`DATABRICKS, INC.,
`
`
`v.
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`DATABRICKS, INC.’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-00162-JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 11/18/24 Page 1 of 21 PageID #:
`697
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`BYTEWEAVR, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Civil Action No. 2:24-cv-00162-JRG-RSP
`
` JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00162-JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 11/18/24 Page 2 of 21 PageID #:
`698
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`E.
`
`The NDCA is Where the Accused Platform Was Designed and
`Developed. ...............................................................................................................1
`
`The NDCA Is the Location of Databricks, its Witnesses, and its
`Documents. ..............................................................................................................2
`
`Byteweavr is Closer to NDCA Than to EDTX, and its Only Tie to
`Texas is a Recently-Manufactured Artifact of Litigation, Outside this
`District......................................................................................................................4
`
`Named Inventors of the Asserted Patents Are Located in the NDCA. ....................6
`
`Third-Party Prior Art Witnesses Are Located in the NDCA. ..................................6
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ..........................................................................................................7
`
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................8
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Byteweavr Could Have Brought This Suit in the NDCA. .......................................8
`
`The Private Interest Factors Strongly Favor Transfer to the NDCA. ......................8
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Witnesses Could Attend Trial More Easily in the NDCA. ..........................9
`
`The Sources of Proof Are Most Easily Accessed in the NDCA. ...............10
`
`Important Non-Party Witnesses Could Be Compelled to Testify
`in NDCA, But Not in EDTX......................................................................13
`
`Practical Issues of Litigation Favor Transfer. ............................................13
`
`C.
`
`The Public Factors Favor Transfer or Are Neutral. ...............................................13
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`The NDCA Has a Greater Interest in Resolving This Case .......................14
`
`Court Congestion Is Neutral. .....................................................................15
`
`Familiarity of the Forum with the Law Is Neutral. ....................................15
`
`Conflicts of Law or Foreign Law Is Neutral. .............................................15
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION. .................................................................................................................15
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00162-JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 11/18/24 Page 3 of 21 PageID #:
`699
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`CASES
`
`EMC Corp. v. Intell. Ventures I, LLC,
`IPR2017-00374, Paper 53 (PTAB June 20, 2018) .....................................................................7
`
`EMC Corp. v. Intell. Ventures I, LLC,
`IPR2017-00439, Paper 50 (PTAB June 20, 2018) .....................................................................7
`
`In re Apple Inc.,
`979 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2020)..............................................................................11, 12, 13, 14
`
`In re DoDots Licensing Sols. LLC,
`No. 2024-100, 2023 WL 8642716 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 14, 2023) (per curiam) ...............................9
`
`In re FedEx Corp. Servs., Inc.,
`No. 2022-156, 2022 WL 10887770 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 19, 2022)...........................................14, 15
`
`In re Genentech, Inc.,
`566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................15
`
`In re Google LLC,
`58 F.4th 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ................................................................................................15
`
`In re Google LLC,
`No. 2021-178, 2021 WL 5292267 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2021) (per curiam) .......................10, 12
`
`In re Honeywell Int’l Inc.,
`No. 2023-152, 2024 WL 302397 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 26, 2024) (per curiam) ................................11
`
`In re HP Inc.,
`826 F. App’x 899 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (per curiam) .....................................................................12
`
`In re Netflix,
`2022 WL 167470 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 19, 2022) (per curiam) ..................................................11, 12
`
`In re Nintendo Co.,
`589 F.3d 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..................................................................................................8
`
`In re TikTok, Inc.,
`85 F.4th 352 (5th Cir. 2023) ....................................................................................................10
`
`In re TracFone Wireless, Inc.,
`852 F. App’x 537 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................................9
`
`In re Volkswagen AG,
`371 F.3d 201 (5th Cir. 2004) (per curiam) .................................................................................8
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00162-JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 11/18/24 Page 4 of 21 PageID #:
`700
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc.,
`545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) ...........................................................................................7, 8, 13
`
`Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Hewlett Packard Enter. Co.,
`No. 6:21-CV-00226-ADA, slip op. (W.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2021) .............................................13
`
`Jawbone Innovations v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. 2:21-CV-00435-JRG, slip op. (E.D. Tex. Sept. 21, 2022) ................................................15
`
`VMware, Inc. v. Intell. Ventures I LLC,
`IPR2020-00470, Paper 13 (PTAB Aug. 18, 2020) ....................................................................7
`
`STATUTES
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) .........................................................................................................................8
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) ...........................................................................................................1, 7, 8, 13
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00162-JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 11/18/24 Page 5 of 21 PageID #:
`701
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This case belongs in the Northern District of California (“NDCA”). Plaintiff Byteweavr,
`
`LLC (“Byteweavr”) accuses Databricks’ cloud data platform, and specifically six functionalities
`
`of the platform, of infringing seven patents. The design and development of this platform began
`
`in 2013 in Northern California, where Databricks was founded and where it continues to be
`
`headquartered. And the development work on this platform and its various functionalities
`
`continues primarily in that district to this day. The Databricks engineers who worked on this
`
`platform, and who have continued to develop it over the last decade, are almost entirely located in
`
`Northern California. Likewise, the source code and documents regarding design and development
`
`were created, and continue to be maintained, primarily in Northern California.
