Case 2:24-cv-00215-RWS-RSP Document 20 Filed 07/26/24 Page 1 of 22 PageID #: 117
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`SLYDE ANALYTICS LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`GARMIN LTD. and GARMIN
`CORPORATION,
`
`Defendants.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`Case No. 2:24-cv-00215-RWS-RSP
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`DEFENDANTS GARMIN LTD. AND GARMIN CORPORATION’S
`MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00215-RWS-RSP Document 20 Filed 07/26/24 Page 2 of 22 PageID #: 118
`
`
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................................................................. 2
`A.
`Slyde and the Asserted Patents ............................................................................... 2
`B.
`Garmin Entities ....................................................................................................... 3
`1.
`Garmin Ltd. (a Swiss company) ................................................................. 3
`2.
`Garmin Corp. (a Taiwanese company) ....................................................... 4
`3.
`Garmin International, Inc. (a U.S. company headquartered in Olathe,
`Kansas) .................................................................................................................... 4
`4.
`Garmin Canada Inc. (a Canadian company) ............................................... 5
`Prosecuting Attorney of All Asserted Patents (Washington, D.C.) ........................ 6
`C.
`Travel Time to the Respective Courthouses ........................................................... 6
`D.
`LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................................... 6
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 7
`A.
`This action could have been brought in the District of Kansas. ............................. 8
`B.
`The private interest factors favor transfer to the District of Kansas. ...................... 8
`1.
`Cost and convenience of attendance for willing witnesses ......................... 8
`2.
`Relative ease of access to sources of proof ............................................... 10
`3.
`Availability of compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses
`
`11
`4.
`All other practical problems...................................................................... 12
`The public interest factors favor transfer to the District of Kansas. ..................... 13
`1.
`Local interests ........................................................................................... 13
`2.
`Court congestion ....................................................................................... 14
`3.
`Familiarity with governing law and conflicts of law ................................ 14
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 15
`
`C.
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00215-RWS-RSP Document 20 Filed 07/26/24 Page 3 of 22 PageID #: 119
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Acoustic Tech., Inc. v. Silver Spring Networks, Inc.,
`No. 2:16-CV-00831-JRG-RSP, 2017 WL 1133338 ................................................................11
`
`Arnold v. Remington Arms Co.,
`No. 6:16-CV-0074-RWS-KNM, 2017 WL 9285419 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 17, 2017) ....................10
`
`Bridas S.A.P.I.C. v. Gov’t of Turkm.,
`447 F.3d 411 (5th Cir. 2006) .....................................................................................................1
`
`Cypress Lake Software, Inc. v. HP Inc.,
`No. 6:17-CV-00462-RWS, 2018 WL 4100767 (E.D. Tex. June 27, 2018)...............................9
`
`Dynapass IP Holdings LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. 2:23-CV-00063-JRG-RSP, 2024 WL 1997110 (E.D. Tex. May 3, 2024) ........................13
`
`Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. Xilinx, Inc.,
`No. 2:17-CV-00100-JRG-RSP, 2017 WL 4076052 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 14, 2017) .....................14
`
`In re Apple Inc.,
`979 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2020)....................................................................................10, 13, 14
`
`In re Apple Inc.,
`No. 2021-181, 2021 WL 5291804 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2021) .................................................14
`
`In re Apple Inc.,
`No. 2022-128, 2022 WL 1196768 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 22, 2022) ............................................11, 13
`
`In re Clarke,
`94 F.4th 502 (5th Cir. 2024) ................................................................................................7, 14
`
`In re Genentech,,
`566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009).............................................................................................8,10
`
`In re Google LLC,
`58 F.4th 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ................................................................................................11
`
`In re Google LLC,
`855 F. App’x 767 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ..........................................................................................14
`
`In re Honeywell Int’l Inc.,
`No. 2023-152, 2024 WL 302397 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 26, 2024) .....................................................15
`
`
`
`iii
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00215-RWS-RSP Document 20 Filed 07/26/24 Page 4 of 22 PageID #: 120
`
`
`
`In re HTC Corp.,
`889 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2018)..................................................................................................8
`
`In re Juniper Networks, Inc.,
`14 F.4th 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................................8, 15
