Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 42 Filed 07/05/24 Page 1 of 8 PageID #: 1472
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`SHERMAN DIVISION
`
`
`R2 Solutions LLC,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Databricks, Inc.,
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 4:23-cv-01147-ALM
`
`
`
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S SUR-REPLY IN OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 42 Filed 07/05/24 Page 2 of 8 PageID #: 1473
`
`
`
`In its Reply, Databricks discards the per-factor analysis required by § 1404(a) and, instead,
`
`hyper-focuses on the few facts favorable to its cause. Those facts do not alter the analysis. Three
`
`factors weigh against transfer and the remaining five are neutral. Transfer should be denied.
`
`I. THREE FACTORS WEIGH AGAINST TRANSFER.
`
`A. The administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion in NDCA weigh
`against transfer.
`
`Databricks cannot identify any evidence to refute the fact that this factor weighs heavily
`
`
`
`against transfer. The Fifth Circuit is clear that district courts are entitled to consider docket
`
`efficiencies in their analyses. See Resp. at 3; see also In re Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc.,
`
`52 F.4th 625, 631 (5th Cir. 2022); In re Clarke, 94 F.4th 502, 510 (5th Cir. 2024); In re Chamber
`
`of Commerce of United States, No. 24-10463, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 14863, at *22 (5th Cir. June
`
`18, 2024). The evidence of record establishes that this case will certainly proceed to trial much
`
`quicker in this Court than NDCA. See ECF 30 (Resp.) at 3-4 (including Exs. 1-3). This factor
`
`weighs heavily against transfer.
`
`B. Texas has a strong interest in deciding the issues of this case.
`
`Databricks distorts case law and ignores R2’s arguments in concluding that local interests
`
`favor transfer. While In re Clarke held that the focus of the analysis is on “the events—not the
`
`parties” (94 F.4th 502, 511 (5th Cir. 2024) (emphasis in original)), the Fifth Circuit also
`
`specifically “directed courts to consider ‘the location of the injury, witnesses, and the [p]laintiff’s
`
`residence’ because those considerations ‘are useful proxies for determining what local interests
`
`exist in each venue.’” In re Chamber of Commerce, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 14863, at *18 (quoting
`
`In re Clarke, 94 F.4th at 511). Taking those proxies in order, Texas and this District clearly have
`
`strong interests in deciding the issues in this case: R2 has been, and continues to be, injured by
`
`1
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 42 Filed 07/05/24 Page 3 of 8 PageID #: 1474
`
`
`
`Databricks’ infringements emanating from Databricks’ brick-and-mortar location in Plano (see
`
`ECF 1, ¶¶ 6-9; ECF 30 (Resp.) at 7); relevant witnesses are located here (see ECF 30 at 4-7, 10);
`
`and R2 resides here (see ECF 30 at 4-7).
`
`Moreover, Databricks’ own admissions make clear that, in addition to Databricks’ direct
`
`infringements in this District, events giving rise to R2’s induced infringement claim are centralized
`
`here. Databricks admits
`
`
`
`
`
` See ECF 34-1 (Taneja Decl.), ¶¶2-4. As discussed in R2’s Response (and unrebutted by
`
`Databricks),
`
`ECF 30 (Resp.) at 6.
`
`
`
`. See
`
`
`
`. See id. It follows, then, that Databricks’
`
`Director of Technical Solutions and Plano hub play a critical role in its customers’ infringing use
`
`of the accused instrumentalities. This factor weighs heavily against transfer.
`
`C. Practical problems that make a trial easy, expeditious, and inexpensive
`weigh heavily against transfer.
`
`
`Databricks’ only point is that prior cases before this Court involving the patent-in-suit
`
`involved different parties and, thus, involved “different factual issues” born of “different accused
`
`products.” See ECF 35 (Reply) at 5. This is not only conclusory, it is false. All of the accused
`
`products and systems in the sixteen prior cases asserting the ’610 patent implemented Apache
`
`Spark which, per Databricks, “is at the heart of this case.” See ECF 35 (Reply) at 1; R2 Solutions
`
`
`
`
`1 Databricks alleges that
` See ECF 35-1
`(Taneja Decl.), ¶¶2-4. Regardless of his name in Databricks’ system, Databricks does not dispute
`that he is Databricks’ Director of Technical Solutions or that he is located in DFW.