`
`In contrast, this case has no meaningful connection to any location in this District. No
`
`relevant witnesses or evidence are located here. Nor did any of the events leading to this action
`
`arise in Texas. Byteweavr’s only purported connection—a “registered address” in a different
`
`district in Texas—is nothing more than a recent, ephemeral artifact of litigation that merits no
`
`weight in the transfer analysis. Indeed, Byteweavr’s only two disclosed witnesses are two former
`
`Intellectual Ventures employees who are located outside of Seattle, Washington—more than 1400
`
`miles closer to the NDCA than to the EDTX. Because virtually all evidence and witnesses are in
`
`or significantly closer to Northern California, the NDCA is clearly more convenient than this
`
`District. Databricks respectfully requests transfer of this case to the NDCA pursuant to § 1404(a).
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`The NDCA is Where the Accused Platform Was Designed and Developed.
`
`In its Infringement Contentions, Byteweavr alleges infringement of seven patents1 through
`
`
`1 Byteweavr asserts seven patents in this case: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,839,733 (the ’733 patent);
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00162-JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 11/18/24 Page 6 of 21 PageID #:
`702
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`“methods performed by Databricks, via its cloud data platform,” specifically identifying the “Data
`
`Lakehouse Platform” and “Data Intelligence Platform.”2 (See Declaration of Jessica M. Kaempf
`
`(“Kaempf Decl.”), Ex. A3 (Cover Pleading for Infringement Contentions) at 3-5). The Databricks
`
`cloud data platform was designed and developed starting in 2013, in Northern California. (See
`
`Declaration of Abhinav Taneja (“Taneja Decl.”) ¶¶ 6.) Since 2013, the Databricks platform has
`
`been continually developed to include new functionalities, and such development has likewise
`
`occurred primarily in the NDCA. (See id.)
`
`Byteweavr specifically accuses six functionalities of infringement: Spark, Workflows,
`
`Jobs, MLflow, Data Engineering (specifically, “Databricks compute” and “Apache Spark”), and
`
`Databricks File System (DBFS). (See Ex. A at 3.) All but one of those functionalities were
`
`primarily designed and developed in Northern California.4 (See Taneja Decl. at ¶¶ 10, 11.) As
`
`one example, the accused “Spark” functionality, which is at the heart of the Databricks platform,
`
`started in 2009 as a research project at the University of California, Berkeley (“UC Berkeley”).
`
`(Id. ¶ 6.) That UC Berkeley project was led by the now-founders of Databricks. (Id.) After open-
`
`sourcing Spark in 2010 and donating it to the Apache Software Foundation in 2013, the creators
`
`of Spark founded Databricks as an efficient and simple platform for running Apache Spark
`
`workloads. (Id.) The design and development of Spark, like most functionalities of the Databricks
`
`platform, is deeply rooted in Northern California.
`
`B.
`
`The NDCA Is the Location of Databricks, its Witnesses, and its Documents.
`
`Databricks was founded in the San Francisco Bay Area, California. (Id. ¶ 4.) Databricks
`
`
`7,949,752 (the ’752 patent); 6,862,488 (the ’488 patent); 6,965,897 (the ’897 patent); 8,275,827
`(the ’827 patent); 7,082,474 (the ’474 patent); RE42,153 (the ’153 patent).
