Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 122 Filed 10/11/23 Page 1 of 23 PageID #: 31374
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`AX WIRELESS LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`LENOVO GROUP LIMITED,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No. 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT LENOVO GROUP LIMITED’S OPPOSED MOTION TO TRANSFER
`VENUE TO THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 122 Filed 10/11/23 Page 2 of 23 PageID #: 31375
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`III. 
`IV. 
`
`V. 
`
`
`
`2. 
`
`B. 
`1. 
`2. 
`
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1 
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................ 2 
`A. 
`Third-Party Evidence and Witnesses Are on the West Coast. ............................ 2 
`1. 
`The Most Relevant Witnesses and Evidence Come from Non-Party
`Suppliers on the West Coast or Are Otherwise Outside This District. ............... 2 
`Other Highly Relevant Non-Party Witnesses—Including the Inventors and
`Prior Art Witnesses—Are in California. ............................................................. 6 
`The Parties Have No Ties to This District. ......................................................... 6 
`AXW Lacks Connection to This District but Has Ties to California. ................ 6 
`Relevant Witnesses and Documents Specifically Related to the Accused
`Products Are Outside This District. .................................................................... 7 
`Related Defendants Dell, HPI, and Acer Lack Connection to This District. ...... 7 
`C. 
`LEGAL STANDARD ..................................................................................................... 8 
`ARGUMENT .................................................................................................................. 9 
`Applying the Reasoning from the Court’s Order on LGL’s Motion to
`A. 
`Dismiss, This Case Could Have Been Brought in the NDCA. ........................... 9 
`The Private Interest Factors Overwhelmingly Favor Transfer to the
`NDCA. .............................................................................................................. 10 
`1. 
`Convenience of Witnesses Overwhelmingly Favors Transfer. ............. 10 
`2. 
`Availability of Compulsory Process Strongly Favors Transfer. ........... 11 
`3. 
`Relative Ease of Access to Evidence Strongly Favors Transfer. .......... 13 
`4. 
`Other Practical Problems That Make Trial Easy, Expeditious, and
`Inexpensive Weigh Slightly in Favor of Transfer. ................................ 13 
`The Public Interest Factors Favor Transfer to the NDCA or Are Neutral. ....... 14 
`1. 
`Local Interest Favors Transfer to the NDCA. ....................................... 14 
`2. 
`The Remaining Public Interest Factors Are Neutral. ............................ 15 
`CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................. 15 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 122 Filed 10/11/23 Page 3 of 23 PageID #: 31376
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`ATEN Int’l Co. v. Emine Tech. Co.,
`261 F.R.D. 112 (E.D. Tex. 2009) .............................................................................................14
`
`AX Wireless LLC v. Dell Inc.,
`No. 2:22-cv-00277 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 12, 2023), ECF No. 120 .........................................3, 8, 14
`
`BiTMICRO LLC v. Intel Corp.,
`No. 6:22-CV-00335-ADA (W.D. Tex. June 6, 2023), Dkt. No. 58 ...........................................9
`
`In re Apple, Inc.,
`581 F. App’x 886 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..........................................................................................11
`
`In re Apple Inc.,
`979 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2020)................................................................................................13
`
`In re Apple Inc.,
`No. 2021-181, 2021 WL 5291804 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2021) .................................................12
`
`In re Apple Inc.,
`No. 2022-128, 2022 WL 1196768 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 22, 2022) ..........................................3, 4, 10
`
`In re Genentech, Inc.,
`566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..................................................................................................8
`
`In re Google LLC,
`58 F.4th 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ......................................................................................9, 14, 15
`
`In re Google LLC,
`No. 2021-171, 2021 WL 4592280 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 6, 2021).................................................9, 10
`
`In re Google LLC,
`No. 2021-178, 2021 WL 5292267 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2021) .................................................13
`
`In re Hoffmann-La Roche Inc.,
`587 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................15
`
`In re HP Inc.,
`No. 2018-149, 2018 WL 4692486 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ................................................................15
`
`In re Juniper Networks, Inc.,
`14 F.4th 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ........................................................................................8, 9, 12
`
