throbber
Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 58 Filed 08/13/19 Page 1 of 22 PageID #: 1436
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TEXARKANA DIVISION
`
`MAXELL, LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`vs.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Civil Action No. 5:19-cv-00036-RWS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.’S AMENDED MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
`PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 58 Filed 08/13/19 Page 2 of 22 PageID #: 1437
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
`
`BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... 2
`
`Page
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Apple Is Based In The NDCA ............................................................................... 2
`
`Maxell Has No Relevant Ties To The EDTX ........................................................ 4
`
`
` ..................... 4
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ........................................................................................................ 5
`
`ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`This Case Could Have Been Brought In The NDCA ............................................ 6
`
` .................................. 6
`
`The Public Interest Factors Collectively Favor Transfer ....................................... 7
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Local Interests Strongly Favor Transfer .................................................... 8
`
`Familiarity with Governing Law Favors Transfer ..................................... 8
`
`Remaining Public Interest Factors Are Neutral ......................................... 8
`
`D.
`
`If Considered, The Private Interest Factors Also Favor Transfer .......................... 9
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Relative Ease of Access to Sources of Proof Strongly Favors
`Transfer ...................................................................................................... 9
`
`Availability of Compulsory Process Favors Transfer .............................. 11
`
`Attendance of Willing Witnesses Favors Transfer .................................. 12
`
`Other Practical Problems Are Neutral ..................................................... 13
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 15
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 58 Filed 08/13/19 Page 3 of 22 PageID #: 1438
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`ACQIS LLC v. EMC Corp.,
`67 F. Supp. 3d 769 (E.D. Tex. 2014) .......................................................................................... 8
`
`Adaptix, Inc. v. HTC Corp.,
`937 F. Supp. 2d 867 (E.D. Tex. 2013) ................................................................................ 11, 12
`
`Aguilar-Ayala v. Ruiz,
`973 F.2d 411 (5th Cir. 1992) .................................................................................................... 11
`
`Alacritech Inc. v. CenturyLink, Inc.,
`No. 2:16-cv-00693-JRG-RSP, 2017 WL 4155236 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 19, 2017) ........................ 12
`
`Atl. Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for the W. Dist. of Tex.,
`134 S. Ct. 568 (2013) .......................................................................................................... 6, 7, 9
`
`Bush Seismic Techns. LLC v. Am. Gem Soc’y,
`No. 2:14-cv-1809-JRG, 2016 WL 1545855 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 15, 2016) ............................... 9, 11
`
`ConnecTel, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`No. 2:04-cv-396, 2005 WL 366966 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 16, 2005) ................................................ 14
`
`DSS Tech. Mgmt., Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 6:13-cv-919-JDL, 2014 WL 6847569 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 7, 2014) .................................. 8, 15
`
`EVS Codec Techns., LLC v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`No. 2:18-cv-00343-JRG, 2019 WL 2904747 (E.D. Tex. July 5, 2019) ..................................... 6
`
`In Re Genentech,
`566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................................................ 9, 12
`
`In re Hoffman-La Roche, Inc.,
`587 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ................................................................................................ 12
`
`In re Horseshoe Entm’t,
`337 F.3d 429 (5th Cir. 2003) .................................................................................................... 11
`
`In re Morgan Stanley,
`417 F. App’x 947 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ........................................................................................... 15
`
`In re Nintendo Co., Ltd.,
`589 F.3d 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................................................................. 6
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 58 Filed 08/13/19 Page 4 of 22 PageID #: 1439
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`In re Verizon Bus. Network Servs.,
`635 F.3d 559 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................................ 14, 15
`
`In Re Volkswagen AG,
`371 F.3d 201 (5th Cir. 2004) .................................................................................................. 5, 6
`
`In Re Volkswagen of America, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) ...................................................................................................... 5
`
`In re Zimmer Holdings, Inc.,
`609 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ................................................................................................ 15
`
`Innovative Display Techs. LLC v. BMW of N. Am., LLC,
`No. 2:14-cv-00106-JRG, 2015 WL 1459188 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2015) ................................ 12
`
`Maxell, Ltd. v. ASUSTek Computer Inc.,
`No. 3:18-cv-01788-VC, Dkt. 37 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2018) ...................................................... 13
`
`Mohamed v. Mazda Motor Corp.,
`90 F. Supp. 2d 757 (E.D. Tex. 2000) .......................................................................................... 6
`
`Network Protection Sciences, LLC v. Juniper Networks, Inc.,
`No. 2:10-cv-224-JRG, 2012 WL 194382 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2012) .......................................... 8
`
`Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 6:15-cv-1095, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177687 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 30, 2016) .................... 8, 14
`
`Porto Tech. Co., Ltd. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 2:15-cv-00457-JRG-RSP, 2016 WL 937366 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 11, 2016) .......................... 15
`
`Realtime Data LLC v. Dropbox, Inc.,
`No. 6:15-cv-463-RWS-JDL, 2016 WL 153860 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2016) .............................. 14
`
`TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC,
`137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017) ................................................................................................................ 6
`
`Tessera Advanced Techs., Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.
