were forced to proceed
`
`with intensive and costly litigation on the merits. When the district
`
`court finally held a hearing on the venue motions, it did not decide
`
`them—instead, it permitted AGIS to take further discovery on Google’s
`
`presence in EDTX, followed by supplemental briefing. By February
`
`2021, the parties had completed fact and expert discovery, claim
`
`construction, and briefing of dispositive motions. At that point, with
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 42-2 Filed 01/10/23 Page 13 of 53 PageID #:
`Case: 22-126 Document: 2-1 Page: 12 Filed: 02/23/2022
`1406
`
`
`
`venue still unadjudicated, the district court stayed the case pending
`
`resolution of ex parte reexaminations. Appx431.
`
`A year later, the district court lifted the reexamination-related
`
`stay. When it did so, it simultaneously denied all pending motions
`
`without prejudice—citing “the passage of time” as its only reason—
`
`thereby effectively vacating the fully briefed venue motions, and set a
`
`trial date of June 6, 2022. Appx463. That vacatur cannot be justified
`
`on any substantive ground: because motions to transfer venue are
`
`“decided ‘based on the situation which existed when suit was
`
`instituted,’” In re HP Inc., 826 F. App’x 899, 903 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
`
`(citation omitted), nothing that happened while the cases were stayed
`
`pending the ex parte reexamination proceedings could conceivably have
`
`mooted or otherwise affected Petitioners’ venue motions. The vacatur
`
`also cannot be justified on any procedural ground: it did nothing other
`
`than create yet more delay by arbitrarily forcing Petitioners to refile
`
`years-old, fully briefed venue motions.
`
`The district court subsequently permitted Petitioners to reinstate
`
`their motions to transfer venue, but it did not stay the case or give any
`
`indication of when a ruling might be forthcoming. And as to Google’s
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 42-2 Filed 01/10/23 Page 14 of 53 PageID #:
`Case: 22-126 Document: 2-1 Page: 13 Filed: 02/23/2022
`1407
`
`
`
`motion to dismiss for improper venue—a motion first filed in February
`
`2020—the court denied reinstatement, accepting AGIS’s representation
`
`that it needs yet another round of discovery and supplemental briefing.
`
`Remarkably, to accommodate AGIS’s demand for another bite at the
`
`proper-venue apple, the district court deconsolidated the three cases
`
`below (despite the significant overlap between them) and briefly
`
`postponed the date of the Google trial to August.
`
`Petitioners now must prepare for three impending trials by
`
`making numerous substantive filings in the coming months—including
`
`dispositive motions, Daubert motions, and motions in limine—and also
`
`must prepare pretrial disclosures, including exhibit lists, deposition
`
`designations, and jury instructions. Appx469-472. Even worse, given
`
`the short time remaining before the trials and the district court’s
`
`evident reluctance to adjudicate venue, it is virtually certain that the
`
`district court will not resolve the venue motions with enough time
`
`before trial to permit Petitioners to seek any necessary appellate review
`
`of its decision in an orderly manner.
`
`The district court’s refusal to adjudicate venue cannot be
`
`reconciled with the principles of orderly venue adjudication that this
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 42-2 Filed 01/10/23 Page 15 of 53 PageID #:
`Case: 22-126 Document: 2-1 Page: 14 Filed: 02/23/2022
`1408
`
`
`
`Court and the Fifth Circuit1 have reiterated time and again. This Court
`
`has repeatedly instructed district courts that “once a party files a
`
`transfer motion, disposing of that motion should unquestionably take
`
`top priority.” In re SK hynix Inc., 835 F. App’x 600, 601 (Fed. Cir. 2021)
`
`(citation omitted); In re Apple Inc., 979 F.3d 1332, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2020);
`
`see also In re TracFone Wireless, Inc., 848 F. App’x 899, 900 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2021). The district court evaded that unequivocal command here by
`
`refusing to adjudicate venue throughout 2020, even as claim
`
`construction occurred and fact and expert discovery were completed.
