Case 2:23-cv-00172-RWS-RSP Document 22 Filed 02/07/24 Page 1 of 21 PageID #: 637
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`SLYDE ANALYTICS LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`ZEPP HEALTH CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF SLYDE ANALYTICS LLC’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION
`TO DEFENDANT ZEPP HEALTH CORPORATION’S MOTION
`TRANSFER VENUE TO THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (DKT. 11)
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:23-cv-00172-RWS-RSP
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00172-RWS-RSP Document 22 Filed 02/07/24 Page 2 of 21 PageID #: 638
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`RESPONSE TO STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED ...................................... 1
`
`BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Procedural Background ........................................................................................... 2
`
`Slyde Analytics LLC............................................................................................... 2
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS ...................................................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) ............................................................... 3
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 5
`
`A.
`
`The Case Should Not be Transferred Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) ................. 5
`
`1.
`
`The Private Interest Factors Weigh Against Transfer................................. 5
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`Availability of Compulsory Process to Secure the
`Attendance of Witnesses Does Not Favor Transfer ........................ 5
`
`Relative Ease of Access to Sources of Proof Weigh
`Against Transfer.............................................................................. 7
`
`The Cost and Convenience of Attendance for Willing
`Witnesses Does Not Favor Transfer ............................................. 10
`
`All Other Practical Problems ........................................................ 12
`
`2.
`
`The Public Interest Factors Weigh Against Transfer ................................ 13
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`The Administrative Difficulties Flowing from Court
`Congestion Weigh Against Transfer ............................................. 13
`
`The Local-Interest Factor Weighs Against Transfer .................... 13
`
`VI.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 15
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00172-RWS-RSP Document 22 Filed 02/07/24 Page 3 of 21 PageID #: 639
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 2:17-CV-00516-JRG, 2018 WL 2721826 (E.D. Tex. June 6, 2018) ............................4, 12
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Huawei Device USA Inc.,
`No. 2:17-CV-00513-JRG, 2018 WL 2329752 (E.D. Tex. May 23, 2018) ................................7
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`Case No. 2:17-CV-00515, Dkt. 1 (E.D. Tex.) ...........................................................................6
`
`Aloft Media, LLC v. Adobe Sys. Inc.,
`No. 6:07-CV-355, 2008 WL 819956 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 2008) ..........................................3, 4
`
`In re Apple Inc.,
`No. 2018-151, Dkt. 20 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 16, 2018) .......................................................................3
`
`Core Wireless Licensing, S.A.R.L. v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 6:12-CV-100 LED-JDL, 2013 WL 682849 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 22, 2013) ....................3, 8, 11
`
`CXT Sys., Inc. v. Container Store, Inc.,
`No. 2:18-CV-00173-RWS-RSP, 2019 WL 1506015 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 5, 2019) ..................3, 12
`
`Decapolis Sys., LLC v. eClinicalWorks, LLC,
`No. 6:21-cv-00502, Dkt. No. 30 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 1, 2022) ....................................................14
`
`Def. Distr. v Bruck,
`30 F.4th 414 (5th Cir. 2022) ..............................................................................................6, 7, 9
`
`In re Genentech, Inc.,
`566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................12
`
`In re Google LLC,
`No. 2021-178, 2021 WL 5292267 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2021) .............................................8, 12
`
`Hammers v. Mayea-Chang,
`No. 2:19-CV-00181-JRG, 2019 WL 6728446 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 11, 2019) ................................9
`
`Kahn v. Gen. Motors Corp.,
`889 F.2d 1078 (Fed. Cir. 1989)..................................................................................................3
`
`LightGuide, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. 2:22-CV-00443-RWS-RSP, 2023 WL 6780180 (E.D. Tex. 2023) ................................6, 9
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00172-RWS-RSP Document 22 Filed 02/07/24 Page 4 of 21 PageID #: 640
`
`Lonestar Biometrics LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`Case No. 2:22-cv-00240, Dkt. 1 (E.D. Tex.) .............................................................................7
`
`Longhorn HD LLC. v. Juniper Networks, Inc.,
`No. 2:21-CV-00099-JRG, 2021 WL 4243382 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 16, 2021) .............................13