`No. 2:17-cv-00671-JRG, 2018 WL 8014281 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 5, 2018) .................................... 7
`
`Texas Data Co., LLC v. Target Brands, Inc.,
`771 F. Supp. 2d 630 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2011) ........................................................................ 12
`
`TransUnion Intelligence LLC v. Search Am., Inc.,
`No. 2:10-cv-130-TJW, 2011 WL 1327038 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 5, 2011) ...................................... 13
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 58 Filed 08/13/19 Page 5 of 22 PageID #: 1440
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`No. 6:15-CV-1175-JRG, 2017 WL 959856 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 13, 2017) ..................................... 7
`
`Wireless Recognition Techs. LLC v. A9.com, Inc.,
`No. 2:10-cv-364-JRG, 2012 WL 506669 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 15, 2012) ....................................... 11
`
`Zenith Elecs. LLC v. Sony Corp.,
`No. 5:10-cv-184-DF, 2011 WL 13217851 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 25, 2011) ..................................... 14
`
`Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(2) .................................................................................................................... 6
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) ........................................................................................................................ 6
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) ........................................................................................................................ 5
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1)(A) ........................................................................................................... 12
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1)(B) ........................................................................................................... 12
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 58 Filed 08/13/19 Page 6 of 22 PageID #: 1441
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Under a straightforward application of the Volkswagen I factors, the Court should transfer
`
`this case to the Northern District of California (“NDCA”) because it is the clearly more convenient
`
`venue. This case has no connection to the Eastern District of Texas (“EDTX”), but has very
`
`significant connections to the NDCA. Indeed, the most important factor in the transfer analysis—
`
`the location of the relevant witnesses—weighs strongly in favor of transfer as there are numerous
`
`party and third-party witnesses in the NDCA. On that basis alone, this case belongs in the NDCA.
`
`The other transfer factors similarly support transfer.
`
`Apple Inc. (“Apple”) is a California corporation, headquartered for over 40 years in the
`
`NDCA.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` The case for transfer, however, goes beyond Apple’s strong ties to the NDCA.
`
`Third-party vendors and witnesses with knowledge of certain accused components are also located
`
`in the NDCA. The NDCA has subpoena power over, and is more convenient for, certain party and
`
`third-party witnesses.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`In contrast, Maxell, Ltd. (“Maxell”) —headquartered in Kyoto, Japan—has no relevant ties
`
`to the EDTX and its witnesses would actually suffer less burden litigating in the NDCA. Maxell
`
`does not have a single employee in the EDTX, and no known third-party witnesses or sources of
`
`proof relevant to the transfer analysis are in or near the EDTX. No transfer factor supports keeping
`
`this case in the EDTX. Accordingly, Apple respectfully moves to transfer this case to NDCA
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 58 Filed 08/13/19 Page 7 of 22 PageID #: 1442
`
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`A.
`
`Apple Is Based In The NDCA
`
`Apple, headquartered in Cupertino, California (in the NDCA), has been a California
`
`corporation since its founding in 1976. Declaration of Michael Jaynes (“Jaynes Decl.”), ¶ 6.
`
`Apple’s management and primary research and development facilities are all located in or near
`
`Cupertino, California. Id., ¶ 7. While Apple sells its products throughout the world, the primary
`
`research, design, and development of the features and functionality accused in this case took place
`
`in or around Cupertino, California. Id., ¶¶ 7-21.