`In re Microsoft Corp.,
`No. 2023-128, 2023 WL 3861078 (Fed. Cir. June 7, 2023) ..............................................12, 15
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 122 Filed 10/11/23 Page 4 of 23 PageID #: 31377
`
`
`In re Nintendo Co.,
`589 F.3d 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................15
`
`In re Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am.,
`52 F.4th 625 (5th Cir. 2022) ....................................................................................................11
`
`In re Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`2 F.4th 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ..................................................................................................12
`
`In re Toyota Motor Corp.,
`747 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................15
`
`In re TS Tech. USA Corp.,
`551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................11
`
`In re Vistaprint Ltd.,
`628 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................14
`
`In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc.,
`545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) .................................................................................................... 8
`
`In re Zimmer Holdings, Inc.,
`609 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................14
`
`Japan Display Inc. v. Tianma Microelecs. Co.,
`No. 2:20-CV-00283-JRG, 2021 WL 3772425 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 25, 2021)..............................10
`
`LoganTree LP v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 6:21-CV-00397-ADA, 2022 WL 1491097 (W.D. Tex. May 11, 2022) ...........................14
`
`Parus Holdings Inc. v. LG Elecs. Inc.,
`No. 6:19-CV-00432-ADA, 2020 WL 4905809 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 20, 2020) ...........................10
`
`Quest NetTech Corp. v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 2:19-CV-00118-JRG, 2019 WL 6344267 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 27, 2019)..............................13
`
`Secure Axcess, LLC v. Bank of the W.,
`No. 6:13-CV-779, 2014 WL 12616120 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 26, 2014) ..........................................9
`
`Seven Networks LLC v. Google LLC,
`No. 2:17-cv-442-JRG, 2018 WL 4026760 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 15, 2018) ...................................11
`
`VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc.,
`No. 6:20-CV-00267-ADA, 2022 WL 3021522 (W.D. Tex. July 28, 2022) ............................13
`
`W. Coast Trends Inc. v. Ogio Int’l, Inc.,
`No. 6:10-CV-688, 2011 WL 5117850 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 27, 2011) ...........................................14
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 122 Filed 10/11/23 Page 5 of 23 PageID #: 31378
`
`
`Wiav Networks, LLC v. 3Com Corp.,
`No. 5:09-CV-101 (DF), 2010 WL 11484491 (E.D. Tex. July 15, 2010) ..................................9
`
`XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, LC,
`No. W-16-CA-00447-RP, 2017 WL 5505340 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 5, 2017) ...............................13
`
`Zentian Ltd. v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. W-22-CV-00122-ADA, 2023 WL 4167746 (W.D. Tex. June 13, 2023) .........................15
`
`STATUTES
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) .........................................................................................................................8
`
`Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 410.10 .......................................................................................................10
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Rule 45 ...........................................................................................................................................12
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 122 Filed 10/11/23 Page 6 of 23 PageID #: 31379
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This case has no connection to the Eastern District of Texas (“EDTX”) because there are
`
`no relevant witnesses or sources of proof in this district. Not even Plaintiff AX Wireless (“AXW”)
`
`is based here. The accused functionalities—i.e., an “extended range” feature and a method for
`
`detecting packet formats—reside entirely in software on transceiver products—namely Wi-Fi 6
`
`adapters—that are designed and developed by non-party suppliers—Intel Corp. (“Intel”),
`
`MediaTek Inc. (“MediaTek”), and Qualcomm Inc. (“Qualcomm”)—and then incorporated into the
`
`accused Lenovo US (“LUS”) PC and Motorola Mobility (“Motorola”) smartphone products. The
`
`center of gravity for the relevant witnesses and documents resides with non-parties in or near the
`
`Northern District of California (“NDCA”):
`
` Inventors: Both named inventors of the asserted patents reside in the NDCA.
`
` Prior art witnesses: The overwhelming number of prior art witnesses reside in the NDCA.
`
` Intel: Intel witnesses with knowledge and documents related to the research, design,
`
`development, testing, certification, sales, and marketing of the implicated Wi-Fi 6 adapters
`
`reside in California, Oregon, or Israel. AXW even served subpoenas to Intel seeking
`
`technical and financial discovery in the NDCA and has inspected Intel’s software there.