`
`That initial yearlong delay—which took place before the case was
`
`stayed for the ex parte reexamination proceedings—far exceeded the
`
`district court’s discretion to manage its docket, and in similar situations
`
`this Court has granted mandamus to stay proceedings and require a
`
`ruling on a transfer motion. See In re Google Inc., 2015 WL 5294800, at
`
`*2 (Fed. Cir. July 16, 2015).
`
`The court has now compounded the prejudice Petitioners have
`
`already suffered by forcing them to prepare for trial without any
`
`
`1 Regional circuit law applies to venue-transfer motions. In re TS Tech
`USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 42-2 Filed 01/10/23 Page 16 of 53 PageID #:
`Case: 22-126 Document: 2-1 Page: 15 Filed: 02/23/2022
`1409
`
`
`
`assurance that the court will decide the refiled venue motions in time to
`
`provide meaningful relief or permit appellate proceedings. Indeed, any
`
`rulings on Petitioners’ venue motions will come only at the very
`
`precipice of trial, following costly and intensive preparations. Given
`
`that this Court has granted mandamus relief directing a venue ruling
`
`where a district court has proceeded to claim construction without
`
`resolving venue, In re Apple, 979 F.3d at 1338, it follows a fortiori that
`
`mandamus is appropriate here, where the district court is proceeding to
`
`dispositive motions and trial without resolving venue. See, e.g., SK
`
`hynix, 835 F. App’x at 601.
`
`Petitioners accordingly seek a writ of mandamus directing an
`
`immediate stay of the deconsolidated cases and rulings on their four
`
`venue motions. Mandamus is especially appropriate because of the
`
`strength of these long-pending venue motions, as detailed below.
`
`RELIEF SOUGHT
`
`Petitioners respectfully request a writ of mandamus directing the
`
`district court to rule on Petitioners’ four venue-related motions (the
`
`three reinstated venue-transfer motions and the improper-venue motion
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 42-2 Filed 01/10/23 Page 17 of 53 PageID #:
`Case: 22-126 Document: 2-1 Page: 16 Filed: 02/23/2022
`1410
`
`
`
`that Google will presently refile) and staying all three district court
`
`cases pending those rulings.
`
`ISSUES PRESENTED
`
`Petitioners first raised their challenges to venue in February
`
`2020. The district court did not decide them. Then, when the district
`
`court lifted a stay entered pending ex parte reexamination, it summarily
`
`denied the motions and forced Petitioners to re-file them, even as it set
`
`trial dates a few months in the future. Do these dilatory actions by the
`
`district court constitute an abuse of discretion such that a writ of
`
`mandamus is warranted directing the district court to rule on
`
`Petitioners’ venue motions and staying the cases until it does so?
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`A. Procedural History
`
`In November 2019, AGIS filed a lawsuit against Google LLC in
`
`EDTX alleging infringement of six patents, Appx044, and also filed two
`
`related lawsuits against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, “Samsung”), and Waze Mobile
`
`Limited (“Waze”), alleging infringement of two of the six patents
`
`asserted against Google. Appx114; Appx124. The district court
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 42-2 Filed 01/10/23 Page 18 of 53 PageID #:
`Case: 22-126 Document: 2-1 Page: 17 Filed: 02/23/2022
`1411
`
`
`
`consolidated the three cases. Appx170. The case against Samsung
`
`relates almost entirely to Google products, and the case against Waze—
`
`which Google owns—involves accused products that are designed, built,
`
`and maintained by Google employees.
`
`On February 18, 2020, Google filed a motion to dismiss under 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1406, on the ground that venue was improper in EDTX because
`
`Google lacks a “regular and established place of business” in the
`
`district. See Appx139-159. In the alternative, Google requested
`
`transfer to the Northern District of California (“NDCA”). See Appx157.
`
`Two weeks later, Samsung and Waze each filed motions to
`
`transfer the cases to NDCA for convenience under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
`
`See Appx172-192; Appx214-230. Briefing on all three venue-related
`
`motions was complete by April 2020. See Appx026-029.
