Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 63 Filed 11/12/24 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: 4778
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`SHERMAN DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 4:23-cv-01147-ALM
`
`Jury Trial Demanded
`
`
`
`
`R2 Solutions LLC,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`Databricks, Inc.,
`
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE
`
`On November 8, 2024, Defendant Databricks, Inc. submitted a notice of supplemental
`
`evidence (ECF 58) couched as support for its transfer motion (ECF 22). The suggestion is that
`
`R2’s recent subpoenas tip the scales in favor of transfer to California. This is a red herring that
`
`merits a brief response.
`
`First, the subpoenaed entities are Databricks customers (a fact that Databricks omitted from
`
`its notice). The fact that they are Databricks’ customers is not “new” evidence. Databricks knows
`
`who its customers are and was free to discuss customer locations in its motion to transfer briefing.
`
`For this reason alone, the Court should ignore Databricks’ notice.
`
`Second, only two of the four subpoenaed customers are located on the West Coast. The
`
`other two are located on the East Coast. This Court is equidistant. The true folly of Databricks’
`
`notice, however, it that it omits the fact that Databricks serves customers all over the United States
`
`and, indeed, the world. Notably, R2 has also issued subpoenas to four Databricks customers based
`
`in Texas (with compliance obligations here). See Exs. A-D. If the Court is inclined to consider the
`
`subpoenas referenced in Databricks’ notice as new evidence, it should similarly consider the
`
`relative convenience of this Court versus California for the Texas witnesses.
`
`
`
`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 63 Filed 11/12/24 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 4779
`
`Third, R2 served the subject subpoenas in response to, among other things, Databricks’
`
`unsupported suggestion that it does not directly infringe the patent-in-suit, and because Databricks
`
`has yet to produce any pricing or revenue information for the accused instrumentalities. The R2
`
`subpoenas seek insight into the Databricks-customer interplay as relates to the accused
`
`instrumentalities, and also seek agreements elucidating pricing and costs that can be used to sanity
`
`check damages-related documents Databricks has committed to producing in the very near term. In
`
`this vein, the Databricks customers are best characterized as rebuttal-type witnesses that would
`
`only appear at trial, if at all, by video deposition.
`
`Dated: November 12, 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
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 4:23-cv-01147-ALM Document 63 Filed 11/12/24 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 4780
`
`
`
` CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was filed electronically in
`
`compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a). Therefore, this document was served on all counsel on
`
`November 12, 2024.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Edward R. Nelson III
`
`3
`
`