`
` MediaTek & Qualcomm: MediaTek and Qualcomm witnesses with knowledge and
`
`documentation related to the implicated Wi-Fi 6 adapters are likewise in California.
`
`Accordingly, AXW served subpoenas on both third parties in California, indicating that
`
`the NDCA is also more convenient for these suppliers.
`
` Defendant Lenovo Group Ltd. (“LGL”) and its Subsidiaries LUS and Motorola: LGL is
`
`a Hong Kong holding company that does not develop, manufacture, sell, or import the
`
`accused products. Instead, LGL subsidiaries LUS and Motorola, respectively, import the
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 122 Filed 10/11/23 Page 7 of 23 PageID #: 31380
`
`
`accused PC and smartphone products. LUS is based in North Carolina, and Motorola is
`
`based in Chicago. Neither LGL nor its subsidiaries have any relevant witnesses or sources
`
`of proof in the EDTX.
`
` Related Defendants Dell Inc. and Dell Technologies Inc. (collectively “Dell”), and
`
`Hewlett Packard, Inc (“HPI”): Related defendants Dell and HPI have moved for transfer
`
`to the NDCA, where the cases against all defendants could be more efficiently consolidated
`
`before a single jurist, instead of two jurists in the EDTX.
`
`Because NDCA is the more convenient venue, LGL respectfully requests a transfer to that district.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Third-Party Evidence and Witnesses Are on the West Coast.
`
`1.
`
`The Most Relevant Witnesses and Evidence Come from Non-Party
`Suppliers on the West Coast or Are Otherwise Outside This District.
`
`Plaintiff accuses PCs, laptops, tablets, and smartphones that “comprise[] a Wi-Fi 6 or
`
`802.11ax transceiver” (“Accused Products”) that LGL’s subsidiaries purchase from suppliers Intel,
`
`MediaTek, and Qualcomm.1 Dkt. 29 at ¶¶ 27–29. AXW’s standards-based infringement
`
`allegations point to only software on Wi-Fi 6 adapters supplied by third parties, but not any other
`
`functionality or components of the Accused Products. See id. These suppliers are solely
`
`responsible for the research, design, testing, certification, manufacturing, and sales of the Wi-Fi 6
`
`adapters. Dkt. 35-7 at ¶ 8. It is therefore unsurprising that AXW issued subpoenas to Intel (in Santa
`
`Clara, CA), Qualcomm (in Sacramento, CA), and MediaTek (in San Jose, CA) and is aggressively
`
`pursuing discovery in California. See Ta Decl., Exs. 54-56. While AXW has inspected Intel source
`
`
`1 AXW accuses at least the following Wi-Fi 6 adapters: Intel’s AX200, AX201, AX210, AX211,
`and Killer AX1650; and Qualcomm’s Snapdragon 778G mobile platform, Snapdragon 8 Gen 1
`Mobile Platform, Snapdragon 870, and Snapdragon 870 5G Mobile Platform. Dkt. 29-9 (Appendix
`A - List of Lenovo Accused Instrumentalities).
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 122 Filed 10/11/23 Page 8 of 23 PageID #: 31381
`
`
`code in the NDCA (Ta Decl. at ¶ 5), it has not requested or inspected any source code from LGL
`
`or its subsidiaries. Id. ¶ 3. The NDCA is a more convenient forum for access to the witnesses and
`
`documents of these non-party suppliers, none of whom appear to have any sources of proof in the
`
`EDTX.
`
`a.
`
`The NDCA Is Substantially More Convenient for Intel’s
`Witnesses and Sources of Proof.
`
`The accused Wi-Fi 6 functionality was designed and developed in Intel’s facilities in Santa
`
`Clara, CA; Hillsboro, OR; and/or Israel—all more convenient to the NDCA. Intel employs over
`
`6,000 people in the NDCA. See Case No. 2:22-cv-00277, Dkt. 104-2 at ¶ 8. While Intel has
`
`facilities in Austin, it has no witnesses or sources of proof in Texas relevant to this case.2 Id. at ¶
`
`10. Defendant has identified 10 employees as potential witnesses with technical knowledge
`
`relevant to its Wi-Fi 6 adapters, as summarized in the chart below. Id. at ¶¶ 11–21. Key Intel
`
`engineers who researched and designed Intel’s Wi-Fi 6 technology are in California and Oregon.