`
`NorthStar Sys. LLC v. Volkswagen AG,
`Case No. 2:22-cv-00486,, Dkt. 1 (E.D. Tex.) ..........................................................................10
`
`Peloton Interactive, Inc. v. Flywheel Sports, Inc.,
`No. 2:18-CV-00390, 2019 WL 2303034 (E.D. Tex. May 30, 2019) ......................................13
`
`In re Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc.,
`52 F.4th (5th Cir. 2022) ...................................................................................................5, 8, 10
`
`Quest NetTech Corp. v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 2:19-CV-00118-JRG, 2019 WL 6344267 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 27, 2019)................................3
`
`In re Radmax, Ltd.,
`720 F.3d 285 (5th Cir. 2013) .....................................................................................................7
`
`Seasons USA, Inc. v. FUN World, Inc.,
`No. 2:22-cv-00416, 2023 WL 5511521 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 25, 2023) ....................................4, 13
`
`Slyde Analytics LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co,
`Case No. 2:23-cv-00172, Dkt. 1 (E.D. Tex.) ...........................................................................12
`
`Stragent LLC v. Audi AG,
`No. 6:10-CV-227-LED-JDL, 2011 WL 2912907 (E.D. Tex. July 18, 2011) ..........................11
`
`Utterback v. Trustmark Nat’l Bank,
`716 F. App’x 241 (5th Cir. 2017) ..............................................................................................8
`
`In re Vistaprint, Ltd.,
`628 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................14
`
`Vocalife LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. 2:19-CV-00123-JRG, 2019 WL 6345191 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 27, 2019)..............................11
`
`In re Volkswagen AG,
`371 F.3d 201 (5th Cir. 2004) ...........................................................................................3, 4, 10
`
`In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc.,
`545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) .............................................................................................3, 4, 7
`
`Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) .....................................................................................................................3, 4
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00172-RWS-RSP Document 22 Filed 02/07/24 Page 5 of 21 PageID #: 641
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Slyde Analytics LLC (“Slyde” or “Plaintiff”) files this response to Defendant Zepp Health
`
`Corporation’s (“ZHC” or “Defendant”) motion to transfer venue to the Central District of
`
`California (“CDCA”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (Dkt. 11) (the “Motion”). The Motion
`
`should be denied because ZHC has failed to meet its burden to show that the CDCA is clearly
`
`more convenient for all parties and witnesses. Plaintiff Slyde is based in the Eastern District of
`
`Texas (“EDTX”), and has a significant presence in the EDTX, and therefore a strong local interest
`
`in having this case remain in this District. As set forth below, Slyde has identified sources of
`
`proof, as well as the convenience of its witnesses in the EDTX. Moreover, Slyde has identified
`
`numerous third parties with relevant information who may be subpoenaed in the EDTX and not
`
`the CDCA. The CDCA has no legitimate connection to this case. By its own admission, ZHC is
`
`a company whose business activities, personnel, and documents are almost entirely located in
`
`China. See Motion at 2. In the Motion, ZHC does not rely on its own activities in support of
`
`transfer, but rather relies on two speculative non-parties: Zepp, Inc. and Zepp North America, Inc.
`
`(“ZNA”) (collectively, “Zepp Entities”). Contrary to ZHC’s limited proofs in its Motion, ZHC
`
`does not have a strong presence in the CDCA, let alone a presence that could make it “clearly more
`
`convenient” than the EDTX. ZHC’s Motion is premised on incorrect and unsupported conclusions
`
`regarding Slyde’s presence in the EDTX. All the transfer factors either weigh against transfer or
`
`are neutral, and therefore the motion should be denied.
`
`II.
`
`RESPONSE TO STATEMENT OF ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`
`1.
`
`Whether ZHC has met its burden to establish that the CDCA is clearly more
`
`convenient, where it has failed to sufficiently identify witnesses and documents in the CDCA that
`
`would warrant transfer, and where Slyde has shown relative ease to sources of proof in this District
`
`and has demonstrated a presence in this District with several witnesses (both compulsory and non-
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00172-RWS-RSP Document 22 Filed 02/07/24 Page 6 of 21 PageID #: 642
`
`compulsory) who would be called at trial.
`
`III. BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Procedural Background
`
`Slyde filed its Complaint in this action on April 14, 2023, alleging infringement of U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 10,198,085; U.S. Patent No. 9,873,018; U.S. Patent No. 9,804,678; U.S. Patent No.
`
`9,651,922; U.S. Patent No. 9,536,134; U.S. Patent No. 9,320,457; U.S. Patent 8,588,033 (all
`
`collectively “the Asserted Patents”). See Dkt. 1. On December 11, 2023, ZHC filed the instant
`
`Motion, seeking transfer to the CDCA. Dkt. 11. On January 30, 2024, Slyde filed an Amended
`
`Complaint in this action. Dkt. 16.