`
`Throughout 2020, litigation on the merits continued in all three
`
`cases. AGIS served infringement contentions and Petitioners served
`
`invalidity contentions. The parties exchanged claim construction terms,
`
`Appx030-031; completed document production and exchanged privilege
`
`logs; served and responded to interrogatories and requests for
`
`admission; and deposed 19 fact witnesses. Claim construction briefing
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 42-2 Filed 01/10/23 Page 19 of 53 PageID #:
`Case: 22-126 Document: 2-1 Page: 18 Filed: 02/23/2022
`1412
`
`
`
`was completed by September 2020, and a Markman hearing was set for
`
`October. Appx030-031.
`
`Several weeks before the Markman hearing, Petitioners moved to
`
`stay all proceedings until the venue motions were decided. Appx282-
`
`287. The district court ignored the motion and proceeded with the
`
`Markman hearing. Appx031-032. Fact discovery closed in November
`
`2020. Appx248.
`
`On December 4, 2020, approximately nine months after
`
`Petitioners’ venue motions were filed, the district court finally held a
`
`venue hearing. Appx288; Appx032. But the district court declined to
`
`decide the motions or to stay the cases. Instead, the court held sua
`
`sponte that AGIS should be permitted additional discovery regarding
`
`Google’s purported “regular and established place of business” in EDTX.
`
`Appx294-296. The court also permitted Google to file its own § 1404(a)
`
`transfer motion, akin to those that Samsung and Waze had already
`
`filed. Appx300. Google filed that motion one week later. Appx303-322.
`
`Despite the four pending motions, the court still pressed the cases
`
`forward on the merits. In December 2020, Magistrate Judge Payne
`
`issued a claim construction order, Appx032, and the parties completed
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 42-2 Filed 01/10/23 Page 20 of 53 PageID #:
`Case: 22-126 Document: 2-1 Page: 19 Filed: 02/23/2022
`1413
`
`
`
`expert discovery and filed dispositive and Daubert motions. Appx247-
`
`248.
`
`Around the same time, AGIS completed supplemental venue
`
`discovery, and the parties began supplemental briefing on Google’s
`
`improper-venue motion. Appx335-338. In light of the mounting
`
`prejudice Petitioners faced as the cases progressed in an improper
`
`venue, Petitioners moved on December 8, 2020, for reconsideration of
`
`their motion to stay. Appx339-347.
`
`In early January 2021, the district court denied reconsideration
`
`and sua sponte extended all case deadlines by approximately a month to
`
`allow the venue discovery and supplemental venue briefing to be
`
`completed. Appx348-351; Appx383-384. The supplemental briefing was
`
`completed by January 21, 2021. Appx035.
`
`On February 9, 2021, the Court stayed the cases pending
`
`resolution of ex parte reexaminations concerning each patent-in-suit.
`
`Appx427-432. Petitioners subsequently requested that the district
`
`court maintain the stay after the conclusion of the reexaminations to
`
`decide the pending venue motions. Appx446; Appx455. Approximately
`
`one year after the stay, on January 28, 2022—after the ex parte
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 42-2 Filed 01/10/23 Page 21 of 53 PageID #:
`Case: 22-126 Document: 2-1 Page: 20 Filed: 02/23/2022
`1414
`
`
`
`reexamination proceedings had concluded—the court entered an order
`
`lifting the stay. Appx459-463. The court ignored Petitioners’ requests
`
`to maintain the stay in order to adjudicate the pending venue motions.
`
`In the same order, the court set a trial date of June 6, 2022, and a
`
`pretrial conference for April 25, 2022. The court also effectively vacated
`
`every pending motion in the consolidated cases—including, inter alia,
`
`Petitioners’ four long-pending venue motions—denying them without
`
`prejudice “[g]iven the passage of time since the stay was granted.”
`
`Appx463.
`
`The venue motions were fully briefed and the relevant facts were
`
`unchanged. Accordingly, Petitioners filed a “Motion to Reinstate” their
`
`four motions. Appx464-468.
`
`Following Petitioners’ Motion to Reinstate, Plaintiff’s counsel—in
`
`a transparent effort to run out the clock on Google’s pending improper-
`
`venue motion—requested that Google produce venue discovery from an
`
`unrelated case, Vocalife LLC v. Harman International Industries Inc.,
`
`No. 2:21-cv-00123-JRG (E.D. Tex.).