`
`Id. at ¶ 9. Intel also played a key role in the 802.11ax standard setting process and was represented
`
`by numerous delegates, including Shahrnaz Azizi (CA), the Vice Chair and Secretary to the IEEE
`
`and a lead delegate during the standard setting process for 802.11ax from 2013–2018; Qinghua Li
`
`(CA), who was Intel’s Wi-Fi Physical Layer team lead at the IEEE from 2014–2020; Minyoung
`
`Park (CA), a MAC Layer researcher; Robert Stacey (OR), the Technical Editor for the 802.11ax
`
`standard; and Carlos Cordeiro (OR), the Board Chair of the Wi-Fi Alliance, which sets the
`
`
`2 In the co-pending Dell litigation, AXW alleges that some development of the accused Intel
`adapters happened in Austin, Texas by a company called Rivet Networks. See Opposition, AX
`Wireless LLC v. Dell Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00277 at 1, 4 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 12, 2023), ECF No. 120. But
`Rivet develops unaccused software (“middleware”) to manage internet connections, does not work
`on Wi-Fi 6, played no role in developing the accused functionalities. See Decl. of Dunlap., id.,
`2:22-cv-00277, Dkt. 124-13 at ¶¶ 4–8; In re Apple Inc., No. 2022-128, 2022, WL 1196768 at *2
`(Fed. Cir. Apr. 22, 2022) (rejecting witnesses who work on “entirely different…functionality” than
`“the focus of the infringement allegations”).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 122 Filed 10/11/23 Page 9 of 23 PageID #: 31382
`
`
`requirements for Wi-Fi 6 Certification. Id. at ¶¶ 11–13, 15–17; Case No. 2:22-cv-00277, Dkt. 124-
`
`13 at ¶ 3. As key contributors to the 802.11ax standard, these engineers will provide context and
`
`testimony regarding the purported value of the accused functionalities vis-à-vis the rest of the
`
`802.11ax standard and Intel’s implementation of the standard. Id. Intel also conducts Wi-Fi 6
`
`certification testing and validation in California and Oregon. Id. at ¶¶ 11–15. Finally, the software
`
`development for Intel’s Wi-Fi 6 products resides mainly with engineers in Israel. Case No. 2:22-
`
`cv-00277, Dkt. 104-2 at ¶ 9. Intel has no employees or sources of proof in this District.3 Id. at ¶
`
`10. And travel from California, Oregon, and Israel to the EDTX is far less convenient than travel
`
`to the NDCA. Ta Decl., Exs. 1-11.
`
`Location
`
`Title and Responsibility
`Principal Engineer, Wireless Communications
`Research
`Principal Engineer, Physical Layer Research
`Wireless System Engineer
`Principal Engineer, Development of Wi-Fi 6
`Technology
`Chief Technology Officer, Wireless Communications Hillsboro, OR
`
`Santa Clara, CA
`
`Santa Clara, CA
`Santa Clara, CA
`
`Santa Clara, CA
`
`Intel Witness
`
`Shahrnaz Azizi
`
`Qinghua Li
`Po-Kai Huang
`
`Minyoung Park
`
`Carlos Cordeiro
`Mohammed
`Mansour
`Christopher Wills
`
`Engineering Manager
`
`Robert Stacey
`
`Lead Validation Engineer
`Sr. Principal Engineer and Technical Editor for IEEE
`802.11ax
`Strategic Business Development
`Jim Stilwell
`Efrat Nahaissi-Tiran Senior Digital Signal Processing Engineer and Wi-Fi
`Product Development
`Danny Alexander
`Wi-Fi Senior System Architect
`
`Hillsboro, OR 
`
`San Jose, CA
`
`Hillsboro, OR
`
`Boston, MA
`
`Israel
`
`Israel
`
`
`
`
`3 The color-coded charts herein indicate proximity to the NDCA (green) and international/neutral
`sources of proof (blue). For example, convenience from many international and East Coast
`locations is neutral with respect to the EDTX and NDCA. See In re Apple Inc., No. 2022-128,
`2022 WL 1196768, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 22, 2022).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 122 Filed 10/11/23 Page 10 of 23 PageID #:
`31383
`
`
`b.