`
`B.
`
`Slyde Analytics LLC
`
`Slyde is a Texas limited liability company, with a principal place of business located at 104
`
`East Houston Street, Marshall, Texas 75670. Ex. 1 ¶ 4.
`
` Id. ¶ 5.
`
` Id.
`
` Id.
`
` Id.
`
` Id. ¶ 8.
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Id. ¶ 4.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Id.
`
` Id.
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00172-RWS-RSP Document 22 Filed 02/07/24 Page 7 of 21 PageID #: 643
`
`
`
` Id.
`
`IV.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`A.
`
`Transfer Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)
`
`A motion to transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) should be denied unless the
`
`defendant sets forth good cause showing how transfer is “clearly more convenient for both parties
`
`involved, non-party witnesses, expert witnesses, and in the interest of justice.” Aloft Media, LLC
`
`v. Adobe Sys. Inc., No. 6:07-CV-355, 2008 WL 819956, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 2008).1 While
`
`“clearly more convenient” is not explicitly equivalent to “clear and convincing,” the moving party
`
`“must show materially more than a mere preponderance of convenience, lest the standard have no
`
`real or practical meaning.” Quest NetTech Corp. v. Apple, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-00118-JRG, 2019
`
`WL 6344267, at *7 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 27, 2019). This standard “places a significant burden on
`
`[Defendants] to show good cause for transfer:’ a burden that this Court does not take lightly.”
`
`Core Wireless Licensing, S.A.R.L. v. Apple, Inc., No. 6:12-CV-100 LED-JDL, 2013 WL 682849,
`
`at *2 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 22, 2013) (citing In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 314 n.10 (5th
`
`Cir. 2008) (“Volkswagen II”)). “[T]ransfer is inappropriate when it merely serves to shift
`
`inconveniences from one party to the other.” CXT Sys., Inc. v. Container Store, Inc., No. 2:18-
`
`CV-00173-RWS-RSP, 2019 WL 1506015, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 5, 2019) (citing Kahn v. Gen.
`
`Motors Corp., 889 F.2d 1078, 1083 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). The court must first determine whether the
`
`suit could have been brought in the proposed transferee district. In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d
`
`201, 203 (5th Cir. 2004) (“Volkswagen I”). If the court answers this question affirmatively, it then
`
`
`1 In re Apple Inc., No. 2018-151, Dkt. 20 at 4 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 16, 2018) (“[C]onsidering the
`convenience of the parties, while the [EDTX] may not be especially convenient for Apple, the
`Northern District of California would seem equally inconvenient for AGIS Software.”).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00172-RWS-RSP Document 22 Filed 02/07/24 Page 8 of 21 PageID #: 644
`
`considers the Fifth Circuit’s private and public interest factors. Id. The private-interest factors
`
`include: “(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 case easy, expeditious, and inexpensive. Id.
`
`(citations omitted). The public-interest factors include “(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[s]. . . .” Id.
`
`Here, ZHC has failed to meet its burden to establish that transfer to the CDCA is “clearly
`
`more convenient” for all parties and witnesses and in the interests of justice, and that transfer
`
`would not merely shift the conveniences from one party to another. See Aloft Media, 2008
`
`WL 819956, at *3; see also Seasons USA, Inc. v. FUN World, Inc., No. 2:22-cv-00416, 2023 WL
`
`5511521, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 25, 2023) (“The burden to prove that a case should be transferred
`
`for convenience falls squarely on the moving party.”). Accordingly, Slyde’s choice of forum
`
`should be respected. See Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 315. Additionally, when deciding a motion
`
`to transfer venue under § 1404(a), “the court may consider undisputed facts outside of the
`
`pleadings such as affidavits or declarations but it must draw all reasonable inferences and resolve
`
`factual conflicts in favor of the non-moving party.” AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Apple, Inc., No.
`
`2:17-CV-00516-JRG, 2018 WL 2721826, at *2 (E.D. Tex. June 6, 2018). Taken in their totality,
`
`the evidence in the Complaint and motion papers clearly demonstrate that Slyde is at home in this
`
`District and that the CDCA is not clearly more convenient.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00172-RWS-RSP Document 22 Filed 02/07/24 Page 9 of 21 PageID #: 645
`
`V.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`The Case Should Not be Transferred Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`§ 1404(a)
`
`1.
