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