`
`MediaTek Employees and Evidence Are More Convenient to
`the NDCA.
`
`AXW subpoenaed MediaTek in San Jose, CA, demonstrating AXW’s belief that relevant
`
`information is in the NDCA. Ta Decl., Ex. 55. For example, numerous MediaTek engineers who
`
`appear to be in the NDCA—including Jianhan Liu, Yongho Seok, James Yee, and Paul Cheng—
`
`were involved in the IEEE 802.11ax High Efficiency (HE) Wireless LAN Task Group and
`
`provided technical submissions to the standard. Id. at ¶ 16, Exs. 13-17. MediaTek’s headquarters
`
`in Taiwan is also a likely source for witnesses and documents. Id., Ex. 12. MediaTek’s Senior
`
`Department Manager Jamie Huang, who is based in Hsinchu City, Taiwan, appears to be the
`
`project leader of MediaTek’s Wi-Fi 802.11ax adapters. Id., Ex. 17. Travel time from Hsinchu to
`
`the Bay Area is significantly less than the travel time to Marshall. Id., Exs. 50, 51. There appear
`
`to be no relevant witnesses or sources of proof for MediaTek in the EDTX. Id. at ¶ 16.
`
`c.
`
`Qualcomm Employees and Evidence Are More Convenient to
`the NDCA.
`
`AXW subpoenaed Qualcomm via its registered agent in Sacramento, CA. Ta Decl., Ex. 56.
`
`Qualcomm’s headquarters in San Diego is a short flight from the Bay Area and a likely source of
`
`witnesses and evidence. Id. Exs. 23, 53. For example, Alfred Asterjadhi, a System Engineer based
`
`in San Diego, was the Vice Chair for the IEEE 802.11ax High Efficiency (HE) Wireless LAN
`
`Task Group and provided numerous technical submissions to the standard. Id., Ex. 24. Other
`
`Qualcomm engineers based in San Diego also contributed submissions to the 802.11ax standard,
`
`including Abhishek Patil, George Cherian, and Youhan Kim. Id., Exs. 20–22. No Qualcomm
`
`engineers who participated in the IEEE’s 802.11ax task group appear to be located in this District.
`
`Ta Decl. at ¶ 23. And it takes significantly longer to travel from San Diego to Marshall rather than
`
`to the NDCA. Id., Exs. 49, 51.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 122 Filed 10/11/23 Page 11 of 23 PageID #:
`31384
`
`
`2.
`
`Other Highly Relevant Non-Party Witnesses—Including the Inventors
`and Prior Art Witnesses—Are in California.
`
`Non-party witnesses who will likely be called to testify at trial are based in California, not
`
`Texas. For example, the two named inventors of all eight patents are Marcos Tzannes and Joon
`
`Bae Kim, both of whom reside in the NDCA. Id., Exs. 23, 24. In addition, LGL’s subsidiaries have
`
`identified at least 10 individuals who are inventors/authors of prior art presented in Intel’s IPR
`
`petitions challenging the Asserted Patents. Id. at ¶¶ 30-40, Exs. 25-34. All of these individuals
`
`reside in the NDCA and can easily travel to courthouses in that district.
`
`Prior Art Witness
`Syed Aon Mujtaba
`Matthew Fischer
`Christopher Hansen
`Jason Trachewsky
`Hongyuan Zhang
`Hui-Ling Lou
`Rohit U. Nabar
`Sudhir Srinivasa
`Mao Yu
`Raja Banerjea
`
`Location
`Santa Clara (NDCA)
`Sunnyvale (NDCA)
`Sunnyvale (NDCA)
`Menlo Park (NDCA)
`Santa Clara (NDCA)
`Santa Clara (NDCA)
`Sunnyvale (NDCA)
`Sunnyvale (NDCA)
`Santa Clara (NDCA)
`Saratoga (NDCA)
`
`B.
`
`The Parties Have No Ties to This District.