`2 Databricks’ cloud data platform was previously known as the Data Lakehouse Platform and
`is now known as the Data Intelligence Platform.
`3 Exhibits referenced herein are attached to the Kaempf Declaration, unless otherwise noted.
`4
` (Taneja Decl. ¶¶ 9.)
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00162-JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 11/18/24 Page 7 of 21 PageID #:
`703
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`is, and always has been, headquartered in the NDCA. (Id.) Databricks also maintains two other
`
`offices in that district, in Mountain View and Berkeley. (Id.) All decision-making relating to the
`
`design, development, sales, and marketing of the accused Databricks platform has historically
`
`been, and continues to be, centered in Northern California. (Id. ¶ 4.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Databricks has identified several witnesses who it expects to testify at trial in this case, and
`
`all are based in its offices in Northern California. (Ex. B (Databricks Supplemental Disclosures)
`
`at 4-5.) Specifically, Databricks has identified the following witnesses:
`
`
`
`
`
` is a Software Engineer who worked on Spark as early as 2012
`
`while studying computer science in graduate school at U.C. Berkeley and who then joined
`
`Databricks in 2014. (Taneja Decl. ¶ 9.)
`
`has worked on the Databricks platform,
`
`and various functionalities of the platform, for more than a decade. (Id.) He is based in
`
`the San Francisco office of Databricks. (Id.)
`
` is a Director of Engineering at Databricks. (Id. at ¶ 10.)
`
`
`
`has worked on the Databricks Compute team for several years and has knowledge
`
`about multiple Compute functionalities that Byteweavr has accused of infringement,
`
`including Apache Spark and DBFS, as well as the functionalities that customers run on the
`
`Databricks Compute infrastructure, including Workflows and Jobs. (Id.) He is based in
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00162-JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 11/18/24 Page 8 of 21 PageID #:
`704
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`the Mountain View, California office of Databricks. (Id.)
`
` is a Software Engineer at Databricks. (Id. at ¶ 11.)
`
`
`
` is on the Machine Learning (ML) team, and has knowledge about the “MLFlow”
`
`functionality accused of infringement. (Id.) He is based in the Mountain View, California
`
`office of Databricks. (Id.)
`
` is Senior Vice President of Finance & Accounting,
`
`
`
`
`
`and has relevant knowledge about the financial aspects relating to the Databricks platform.
`
`(Id. at ¶ 12.) He is based in the San Francisco office of Databricks. (Id.)
`
`Documents concerning the design, development, and operation of the Databricks Platform,
`
`as well as any finance documentation, are primarily created and maintained in Databricks’
`
`Northern California offices, where the vast majority of Databricks engineers are based. (Id. ¶ 8.)
`
`The source code for the Databricks Platform is also primarily created and maintained in Northern
`
`California. (Id.) Importantly, the Databricks support personnel who will generate the code
`
`computer for purposes of discovery in this case, pursuant to the parties’ agreed-upon Protective
`
`Order (Dkt. 32), are based in Northern California. (Id. at ¶ 13.) Any source code computer made
`
`available for inspection in this case will be in Northern California. (Kaempf Decl. ¶ 36.)
`
`In contrast, no Databricks employees who work on design and development of the
`
`Databricks platform, or on finance related to the Databricks platform, live or work in Marshall or
`
`anywhere else in this District. (Taneja Decl. ¶ 14.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Byteweavr is Closer to NDCA Than to EDTX, and its Only Tie to Texas is a
`Recently-Manufactured Artifact of Litigation, Outside this District.
`
`Byteweavr’s true home is Washington, which is significantly closer to NDCA than to
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00162-JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 11/18/24 Page 9 of 21 PageID #:
`705
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`EDTX. Byteweavr is a wholly owned subsidiary of Mind Fusion, LLC (“Mind Fusion”), which
`
`in turn is a subsidiary of Ascend Innovation Management, LLC (“Ascend”). (Dkt. 29.) Mind
`
`Fusion was originally formed in Washington on February 5, 2023 and remained a Washington
`
`entity at the time Byteweavr filed this lawsuit on March 8, 2024.5 (Ex. C.) Ascend is likewise a
`
`Washington entity. (Ex. D.)
