throbber
Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 183-1 Filed 01/15/20 Page 1 of 24 PageID #: 7976
`Case 5:19-cv-00036—RWS Document 183-1 Filed 01/15/20 Page 1 of 24 PageID #: 7976
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`EXHIBIT A
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 183-1 Filed 01/15/20 Page 2 of 24 PageID #: 7977
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 171 *
`* Filed 01/03/20 Page 1 of 23 PageID #:
` 7641
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TEXARKANA DIVISION
`
`MAXELL LTD.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`

` §
` §
` §
` §
` §
` §
` §

`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:19-CV-00036-RWS
`
`
`
`ORDER
`
`Before the Court is Defendant Apple, Inc.’s Motion to Transfer Venue to the Northern
`
`District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (Docket No. 57). Apple contends that venue is
`
`clearly more convenient in the Northern District of California. For the reasons set forth below,
`
`Apple’s Motion is DENIED.
`
`I.
`
`Background
`
`Plaintiff Maxell Ltd. sued Apple, Inc. alleging infringement of 10 Maxell patents.1 Maxell
`
`alleges that various aspects of Apple’s iPhone, iPad and Mac products infringe the Asserted
`
`Patents, including: cameras; navigation capabilities; authentication systems; telecommunications
`
`techniques; video streaming; “do not disturb” functionality; power management technologies; and
`
`smartwatch integration.
`
`A.
`
`The Parties
`
`Apple is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Cupertino, California, within the
`
`Northern District of California (“NDCA”). Docket No. 57-1 ¶ 6. According to Apple’s declarant,
`
`Michael Jaynes, most of Apple’s management, marketing, research and development employees
`
`1 U.S. Patent Nos. 6,748,317; 6,580,999; 8,339,493; 7,116,438; 6,408,193; 10,084,991; 6,928,306; 6,329,794;
`10,212,586 and 6,430,498 (collectively, the “Asserted Patents”).
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 183-1 Filed 01/15/20 Page 3 of 24 PageID #: 7978
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 171 *
`* Filed 01/03/20 Page 2 of 23 PageID #:
` 7642
`
`as well as its 12 relevant witnesses are all in NDCA. Id. at ¶¶ 7, 15, 22–35. Furthermore, Apple
`
`asserts that its engineering, sales and marketing documents are either located in NDCA or
`
`electronically accessible from there, and none are located in the Eastern District of Texas
`
`(“EDTX”). Id. at ¶¶ 33–36. According to Mr. Jaynes, Apple has no regular place of business or
`
`employees relevant to this case in EDTX. Id. at ¶¶ 19–20, 36.
`
`Apple has several operations elsewhere in Texas, including thousands of employees at its
`
`facilities in Austin. Docket No. 65-3; Docket No. 65-4. Apple holds out its Austin facilities as
`
`playing “a very critical and integral role—they are designing chips that go into all the devices
`
`[Apple] sell[s].” Docket No. 65-3 at 3.2 It is a base of Apple’s microchip design. Id. Apple’s
`
`Austin engineers played a major role in developing Apple’s ‘A’ series processors and other
`
`components in the iPhone and iPad. Id. Apple also manufactures its Mac Pro computers in Austin.
`
`Id. Apple’s Texas facilities house Apple’s customer support services for its iOS and Mac devices.
`
`Docket No. 65-5 at 2. And Apple at least partially supports its Maps software from Austin. Id.
`
`Maxell is a Japanese corporation headquartered in Kyoto, Japan. As for Maxell’s
`
`connections with this district, Hitachi Maxell, Ltd.,3 the prior owner of the Asserted Patents,
`
`worked with Alan Loudermilk in this district beginning in 2014. Docket No. 65-51 ¶¶ 5, 8. Mr.
`
`Loudermilk began working as Maxell’s agent and representative for licensing negotiations with
`
`Apple concerning some of the Asserted Patents. Id. ¶ 4. Mr. Loudermilk’s documents from the
`
`negotiations are located in this district. Id. ¶ 6–7.