`
`In re Morgan Stanley,
`417 F. App’x 947 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ..........................................................................................13
`
`In re Nintendo Co.,
`589 F.3d 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................12
`
`In re Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc.,
`52 F.4th 625 (5th Cir. 2022) ....................................................................................................12
`
`In re Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`2 F.4th 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ....................................................................................................6
`
`In re TikTok, Inc.,
`85 F.4th 352 (5th Cir. 2023) ....................................................................................7, 10, 11, 15
`
`In re Toyota Motor Corp.,
`747 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................15
`
`In re TS Tech USA,
`551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................15
`
`In re Verizon Bus. Network Servs. Inc.,
`635 F.3d 559 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..................................................................................................13
`
`In re Volkswagen AG,
`371 F.3d 201 (5th Cir. 2004) .......................................................................................7, 8, 9, 12
`
`In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc.,
`545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) ...............................................................................7, 8, 10, 11, 12
`
`Realtime Data LLC v. Barracuda Networks Inc.,
`No. 6:17-CV-00120-RWS, 2017 WL 4791970 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 24, 2017) .............................12
`
`Salomon v. Kroenke Sports & Ent., L.L.C.,
`841 F. App’x 737 (5th Cir. 2021) ..........................................................................................5, 6
`
`TransUnion Intel. LLC v. Search Am., Inc.,
`No. 2:10-130-TJW, 2011 WL 1327038 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 5, 2011) ..........................................15
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Google LLC,
`No. 2:18-cv-00504-JRG-RSP, 2020 WL 3064460 (E.D. Tex. June 8, 2020) ...............8, 12, 13
`
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00215-RWS-RSP Document 20 Filed 07/26/24 Page 5 of 22 PageID #: 121
`
`
`
`United States v. Bestfoods,
`524 U.S. 51 (1998) .................................................................................................................1, 3
`
`STATUTES
`
`25 U.S.C. § 271 ................................................................................................................................1
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) .......................................................................................................1, 6, 7, 8, 13
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) and (5) .......................................................................................................1
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c) ........................................................................................................................2
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1) ............................................................................................................4, 5, 6
`
`Local Rule 7(h) ................................................................................................................................6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00215-RWS-RSP Document 20 Filed 07/26/24 Page 6 of 22 PageID #: 122
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Defendants Garmin Ltd. and Garmin Corp. (“Defendants”) respectfully move under 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer this patent case from the Eastern District of Texas to the Kansas City
`
`Division of the District of Kansas.1
`
`Defendant Garmin Ltd. does not import, make, use, or sell any of the Accused Products in
`
`the United States. As the parent corporation of the various Garmin entities discussed herein,
`
`Garmin Ltd. cannot be liable for any purported infringement by its subsidiaries. Bridas S.A.P.I.C.
`
`v. Gov’t of Turkm., 447 F.3d 411, 416 (5th Cir. 2006) (“A bedrock principle of corporate law is
`
`that ‘a parent corporation . . . is not liable’ for actions taken by its subsidiaries.”) (quoting United
`
`States v. Bestfoods, 524 U.S. 51, 61 (1998).
`
`Defendant Garmin Corp. also does not import, make, use, or sell any of the Accused
`
`Products in the United States. Garmin Corp. is a Taiwanese corporation that manufactures the
`
`Accused Products outside the United States and cannot be liable for patent infringement in the
`
`United States. 25 U.S.C. § 271.
`
`In its Complaint, Plaintiff Slyde Analytics, LLC (“Slyde”) cites Garmin Ltd.’s annual 10-K
`
`SEC form. Compl. at 3 n.2. The same paragraph cited by Slyde explains, “Garmin International,
`
`Inc. (GII) is primarily responsible for sales and marketing of the Company’s products in the
`
`Americas region and for most of the Company’s research and new product development.” Id. But
`
`Slyde did not name the entity that actually makes, uses, and sells the Accused Products in the
`
`United States, Garmin International, Inc. (“Garmin International”). And it is that entity, and to a
`
`lesser extent a Canadian Garmin entity (Garmin Canada Inc.), that employs all the relevant
`
`
`1 Garmin Corp. has not been served and reserves all rights to object to service under Fed. R. Civ.
`P. 12(b)(2) and (5). Garmin Corp. moves with Garmin Ltd. in support of judicial efficiency,
`reserving all rights.