`
`
`
`1.
`
`AXW Lacks Connection to This District but Has Ties to California.
`
`AXW has no officers, registered agents, or physical presence in this District. Case No.
`
`2:22-cv-00277, Dkt. 104-3, Ex. 42. AXW was founded less than a year before it filed suit and has
`
`a principal place of business in Austin, outside of this District. See Dkt. 2; Dkt. 29 at ¶ 1. The
`
`parent company of AXW—IdeaHub—is a Korea-based patent monetization firm, but its CEO, Mr.
`
`Kyeong-Su (“Keith”) Im, resides in Orange County, CA. See Case No. 2:22-cv-00277, Dkt. 104-
`
`3, Exs. 43–46; id. at ¶¶ 48–52. AXW has not identified any relevant AXW or IdeaHub witnesses
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 122 Filed 10/11/23 Page 12 of 23 PageID #:
`31385
`
`
`or evidence in this District. Id. at ¶ 42.
`
`2.
`
`Relevant Witnesses and Documents Specifically Related to the Accused
`Products Are Outside This District.
`
`LGL is a holding company headquartered in Hong Kong that does not operate or do
`
`business anywhere in the U.S. Dkt. 35-7, ¶¶ 2–3. LGL has no offices, employees, real estate (either
`
`owned or leased), bank accounts, or any other assets in Texas or elsewhere in the U.S. Id. at ¶¶ 4,
`
`12. LGL therefore lacks relevant witnesses or sources of proof in the EDTX. Id. at ¶ 4.4
`
`As the accused functionalities are implemented on Wi-Fi 6 adapters sold in the U.S., the
`
`only even remotely relevant information that LGL’s U.S. subsidiaries can offer on those software
`
`functionalities relates to the backend incorporation of Wi-Fi 6 adapters into the accused products
`
`(which happens overseas), marketing, finance, and sales of the accused products in the U.S. LGL
`
`Decl. at ¶¶ 6-7; Motorola Decl. at ¶¶ 6-8; Ta Decl., Exs. 39-43. Neither this information nor any
`
`such witnesses are in the EDTX or even in the state of Texas.
`
`Witness
`Antoine Johnson
`Boyang Yu
`Kwan Chan
`Todd Madderom
`Thomas Milner
`
`Title and Responsibility
`North America Financial Analyst for LUS
`Senior Sourcing Manager for LUS
`Financial P&A Manager at Motorola
`Director of Chipset Procurement at Motorola
`Head of Global Product Marketing at Motorola
`
`Location
`Morrisville, NC
`Morrisville, NC
`Chicago, IL
`Chicago, IL
`Chicago, IL
`
`C.
`
`Related Defendants Dell, HPI, and Acer Lack Connection to This District.
`
`On the same day this suit was filed, AXW also sued Dell (No. 2:22-cv-00277) and HPI
`
`(No. 2:22-cv-00279) in the EDTX asserting the same patents. In February 2023, AXW sued Acer
`
`(No. 2:23-cv-00041) on only U.S. Patent No. 11,212,146. Related defendants Dell, HPI, and Acer
`
`also lack any connection to this District:
`
`
`4 Furthermore, in adjudicating LGL’s motion to dismiss, the Court did not find that LGL or its
`subsidiaries have any relevant documents or witnesses in the EDTX. See Dkt. 110 at 8; Dkt. 119
`at 8 (adopting the R&R).
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 122 Filed 10/11/23 Page 13 of 23 PageID #:
`31386
`
`
` Dell is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Round Rock, Texas. See Case No. 2:22-
`
`cv-00277, Dkt. 30. On July 14, 2023, Dell filed a Motion to Transfer Venue to the Northern
`
`District of California. See id., Dkt. 104. That motion is currently pending.
`
` HPI is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Palo Alto, California. See Case No. 2:22-
`
`cv-00279, Dkt. 75 at 1. On September 15, 2023, HPI filed a Motion to Transfer to the
`
`Northern District of California. See id. That motion is also currently pending.