`
`Apple’s relevant witnesses are also located in the NDCA. The following is a list of Apple
`
`employees likely to have discoverable information relevant to this case:
`
`Asserted U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`Accused Technology
`
`6,748,317 (“’317 patent”),
`6,580,999 (“’999 patent”),
`6,430,498 (“’498 patent”)
`
`8,339,493 (“’493 patent”)
`
`7,116,438 (“’438 patent”),
`10,212,586 (“’586 patent”)
`
`6,408,193 (“’193 patent”)
`
`10,084,991 (“’991 patent”),
`6,928,306 (“’306 patent”)
`
`Walking navigation features in Apple
`Maps and Find My Friends
`
`Cameras with image sensors or image
`stabilization
`Authenticating Apple devices and
`allowing data communication between
`authenticated Apple devices
`Controlling the gain and bias power
`settings for CDMA data transmission
`Notifications and alerts for telephone
`calls and FaceTime video calls
`
`6,329,794 (“’794 patent”)
`
`Low Power Mode
`
`Likely Apple
`Witness(es)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Id., ¶¶ 4-5, 8-14, 22-32. All of these individuals are located in the NDCA, and their respective
`
`engineering teams are also based there. Id., ¶¶ 22-32, 34-35.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 58 Filed 08/13/19 Page 8 of 22 PageID #: 1443
`
`
`Decl.”), Ex. O, 19; Ex. P, 16.
`
` Declaration of Luann Simmons (“Simmons
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Apple has neither
`
`a regular place of business nor any employees or documents relevant to this matter in the EDTX.
`
`See Jaynes Decl., ¶¶ 19-20, 36. The two Apple retail stores previously located in the EDTX and
`
`identified in Maxell’s Complaint closed in April 2019. See id., ¶ 19; Dkt. 1, Complaint, ¶ 12.
`
`Not only are Apple’s witnesses and documents located in California, relevant third-party
`
`vendors that supply certain accused components to Apple are also located there. Jaynes Decl.,
`
`¶¶ 27-28. For example, Maxell’s infringement allegations for the ’193 patent are based primarily
`
`on the functionality provided by CDMA radio chipsets supplied by third-party vendors. See
`
`Complaint, ¶ 83 (citing teardown image showing Intel chipsets).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 58 Filed 08/13/19 Page 9 of 22 PageID #: 1444
`
`
`B. Maxell Has No Relevant Ties To The EDTX
`
`Maxell is a Japanese corporation headquartered in Kyoto, Japan. Complaint, ¶ 7. All of
`
`the 28 named inventors of the patents-in-suit are based in Japan. Id., Exs. 1-10; Simmons Decl.,
`
`Ex. O, 10-18. And the previous owners of the patents-in-suit—Hitachi Ltd., Hitachi Consumer
`
`Electronics Co., Ltd., and Hitachi Maxell, Ltd.—are all Japanese corporations with no ties to the
`
`EDTX. Simmons Decl., Ex. C.
`
`The only alleged tie Maxell has to this district is through an “affiliate” named Maxell
`
`Research and Development America, LLC (“MRDA”), which was allegedly founded in Marshall,
`
`Texas. See Complaint, ¶ 6. But MRDA is neither a party to this case, nor the assignee of any
`
`patents-in-suit, nor the employer of any named inventor to the patents-in-suit. See id. The alleged
`
`research work performed by MRDA—relating to batteries for flashing stop signs, wireless
`
`charging for “Robo Fish” toys, and magnetic tape data cartridges—has nothing to do with the
`
`patents or technology at issue in this case. See Simmons Decl., Ex. D, 12:22-13:3. Moreover,
`
`MRDA’s alleged Texas office has no employees, and is at an address shared with seventeen other
`
`companies, many of which are non-practicing patent-licensing entities. See id., Ex. D, 13:7-10;
`
`Ex. E.2 MRDA is registered in New Jersey, and all of its registered officers are located outside
`
`the state of Texas. Id., Ex. F; Ex. D, 12:9-17:19.