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00215-RWS-RSP Document 20 Filed 07/26/24 Page 7 of 22 PageID #: 123
`
`
`
`witnesses and holds all the relevant documents.
`
`Any witness that might have information relevant to the Accused Products is employed by
`
`non-parties Garmin International (in Olathe, Kansas) or Garmin Canada (in Cochrane, Canada).
`
`Further, Plaintiff’s potential witnesses, the named inventors and the prosecuting attorney, live in
`
`Europe and Washington D.C., respectively. As such, this Court does not have either deposition or
`
`trial subpoena power over any of either parties’ relevant witnesses. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c).
`
`Further, Plaintiff non-practicing entity Slyde has no actual connection to this District.
`
`Because most of the witnesses are located in Olathe, Kansas, because the remaining
`
`witnesses are located abroad, in Washington D.C., or in Seattle, because this case has minimal to
`
`no connection to this District, and because this Court does not have subpoena power over any of
`
`the relevant witnesses, the relevant private and public interest factors strongly weigh in favor of
`
`transferring this case to the more convenient District of Kansas.
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Slyde and the Asserted Patents
`
`Plaintiff Slyde is a recently formed non-practicing entity. Its Complaint lists its address as
`
`Marshall, Texas (Compl. ¶ 1); but this does not match the address provided to the Texas Secretary
`
`of State (Ex. PP) or the Asserted Patents’ assignment records (Ex. A). Rather, those documents
`
`list a mailbox provided by the company IncFile, LLC. Ex. A at 19, Exs. PP, QQ.2 Public records
`
`indicate that Slyde was formed on October 10, 2022, and Slyde’s Certificate of Formation
`
`identifies Ascend Innovation Management, LLC (“AIM”) as the company’s sole managing
`
`member. Ex. PP. AIM was incorporated in the State of Washington on July 14, 2022. Ex. QQ.
`
`According to public records, AIM has two officers, James Weisfield and Riad Chummun (id.),
`
`
`2 All citations to exhibits refer to exhibits to the Pyclik Declaration.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00215-RWS-RSP Document 20 Filed 07/26/24 Page 8 of 22 PageID #: 124
`
`
`
`both of whom are based in the Seattle metropolitan area. Exs. RR-SS.
`
`In December 2022, Slyde acquired the Asserted Patents from two distinct Swiss
`
`companies, Comme Le Temps S.A. (aka Smart Communications, S.A.) and Myotest S.A. Ex. A
`
`at 18, 31. The face of the Asserted Patents lists each named inventor as residing in Europe
`
`(Switzerland, Austria, France, and Monaco). Exs. B-J.
`
`The Complaint accuses Garmin-branded activity fitness trackers (the “Accused Products”)
`
`and alleges that Garmin Ltd. and Garmin Corp. infringe nine U.S. Patents: U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`8,588,033; 9,651,922; 9,804,678; 10,198,085; 9,320,457; 9,873,018; 9,536,134; 11,687,809;
`
`11,875,696 (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”). Compl. ¶¶ 7-15.
`
`B.
`
`Garmin Entities
`
`
`
`Garmin operates on a global scale, with engineering teams in Olathe, Kansas (Garmin
`
`International, Inc.), Taiwan (Garmin Corporation), and Canada (Garmin Canada, Inc.) that often
`
`collaborate on product designs. Korte Decl. ¶ 3.
`
`1.
`
`Garmin Ltd. (a Swiss company)
`
`Garmin Ltd. is the Swiss corporate parent of all the Garmin entities, including Garmin
`
`Corp., Garmin International, Inc., and Garmin Canada Inc. Korte Decl. ¶ 4. As such, Garmin Ltd.
`
`is a legally distinct entity from all the Garmin entities, including the named co-Defendant. See
`
`Bestfoods, 524 U.S. at 61.
`
`Garmin Ltd. does not have any personnel responsible for design, marketing, and
`
`manufacturing of the Accused Products. Korte Decl. ¶ 5. Garmin International designs, develops,
`
`and markets Garmin’s consumer products. Id. Garmin Ltd. does not engage in design,
`
`development, or marketing of Garmin’s consumer products. Id. Nor does Garmin Ltd. have any
`
`employees or witnesses with relevant information within this judicial district. Id. Garmin Ltd. is
`
`not in possession of any documents or witnesses relevant to the functionality identified in the
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00215-RWS-RSP Document 20 Filed 07/26/24 Page 9 of 22 PageID #: 125
`
`
`
`Complaint. Id. This Court does not have deposition, document, or trial subpoena power over any
`
`Garmin Ltd. witness. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1). Finally, it is faster and easier to travel from Zurich,
`
`Switzerland to the federal courthouse in Kansas rather than that of this District. Exs. K-N.