`
`2 Cites to docket entries are to the ECF pagination.
`3 The relationship between Maxell, Hitachi Maxell and Hitachi is discussed infra in Section I.B.
`Page 2 of 23
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 183-1 Filed 01/15/20 Page 4 of 24 PageID #: 7979
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 171 *
`* Filed 01/03/20 Page 3 of 23 PageID #:
` 7643
`
`Apple moves the Court to transfer this case to NDCA for convenience under 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1404. However, before analyzing the traditional § 1404(a) factors, the Court must resolve the
`
`parties’ dispute regarding the forum selection clause contained in a 2011 NDA.
`
`B.
`
`Prior Negotiations and Communications Concerning the Asserted Patents
`
`The parties have a history of negotiations dating back to the early 2010s. Interwoven into
`
`this legacy is the corporate history of Maxell and third-party Hitachi, Ltd (“Hitachi”). Prior to
`
`October 2017, Maxell was known as Hitachi Maxell, Ltd. Following a reorganization, Hitachi
`
`Maxell, Ltd. became Maxell Holdings, Ltd. by way of a name change and transferred certain assets
`
`to Maxell, Ltd., including the Asserted Patents. In this litigation, Maxell has treated Maxell, Ltd.
`
`as the direct successor to Hitachi Maxell, Ltd. 4
`
`Between at least 2011 and June 2013, Hitachi owned some of the Asserted Patents,
`
`including the ’317, ’999, ’498 and ’493 patents. Hitachi is a separate entity from the Maxell
`
`entities, but it has held varying ownership interests in Hitachi Maxell, Ltd. After June 2013,
`
`Hitachi transferred the Asserted Patents to Hitachi Maxell, Ltd.
`
`4 For the purposes of discovery Maxell has treated both Maxell, Ltd. and the extinct Hitachi Maxell, Ltd. as a single
`entity and responded to discovery on behalf of both entities.
`Page 3 of 23
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 183-1 Filed 01/15/20 Page 5 of 24 PageID #: 7980
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 171 *
`* Filed 01/03/20 Page 4 of 23 PageID #:
` 7644
`
`In June 2013, Apple and Hitachi began separate discussions over Hitachi’s “Consumer’s
`
`Smart Phone Related Patents.” See Docket No. 57-22.
`
`
`
`II.
`
`Applicability of the
`
`Apple now contends that the forum selection clause in the
`
`mandates transfer to NDCA.
`
`A.
`
`Legal Standard
`
`Section 1404(a) provides that “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest
`
`of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it
`
`Page 4 of 23
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 183-1 Filed 01/15/20 Page 6 of 24 PageID #: 7981
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 171 *
`* Filed 01/03/20 Page 5 of 23 PageID #:
` 7645
`
`might have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). A case may also be transferred under § 1404(a)
`
`if there is an applicable forum selection clause. Atl. Marine Constr. Co., Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court
`
`for the W. Dist. of Tex., 571 U.S. 49, 63 (2013). If a party files such a motion, then “proper
`
`application of § 1404(a) requires that a forum-selection clause be ‘given controlling weight in all
`
`but the most exceptional cases.’ ” Id. at 59–60.
`
`To determine whether transfer pursuant to a forum-selection clause is appropriate, courts
`
`follow a two-step analysis. Before addressing transfer under the traditional factors, the Court must
`
`determine the applicability of the Confidentiality Agreement’s forum selection clause. See Gen.
`
`Protecht Grp., Inc. v. Leviton Mfg. Co., 651 F.3d 1355, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2011) [hereinafter GPG].