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2 Maxell alleges that MRDA is located at 511 N. Washington Ave. in Marshall, Texas, but the
`sole resident listed at that address is Alan R. Loudermilk. See Simmons Decl., Ex. E; Ex. D,
`14:9-23. Other than Mr. Loudermilk, Maxell did not identify any potential witness affiliated
`with MRDA in its Initial Disclosures. See id., Ex. O, 18.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 58 Filed 08/13/19 Page 10 of 22 PageID #: 1445
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), the moving party must first show that the claims “might have
`
`been brought” in the proposed transferee district. In Re Volkswagen of America, Inc., 545 F.3d
`
`304, 312-13 (5th Cir. 2008) (“Volkswagen II”). Second, the movant must show “good cause” by
`
`demonstrating that the “transferee venue is clearly more convenient” than the transferor district.
`
`Id. at 315. As shown below, this case meets both requirements.
`
`In determining whether the “transferee venue is clearly more convenient,” the district court
`
`weighs private and public interest factors, with which this Court is intimately familiar. See In Re
`
`Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201, 203 (5th Cir. 2004) (“Volkswagen I”). The “most important”
`
`factor, typically, “is whether substantial inconvenience will be visited upon key fact witnesses
`
`should the court deny transfer.” Mohamed v. Mazda Motor Corp., 90 F. Supp. 2d 757, 774 (E.D.
`
`
`3 Maxell’s Initial Disclosures describe Maxell Corporation of America as being involved in
`“prior negotiations between Maxell and Apple.” Simmons Decl., Ex. O, 19.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 58 Filed 08/13/19 Page 11 of 22 PageID #: 1446
`
`
`Tex. 2000); see also In re Nintendo Co., Ltd., 589 F.3d 1194, 1198 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`
`A case may be transferred “if there is an applicable forum selection clause,” and “proper
`
`application of § 1404(a) requires that a forum-selection clause be ‘given controlling weight in all
`
`but the most exceptional cases.’” EVS Codec Techns., LLC v. LG Elecs., Inc., No. 2:18-cv-00343-
`
`JRG, 2019 WL 2904747, *2 (E.D. Tex. July 5, 2019) (citing Atl. Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist.
`
`Court for the W. Dist. of Tex., 134 S. Ct. 568, 579 (2013)). If the parties’ dispute triggers a forum
`
`selection clause, the transfer analysis is altered: (1) “the plaintiff’s choice of forum merits no
`
`weight,” and (2) the Court “may consider arguments about public-interest factors only.” Id. at *2.
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`A.
`
`This Case Could Have Been Brought In The NDCA
`
`There can be no dispute that this case could have been brought in the NDCA. A patent
`
`infringement case may be brought in “the judicial district where the defendant resides.” 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1400(b); see also TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514, 1519
`
`(2017). For purposes of patent venue, a domestic corporation “resides” only in its state of
`
`incorporation. See id. at 1514. Apple is a California corporation that is both headquartered and
`
`has its principal place of business in the NDCA (see Jaynes Decl., ¶ 6), and Apple is subject to
`
`personal jurisdiction there. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(c)(2), 1400(b). Accordingly, the threshold
`
`requirement for transferring this case is met. See Volkswagen I, 371 F.3d at 203.
`
`B.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 58 Filed 08/13/19 Page 12 of 22 PageID #: 1447
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`The Public Interest Factors Collectively Favor Transfer
`
`When a forum selection clause is triggered, “a district court may consider arguments about
`
`public-interest factors only.” Atl. Marine, 134 S. Ct. at 582. “Because those factors will rarely
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 58 Filed 08/13/19 Page 13 of 22 PageID #: 1448
`
`
`defeat a transfer motion, the practical result is that forum-selection clauses should control except
`
`in unusual cases.” Id. Here, the public factors do not overcome the forum selection clause.
`
`1.
`
`Local Interests Strongly Favor Transfer
`
`The NDCA has a strong local interest in this case “because the cause of action calls into
`
`question the work and reputation of several individuals residing in or near that district.” In Re
`
`Hoffman-La Roche Inc., 587 F.3d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2009). This case directly affects
`
`California-based engineers from Apple and Apple’s chipset vendors, who were “involved in the
`
`development and implementation of the accused products.” ACQIS LLC v. EMC Corp., 67 F.
`
`Supp. 3d 769, 779 (E.D. Tex. 2014). In contrast, Maxell has no relevant connection to the EDTX.