`
`Slyde wrongfully alleges that “Garmin Ltd. has authorized dealers of its goods and services
`
`located throughout Texas, including in the Judicial District of the Eastern District of Texas.”
`
`Compl. ¶ 2. But Garmin Ltd. has no dealers or distributors anywhere, let alone Texas. Korte Decl.
`
`¶ 6. Slyde goes on to list locations within this judicial district where Garmin-branded goods and
`
`services are allegedly offered for sale. Compl. ¶¶ 2-3. However, these are not Defendants’ stores;
`
`they are simply third-parties that sell Garmin-branded products. Korte Decl. ¶ 6.
`
`2.
`
`Garmin Corp. (a Taiwanese company)
`
`Garmin Corp. is a Taiwanese company that manufactures the Accused Products in Taiwan.
`
`Korte Decl. ¶ 7. Garmin Corp. does not make, use, or sell the Accused Products in the United
`
`States. Id. Garmin Corp. has no employees or witnesses within this judicial district. Id. Garmin
`
`Corp.’s engineers in Taiwan may have relevant information about the Accused Products, although
`
`said information is likely duplicative of information held in Olathe, Kansas or Cochrane, Canada
`
`by third-parties Garmin International and Garmin Canada, respectively. Id. Garmin Corp. is not in
`
`possession of any documents or witnesses relevant to the functionality identified in the Complaint
`
`that is not also held by Garmin International. This Court does not have deposition, document, or
`
`trial subpoena power over any Garmin Corp. witness. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1). Regardless, it is
`
`easier and less expensive to travel from Taiwan to the federal courthouse in Kansas rather than to
`
`the federal courthouse in this District. Exs. N-S.
`
`3.
`
`Garmin International, Inc. (a U.S. company headquartered in Olathe,
`Kansas)
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00215-RWS-RSP Document 20 Filed 07/26/24 Page 10 of 22 PageID #: 126
`
`
`
`Garmin International—which is not named in the Complaint—designs, sells, markets, and
`
`licenses the Accused Products and was responsible for the research, development, and
`
`implementation of the Accused Products. Korte Decl. ¶ 8. Materially, Garmin International is a
`
`third party. Salomon v. Kroenke Sports & Ent., L.L.C., 841 F. App’x 737, 738 (5th Cir. 2021) (“[A]
`
`parent corporation and its subsidiaries are distinct legal entities.”).
`
`Garmin International is headquartered in Olathe, Kansas, a suburb of Kansas City. Korte
`
`Decl. ¶ 8. Garmin International’s North American distribution center is also located in Olathe,
`
`Kansas. Id. Examples of potentially relevant information that is kept in Olathe, Kansas includes
`
`software and source code for the Accused Products. Id.
`
`Moreover, the following Garmin International employees with relevant evidence and
`
`information are located in Olathe, Kansas: (1) Engineers who wrote and developed the code for
`
`the functionality identified in the Complaint; (2) Persons with knowledge about Garmin
`
`International’s prior art; (3) Person(s) responsible for Garmin software relating to the Accused
`
`Products; (4) Person(s) with relevant financial information relating to the Accused Products; (5)
`
`Person(s) responsible for sales and marketing strategies relating to the Accused Products; (6)
`
`Person(s) responsible for licensing the Accused Products; (7) Person(s) with information regarding
`
`Garmin International’s document retention policy; and (8) Persons with knowledge regarding
`
`Garmin Ltd.’s equitable estoppel defense. Korte Decl., ¶ 8.
`
`Third-party Garmin International does not have any employees or witnesses with relevant
`
`information within this judicial district. Id. This Court does not have deposition, document, or trial
`
`subpoena power over any Garmin International witness. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1). The transferee
`
`court does have deposition, document, and trial subpoena power over Garmin International. Id.
`
`4.