`
`The Federal Circuit has held that a forum selection clause applies if the nexus between the case
`
`and the agreement at issue is “non-frivolous.” Id. In the context of defenses to infringement
`
`claims, non-frivolous means that “[t]he outcome of that dispute will determine whether the
`
`patentee can sustain its suit for infringement.” Id. “A bare allegation that a license provides a
`
`defense to the claims in suit fails to meet this standard and will not trigger a forum selection
`
`clause.” Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 2:18-cv-00505-JRG, 2019 WL 4451329, at *1
`
`(E.D. Tex. Sept. 16, 2019) (citing Id.). Courts in this district have noted that “[b]eyond this,
`
`however, the Federal Circuit has provided little guidance.” EVS Codec Techs., LLC v. LG Elecs.,
`
`Inc., No. 2:18-CV-00343-JRG, 2019 WL 2904747, at *2 (E.D. Tex. July 5, 2019). In the past,
`
`courts in this district used a less than one-half and nearer to the one-quarter standard to find an
`
`“attachment point” where the defense became “non-frivolous.” Id. (citing Zix Corp. v. Echoworx
`
`Corp., No. 2:15-cv-01272-JRG, 2016 WL 7042221, at *3 (E.D. Tex. June 9, 2016)). Under this
`
`standard, that attachment point is “almost assuredly . . . found before we reach the mid-point of
`
`Page 5 of 23
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 183-1 Filed 01/15/20 Page 7 of 24 PageID #: 7982
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 171 *
`* Filed 01/03/20 Page 6 of 23 PageID #:
` 7646
`
`the spectrum,” and that it is probably “found nearer the one-quarter marker.” Zix, 2016 WL
`
`7042221 at *3.
`
`If the court finds that the parties’ dispute triggers a valid forum selection clause, then the
`
`“district court should ordinarily transfer the case to the forum specified in that clause [unless there
`
`are] extraordinary circumstances unrelated to the convenience of the parties” that disfavor transfer.
`
`Atl. Marine, 571 U.S. at 62. “[T]his requires district courts to adjust their usual § 1404(a) analysis
`
`in three ways.” Id. at 63. “First, the plaintiff’s choice of forum merits no weight” and “the plaintiff
`
`bears the burden of establishing that transfer to the forum for which the parties bargained is
`
`unwarranted.” Id. “Second, [the] court . . . should not consider arguments about the parties’
`
`private interests” and “may consider arguments about public-interest factors only.” Id. at 64.
`
`Third, when a forum selection clause controls, “a § 1404(a) transfer of venue will not carry with
`
`it the original venue’s choice-of-law rules—a factor that in some circumstances may affect public-
`
`interest considerations.” Id. at 64.
`
`B.
`
`The Parties’ Positions
`
`Maxell asserts that Apple willfully infringed the Asserted Patents based on the June 25,
`
`2013 letter Hitachi sent to Apple. Apple contends that the 2013 letter was protected by the
`
`Docket No. 57 at 11. Apple further argues that “the
`
`mere existence of these disputes regarding the scope
`
`compels transfer to NDCA
`
`because resolving them requires interpreting the contract under California law . . . .” Docket No.
`
`69 at 8. Apple concludes that this creates a “non-frivolous” nexus between the agreement and this
`
`case, compelling transfer.
`
`Page 6 of 23
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 183-1 Filed 01/15/20 Page 8 of 24 PageID #: 7983
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 171 *
`* Filed 01/03/20 Page 7 of 23 PageID #:
` 7647
`
`Maxell acknowledges that “the existence of an applicable forum selection clause that
`
`governs the dispute could remove the weight given to a plaintiff’s choice of forum and reduce
`
`venue transfer considerations to public-interest factors only.” Docket No. 65 at 12 (emphasis in
`
`original). However, Maxell argues that the
`
`forum selection clause
`
`does not apply. First, Maxell points out that
`
`and Apple has not shown that it applies at all to Maxell. Maxell highlights the
`
`
`
`provision that
`
`
`
`Second, Maxell notes that it is not relying on
`
`as a basis for willful infringement, but the separate June 2013 licensing
`
`negotiations. It points out
`
`that the two negotiations involved “very different offered
`
`transaction[s]:”
`
`Maxell contends
`
`that
`
` Docket No. 65 at 13. Thus,
`
` ” Docket No. 76
`
`at 2 (quoting Docket No. 57-22 at 3) (emphasis in original), whereas the 2013 negotiations were
`
`“directed to
`
`the patents-in-suit”
`
`Id. (emphasis in original). Maxell points out that
`
`
`
`Docket No. 57-22 at 3.