`
`The district court held a telephonic status conference to discuss
`
`reinstatement on February 18, 2022. Appx478. At that conference, the
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 42-2 Filed 01/10/23 Page 22 of 53 PageID #:
`Case: 22-126 Document: 2-1 Page: 21 Filed: 02/23/2022
`1415
`
`
`
`court stated it had been on the brink of deciding the venue motions
`
`when the case was stayed for reexamination in 2021. Apx488. But that
`
`is difficult to square with the court’s denial of the motions without
`
`prejudice when it lifted the stay in January 2022, thereby forcing
`
`Petitioners to refile—and in all events, venue remains undecided with
`
`trial on the horizon.
`
`At the conference, AGIS informed the court that it would consent
`
`to reinstating all three Petitioners’ transfer motions, but that it opposed
`
`reinstating Google’s improper-venue motion on the ground that
`
`“additional briefing would be helpful” following its review of the Vocalife
`
`discovery. Appx476. On that basis, the district court denied Google’s
`
`motion to reinstate its improper-venue motion and ordered Google to re-
`
`file it. Appx475-477. The court sua sponte deconsolidated the three
`
`cases and reset the Google trial date to August 22, 2022, while
`
`preserving the June 6 date for the trials against Samsung and Waze.
`
`The court ordered deconsolidation notwithstanding the fact that the
`
`cases against Google and Samsung involve largely the same Google
`
`products and technologies, and trying them separately will force
`
`witnesses to appear and testify two or even three times in EDTX over
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 42-2 Filed 01/10/23 Page 23 of 53 PageID #:
`Case: 22-126 Document: 2-1 Page: 22 Filed: 02/23/2022
`1416
`
`
`
`the course of two months. Thus, the deconsolidation does not further
`
`any trial-related purpose or judicial economy. Quite the contrary.
`
`Deconsolidating the trials serves no evident purpose other than to
`
`accommodate the additional venue discovery (and attendant delay) that
`
`the court ordered as to Google, while forcing all three Petitioners to
`
`prepare for impending trials with transfer still undecided.
`
`B. Neither Plaintiffs nor Defendants Have Meaningful
`Ties to EDTX
`
`The plaintiff, AGIS, has minimal ties to EDTX. AGIS has no
`
`known employees in Texas, and it conducts no business in Texas. AGIS
`
`is a patent holding company that is related to two Florida corporations:
`
`AGIS Holdings, Inc., AGIS’s parent corporation, and Advanced Ground
`
`Information Systems, Inc., a subsidiary that develops products.
`
`Appx239-241. Malcolm K. Beyer, Jr., the CEO of AGIS and lead
`
`inventor on the patents-in-suit, resides in Florida. Appx238-239.
`
`Google LLC is a Delaware-registered LLC based in Mountain
`
`View, California, in NDCA. Google’s Mountain View headquarters is
`
`the strategic center of its business and where most significant design
`
`and engineering decisions are made for the accused products. Appx165-
`
`166; Appx310. Google has no offices or employees in EDTX.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00263-JRG-RSP Document 42-2 Filed 01/10/23 Page 24 of 53 PageID #:
`Case: 22-126 Document: 2-1 Page: 23 Filed: 02/23/2022
`1417
`
`
`
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“SEC”) is a Korean corporation
`
`with its principal place of business in Suwon, Korea. Appx197.
`
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“SEA”) is a New York
`
`corporation with its principal place of business in Ridgefield Park, New
`
`Jersey. SEA maintains offices in numerous U.S. locations, including
`
`Plano, Texas and Mountain View, California, where it has over three
`
`hundred employees. Appx194.
`
`Waze is an Israeli corporation with offices in Tel Aviv. Google
`
`acquired Waze in June 2013. Following the acquisition, Waze
`
`employees responsible for the Waze mobile app became Google
`
`employees. Those employees are located primarily in Israel, New York,
`
`and Northern California. Appx168.
`
`C. AGIS’s Claims in Litigation
`
`AGIS’s infringement allegations against Google concern the
`
`software applications Google Maps and Find My Device (the “Accused
`
`Google Applications”). Appx083-