`
`Garmin Canada Inc. (a Canadian company)
`
`Garmin Canada employs engineers in Cochrane, Canada that have relevant knowledge of
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00215-RWS-RSP Document 20 Filed 07/26/24 Page 11 of 22 PageID #: 127
`
`
`
`a subset of the Accused Products, including an employee responsible for Garmin heart rate straps
`
`and the HRM-Run product. Korte Decl. ¶ 9. Garmin Canada is a third party. Salomon, 841 F.
`
`App’x at 738.
`
`Third-party Garmin Canada does not have any employees or witnesses with relevant
`
`information within this judicial district. Korte Decl. ¶ 9. This Court does not have deposition,
`
`document, or trial subpoena power over any Garmin Canada witness. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1).
`
`C.
`
`Prosecuting Attorney of All Asserted Patents (Washington, D.C.)
`
`The attorney responsible for prosecuting all of the Asserted Patents, Peter Weissman of
`
`Blank Rome, LLP in Washington D.C., is another potential witness for Defendants’ inequitable
`
`conduct defense. Pyclik Decl. ¶ 20.
`
`D.
`
`Travel Time to the Respective Courthouses
`
`Olathe, Kansas is a more convenient forum than Marshall, Texas. Pyclik Decl. ¶¶ 54-55;
`
`Ex. K-OO, TT-WW. In sum, and as detailed in the Pyclik Declaration, there is an international
`
`airport in Kansas City that is relatively close to the courthouse, making traveling to trial in Kansas
`
`City generally shorter, more direct, and less expensive than traveling to Marshall. Id. Further, a
`
`majority of the witnesses are already in Olathe, Kansas, the transferee district. Defendants do not
`
`believe there are any witnesses in Marshall Texas.3
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`“For the convenience of parties and witnesses, [and] 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The Federal Circuit has held that the law of the regional circuit
`
`applies for transfer motions. In re Samsung Elecs. Co., 2 F.4th 1371, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Under
`
`
`3 Because Slyde refused to engage in a substantive meet and confer, Garmin has not been able to
`confirm or undermine this belief. See Local Rule 7(h) Certificate of Conference, infra.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00215-RWS-RSP Document 20 Filed 07/26/24 Page 12 of 22 PageID #: 128
`
`
`
`Fifth Circuit law, a party seeking transfer under Section 1404(a) must first show that the suit
`
`“might have been brought” in the proposed transferee district. In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545
`
`F.3d 304, 312-13 (5th Cir. 2008) (“Volkswagen II”). Second, the movant must show “good cause”
`
`for transfer by demonstrating that the “transferee venue is clearly more convenient” than the
`
`transferor district. Id. at 315.
`
`In evaluating convenience, courts weigh both private and public interest factors. In re
`
`Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201, 203 (5th Cir. 2004) (“Volkswagen I”). The private-interest factors
`
`are: “(1) the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (2) the availability of compulsory process
`
`to secure the attendance of witnesses; (3) the cost of attendance for willing witnesses; and (4) all
`
`other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive.” In re Clarke,
`
`94 F.4th 502, 509 (5th Cir. 2024) (cleaned up). The public interest factors are: “(5) the
`
`administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion; (6) the local interest in having localized
`
`interests decided at home; (7) the familiarity of the forum with the law that will govern the case;
`
`and (8) the avoidance of unnecessary problems of conflict of laws [or in] the application of foreign
`
`law.” Id.
`
`“In order to obtain a new federal [venue], the statute requires only that the transfer be ‘[f]or
`
`the convenience of the parties, in the interest of justice.’” Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 314
`
`(discussing how there is no longer a “heavy burden” of showing a “substantially more convenient”
`
`forum).
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`Transfer to the District of Kansas is clearly “[f]or the convenience of the parties, in the
`
`interest of justice.” Id. Where, as here, most witnesses and evidence are located within the
`
`transferee venue, and where this District has no subpoena power over any witness and no
`
`meaningful connection to the dispute, the trial court should grant a motion to transfer. In re TikTok,
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00215-RWS-RSP Document 20 Filed 07/26/24 Page 13 of 22 PageID #: 129
`
`
`
`Inc., 85 F.4th 352, 361-62 (5th Cir. 2023); Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2:18-cv-00504-
`
`JRG-RSP, 2020 WL 3064460, at *4 (E.D. Tex. June 8, 2020).