`
`The Private Interest Factors Weigh Against Transfer
`
`a.
`
`Availability of Compulsory Process to Secure the
`Attendance of Witnesses Does Not Favor Transfer
`
`This factor weighs against transfer because ZHC fails “to identify any witnesses who would
`
`be unwilling to testify.” In re Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc., 52 F.4th at 625, 630-31
`
`(5th Cir. 2022). Indeed, ZHC submits that this factor is neutral and fails to identify a single witness
`
`by name. ZHC does not identify any witnesses, either in Texas, California, the Cayman Islands,
`
`or China. Rather, ZHC submits that there are no witnesses with knowledge relevant to the instant
`
`litigation within the subpoena power of this Court. See Dkt. 11 at 8. ZHC further states that any
`
`of ZNA’s former employees who may have relevant knowledge also reside in the CDCA. Id.
`
`However, ZHC fails to identify, with specificity, these individuals that purportedly have relevant
`
`knowledge, and the only individuals ZHC specifically identifies are Mr. Sarraj (a current Zepp,
`
`Inc. employee) and Mr. Thomas Moore (an independent contractor of Zepp, Inc.), both of whom
`
`reside in Texas but allegedly have no knowledge relevant to this matter. Dkt. 11-1, ¶¶ 9-10. Based
`
`on these facts, ZHC admits that this factor is, at best, neutral.
`
`ZHC does, however, have two independent members of its Board of Directors with offices
`
`in Texas: (1) Mr. Jimmy Lai (“Mr. Lai”), who maintains a business address at 4521 Tumberry
`
`Court, Plano, Texas, 75024, which is located in the EDTX; and (2) Mr. Bing Xie, who has a
`
`business address at 10005 Meadowbrook Drive, Dallas, Texas 75229. Ex. A at 218. Messrs. Bing
`
`and Lai are both independent directors of ZHC and are members of ZHC’s audit committee (among
`
`other committees), which is responsible for overseeing ZHC’s accounting and financial reporting
`
`processes and auditing the financial statements of ZHC. Id. at 210. Based on their positions with
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00172-RWS-RSP Document 22 Filed 02/07/24 Page 10 of 21 PageID #: 646
`
`ZHC and publicly-available information, Messrs. Bing and Lai have relevant knowledge regarding
`
`ZHC’s financials, which bear a relevance to a damages analysis. It is likely that Messrs. Bing and
`
`Lai will be called to testify on behalf of ZHC, either at trial or by deposition.
`
`Without specifically identifying witnesses, what titles or positions they hold with Zepp,
`
`Inc. or ZNA, what relevant knowledge they allegedly possess, if they would be called at trial, or
`
`whether they are unwilling, ZHC has failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that this factor
`
`weighs in favor of transfer. Def. Distr. v Bruck, 30 F.4th 414, 434 (5th Cir. 2022) (confirming the
`
`Fifth Circuit test requires specific evidence showing how relevant proofs will be used at trial).
`
`LightGuide, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:22-CV-00443-RWS-RSP, 2023 WL 6780180, at *6
`
`(E.D. Tex. 2023) (“Similar to the precedent relied upon by Defendant, vague assertions that
`
`witnesses are located in a particular forum are unpersuasive, especially in light of a record
`
`demonstrating that only a portion of the relevant employees could be located in Seattle”).
`
`Slyde has identified several third-party witnesses who operate businesses in the EDTX and
`
`are within the Court’s subpoena power. Slyde identifies AGIS Software Development LLC, which
`
`is located in the EDTX and its principal Mr. Malcolm “Cap” Beyer, Jr. Mr. Beyer has extensive
`
`experience and knowledge regarding prior art, as well as patent licensing of similar technologies,
`
`including smartwatches. See AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. LG Elecs., Inc., Case No. 2:17-CV-
`
`00515 (E.D. Tex.) (Dkt. 1); Slyde further identifies
`
`in the EDTX.
`
`
`
`, all of which are based
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00172-RWS-RSP Document 22 Filed 02/07/24 Page 11 of 21 PageID #: 647
`
`See also Lonestar Biometrics LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Case No. 2:22-cv-00240 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`(Dkt. 1).