`
`The only witnesses identified on Byteweavr’s Initial Disclosures are Riad Chummun and
`
`James Weisfield, who reside near Seattle, Washington. (Ex. E (Plaintiff’s Initial Disclosures); id.
`
`at Exs. F, G.) Messrs. Chummun and Weisfield are the Principals and Co-Founders of Ascend.
`
`(Ex. D.) They are also both former employees of Intellectual Ventures (IV), the previous assignee
`
`of the seven asserted patents.6 (Exs. H, I, J, K (Assignment Agreements).) IV assigned the patents
`
`to an affiliate of Byteweavr (specifically, Mind Fusion or AI-Core). (Id.) Each of the assignment
`
`agreements indicates that the patents were assigned for “good and valuable consideration,” but
`
`does not otherwise specify the value paid. (Id.) Also, each assignment agreement was signed by
`
`Janice L. Goebel, a former IV paralegal, who performs work for Byteweavr and its affiliates. (Id.)
`
`Ms. Goebel resides near Seattle, Washington. (Ex. L.) Mssrs. Chummun and Weisfield, their
`
`former employer IV, and Ms. Goebel, have information about the purchase and sale of, and thus
`
`value of, the asserted patents.
`
`While Byteweavr purports to be “registered” in Houston, Texas (Dkt. 1, ¶ 1), Byteweavr
`
`pleads no facts suggesting any connections in this District other than being “registered” in a
`
`
`5 While Mind Fusion was converted to a Texas entity, such conversion did not occur until May
`30, 2024—over two months after this litigation began. (Compare Ex. C (Texas Certificate of
`Conversion) (filing date, April 29, 2024), with Dkt. 1 (complaint filed March 8, 2024).)
`6 Each of the assignment agreements is executed by Lawrence Froeber, Chief Financial Officer
`(CFO) of IV, who is based in Bellevue, Washington. The assignment records list “Intellectual
`Ventures Management – IP Legal” as the correspondent, and the listed address is, again, in
`Bellevue, Washington. (Exs. H, I, J, K (Assignment Agreements).)
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00162-JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 11/18/24 Page 10 of 21 PageID #:
`706
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`different judicial district in the same state. Importantly, Byteweavr’s registration in Texas
`
`occurred just months before it brought suit against Databricks. (Compare Ex. M (Byteweavr –
`
`Texas Entity Information) (filing date, June 21, 2023), with Dkt. 1 (complaint filing date, March
`
`8, 2024)). Its parent entity, Mind Fusion, did not become a Texas entity until after this lawsuit
`
`began (supra, note 5), and its grandparent entity and principals have no identifiable connection to
`
`Texas, other than its patent litigation campaign. (See Exs. D, F, G.) Further, both Byteweavr and
`
`Mind Fusion list addresses associated with virtual office spaces as their principal places of business
`
`in Texas, indicating no permanent presence in the state.7 None of Byteweavr, Mind Fusion or
`
`Ascend IP has any identifiable employees based in Texas. (See, e.g., Exs. D, M, N.) Byteweavr’s
`
`corporate structure makes clear that its true home is Washington.
`
`D.
`
`Named Inventors of the Asserted Patents Are Located in the NDCA.
`
`At least four of the named inventors of the asserted patents are likewise based in the
`
`Northern District of California. This includes three of the named inventors of the ’752 and ’733
`
`patents: Danny Lange, in the San Francisco, Bay Area, Barbara Nelson, in San Mateo, California,
`
`and Jing Su,
`
` (Exs. R, S, T.) This also includes one of the named inventors of
`
`the ’153 Patent: David Pope Anderson,
`
` (Ex. U.) There is no indication that any
`
`of these witnesses can be contacted through Plaintiff Byteweavr’s counsel, or would otherwise be
`
`willing to testify in this litigation. (Ex. E.) While four other named inventors of certain asserted
`
`patents appear to be based in Texas, none are located in EDTX. (Ex. V, W, X, Y.)
`
`E.
`
`Third-Party Prior Art Witnesses Are Located in the NDCA.