`2
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 42 Filed 07/05/24 Page 4 of 8 PageID #: 1475
`
`
`
`LLC v. American Airlines, Inc., No. 4-22-cv-00353, ECF 1-6 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 28, 2022); v. CVS
`
`Health Corporation et al., 4-22-cv-00354, ECF 1-6 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 28, 2022); v. Hilton Worldwide
`
`Holdings Inc. et al., 4-22-cv-00356, ECF 1-6 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 28, 2022); v. Citigroup Technology,
`
`Inc., 4-22-cv-00357, ECF 1-10 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 28, 2022); v. FedEx Corporate Services, Inc., 4-
`
`21-cv-00940, ECF 1-5 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 29, 2021); v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
`
`Company, 4-21-cv-00941, ECF 1-6 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 29, 2021); v. Booking.com BV, 4-21-cv-
`
`00942, ECF 1-6 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 29, 2021); v. Booking.com Transport Limited, 4-21-cv-00943,
`
`ECF 1-6 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 29, 2021); v. Agoda Company Pte. Ltd., 4-21-cv-00944, ECF 1-6 (E.D.
`
`Tex. Nov. 29, 2021); v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 4-21-cv-00174, ECF 1-4 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 2,
`
`2021); v. The Charles Schwab Corporation, 4-21-cv-00122, ECF 1-4 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 2, 2021); v.
`
`Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC, 4-21-cv-00123, ECF 1-4 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 2, 2021); v. Deezer SA
`
`4-21-cv-00090, ECF 1-7 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 29, 2021); v. Walmart Inc. 4-21-cv-00091, ECF 1-5 (E.D.
`
`Tex. Jan. 29, 2021); v. Target Corporation 4-21-cv-00092, ECF 1-5 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 29, 2021); v.
`
`Workday, Inc. 4-21-cv-00093, ECF 1-4 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 29, 2021). The efficiencies of keeping this
`
`case in this Court cannot be overstated, and this factor weighs heavily against transfer.
`
`II.
`
`FIVE FACTORS ARE NEUTRAL.2
`
`A. The relative ease of access to sources of proof is at least neutral.
`
`Databricks argues in reply that this factor favors transfer because its documents are
`
`“primarily generated” in NDCA and
`
` is there. See Reply at 1-2. This is not enough. Where
`
`documents are created is certainly a consideration in the analysis; but it’s not the only one, and a
`
`single custodian’s residence in NDCA does not tip the scales in favor of transfer. Critically,
`
`
`
`2 Neither party disputes that two of the public factors (familiarity of the forum with the law that
`will govern the case and the avoidance of unnecessary problems of conflicts of law) are neutral.
`3
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 42 Filed 07/05/24 Page 5 of 8 PageID #: 1476
`
`
`
`Databricks has no responses regarding its failure to identify any physical evidence in NDCA,
`
`failure to identify the location of the relevant source code,3 and failure to acknowledge that there
`
`are relevant documents and custodians that are located in DFW (e.g., Databricks’ Director of
`
`Technical Solutions). See ECF 30 (Resp.) at 7-9. Further, essentially all evidence in R2’s
`
`possession is located in Texas. See id. at 8. This factor is at least neutral.
`
`B. The availability of compulsory process to secure the attendance of unwilling
`witnesses is at least neutral.
`
`The only third-party witnesses Databricks identifies are inventors/authors of purported
`
`
`
`prior art and the inventors of the patent-in-suit. In arguing relevance of the prior artists, Databricks
`
`says “multiple parties have relied heavily on the cited prior art to challenge the asserted patent
`
`before the PTAB.” Reply at 3. But on June 11, 2024, the PTAB analyzed Databricks’ petition
`
`asserting this prior art and denied institution on the merits in a 51-page, reasoned decision. See
`
`Databricks, Inc. v. R2 Solutions LLC, No. IPR2024-00659, Paper 16 (PTAB June 11, 2024); see
`
`also Cloudera, Inc. v. R2 Solutions LLC, No. IPR2024-00303, Paper 11 (PTAB June 11, 2024).