`
` Acer is a Taiwanese corporation having a principal place of business in Taiwan, and no
`
`connection to this District. See Case No. 2:23-cv-00041, Dkt. 1 at ¶ 2.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the
`
`interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division
`
`where it might have been brought.” First, the movant must show whether the action “might have
`
`been brought in the destination venue.” In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 312 (5th Cir.
`
`2008) (“Volkswagen II”). Second, the movant must show that the “transferee venue is clearly more
`
`convenient” by weighing the private and public interest factors. Id. at 315; see also In re
`
`Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The private interest factors are (1) ease of
`
`access to sources of proof; (2) availability of compulsory process to secure attendance of non-party
`
`witnesses; (3) relative convenience for potential witnesses; and (4) other practical problems that
`
`make trial easy, expeditious, and inexpensive. In re Juniper Networks, Inc., 14 F.4th 1313, 1316–
`
`17 (Fed. Cir. 2021). The public interest factors are (1) administrative difficulties from court
`
`congestion; (2) local interest in having disputes regarding activities occurring principally within a
`
`particular district decided in the forum; (3) forum familiarity with governing law; and (4)
`
`avoidance of conflict of laws or in the application of foreign law. Id. at 1317.
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 122 Filed 10/11/23 Page 14 of 23 PageID #:
`31387
`
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`This case should be transferred to the NDCA. The accused Wi-Fi 6 functionality resides in
`
`software on adapters supplied by third parties. None of the allegations of infringement focus on
`
`LGL or its affiliates alone. Because the overwhelming weight of the evidence resides in or near
`
`the NDCA, the NDCA is a more convenient forum than the EDTX. See, e.g., Wiav Networks, LLC
`
`v. 3Com Corp., No. 5:09-CV-101 (DF), 2010 WL 11484491, at *2-3 (E.D. Tex. July 15, 2010)
`
`(transferring from the EDTX to the NDCA where LGL was a defendant, despite some evidence
`
`being in Texas, because the numerous non-party chip supplier “important witnesses” and inventors
`
`were all within the NDCA’s subpoena power). Transfer is heavily favored in matters where, like
`
`here, the “relevant technical aspects” of the accused products at the heart of a plaintiff’s
`
`infringement allegations are “researched, designed, and developed . . . within the [NDCA]” by a
`
`third-party supplier. See In re Google LLC, 58 F.4th 1379, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Transfer is also
`
`favored when more non-party witnesses reside within the transferee forum than in the transferor
`
`venue. See BiTMICRO LLC v. Intel Corp., No. 6:22-CV-00335-ADA (W.D. Tex. June 6, 2023),
`
`Dkt. No. 58 at 12. As this Court has held, “[i]t is the convenience of non-party witnesses”—like
`
`the third-party suppliers, inventors, and prior art witnesses—“that is the more important factor and
`
`is accorded greater weight in a transfer of venue analysis.” See Secure Axcess, LLC v. Bank of the
`
`W., No. 6:13-CV-779, 2014 WL 12616120, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 26, 2014) (citations omitted)
`
`(emphasis added). Transfer is also heavily favored when the “only connection” to the current
`
`district is that the defendant has a “general presence” and no other ties in the transferor forum. In
`
`re Google LLC, No. 2021-171, 2021 WL 4592280, at *7 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 6, 2021) (“Google I”).
`
`A.
`
`Applying the Reasoning from the Court’s Order on LGL’s Motion to Dismiss,
`This Case Could Have Been Brought in the NDCA.
`
`On September 26, 2023, the Court denied LGL’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 122 Filed 10/11/23 Page 15 of 23 PageID #:
`31388
`
`
`Jurisdiction (Dkt. 119), so LGL may now bring this motion to transfer the case to the NDCA. See
`
`Japan Display Inc. v. Tianma Microelecs. Co., No. 2:20-CV-00283-JRG, 2021 WL 3772425, at
`
`*3 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 25, 2021). While LGL respectfully disagrees that it is subject to personal
`
`jurisdiction in this district (Dkt. 116), the Court’s Order finding jurisdiction should apply with
`
`equal force to the NDCA under California’s long-arm statute (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 410.10). See
`
`Dkt. 110 (R&R) at 2–3; Dkt. 118 at 2–3.5
`
`B.
`
`The Private Interest Factors Overwhelmingly Favor Transfer to the NDCA.