`
`Several non-party witnesses knowledgeable about important prior art, which has been used
`
`
`7 Mind Fusion’s and Bytweavr’s addresses are addresses are associated with Alliance Virtual
`Offices and IncFile.com, LLC (“IncFile”), also known as Bizee, respectively. (See Ex. M; Ex. N;
`Ex. O (Alliance Virtual Office Website); Ex. P (IncFile HomePage); Ex. Q (Bizee Virtual Address
`page).) Both offer addresses for businesses, but do not offer permanent office space. (Id.)
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00162-JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 11/18/24 Page 11 of 21 PageID #:
`707
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`to successfully challenge claims of the asserted patents before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`(“PTAB”), are based in the NDCA. Specifically, in prior inter partes review (IPR) proceedings
`
`regarding the ’827 patent, the PTAB previously invalidated all claims of the ’827 patent subject
`
`of the invalidity challenge.8 One of the references that the PTAB relied upon to invalidate the
`
`challenged claims is OceanStore: An Architecture for Global-Scale Persistent Storage. At least
`
`three of the authors of the invalidating Oceanstore reference are located in Northern California:
`
`Steven Czerwinski (Ex. Z), Ramakrishna Gummadi (Ex. AA), Sean Rhea (Ex. AB).
`
`Similarly, the PTAB instituted an IPR proceeding on the ’752 patent,9 specifically relying
`
`primarily on two prior art references: U.S. Patent No. 6,603,031 (filed Jul. 8, 1993) (“White”) and
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,029,179 (filed Jun. 7, 1996) (“Chow”). The White reference lists three named
`
`inventors, two of whom are in Northern California: Christopher S. Helgeson, in Mountain View,
`
`CA (Ex. AC), and Douglas A. Steedman, in Mountain View, CA (Ex. AD). The Chow reference
`
`lists five named inventors. At least two of those inventors are located in Northern California: Yen
`
`Whei Chow in
`
` (Ex. AE) and Neil A. Jacobstein, in Mountain View (Ex. AF). At least
`
`one of the other Chow inventors is located in Southern California: Frederick A. Hayes-Roth, in
`
`La Quinta, CA (Ex. AG). Like the named inventors of the asserted patents identified above, there
`
`is no indication that these prior art witnesses would be willing to testify in this litigation.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`“For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may
`
`transfer” any civil action to any district “where it might have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
`
`Courts should transfer where “the transferee venue is clearly more convenient.” In re Volkswagen
`
`
`8 EMC Corp. v. Intell. Ventures I, LLC, IPR2017-00374, Paper 53 at 59 (PTAB June 20, 2018);
`EMC Corp. v. Intell. Ventures I, LLC, IPR2017-00439, Paper 50 (PTAB June 20, 2018).
`9 VMware, Inc. v. Intell. Ventures I LLC, IPR2020-00470, Paper 13 (PTAB Aug. 18, 2020).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00162-JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 11/18/24 Page 12 of 21 PageID #:
`708
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 315 (5th Cir. 2008). The threshold “question under § 1404(a) is whether
`
`a civil action ‘might have been brought’ in the destination venue.” Id. at 312. Assuming so, courts
`
`then consider whether the “private” and “public” factors favor transfer. Id. The private factors
`
`are “(1) the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (2) the availability of compulsory process
`
`to secure the attendance of witnesses; (3) the cost of attendance for willing witnesses; and (4) all
`
`other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive,” and the
`
`public factors are “(1) the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion; (2) the local
`
`interest in having localized interests decided at home; (3) the familiarity of the forum with the law
`
`that will govern the case; and (4) the avoidance of unnecessary problems of conflicts of laws [or
`
`in] the application of foreign law.” Id. at 315. Courts may not give separate weight to the
`
`plaintiff’s choice of forum. In re Nintendo Co., 589 F.3d 1194, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`This case should be transferred because NDCA is the locus of events giving rise to this
`
`suit. The NDCA is where the Databricks platform and accused functionalities were designed and
`
`developed, is where Databricks is headquartered, and is more than 1400 miles closer than this
`
`forum to the true home of Byteweavr. This case has no meaningful ties to this District. Because
`
`the NDCA is clearly the more convenient forum, the Court should transfer this case to the NDCA.
`
`A.