`
`A.
`
`This action could have been brought in the District of Kansas.
`
`A threshold inquiry under Section 1404(a) “is whether [the] civil action ‘might have been
`
`brought’ in the destination venue.” Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 312. This initial requirement is
`
`plainly met because it is undisputed, and Slyde itself alleges, that both Defendants are foreign
`
`entities. See Dkt. 1, ¶ 2-3, 6; Korte Decl. ¶¶ 4, 7. Foreign defendants may be sued in any judicial
`
`district under Section 1391, see In re HTC Corp., 889 F.3d 1349, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2018), so this
`
`action could have been brought in the District of Kansas.
`
`B.
`
`The private interest factors favor transfer to the District of Kansas.
`
`The private interest factors weigh strongly in favor of transfer because all of Defendants’
`
`evidence and potential witnesses are within the District of Kansas or abroad. In contrast, no
`
`relevant witnesses and no relevant documents are in this District.
`
`1.
`
`Cost and convenience of attendance for willing witnesses
`
`“[T]he relative convenience for and cost of attendance of witnesses between the two forums
`
`is ‘probably the single most important factor in [the] transfer analysis.’” In re Juniper Networks,
`
`Inc., 14 F.4th 1313, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Under Fifth Circuit law, “[w]hen the distance between
`
`an existing venue for trial of a matter and a proposed venue under § 1404(a) is more than 100
`
`miles, the factor of inconvenience to witnesses increases in direct relationship to the additional
`
`distance to be traveled.” Volkswagen I, 371 F.3d at 204-05. The farther from home, the greater the
`
`burden due to “additional travel time,” “meal and lodging expenses,” and “overnight stays [that]
`
`increase[] the time [that] fact witnesses must be away from their regular employment.” In re
`
`Genentech, 566 F.3d 1338, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`
`Plaintiff’s witnesses and sources of proof appear to reside in Washington D.C, Seattle, and
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00215-RWS-RSP Document 20 Filed 07/26/24 Page 14 of 22 PageID #: 130
`
`
`
`Europe. As discussed above in supra § II and in the Pyclik Declaration, it is less burdensome to
`
`travel from Washington D.C., Seattle, and the relevant European locations to the District of
`
`Kansas, rather than to this District. Further, Plaintiff does not appear to have any witnesses
`
`anywhere near 100 miles of this District.
`
`Regarding Defendants’ witnesses, other than some possible duplicative documents held in
`
`Taiwan, Defendants employ no relevant witnesses and hold no relevant documents. All relevant
`
`witnesses are employed by non-parties Garmin International in Olathe, Kansas or Garmin Canada
`
`in Cochrane, Canada. Because these witnesses are non-party witnesses, their convenience (or
`
`inconvenience) is accorded greater weight. Cypress Lake Software, Inc. v. HP Inc., No. 6:17-CV-
`
`00462-RWS, 2018 WL 4100767, at *4 (E.D. Tex. June 27, 2018) (“the convenience of party
`
`witnesses is given less weight than the convenience of non-party willing witnesses.”).
`
`Here, Kansas is clearly a more convenient forum for the majority of witnesses in this case
`
`based on travel distance. All of Defendants’ employees who were involved in developing or
`
`manufacturing the Accused Products work out of Garmin International’s facility in Olathe, Kansas
`
`or out of the country. Supra § II(B); Korte Decl. ¶¶ 5, 7-9.
`
`The Olathe, Kansas witnesses are more than 500 miles away from this Court, which is over
`
`five times the 100-mile threshold under Volkswagen I. See Ex. CC; Volkswagen I, 371 F.3d at 204-
`
`05. By contrast, attending trial at the federal courthouse in Kansas City, which is less than 30
`
`minutes away from Garmin International’s headquarters in Olathe, would be far more convenient
`
`for Defendants’ witnesses—the majority of which are residents in the District of Kansas—than
`
`having to board a plane and travel out of state. Ex. W.