`
`The alleged inventions claimed in the patents-in-suit were conceived in Japan, all the named
`
`inventors reside in Japan, and Maxell is based in Japan. To the extent MRDA performs any
`
`research in the EDTX, that research is unrelated to the technology at issue in this case. See
`
`Simmons Decl., Ex. D, 12:22-13:10. Thus, the local interest factor strongly favors transfer.
`
`2.
`
`Familiarity with Governing Law Favors Transfer
`
`While “both the Northern District of California and the Eastern District of Texas are
`
`familiar with patent law” (Network Protection Sciences, LLC v. Juniper Networks, Inc., No. 2:10-
`
`cv-224-JRG, 2012 WL 194382, at *7 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 23, 2012)),
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`Remaining Public Interest Factors Are Neutral
`
`The court-congestion factor is neutral. See Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., KG v. Apple,
`
`Inc., No. 6:15-cv-1095, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 177687, at *18 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 30, 2016) (finding
`
`congestion factor neutral between the NDCA and the EDTX); DSS Tech. Mgmt., Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`
`No. 6:13-cv-919-JDL, 2014 WL 6847569, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 7, 2014) (same); see also In Re
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 58 Filed 08/13/19 Page 14 of 22 PageID #: 1449
`
`
`Genentech, 566 F.3d 1338, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (finding comparison of court speed “to be the
`
`most speculative” of the factors in the transfer analysis).4 As there is no co-pending case involving
`
`the patents-in-suit, there is no prospect for any conflicts of law. Thus, the two remaining public
`
`interest factors are neutral.
`
`D.
`
`If Considered, The Private Interest Factors Also Favor Transfer5
`
`1.
`
`Relative Ease of Access to Sources of Proof Strongly Favors Transfer
`
`All of Apple’s relevant documents, witnesses, and evidence and relevant third-party
`
`evidence are located in or electronically accessible from the NDCA. The access-to-proof factor
`
`“turns upon which party—usually the accused infringer—will most probably have the greater
`
`volume of documents relevant to the litigation and the presumed location of these documents in
`
`relation to the proposed and transferor venues.” Bush Seismic Techns. LLC v. Am. Gem Soc’y, No.
`
`2:14-cv-1809-JRG, 2016 WL 1545855, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 15, 2016). When a defendant has
`
`most of the identified relevant documents, “the place where the defendant’s documents are kept
`
`weighs in favor of transfer to that location.” DSS Tech., 2014 WL 6847569, at *2 (citing In Re
`
`Genentech, 566 F.3d at 1345).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4 Maxell states that it does not make or sell any product that practices the claimed inventions.
`See Simmons Decl., Ex. N, 35. Accordingly, the court congestion factor is relatively
`unimportant in this case. See, e.g., In re Morgan Stanley, 417 F. App’x at 949-950 (discounting
`the court congestion factor for a non-practicing plaintiff).
`5 Private interest factors are only considered if the Court finds the forum selection clause to be
`inapplicable. See Atl. Marine, 134 S. Ct. at 582.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 58 Filed 08/13/19 Page 15 of 22 PageID #: 1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Relevant third-party evidence is also located in the NDCA. Specifically, the ’193 patent
`
`relates to controlling the transmission bias of CDMA data communication. See Complaint, ¶¶ 81,
`
`88.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Conversely, Apple is not aware of any relevant evidence in the EDTX. No relevant
`
`documents concerning the development, marketing, or financials of the accused products—or any
`
`other relevant evidence—are in the EDTX, and no Apple witnesses are in the EDTX. Id., ¶¶ 19-
`
`20, 36. Indeed, Apple does not currently operate any retail stores, corporate offices, or any other
`
`type of facility in the EDTX, and no Apple employee in the EDTX was involved in the research,
`
`design, development, or marketing of the accused technology or accused products. Id., ¶ 19. And
`
`even when Apple operated retail stores in the EDTX, those stores did not house documents relevant
`
`to this case or employ engineers who developed the accused technology. Id., ¶ 20.