`
`Finally, Maxell argues that Apple’s actions show that the
`
`negotiations were
`
`separate and not covered by
`
` Maxell contends that
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 23
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 183-1 Filed 01/15/20 Page 9 of 24 PageID #: 7984
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 171 *
`* Filed 01/03/20 Page 8 of 23 PageID #:
` 7648
`
`C.
`
`Analysis
`
`Apple’s position is that, because the
`
`mandates NDCA, the case must
`
`be transferred to NDCA to determine if the
`
`applies. This is not the test.
`
`Instead, “the Court must determine where [Apple]’s license defense falls on the continuum
`
`between wholly frivolous and success on the merits.” Uniloc 2017, 2019 WL 4451329, at *2. The
`
`merit of Apple’s defense turns on two issues, both of which must be non-frivolous: (1) that the
`
`2013 letter is within the scope
`
` and (2) that
`
` is binding on Maxell.
`
`The
`
`Id. at 2.
`
`The parties focus on whether the 2013 letter
`
` but the 2013 letter’s
`
` Docket No. 57-21 at 3.
`
`status
`
`explained below,
`
` must be established first. As
`
`Page 8 of 23
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 183-1 Filed 01/15/20 Page 10 of 24 PageID #: 7985
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 171 *
`* Filed 01/03/20 Page 9 of 23 PageID #:
` 7649
`
`Id. at 4–5. Thus,
`
` the Disclosing Party and its successor (Hitachi
`
`and Maxell, respectively) is free to disclose the letter as it sees fit, including to support willful
`
`infringement claims.
`
`Even if this were not true,
`
`The 2013 letter
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 23
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 183-1 Filed 01/15/20 Page 11 of 24 PageID #: 7986
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 171 *
`* Filed 01/03/20 Page 10 of 23 PageID
` #: 7650
`
`There is no non-frivolous argument that the 2013 letter is subject to
`
`does not provide an applicable venue-selection clause, and the Court
`
`Thus, the
`
`proceeds with the traditional § 1404(a) analysis.
`
`III.
`
`Venue
`
`A.
`
`Legal Standard
`
`“For the convenience of parties and witnesses, 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 or to
`
`any district or division to which all parties have consented.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The Fifth
`
`Circuit has developed a test based on several private and public interest factors to determine
`
`whether transfer is appropriate under § 1404(a). In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 315
`
`(5th Cir. 2008) (“Volkswagen II”). The private interest factors include: (1) the availability of
`
`compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses, (2) the cost of attendance for willing
`
`witnesses, (3) the relative ease of access to sources of proof and (4) all other practical problems
`
`that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive. Id. 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 conflict of laws. Id.
`
`A plaintiff’s choice of venue is not an express factor in the analysis. Seven Networks, LLC
`
`v. Google LLC, 2:17-CV-00442-JRG, 2018 WL 4026760, at *8 (citing Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at
`
`Page 10 of 23
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 183-1 Filed 01/15/20 Page 12 of 24 PageID #: 7987
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 171 *
`* Filed 01/03/20 Page 11 of 23 PageID
` #: 7651
`
`315). However, a moving defendant must demonstrate “that the transferee forum is ‘clearly more
`
`convenient.’ ” In re HP Inc., No. 2018-149, 2018 WL 4692486, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 25, 2018)
`
`(alteration in original) (quoting In re Toyota Motor Corp., 747 F.3d 1338, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2014)).