`
`1.
`
`Convenience of Witnesses Overwhelmingly Favors Transfer.
`
`“The convenience of witnesses is the single most important factor in the transfer analysis.”
`
`Parus Holdings Inc. v. LG Elecs. Inc., No. 6:19-CV-00432-ADA, 2020 WL 4905809, at *5 (W.D.
`
`Tex. Aug. 20, 2020). The Federal Circuit has instructed that “the difference in distance [between
`
`existing and transferee venues] is not as important as the difference in travel time and the fact that
`
`the witness would be required to be away from home for several days in any event.” Google I,
`
`2021 WL 4592280, at *5.6 The NDCA is more convenient for nearly all known potential witnesses.
`
`
`5 Furthermore, the R&R credited AXW’s stream-of-commerce theory “that LGL specifically
`targets the U.S. market” through, inter alia, “locations for Best Buy, Costco, Office Depot, Target,
`and Wal-Mart” that act “as authorized sellers of the Accused Products.” Dkt. 110 at 7; see also
`Dkt. 119 at 11 (adopting the R&R finding as to stream-of-commerce). While LGL does not agree
`with AXW’s theory, there are likewise authorized sellers of the Accused Products in the NDCA—
`e.g., other locations for Best Buy, Costco, Office Depot, Target, and/or Wal-Mart (Ta Decl., Exs.
`44-48) which, under the reasoning of the R&R, would likewise support jurisdiction in that district.
`6 See also In re Apple Inc., No. 2022-128, 2022 WL 1196768, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 22, 2022)
`(holding that Waco is not more convenient than CA for FL witness).
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 122 Filed 10/11/23 Page 16 of 23 PageID #:
`31389
`
`
`Relevant Witnesses7
`Intel8
`MediaTek
`Qualcomm
`Inventor Marcos Tzannes
`Inventor Joon Bae Kim
`Prior Art Witnesses
`Defendant LGL
`Non-parties LUS & Motorola 
`Plaintiff AXW
`Ideahub
`
`Israel
`Taiwan
`
`NDCA
`
`Locations
`Hillsboro, OR
`NDCA
`San Diego, CA
`NDCA
`NDCA
`NDCA
`China
`
`Chicago, IL
`Austin, TX
`Orange County, CA 
`
`Morrisville, NC
`
`Korea
`
`
`As discussed above, nearly all witnesses have significantly shorter travel times to reach
`
`courthouses in the NDCA and would require shorter (or no) hotel stays. Most of the identified
`
`witnesses in this case are located either in California or are substantially more convenient to the
`
`NDCA than EDTX, so witness convenience strongly favors transfer. See In re TS Tech. USA Corp.,
`
`551 F.3d 1315, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (transferring case where “the vast majority of identified
`
`witnesses, evidence, and events leading to this case involve” the transferee venue).
`
`2.
`
`Availability of Compulsory Process Strongly Favors Transfer.
`
`This factor “weigh[s] heavily in favor of transfer when more third-party witnesses reside
`
`within the transferee venue than reside in the transferor venue.” In re Apple, Inc., 581 F. App’x
`
`886, 889 (Fed. Cir. 2014). When there is “nothing on the other side of the ledger, the factor strongly
`
`
`7 This analysis assumes that party and non-party witnesses are willing to travel to the NDCA or
`the EDTX. See Seven Networks LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2:17-cv-442-JRG, 2018 WL 4026760, at
`*10 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 15, 2018). For any witnesses unwilling to travel, the compulsory process
`factor below would apply. See In re Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am., 52 F.4th 625, 630-31 (5th
`Cir. 2022). Either way, there are no witnesses in the EDTX who would be subject to the EDTX’s
`compulsory powers or for whom the EDTX would be more convenient than the NDCA.
`8 Even if Intel’s Rivet team in Austin were relevant—which it is not—travel from Austin to NDCA
`versus EDTX is neutral.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-00280-RWS-RSP Document 122 Filed 10/11/23 Page 17 of 23 PageID #:
`31390
`
`
`favors transfer.” In re Samsung Elecs. Co., 2 F.4th 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
`
`Here, AXW’s infringement allegat