`
`Maxell has no physical presence or relevant evidence in the EDTX. Maxell’s only alleged
`
`tie to the EDTX is through its affiliate MRDA, which has no employees in the EDTX and no
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 58 Filed 08/13/19 Page 16 of 22 PageID #: 1451
`
`
`relevant evidence.6 See Simmons Decl., Exs. D-F; see also Section II. In their Initial Disclosures,
`
`the parties identified only one potential witness with any tie to the EDTX—Alan Loudermilk. See
`
`Simmons Decl., Ex. O, 18; Ex. P, 14-15. Mr. Loudermilk previously served as Maxell’s outside
`
`counsel in its patent licensing negotiations with other companies, including Apple. Id., Ex. P.7
`
`Given his role as hired outside counsel, Mr. Loudermilk’s presence in the EDTX has no bearing
`
`on the transfer analysis. See In re Horseshoe Entm’t, 337 F.3d 429, 434 (5th Cir. 2003) (finding
`
`“location of [a party’s] counsel” to be “irrelevant and improper for consideration in determining
`
`the question of transfer of venue”). Thus, “[t]he number of witnesses residing in Texas, and any
`
`relevant information which they may provide, pales in comparison to the number of party and non-
`
`party witnesses with relevant information residing in Northern California.” Wireless Recognition
`
`Techs. LLC v. A9.com, Inc., No. 2:10-cv-364-JRG, 2012 WL 506669, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 15,
`
`2012). Comparing the numerous sources of proof in the NDCA with the little or no sources in the
`
`EDTX, the ease of access to evidence factor weighs strongly in favor of transfer.
`
`2.
`
`Availability of Compulsory Process Favors Transfer
`
`“Transfer is favored when a transferee district has absolute subpoena power over a greater
`
`number of non-party witnesses.” Adaptix, Inc. v. HTC Corp., 937 F. Supp. 2d 867, 874 (E.D. Tex.
`
`2013). The ability to compel live trial testimony is crucial for evaluating a witness’s testimony.
`
`See Aguilar-Ayala v. Ruiz, 973 F.2d 411, 419 (5th Cir. 1992). A court may subpoena a witness to
`
`attend trial only (A) “within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly
`
`
`6 Maxell has not alleged that MRDA has any relevant documents in the EDTX. Given that the
`alleged research performed by MRDA is unrelated to the technology at issue, there is little
`chance that MRDA has anything relevant to this case. See Simmons Decl., Ex. D, 12:22-13:3.
`Even if Maxell claims to have documents in the EDTX, that claim cannot counterbalance
`Apple’s sources of proof in the NDCA. See Bush Seismic, 2016 WL 1545855, at *3.
`7 Mr. Loudermilk is also the apparent owner of the building that houses MRDA in Marshall. See
`Simmons Decl., Ex. D, 14:9-23; Ex. E.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 58 Filed 08/13/19 Page 17 of 22 PageID #: 1452
`
`
`transacts business in person”; or (B) “within the state where the person resides, is employed, or
`
`regularly transacts business in person.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1)(A), (B).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`These California-based engineers would be within the subpoena range of the NDCA, but not the
`
`EDTX. Moreover, Maxell’s own Initial Disclosures identify multiple third-party witnesses and
`
`companies within the subpoena range of the NDCA. See Simmons Decl., Ex. O, 15-21 (identifying
`
`eight third-party witnesses and companies in California). As “[t]he Fifth Circuit values absolute
`
`subpoena power when deciding motions to transfer,” this factor clearly favors transfer. See
`
`Alacritech Inc. v. CenturyLink, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-00693-JRG-RSP, 2017 WL 4155236, at *4 (E.D.
`
`Tex. Sept. 19, 2017) (citing In re Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., 587 F.3d 1333, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009)).
`
`3.
`
`Attendance of Willing Witnesses Favors Transfer
`
`“The convenience of the witnesses is probably the single most important factor in transfer
`
`analysis.” Genentech, 566 F.3d at 1343 (internal quotation marks omitted); Innovative Display
`
`Techs. LLC v. BMW of N. Am., LLC, No. 2:14-cv-00106-JRG, 2015 WL 1459188, at *3 (E.D. Tex.
`
`Mar. 31, 2015). To evaluate witness convenience, “[t]he Court must consider the convenience of
`
`both the party and non-party witnesses.” Texas Data Co., LLC v. Target Brands, Inc., 771 F. Supp.
`
`2d 630, 644 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2011). Of these, “the convenience to non-party witnesses is
`
`afforded greater weight.” Adaptix, 937 F. Supp. 2d at 875.