`
`
`
`Further, a transfer to Kansas would be more convenient for all potential witnesses, at least
`
`because there are significantly more taxi services and hotels available in Kansas City compared to
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00215-RWS-RSP Document 20 Filed 07/26/24 Page 15 of 22 PageID #: 131
`
`
`
`Marshall. Compare Ex. DD with Ex. EE; compare Ex. FF with Ex. GG. Additionally, should the
`
`Defendants need to bring employee witnesses from outside the country, those employees will be
`
`able to use Garmin’s Olathe office to minimize the inconveniences caused by being away from
`
`their home offices and/or by combining the trip with Kansas meetings that might otherwise have
`
`been scheduled for a different time.
`
`Most of the relevant witnesses, identified with specificity under seal, are employees of non-
`
`party Garmin International. Ex. XX. Asking relevant non-party witnesses to travel from Kansas to
`
`the Eastern District of Texas, when those non-party witnesses live in Kansas, makes little sense.
`
`As the Fifth Circuit has explained, “[t]hese witnesses would have to travel thousands of extra
`
`miles, incurring substantial additional travel time . . . meal and lodging expenses[,] time away from
`
`their regular employment[,] and personal costs associated with being away from work, family, and
`
`community.” In re TikTok, Inc., 85 F.4th at 361-62.
`
`Therefore, the convenience of witnesses strongly favors transfer. Indeed, on these facts,
`
`failure to transfer would be an abuse of discretion. See id. at 362.
`
`2.
`
`Relative ease of access to sources of proof
`
`The next factor—ease of access to sources of proof—covers all “non-witness evidence,
`
`such as documents and other physical evidence.” In re Apple Inc., 979 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2020) (“Apple I”); accord Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 316. This factor weighs in favor of transfer
`
`“when a majority of the tangible and documentary evidence is located in the transferee court’s
`
`district.” Arnold v. Remington Arms Co., No. 6:16-CV-0074-RWS-KNM, 2017 WL 9285419, at
`
`*2 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 17, 2017). “In patent infringement cases, the bulk of the relevant evidence
`
`usually comes from the accused infringer.” Genentech, 566 F.3d at 1345. “Consequently, the place
`
`where the defendant’s documents are kept weighs in favor of transfer to that location.” Id.
`
`Moreover, despite technological advances that make electronic documents more easily accessible,
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:24-cv-00215-RWS-RSP Document 20 Filed 07/26/24 Page 16 of 22 PageID #: 132
`
`
`
`the location of documents remains a meaningful factor in the analysis. See Acoustic Tech., Inc. v.
`
`Silver Spring Networks, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00831-JRG-RSP, 2017 WL 1133338, at *3
`
`(“notwithstanding where or how documents are produced during discovery—the expense of
`
`transporting documents to trial is one that cannot be ignored.”).
`
`This factor weighs heavily in favor of transfer because all relevant evidence and documents
`
`are in Kansas or abroad. Korte Decl. ¶¶ 3, 5-9. For example, software and source code for the
`
`Accused Products and physical prototypes are kept in Garmin International’s Kansas City
`
`headquarters. See In re Google LLC, 58 F.4th 1379, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2023). The North American
`
`distribution center for the Accused Products is also in Olathe, Kansas. Id. at ¶ 8.
`
`In contrast, Defendants are unaware of any relevant evidence or documents in this District.
`
`Korte Decl. ¶ 12. “A district court abuses its discretion by denying a motion to transfer when
`
`‘virtually all of the events and witnesses regarding the case . . . are in the transferee forum.’” In re
`
`TikTok, Inc., 85 F.4th at 366; see also In re Apple Inc., No. 2022-128, 2022 WL 1196768, at *4
`
`(Fed. Cir. Apr. 22, 2022) (“Apple III”) (granting transfer where defendant “was unaware of any
`
`relevant . . . documents being created or stored from its offices in [the transferor district]”).
`
`3.
`
`Availability of compulsory process to secure the attendance of
`witnesses
`
`The third factor focuses on “the availability of compulsory process to secure the attendance
`
`of witnesses.” In re TikTok, Inc., 85 F.4th at 360 (quoting Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 315). “This
`
`factor favors transfer where ‘non-party witnesses . . . are outside the Eastern District’s subpoena
`
`power’ and ‘a proper venue that does enjoy absolute subpoena power for both depositions and
`
`trial’ is available.” Id. (quoting Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 316) (cleaned up). Here, this Court
`
`cannot secure the attendance of witnesses (none of which reside in Texas)