`
`By applying this elevated burden of proof, the plaintiff’s choice of forum is given the appropriate
`
`deference. Seven Networks, 2018 WL 4026760, at *2 (citing Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 315).
`
`“Motions to transfer venue are to be decided based on ‘the situation which existed when
`
`suit was instituted.’ ” In re EMC Corp., 501 F. App’x 973, 976 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (quoting Hoffman
`
`v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 343 (1960)). However, the Court may consider circumstances that were
`
`“apparent at the time the suit was filed.” Id.
`
`B.
`
`Discussion
`
`As an initial matter, Maxell does not dispute that the case could have been brought in
`
`NDCA. Accordingly, the Court focuses its analysis on the convenience factors.
`
`C.
`
`Private Interest Factors
`
`As noted above, the private 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 trial of a case
`
`easy, expeditious and inexpensive.” Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 315 (citing Piper Aircraft Co. v.
`
`Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 241 n.6 (1981)). The Court addresses each in turn.
`
`1.
`
`Access to Sources of Proof
`
`“The first factor focuses on the locations of sources of proof, such as documents and
`
`physical evidence.” Remmers v. United States, No. CIV. A. 1:09-CV-345, 2009 WL 3617597, at
`
`*4 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 28, 2009). “Courts analyze this factor in light of the distance that documents,
`
`or other evidence, must be transported from their existing location to the trial venue.” Uniloc USA,
`
`Inc. v. Activision Blizzard, Inc., No. 6:13-CV-256, 2014 WL 11609813, at *2 (E.D. Tex. July 16,
`
`Page 11 of 23
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 183-1 Filed 01/15/20 Page 13 of 24 PageID #: 7988
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 171 *
`* Filed 01/03/20 Page 12 of 23 PageID
` #: 7652
`
`2014) (citing Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 316) (noting that this factor is still relevant even if
`
`documents are stored electronically).
`
`This factor turns on which party “most probably [has] the greater volume of documents
`
`relevant to the litigation and their presumed location in relation to the transferee and transferor
`
`venues.” Id. (citing In re Nintendo Co., 589 F.3d 1194, 1199 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Genentech,
`
`Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 314–15). “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 Genentech, 566 F.3d at 1345 (citation omitted). “That access to some sources
`
`of proof presents a lesser inconvenience now than it might have absent recent developments does
`
`not render this factor superfluous.” Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 316.
`
`Apple contends that all its relevant documents, witnesses and evidence and any relevant
`
`third-party evidence are located or electronically accessible from NDCA. Docket No. 57 at 14.
`
`According to Apple, engineers located in Apple’s Cupertino, California headquarters developed
`
`the accused technology in NDCA. Thus, Apple says the related design and development
`
`documents, as well as the marketing, sales and financial information, are “stored in computers in
`
`or accessible from” Cupertino.
`
`Apple also contends that relevant third-party evidence is located in NDCA, specifically
`
`wireless transmission chipsets supplied by Intel and Qualcomm. According to Apple, both
`
`companies are located in California and documents related to their chipsets are “more likely to be
`
`located in or electronically accessible from NDCA than EDTX.”
`
`Apple then argues that there is no relevant evidence in this district. As to itself, Apple
`
`contends that no relevant evidence or witnesses are in EDTX. As to Maxell, Apple says Maxell
`
`Page 12 of 23
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 183-1 Filed 01/15/20 Page 14 of 24 PageID #: 7989
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 171 *
`* Filed 01/03/20 Page 13 of 23 PageID
` #: 7653
`
`has no physical presence or relevant evidence here. In particular, Apple complains that Maxell
`
`only identified a single witness with any ties to EDTX, Maxell’s former outside counsel, Alan
`
`Loudermilk. Apple further argues that Mr. Loudermilk is irrelevant to the transfer analysis given
`
`his former role as hired outside counsel.