`
`Byteweavr Could Have Brought This Suit in the NDCA.
`
`Byteweavr could have filed this action in the NDCA, where Databricks is headquartered.
`
`(Taneja Decl. ¶¶ 4.) Thus, venue would be proper over Databricks, and Databricks would be
`
`subject to personal jurisdiction, in the NDCA. See 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). The analysis thus
`
`proceeds to the private and public interest factors, all of which substantially favor transfer or are
`
`neutral. In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201, 203 (5th Cir. 2004) (per curiam).
`
`B.
`
`The Private Interest Factors Strongly Favor Transfer to the NDCA.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00162-JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 11/18/24 Page 13 of 21 PageID #:
`709
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00162-JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 11/18/24 Page 14 of 21 PageID #:
`710
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`employee witnesses [are] residing in the transferee venue”).
`
`Conversely, none of the Databricks employees that work on design and development for
`
`the accused platform or any of the six accused functionalities lives in this District. (Taneja Decl.
`
`¶ 14.)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Such employees thus have no relevance to this case.
`
`The NDCA would also be more convenient for Byteweavr. As explained above,
`
`Byteweavr’s only disclosed witnesses, who have knowledge of Byteweavr’s business and
`
`licensing of the asserted patents, live near Seattle, Washington—which is more than 1400 miles
`
`closer to the NDCA than to the EDTX. (See supra, II.C.) Their proximity to the NDCA favors
`
`transfer. In re TikTok, Inc., 85 F.4th 352, 361 (5th Cir. 2023) (when the distance between the
`
`transferor and transferee courts is more than 100 miles, “the factor of inconvenience to the
`
`witnesses increases in direct relationship to the additional distance to be traveled.”).
`
`2.
`
`The Sources of Proof Are Most Easily Accessed in the NDCA.
`
`The access to sources of proof factor also weighs in favor of transfer. As the Federal Circuit
`
`has instructed, courts must consider “the location of document custodians and location where
`
`documents are created and maintained, which may bear on the ease of retrieval.” In re Google
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00162-JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 11/18/24 Page 15 of 21 PageID #:
`711
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`LLC, No. 2021-178, 2021 WL 5292267, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2021) (per curiam); In re
`
`Honeywell Int’l Inc., No. 2023-152, 2024 WL 302397, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 26, 2024) (per curiam)
`
`(this factor favors transfer where “[c]ustodians of relevant records” are located in the transferee
`
`district). “In patent infringement cases, the bulk of the relevant evidence usually comes from the
`
`accused infringer. Consequently, the place where the defendant’s documents are kept weighs in
`
`favor of transfer to that location.” In re Apple Inc., 979 F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
`
`The In re Netflix, Inc. case is instructive. No. 2022-110, 2022 WL 167470, at *3 (Fed. Cir.
`
`Jan. 19, 2022) (per curiam). In that case, the defendant, Netflix, moved to transfer from the EDTX
`
`to the NDCA, and provided sworn statements that its source code, financial documentation, and
`
`“any other documentation about the research, design, and development of its streaming service”
`
`are located “at its headquarters in the Northern District of California . . . where its product and
`
`engineering teams are based” and where “Netflix’s primary corporate decision making takes
`
`place.” Id. at *3. The district court denied the transfer motion, in part based on the determination
`
`that the “sources of proof” factor weighed against transfer. On Netflix’s request for a writ of
`
`mandamus, the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s order and transferred the case to the
`
`NDCA. Id. In doing so, the Federal Circuit noted the district court’s “improper disregard of the
`
`potential sources of proof in the Northern District of California.” Id.
`
`Here, just as in In re Netflix, the sources of proof factor weighs in favor of transfer.