`
`
`
`
`
` These witnesses are a short car ride from the
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 58 Filed 08/13/19 Page 18 of 22 PageID #: 1453
`
`
`courthouses in the NDCA.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` All
`
`of these party and third-party witnesses could attend trial in the NDCA without the substantial
`
`travel time and expense that trial in the EDTX would require.
`
`Maxell and its employees are located in Japan. See Complaint, ¶ 7. The named inventors
`
`of the patents-in-suit, many of whom may be important witnesses in this case, all appear to reside
`
`in Japan. See id., Exs. 1-10. It is more convenient for these party and third-party witnesses to
`
`travel from Japan to the NDCA than to the EDTX. For example, the majority of the named
`
`inventors are located in or near Tokyo. See id., Exs. 1-10; see also Simmons Decl., Ex. K. There
`
`are five daily direct flights from Tokyo to Northern California, with flight times of less than 10
`
`hours. See Simmons Decl., Ex. L. By comparison, it would take the inventors nearly twice as
`
`long to reach Texarkana through connecting flights. Id., Ex. M. Indeed, in a prior case filed in
`
`California, Maxell argued to the court that it was more convenient for it to litigate in California
`
`compared to other jurisdictions. See Maxell, Ltd. v. ASUSTek Computer Inc., No. 3:18-cv-01788-
`
`VC, Dkt. 37, at *5 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 12, 2018) (Maxell stating that “in this case, venue is more
`
`convenient in one of two districts in California” as compared to “the Eastern District of Texas and
`
`… the District of Delaware”). Accordingly, witness convenience strongly favors transfer.
`
`4.
`
`Other Practical Problems Are Neutral
`
`Because this case is in its early stages—no substantive proceedings have yet occurred, the
`
`Markman hearing is five months away, and trial is set for more than a year away—there are no
`
`practical problems that weigh against a transfer. See TransUnion Intelligence LLC v. Search Am.,
`
`Inc., No. No. 2:10-cv-130-TJW, 2011 WL 1327038, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 5, 2011).
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 5:19-cv-00036-RWS Document 58 Filed 08/13/19 Page 19 of 22 PageID #: 1454
`
`
`No other litigation involving any of the patents-in-suit is pending in the EDTX. To the
`
`extent Maxell argues that previous litigation in this district weighs against transfer, both this Court
`
`and the Federal Circuit have rejected that proposition. As this Court has recognized, because the
`
`prior cases involving the patents-in-suit have all been terminated, there is little judicial economy
`
`to be gained from litigating the same patents in the EDTX. See Zenith Elecs. LLC v. Sony Corp.,
`
`No. 5:10-cv-184-DF, 2011 WL 13217851, at *10 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 25, 2011) (“Because Plaintiff
`
`has no relevant co-pending case in this Court, judicial economy is of limited weight in analyzing
`
`the venue factors.”); ConnecTel, LLC v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 2:04-cv-396, 2005 WL 366966, at
`
`*4 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 16, 2005) (“[T]he gains in judicial economy [based on past claim constructions]
`
`are at best minimal, and possibly non-existent since such gains could be realized by simply
`
`referring to [the Court’s] claim construction, if necessary.”). For example, although this Court has
`
`previously construed certain claim terms of the patents-in-suit, “that claim construction would
`
`benefit the Northern District of California as much as this District.” Papst, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`
`177687, at *188; see also Realtime Data LLC v. Dropbox, Inc., No. 6:15-cv-463-RWS-JDL, 2016
`
`WL 153860, at *6 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2016) (granting motion to transfer).
`
`The Federal Circuit has also rejected the argument that prior litigation involving the
`
`patents-in-suit is sufficient to overcome the convenience factors. In In re Verizon Bus. Network
`
`Servs., the Federal Circuit explained that “[t]o interpret § 1404(a) to hold that any prior suit
`
`involving the same patent can override a compelling showing of transfer would be inconsistent
`
`with the policies underlying § 1404(a).” 635 F.3d 559, 562 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (granting writ of
`
`mandamus). Like this case, the Verizon case involved patents that were litigated in prior cases that
`
`
`8 In Papst, this Court denied Apple’s transfer motion because there were “six co-pending cases in
`this District involving the same patents and the same accused technology.” 2016 U.S. Dist.
`LEXIS 177687, at *16. Here, there are no co-pending cases in this district.
`
`14

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