`
`Maxell responds that Apple failed to provide evidence of categories and volumes of
`
`physical documents, or even better, examples of physical evidence that might have a real bearing
`
`on allegations of infringement. Thus, to Maxell, “there is no basis for the court to assign great
`
`weight.” Moreover, Maxell contends that Apple ignored the fact that its documents do not exist
`
`only in NDCA and ignored its facility in Austin, Texas. According to Maxell, Apple did not
`
`address the physical location of its documents, only the accessibility, and many of these documents
`
`may be located in Austin.
`
`As to third-party evidence, Maxell explains that relevant parts and services incorporated in
`
`the accused products are supplied by companies in Texas. Maxell points to Samsung
`
`Semiconductor, which supplies chips from its Austin factory, and Flex, which manufactures the
`
`accused Mac computers in Texas. Mr. Loudermilk’s documents, which Maxell contends are
`
`relevant to damages and willfulness, are also located in this district.
`
`Finally, Maxell notes that some of its own documents are more easily accessible in this
`
`district, including documents moved here during prior litigation and evidence related to MRDA’s
`
`research incorporating technologies from some of the Asserted Patents.
`
`Apple points to various employee witnesses as sources of proof. However, “witnesses are
`
`not sources of proof; sources of proof are sources of document[ary] and physical evidence.” Seven
`
`Networks, 2018 WL 4026760, at *3 (marshaling sources) (quotation omitted). Thus, Apple’s
`
`witnesses are considered under the second or third private factor.
`
`Page 13 of 23
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 183-1 Filed 01/15/20 Page 15 of 24 PageID #: 7990
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 171 *
`* Filed 01/03/20 Page 14 of 23 PageID
` #: 7654
`
`“[A]s the Fifth Circuit explained in Volkswagen II, the fact ‘that access to some sources of
`
`proof presents a lesser inconvenience now than it might have absent recent developments does not
`
`render this factor superfluous.’ ” In re TS Tech United States Corp., 551 F.3d 1315, 1321 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2008). “Despite technological advances in transportation of electronic documents, physical
`
`accessibility to sources of proof continues to be a private interest factor to be considered.” Implicit
`
`v. Trend Micro, No. 6:16-cv-00080-JRG, 2016 WL 9245067, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 1, 2016) (citing
`
`Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 316).6
`
`Here, the record is not clear that any relevant documents are located in NDCA. Apple
`
`relies on the declaration of its employee, Mr. Jaynes, but Mr. Jaynes only represented that various
`
`Apple documents “reside on local computers and/or servers located in or around Cupertino or
`
`accessible in Cupertino.” Docket No. 57-1 ¶¶ 33, 34, 35 (emphasis added). That the documents
`
`may be available in NDCA and may reside in NDCA provides no guidance for the Court. Seven
`
`Networks, 2018 WL 4026760, at *4 (“That evidence may or might exist is not enough . . . .”). On
`
`this record Apple’s relevant evidence may be located at any number of its facilities or servers, and
`
`Apple is equally capable of accessing these documents from any of its facilities, including those
`
`in Texas. That Apple can access its own documents at its headquarters, or at any of its other
`
`facilities, is of no weight. Implicit, 2016 WL 9245067, at *2.
`
`Similarly, the evidence before the Court is that significant third-party documents are
`
`located in California but not necessarily in the Northern District. Likewise, third-party evidence,
`
`and perhaps Apple’s own evidence, is located in Texas, but not necessarily in the Eastern District.
`
`Apple’s contention that Qualcomm or Intel documents are available in NDCA is pure speculation.
`
`6 Further, the venue analysis does not consider accessibility during discovery; instead, “[the] venue analysis is
`concerned only with the presentation of evidence at and during trial.” Seven Networks, 2018 WL 4026760, at *3 n4
`(marshaling citations) (emphasis original).