`
`Samsung is also a relevant third party because it has licensed software that practices the
`
`Asserted Patents. Samsung is located in the EDTX, and its witnesses are also likely located in the
`
`EDTX or may be subpoenaed in the EDTX. For example, Mr. Sean Diaz, who is knowledgeable
`
`regarding Samsung’s sales of products that include licensed software in the United States, I located
`
`in the EDTX, and may be subpoenaed in the EDTX. Id.2 Samsung’s witnesses will likely be able
`
`to testify regarding negotiation of software licenses related to the Asserted Patents.
`
`Because ZHC has failed to identify any witnesses it would call at trial who live or work in
`
`the proposed transferee district (to the extent they even exist), while Slyde has identified several
`
`witnesses with relevant knowledge who may be subpoenaed in the EDTX, this private interest
`
`factor weighs against transfer.
`
`b.
`
`Relative Ease of Access to Sources of Proof Weigh
`Against Transfer
`
`This factor assesses the relative ease of access to sources of proof, including documentary
`
`and other physical evidence. See Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 315. The “question is relative ease
`
`of access, not absolute ease of access.” In re Radmax, Ltd., 720 F.3d 285, 288 (5th Cir. 2013). As
`
`the Fifth Circuit has recently reiterated, and as this Court has repeatedly stated, a movant must
`
`specifically identify and locate sources of proof and explain their relevance. See Def. Distrib. , 30
`
`F.4th at 434 (“Regarding the first private interest factor, the movant has the burden to establish
`
`good cause, which requires an actual showing of the existence of relevant sources of proof, not
`
`merely an expression that some sources likely exist in the prospective forum.”); see also AGIS
`
`Software Dev. LLC v. Huawei Device USA Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00513-JRG, 2018 WL 2329752, at
`
`
`2 See https://www.linkedin.com/in/sean-diaz-14477817/
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00172-RWS-RSP Document 22 Filed 02/07/24 Page 12 of 21 PageID #: 648
`
`*5 (E.D. Tex. May 23, 2018); Utterback v. Trustmark Nat’l Bank, 716 F. App’x 241, 245 n.10 (5th
`
`Cir. 2017). ZHC has not met its burden here as it has failed to specifically identify any sources of
`
`proof in the transferee district – either physical or electronic. Indeed, ZHC admits that “[m]ost of
`
`the documents and records of ZHC are stored and maintained on the cloud.” Mot. at 3; see also
`
`id. (“Most of the documents and records of both ZNA and Zepp, Inc. are stored and maintained on
`
`the cloud.”). Accordingly, this factor does not weigh in favor of transfer because the evidence
`
`identified by ZHC is located on the cloud and equally accessible in the EDTX. In re Planned
`
`Parenthood, 52 F.4th at 625 (“[T]he vast majority of the evidence was electronic, and therefore
`
`equally accessible in either forum.”).
`
`The Yeung Declaration submitted in support of ZHC’s request to transfer venue does little
`
`more than identify broad categories of documents, which he admits are, for the most part, not
`
`stored in the CDCA. See Dkt. 11-1, ¶¶ 11-12. The only physical documents referenced by
`
`Mr. Yeung relate to ZNA and Zepp, Inc. Id. ¶ 12. Mr. Yeung, however, fails to specifically
`
`identify what these “documents and records” contain, and fails to submit with certainty that any
`
`physical documents for these two entities exist. Id.; see Core Wireless Licensing, S.A.R.L, 2013
`
`WL 682849, at *3 (finding statement that “virtually all [defendant] business documents and
`
`records relating to the research, design, development, marketing strategy, and product revenue
`
`related to the Accused Products are located in or near Cupertino” was too vague to be considered.)
`
`To the extent any substantive information can be gleaned from Mr. Yeung’s Declaration, the
`
`majority of documents for the Zepp Entities exist on the cloud and are maintained by individuals
`
`in China. Dkt. 11-1, ¶¶ 11-12. The vague and general statements provided by ZHC through its
`
`Motion and the Yeung Declaration support that this factor weighs against transfer. See In re
`
`Google LLC, No. 2021-178, 2021 WL 5292267, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2021) (finding that a
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00172-RWS-RSP Document 22 Filed 02/07/24 Page 13 of 21 PageID #: 649
`
`court should consider “the location of document custodians and location where documents are
`
`created and maintained” when facing a motion to transfer); LightGuide, Inc., 2023 WL 6780180,
`
`at *5 (holding the physical evidence weighs against transfer where “Defendant’s assertions
`
`regarding physical evidence, namely physical documents duplicating electronic evidence related
`
`to design and development of the . . . technology, were addressed above. No physical evidence is
`
`specifically alleged by Defendant.”). As the Yeung Declaration makes clear, the individuals
`
`responsible for maintaining (and likely creating) the Zepp Entities’ documents and records are
`
`located in China, not California and, therefore, the documents themselves are likely located in
`
`China, not California. See Dkt. 11-1 ¶ 11.