`
`Databricks, as the defendant in this litigation, will produce the bulk of the relevant evidence, and
`
`such relevant evidence is located in the NDCA. For example, pursuant to the parties’ stipulated
`
`Protective Order, any Databricks source code produced in this case will be provided through a
`
`stand-alone computer. (Dkt. 32 at 7.) Importantly, the Databricks personnel who will create the
`
`computer are based in the NDCA, and the computer will be made available to Byteweavr in the
`
`NDCA. (Taneja ¶ 13; Kaempf Decl. ¶¶ 36.) Further, any other documentation about research,
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00162-JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 11/18/24 Page 16 of 21 PageID #:
`712
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`design and development of the Databricks platform and accused instrumentalities are located in
`
`NDCA,
`
`
`
` (Taneja Decl. ¶ 7.) Indeed, the four document custodians Databricks already
`
`specifically identified and disclosed on its initial disclosures live and work in the NDCA. (Id. ¶¶
`
`9-11; Ex. A.) As the Federal Circuit has repeatedly instructed, the presence of the relevant source
`
`code and documents, and relevant document custodians, in the transferee venue, favors transfer.
`
`In re Netflix, 2022 WL 167470, at *3; In re HP Inc., 826 F. App’x 899, 902 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (per
`
`curiam) (“the existence of physical sources of proof in the Northern District of California makes
`
`that venue more convenient for trial”); see also In re Google LLC, 2021 WL 5292267, at *2
`
`(location of custodians bears on ease of retrieval).
`
`Further, the documents of Byteweavr and its witnesses are maintained and most easily
`
`accessed from just outside Seattle, Washington—more than 1400 miles closer to NDCA than to
`
`EDTX. Similarly, IV and its CFO Lawrence Froeber have executed agreements regarding
`
`purchases and sales of the asserted patents, which bear on the value of the patents, and are likewise
`
`based outside Seattle, Washington. Their proximity to the NDCA also favors transfer. See In re
`
`Apple Inc., 979 F.3d 1332 at 1340 (considering “sources of proof in or nearer to” a district
`
`(emphasis added)); In re Google LLC, 2021 WL 5292267, at *2.
`
`In contrast, there are no unique relevant sources of proof in this District or even in the State
`
`of Texas. That is because, as explained in detail below, Byteweavr’s only presence in Texas is a
`
`mere construct of litigation, and
`
`—has no
`
`employees involved in research and development of the accused platform or instrumentalities.
`
`In sum, because the NDCA is where relevant source code and documents are created and
`
`maintained, this factor strongly favors transfer.
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00162-JRG-RSP Document 41 Filed 11/18/24 Page 17 of 21 PageID #:
`713
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`3.
`
`Important Non-Party Witnesses Could Be Compelled to Testify in
`NDCA, But Not in EDTX.
`
`The compulsory process factor weighs in favor of transfer, or, at a minimum, is neutral.
`
`This factor focuses on “the availability of compulsory process to secure the attendance of
`
`witnesses.” In re Volkswagen of Am., 545 F.3d at 315. Here, as discussed above, several non-
`
`party witnesses with highly relevant knowledge are subject to subpoena powers of the NDCA, but
`
`not to those of the EDTX. (See supra, at II.D, II.E.) Specifically, at least four of the named
`
`inventors of a subset of the asserted patents live in the NDCA. While four named inventors of
`
`certain asserted patents also live in Texas (outside of this District), the NDCA is also home to
`
`several witnesses with knowledge of highly relevant prior art that was used to successfully
`
`challenge certain asserted patents before the PTAB. Accordingly, given the number of highly
`
`relevant third party witnesses in the NDCA, this factor favors transfer, or at a minimum, is neutral.
`
`4.
`
`Practical Issues of Litigation Favor Transfer.
`
`This factor considers “practical problems that make a trial easy, expeditious and
`
`inexpensive.” In re Apple, 979 F.3d at 1342. This factor favors transfer.
`
`This case is in its early stages: the claim construction process has not begun, and the
`
`Markman hearing and fact discovery deadline are not until May 2025 (which is, at the time of
`
`filing this Motion, six months from now). (Dkt. 24-1.) Further, because relevant witnesses are
`
`located in or near the transferee venue, transfer will minimize problems and costs associated with
`
`travel. Moreover, there is no related co-pending litigation in this District. Indeed, one suit
`
`involving an asserted patent (the ’153 patent) that was initially filed in this District was transferred
`
`to NDCA pursuant to § 1404. Intell. Ventures I LLC v. Hewlett Packard Enter. Co., No. 6:21-CV-
`
`00226-ADA, slip op. at 1, 22-23 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 30, 2021).
`
`C.
`
`The Public Factors Favor Transfer or Are Neutral.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-0