`
`Page 14 of 23
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 183-1 Filed 01/15/20 Page 16 of 24 PageID #: 7991
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 171 *
`* Filed 01/03/20 Page 15 of 23 PageID
` #: 7655
`
`Moreover, Apple is inconsistent in its arguments, arguing for its own documents that the venue
`
`test requires the documents be in NDCA, but arguing for third parties that they be electronically
`
`available in NDCA. To the extent electronic availability is a factor in the venue analysis, the
`
`evidence is that all the documents are equally electronically available in EDTX as in NDCA.
`
`The only documents that any party has established are within either EDTX or NDCA is
`
`Mr. Loudermilk’s documents and any relevant documents held by
`
`MDRA. While
`
`defendants generally carry the heavier evidentiary burden in patent infringement lawsuits, In re
`
`Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d at 1345, this evidence should not be ignored, especially in light of
`
`Apple’s own lack of specificity. On this record, Apple has not established that access to evidence
`
`at trial is more convenient in NDCA than in EDTX, and this factor is neutral.
`
`2.
`
`The availability of compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses
`
`This factor is directed towards unwilling third-party witnesses. Seven Networks, 2018 WL
`
`4026760, at *7 (citing Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 316). “ ‘A district court should assess the
`
`relevance and materiality of the information the witness may provide’ and where a party has
`
`‘identified witnesses relevant to [the] issues [present in a case], [ ] the identification of those
`
`witnesses weighs in favor of [the identifying party].’ ” Id. at *8 (quoting In re Genentech, 566
`
`F.3d at 1344). “[T]o properly analyze convenience, specific witnesses should be identified with,
`
`at a minimum, a general statement providing the expected relevant and material information to the
`
`litigation at hand.” Realtime Data, LLC v. Rackspace US, Inc., No. 6:16-cv-00961-RWS-JDL,
`
`2017 WL 772653, at *10 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 28, 2017).
`
`The parties primarily dispute how, if at all, compulsory service of potential witnesses from
`
`third-party suppliers weighs on this factor. However, neither party identifies specific unwilling
`
`third-party witnesses who may be called to trial in NDCA but not EDTX.
`
`Page 15 of 23
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 183-1 Filed 01/15/20 Page 17 of 24 PageID #: 7992
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 171 *
`* Filed 01/03/20 Page 16 of 23 PageID
` #: 7656
`
`Apple focuses on unidentified Intel and Qualcomm engineers who supported the
`
`development of parts of Apple’s products. Apple also contends that Maxell’s initial disclosures
`
`identify potentially necessary third-party witnesses based in California.
`
`Maxell notes that Apple only broadly contended that Qualcomm or Intel witnesses may be
`
`called at trial and never asserted the testimony from either company or any specific employee
`
`would be necessary at trial. Maxell then contends that it is irrelevant that the companies are based
`
`in California, because both are subject to this Court’s subpoena power. Finally, Maxell explains
`
`that, if testimony from third party companies is necessary, chances are that testimony will be
`
`provided by videotape deposition. According to Maxell, even for trials in California, Apple
`
`typically uses videotape deposition testimony from Qualcomm and Intel representatives, rather
`
`than calling those witnesses at trial. Finally, by Maxell’s count, there are 17 total third party
`
`manufacturers thus far identified, 15 of which are subject to this Court’s compulsory service power
`
`and only five of which are subject to NDCA’s.
`
`The parties agreed that Intel and Qualcomm, the only potential witnesses directly addressed
`
`by Apple, are relevant. However, both entities are subject to this Court’s subpoena power by their
`
`facilities in Texas. FED. R. CIV. P 45(c)(1)(B)(ii); Papst Licensing, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177687
`
`at *13 (“the availability of compulsory process is not measured as against a specific employee of
`
`a third-party corporation, but rather the corporation itself”). As such, they do not weigh for or
`
`against transfer.