`
`The PTAB offered highly-detailed analysis explaining why the alleged prior art is not reasonably
`
`likely to render any claims of the ’610 patent invalid. See id. Witnesses familiar with such prior
`
`art are, thus, likely not relevant at all; it would be foolhardy for Databricks to allege invalidity in
`
`this case based on art the PTAB already deemed insufficient. And while R2 does not dispute the
`
`location or relevance of the inventors of the ’610 patent, this alone does not tip the scales towards
`
`transfer considering that R2 identified a highly relevant third-party witness (Paul Reidy) who
`
`resides in Texas. See Resp. at 10. This factor is neutral.
`
`
`
`3 Databricks cites to In re Google LLC as purportedly signifying that the location of the source
`code is immaterial. See No. 2021-178, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 33789, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15,
`2021). But this case does not discuss source code at all and is inapposite.
`4
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 42 Filed 07/05/24 Page 6 of 8 PageID #: 1477
`
`
`
`C. The cost of attendance for willing witnesses is neutral.
`
`Databricks is wrong that “R2 provides no evidence showing that any Databricks employees
`
`in Texas possess relevant knowledge.” ECF 35 (Reply) at 1 (emphasis in original). Indeed, R2
`
`dedicated meaningful space in its Response, and almost two dozen exhibits, to relevant witnesses
`
`in Texas. See ECF 30 (Resp.) at 11.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`See id. While Databricks apparently thinks this does not count as evidence
`
`(see ECF 35 (Reply) at 3-4), Databricks does not dispute it. Indeed, Databricks merely alleges that
`
` ECF 35-1 (Taneja Decl.), ¶ 3. But
`
`whether they design and develop the accused instrumentalities, or instead teach Databricks’
`
`customers how to actually use them, it is undisputed that the employees have highly relevant
`
`knowledge regarding the accused instrumentalities and how they function.
`
`As to R2’s witnesses, Databricks claims that “current executives of R2 and its parent
`
`entity” are in NDCA. ECF 35 (Reply) at 2. This is misleading.4 The principal executive of R2 is
`
`its president, Craig Yudell. Mr. Yudell is responsible for R2’s day-to-day operations, including its
`
`licensing practices—all of which he does “extensively from [his] residence in Austin, TX.” See
`
`ECF 30-2 (Yudell Decl.). This factor is at least neutral.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`Databricks has failed to demonstrate that NDCA is clearly more convenient than EDTX,
`
`and this Court should deny Databricks’ motion.
`
`
`
`4 Contrary to Databricks’ unsubstantiated assertion, Kirsten Hoover is not an officer of R2. And
`though Marc Booth is an officer of R2, he is not involved with R2’s day-to-day operations.
`5
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 42 Filed 07/05/24 Page 7 of 8 PageID #: 1478
`
`Dated: June 28, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Edward R. Nelson III
`EDWARD R. NELSON III
`State Bar No. 00797142
`ed@nelbum.com
`BRENT N. BUMGARDNER
`State Bar No. 00795272
`brent@nelbum.com
`CHRISTOPHER G. GRANAGHAN
`State Bar No. 24078585
`chris@nelbum.com
`JOHN P. MURPHY
`State Bar No. 24056024
`murphy@nelbum.com
`CARDER W. BROOKS
`State Bar No. 24105536
`carder@nelbum.com
`NELSON BUMGARDNER CONROY PC
`3131 West 7th Street, Suite 300
`Fort Worth, Texas 76107
`817.377.9111
`
`COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF
`R2 SOLUTIONS LLC
`
`6
`
`
`

`

`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 42 Filed 07/05/24 Page 8 of 8 PageID #: 1479
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that the foregoing document was served via electronic mail upon all
`
`
`
`counsel of record on this the 28th day of June, 2024.
`
`
`
`/s/ Edward R. Nelson III
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF MOTION TO SEAL
`
`Pursuant to Local Rule CV-5(a)(7), I hereby certify that an unopposed motion to seal was
`
`electronically filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF filing system on this the 28th day
`
`of June, 2024 to file under seal this Sur-Reply.
`
`
`
`/s/ Edward R. Nelson III
`
`
`7
`
`
`