`
`The Yeung Declaration also fails to identify any specific sources of proof located in the
`
`CDCA and how they are relevant to trial. Def. Distrib., 30 F.4th at 434 (confirming the Fifth
`
`Circuit test requires specific evidence showing how relevant proofs will be used at trial).3 It is
`
`unclear whether there are any physical documents in the CDCA. The only information ZHC has
`
`provided for the Court to consider through the Yeung Declaration is that the Zepp Entities maintain
`
`documents, primarily on the cloud. The nature of these documents and relevance to the instant
`
`matter are unknown based on ZHC’s Motion.
`
`In contrast,
`
`.
`
` See Ex. 1 ¶ 4.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3 See also Hammers v. Mayea-Chang, No. 2:19-CV-00181-JRG, 2019 WL 6728446, at *7 (E.D.
`Tex. Dec. 11, 2019) (“Since the inquiry is only focused on evidence that will be used at trial, a
`movant fails to meet its burden if it does not explain how a particular source of proof will be used
`at trial.”) (cited with approval in Def. Distrib., 30 F.4th at 434).
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00172-RWS-RSP Document 22 Filed 02/07/24 Page 14 of 21 PageID #: 650
`
`Id. ¶ 5. Slyde’s sources of proof “bear[] much more strongly on the transfer analysis” than the
`
`”cloud” documents identified by ZHC. Planned Parenthood, 52 F.4th at 630. Accordingly, any
`
`documents related to the distribution of software are likewise located in this District.
`
`Additional sources of proof are also located in this District. Several third parties likely
`
`maintain documents that are easily accessible from this District and inaccessible from the CDCA.
`
`In addition,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`factors for patent damages. Accordingly, all of Slyde’s sources of proof, as well as proof from
`
`.4 These documents are relevant at least to the Georgia Pacific
`
`third parties, are located in this District.
`
`Because Slyde’s documents, as well as relevant third-party documents, are located in this
`
`District, and because ZHC has failed to specifically identify any relevant proofs in the transferee
`
`district (or any proofs at all), the first private interest factor weighs against transfer.
`
`c.
`
`The Cost and Convenience of Attendance for Willing
`Witnesses Does Not Favor Transfer
`
`Similarly, this factor, which assesses the convenience of willing witnesses of both party
`
`witnesses and willing third-party witnesses, weighs against transfer. See Volkswagen I, 371 F.3d
`
`at 204-205. ZHC does not identify a single willing witness with relevant information in the
`
`proposed transferee district. ZHC states, in conclusory fashion, that any witnesses with relevant
`
`knowledge from Zepp, Inc. or ZNA, are located in the CDCA. See Dkt. 11-1, ¶¶ 7-10. However,
`
`ZHC has not identified what witnesses in the CDCA possess relevant knowledge. ZHC contends
`
`that none of its employees have specific knowledge regarding the design and development,
`
`manufacture, sale or offer for sale, or importation into the United States, of the accused Amazfit
`
`
`4 See, e.g., NorthStar Sys. LLC v. Volkswagen AG, Case No. 2:22-cv-00486 (E.D. Tex.) (Dkt. 1).
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00172-RWS-RSP Document 22 Filed 02/07/24 Page 15 of 21 PageID #: 651
`
`brand smartwatches and therefore has no potential “willing witnesses.” Dkt. 11 at 5-6. Instead,
`
`ZHC asks the Court to rely upon the bald assertion that ZNA’s unnamed and unidentified
`
`employees in the CDCA are the only persons with relevant knowledge. This is insufficient to
`
`satisfy the third private interest factor, particularly where it is ZHC’s burden to establish that
`
`transfer is warranted. See Core Wireless, 2013 WL 682849, at *4 (finding “[w]ithout naming any
`
`persons, their interest in the litigation, and where they reside, the Court can only speculate as to
`
`the difficulty and cost of travel.”); see also Vocalife LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-
`
`00123-JRG, 2019 WL 6345191, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 27, 2019) (finding factor did not favor
`
`transfer where defendant did not identify details and importance of identified witnesses’
`
`testimony). This assertion is also contradicted by Mr. Yeung’s Declaration, which states that the
`
`individuals responsible for maintaining (and likely creating) ZHC’s, Zepp, Inc.’s, and ZNA’s
`
`documents and records are located in China, not California. See Dkt. 11-1 ¶ 11.
`
`ZHC cannot rely on unnamed witnesses allegedly located in the CDCA. See Core
`
`Wireless, 2013 WL 682849, at *4 (“The Court cannot take Apple’s generalizations to assume all
`
`willing witnesses would be in the Cupertino Area.”). Further, the convenience of foreign witnesses
`
`is not afforded great weight under the transfer analysis. See Stragent LLC v. Audi AG, No. 6:10-
`
`CV-227-LED-JDL, 2011 WL 2912907, at n. 7 (E.D. Tex. July 18, 2011) (“However, under these
`
`circumstances, taking into account the convenience of potential foreign witnesses would not affect
`
`the convenience analysis because Movants have not identified any foreign witnesses, much less
`
`any inconvenience that would be suffered by such witnesses.”). Even if ZHC had identified
`
`willing witnesses abroad, this factor would still not weigh in favor of transfer. Id. (“Because any
`
`documents and witnesses located abroad will have to travel ‘a significant distance no matter where
`
`they testify,’ the inconvenience of transporting such documents or the inconvenience of any
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00172-RWS-RSP Document 22 Filed 02/07/24 Page 16 of 21 PageID #: 652
`
`foreign witnesses will be discounted.”) (citing In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1344 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2009) (discounting European witnesses in the convenience analysis because “[t]he witnesses
`
`from Europe will be required to travel a significant distance no matter where they testify”)).
`
`In stark contrast, and as stated supra,
`
` See Ex. 1 ¶¶ 3-10.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Id., ¶¶ 3-4.
`
`
`
`
`
` Id. ¶ 8.
`
`Accordingly, this factor weighs against transfer.
`
`d.
`
`All Other Practical Problems
`
`All other practical considerations weigh against transfer. Several of the Asserted Patents
`
`at issue in this case are also at issue in a related case currently pending against Samsung in this
`
`District. See Slyde Analytics LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co,, Case No. 2:23-cv-00172 (E.D. Tex.)
`
`(Dkt. 1). At this time, Samsung has not made a motion to transfer. Cf. AGIS Software Dev. LLC
`
`v. Apple, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00516-JRG, 2018 WL 2721826, at *7 (E.D. Tex. June 6, 2018)
`
`(“Rather, In re Google indicates that courts should avoid considering copending cases which
`
`currently have, or have had, motions to transfer venue to avoid any ‘double count’ in according
`
`proper weight.”). As a result, this Court will become familiar with the Asserted Patents and
`
`technology at issue, which weighs in favor of keeping this case in the EDTX as well. See CXT
`
`Sys., Inc., No., 2019 WL 1506015, at *5 (“The Court finds that significant judicial economy would
`
`result from having one court decide all of the issues related to the patents-in-suit across the eight
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:23-cv-00172-RWS-RSP Document 22 Filed 02/07/24 Page 17 of 21 PageID #: 653
`
`co-pending consolidated cases.”). see also Seasons USA, 2023 WL 5511521, at *4 (“The parallel
`
`litigation present in this district weighs against transfer since the majority of the factors are neutral
`
`and five cases involving the same asserted copyrights are within this District.”). Accordingly, all
`
`other practical considerations weigh against transfer or are at least neutral.
`
`2.
`
`The Public Interest Factors Weigh Against Transfer
`
`a.
`
`The Administrative Difficulties Flowing from Court
`Congestion Weigh Against Transfer
`
`ZHC avers that the first public interest factor is neutral regarding the transfer analysis.
`
`ZHC, however, ignores past precedent in this District that finds this factor weighs against transfer
`
`where the time to trial, on average, is faster in the EDTX when compared to other districts. See,
`
`e.g., Longhorn HD LLC. v. Juniper Networks, Inc., No. 2:21-CV-00099-JRG, 2021 WL 4243382,
`
`at *5 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 16, 2021); Peloton Interactive, Inc. v. Flywheel Sports, Inc., No. 2:18-CV-
`
`00390, 2019 WL 2303034, at *5 (E.D. Tex. May 30, 2019). Over a twelve-month period ending
`
`in September 2023, the median time to trial in civil cases in the CDCA was 28.4 mo