`
`As for the other third parties found in the parties Initial Disclosures Docket No. 57-17 at
`
`11-22, and summarized in Maxell’s Appendix 1, Docket No. 65-54, there are approximately 17
`
`Page 16 of 23
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 183-1 Filed 01/15/20 Page 18 of 24 PageID #: 7993
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 171 *
`* Filed 01/03/20 Page 17 of 23 PageID
` #: 7657
`
`potentially relevant third parties.7 Of these, 11 have Texas locations and are subject to the Court’s
`
`absolute subpoena power. Limiting the analysis to the parties identified in Maxell’s Initial
`
`Disclosures, there are 10 third-party entities and six are subject to this Court’s subpoena power.8
`
`Only Skyworks, Universal Scientific, Hitachi and Sony Corporation of America appear to be
`
`outside this Court’s reach. However, Apple has not shown that these entities are within the
`
`subpoena power of NDCA. Nor has Apple shown that any of the entities based outside of
`
`California are subject to NDCA’s subpoena power.
`
`As for individuals, the California individuals Maxell identified in its initial disclosures are
`
`either Apple employees and do not weigh on this factor, or are prosecution counsel who are rarely
`
`called at trial or even deposed during discovery and provide very little weight. AGIS Software
`
`Dev. LLC v. HTC Corp., 2:17-CV-00514-JRG, 2018 WL 4680558, at *7 n.5 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 28,
`
`2018) (“Since patent prosecuting attorneys are rarely called to trial, especially where as in this case
`
`there is no claim of inequitable conduct, the Court gives little weight to the availability of
`
`[prosecution counsel].”).
`
`Based on the evidence before the Court, Apple has not established that the availability of
`
`compulsory service weighs in favor of transfer. Accordingly, this factor is neutral. See St.
`
`Lawrence Communs. LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 2:16-cv-82, 2017 WL 3712153, *3 (E.D. Tex. Feb.
`
`6, 2017) (“[T]his factor’s neutrality is amplified by the fact that this Court’s deposition subpoena
`
`power is equal to that of [NDCA], and Apple fails to explain or acknowledge any inconvenience
`
`that would result from presenting deposition testimony at trial”); e-Watch Inc., 2016 WL 7338342
`
`at *3; Papst Licensing, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177687 at *13-14.
`
`7 Excluding Intel and Qualcomm. This counts Hitachi, MDRA and two Samsung subsidiaries as independent third
`parties. Alternatively treating the Samsung entities as a single entity or discounting Hitachi and MDRA does not
`affect the analysis.
`8 Again, excluding Intel and Qualcomm.
`
`Page 17 of 23
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 183-1 Filed 01/15/20 Page 19 of 24 PageID #: 7994
`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 171 *
`* Filed 01/03/20 Page 18 of 23 PageID
` #: 7658
`
`3.
`
`Costs of attendance for willing witnesses
`
`When analyzing this factor, all parties and witnesses must be considered. In re Volkswagen
`
`AG, 371 F.3d 201, 204 (5th Cir. 2004) (“Volkswagen I”). However, “[t]his factor [] primarily
`
`concerns the convenience of nonparty witnesses.” Seven Networks, 2018 WL 4026760, at *10
`
`(quotations omitted). A district court should assess the “relevance and materiality of the
`
`information the witness may provide,” but it is not necessary for a party “to show that the potential
`
`witness has more than relevant and material information.” In re Genentech, 566 F.3d at 1343.
`
`“When 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.
`
`“However, as other courts applying Fifth Circuit venue law have noted, the convenience of party
`
`witnesses is given little weight.” Seven Networks, 2018 WL 4026760, at *9.
`
`Apple focuses on the fact that its own witnesses are located in NDCA and that the “likely”
`
`third-party witnesses for the ’193 patent are located in NDCA. Apple also contends that Maxell’s
`
`own employees and the inventors are located in Japan and NDCA is more convenient for those
`
`witnesses as well. According to Apple, it will take twice as long for those witnesses to travel to
`
`Texarkana than San Francisco.
`
`Maxell responded that little weight should be given to Apple’s self-identified witnesses,
`
`particularly because Apple rarely calls the same wi

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket