Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 239 Filed 04/30/21 Page 1 of 15
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`AUSTIN DIVISION
`
`ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-CV-00034-ADA
`
`v.
`
`LG ELECTRONICS INC. and LG
`ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:20-CV-00034-ADA
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
`and SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`DEFENDANTS LG ELECTRONICS INC. AND LG ELECTRONICS U.S.A., INC.’S
`OPPOSITION TO ANCORA’S MOTION TO TRANSFER THE ANCORA-LGE
`MATTER BACK TO WACO UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 239 Filed 04/30/21 Page 2 of 15
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`B.
`
`A BALANCING OF THE EQUITIES WEIGHS STRONGLY IN FAVOR OF
`ENFORCING THE PARTIES’ BARGAIN REGARDING THE TRIAL
`SETTING ........................................................................................................................... 1
`A.
`LGE HAS A STRONG RELIANCE INTEREST IN PROCEEDING IN
`THE AUSTIN DIVISION ..................................................................................... 1
`THE CONCERNS RAISED IN ANCORA’S MOTION CAN BE
`ADDRESSED BY A SHORT CONTINUANCE.................................................. 2
`ANCORA HAS NOT CARRIED ITS BURDEN IN ESTABLISHING THAT
`WACO IS A “CLEARLY MORE CONVENIENT” FORUM ......................................... 5
`A.
`ANCORA’S MOTION FAILS TO ADDRESS FACTS AND LAW
`THAT ARE FATAL TO ITS REQUEST .............................................................. 5
`APPLICATION OF THE PRIVATE AND PUBLIC INTEREST
`FACTORS WEIGH AGAINST TRANSFER ....................................................... 7
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 10
`
`B.
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 239 Filed 04/30/21 Page 3 of 15
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Federal Cases
`
`In re Apple,
`979 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2020)................................................................................................10
`
`Denver & Rio Grande W. Ry. Co. v. Brotherhood of R.R. Trainmen,
`387 U.S. 556 (1967) ...................................................................................................................5
`
`In re Horseshoe Entm’t,
`337 F.3d 429 (5th Cir. 2003) .....................................................................................................7
`
`In re HP Inc.,
`826 Fed. Appx. 899 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 15, 2020) ..........................................................................8
`
`Jarvis Christian College v. Exxon Corp.,
`845 F.2d 523 (5th Cir. 1988) .....................................................................................................6
`
`Lotief v. Bd. Of Supervisors for Univ. of Louisiana Sys.,
`No. 18-cv-991, 2019 WL 3453918 (July 31, 2019) ...................................................................8
`
`Nikaj v. Texas Christian University,
`No. 20-cv-171, 2020 WL 2219906 (N.D. Tex. May 6, 2020) ...........................................6, 7, 8
`
`In re Radmax, Ltd.,
`720 F.3d 285 (5th Cir. 2013) ...............................................................................................7, 10
`
`In re Volkswagen AG,
`371 F.3d 201 (5th Cir. 2004) .....................................................................................................9
`
`-ii-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 239 Filed 04/30/21 Page 4 of 15
`
`I.
`
`A BALANCING OF THE EQUITIES WEIGHS STRONGLY IN FAVOR OF
`ENFORCING THE PARTIES’ BARGAIN REGARDING THE TRIAL SETTING
`
`As the Court is familiar with based on Ancora’s similar transfer motion against Samsung
`
`prior to settlement, (Dkt. 164), the current trial setting in Austin is the result of mutual consent
`
`between the parties in the form of a joint stipulation. The record reflects the parties’ agreement
`
`that the case would be transferred from the Waco to Austin Division, in exchange for defendants’
`
`waiver of right to challenge the propriety of venue or seek transfer. Dkt. 33. The stipulation reads:
`
`Ancora, LG, and Samsung, through each’s respective counsel, hereby jointly
`stipulate to the entry of an Order transferring the above-captioned actions to the
`United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division,
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(b). Defendants further stipulate and agree that LG
`and Samsung each waives any right it may have to object to venue or move to
`transfer either above-captioned action to another division or district.
`
`Id. The Court “reviewed and considered” the parties’ stipulation prior to transferring the action to
`
`the Austin Division. Dkt. 34. This agreement and the Court’s endorsement of the agreement
`
`cannot be unwound based on the circumstances presented in Ancora’s Motion.
`
`A.
`
`LGE Has a Strong Reliance Interest in Proceeding in the Austin Division
`
`For the last sixteen months, LGE has spent extensive amounts of resources preparing this
`
`case for trial in the Austin courthouse. Notwithstanding the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the
`
`parties pressed on with this litigation – all the while LGE expecting that when it came time for
`
`trial, the parties’ stipulation would control the trial setting. This case is unlike the VLSI litigation
`
`because of the binding stipulation. In VLSI, no stipulation between the parties existed and the
`
`Court was therefore not constrained, as it is here, to honor the terms agreed to between the parties.
`
`As a matter of basic equity, LGE is entitled to the terms of the bargain it struck with Ancora and
`
`the certainty that has accompanied that bargain as LGE made strategic decisions and has spent
`
`millions of dollars litigating this case through the pandemic.
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 239 Filed 04/30/21 Page 5 of 15
`
`Ancora’s motion strategically omits that the terms of the stipulation were carefully
`
`negotiated between counsel. Counsel for Ancora sought LGE’s written confirmation that LGE
`
`was “agreeing not to otherwise contest venue or move to transfer if we agree to transfer to Austin
`
`– retaining Judge Albright.” Ex. A at 2. LGE confirmed that it would “not contest venue in
`
`exchange for a transfer to the Austin Division.” Id. at 1 (emphasis added). In other words, this
`
`bargain is an enforceable quid pro quo. Each side made a meaningful concession in order to reach
`
`an agreement that was memorialized in a Court Order. LGE would not have agreed to this
`
`language but for Ancora’s consent to transfer the case to the Austin Division. Ancora’s motion to
`
`transfer aims to portray LGE as a bystander when considering whether to accept venue in this
`
`district, but the record reflects that LGE actively negotiated the terms of the stipulation which the
`
`Court reviewed, considered, and ultimately granted. Dkt. 34.
`
`It would be manifestly unfair for Ancora not to be bound by the terms that it negotiated
`
`for. Ancora contends that the agreement between the parties can be set aside based on the COVID-
`
`19 pandemic, but parties routinely enter into agreements not knowing how the relevant landscape
`
`might later shift. The fact that the circumstances arising from the pandemic were not known at the
`
`time the parties reached this bargain is not a basis for the Court to deny one side the benefit of its
`
`bargain. To the contrary, parties must be able to rely on both the terms they negotiated for and the
`
`certainty provided by the Court’s endorsement.1
`
`B.
`
`The Concerns Raised in Ancora’s Motion Can Be Addressed by a Short
`Continuance
`
`Ancora’s request to transfer the case back to Waco is premised exclusively on the status of
`
`the Austin courthouse. Ancora heavily incorporates the Court’s reasoning in the VLSI litigation in
`
`1 The Court previously indicated during a January 26, 2021 telephone hearing that it would be
`“absolutely fine” as far as the Court was concerned if the case were to be tried in Austin. See
`Hearing Tr. at 15:15-17:4.
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 239 Filed 04/30/21 Page 6 of 15
`
`both December 2020 and more recently in March 2021. See Motion at 1-3. But Ancora’s
`
`arguments altogether ignore the reality on the ground. The external circumstances surrounding
`
`this trial are not the same as the circumstances the parties faced in the VLSI litigation because,
`
`thankfully, the pandemic is abating. The COVID-19 reality nationwide is decidedly better than it
`
`was only a month ago when the Court decided the transfer motion in the second VLSI trial and is
`
`not nearly as bleak as the reality we faced back in December when the Court decided to transfer
`
`the first VLSI case back to Waco in Civil Action No. 19-cv-977.
`
`LGE submits as part of the record materials to substantiate its position2 that the Austin
`
`courthouse is likely to open in the near future – perhaps even by the designated trial date – based
`
`on the country’s recent pandemic-related bright spots. In relevant part:
`
` The COVID-19 infection rate in Austin, Texas remains low. As depicted below, there were
`fewer than 900 active COVID-19 cases in Travis County as of April 28, 2021. Ex. B
`(Dashboard for austintexas.gov web page).
`
` The COVID-19 vaccine is making its way to potential jurors around the country. After a
`slow kickoff in December 2020, vaccine administration has steadily improved in scale and
`efficiency. By late March, the United States was administering more than 3 million shots per
`day. The United States has now administered more than 200 million shots of vaccines. Ex. C
`(article dated April 28, 2021 from NPR titled “How Many People Have Been Vaccinated In
`The U.S.?”) (visually depicting increased rate of vaccination over time).
`
`2 All exhibits (“Ex.”) are attached to the April 30, 2021 Declaration of Natalie A. Bennett
`(“Bennett Decl.”). In-house counsel Hongsun Yoon has separately lodged a Declaration as to
`facts within his personal knowledge (“Yoon Decl.”).
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 239 Filed 04/30/21 Page 7 of 15
`
` The nationwide rate of COVID-19 infection is expected to continue to decrease with the
`rise in the number of vaccinations. With more than 37% of U.S. adults fully vaccinated,
`public health officials such as Dr. Anthony Fauci expect a slowing of COVID-19 infections.
`Ex. D (article dated April 28, 2021 in the Wall Street Journal) (“Vaccines appear to be starting
`to curb new Covid-19 infections in the U.S., a breakthrough that could help people return to
`more normal activities as infection worries fade, public-health officials say.”).
`
` Other federal courts that have been closed throughout the pandemic are now re-opening.
`All four judicial districts in California recently announced a plan to re-open courthouses and
`resume civil jury trials. Ex. E (article dated April 21, 2021 in the California Recorder) (“The
`chief district judges in all four of California’s federal districts say it’s possible for civil litigants
`to get an imminent trial date”).
`
`Given that it is foreseeable that trial in Austin is a possibility in the near future, the Court should
`
`deny the motion to transfer and, if necessary, reset the trial date for later in the summer. By
`
`granting a short continuance the Court can both protect the parties’ reliance interests regarding a
`
`trial in Austin and can provide certainty to counsel, witnesses, and clients, that the trial will timely
`
`move forward. Ancora has not addressed the possibility of a short continuance but this option
`
`would be the most equitable solution and would offer the Court flexibility in setting a date later in
`
`the summer at a time that is practical in view of the Court’s busy docket.
`
`Moreover, Ancora cannot articulate any legitimate prejudice by a short continuance
`
`because the asserted patent is expired and the interest awarded alongside any judgment would
`
`compensate for the short continuance. Because Ancora is not seeking injunctive relief or an
`
`ongoing royalty, the difference between a trial in June and a trial at some later point in the summer
`
`is not meaningful and certainly does not rise to the level of unwinding the parties’ bargain. A full
`
`balancing of the equities weighs strongly in favor of maintaining venue in the Austin courthouse
`
`and setting the case for trial as soon as it is practicable to do so. It would be erroneous not to
`
`consider the real world circumstances that strongly indicate that Austin, like the rest of the
`
`courthouses around the country, will be opening its doors in the not too distant future.
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 239 Filed 04/30/21 Page 8 of 15
`
`II.
`
`ANCORA HAS NOT CARRIED ITS BURDEN IN ESTABLISHING THAT WACO
`IS A “CLEARLY MORE CONVENIENT” FORUM
`
`As a threshold matter, Ancora conflates a “proper” venue with a “convenient” venue. See
`
`Motion at 2 (emphasizing that LGE admitted that venue was proper in its Answer). Consistent
`
`with the position taken by Samsung in its opposition to a similar motion, (Dkt. No. 173 at 6-7),
`
`LGE did not waive its objections to any forum outside of Austin. However, the Court need not
`
`reach the issue of what LGE did or did not give up in agreeing to the terms of the joint stipulation
`
`because Ancora’s motion is made on convenience grounds but fails to establish any legitimate
`
`convenience gained by transfer to Waco. The traditional Fifth Circuit Volkswagen factors apply
`
`to intra-district transfer and as discussed below there are no private or public interest factors that
`
`weigh in favor of transfer. Accordingly, the motion to transfer should be denied and it would be
`
`an abuse of discretion to find Waco – a venue that has not a single connection to the parties and
`
`witnesses in this case – “clearly more convenient” than the current Austin setting.
`
`A.
`
`Ancora’s Motion Fails to Address Facts and Law That Are Fatal to Its Request
`
`Ancora’s motion focuses on facts and law that are largely irrelevant at the expense of
`
`factors the Court must consider in reaching the correct outcome. This venue inquiry is not about
`
`Samsung’s preferences, Motion at 5-6, it is not about whether Ancora’s expert is willing to travel,
`
`id. at 8-9, and it is certainly not about the VLSI litigation. The inquiry is whether Ancora’s request
`
`is warranted in view of application of Fifth Circuit law to the facts in this case.
`
`1.
`
`Ancora Omits Salient Facts That Weigh Against Transfer
`
`Ancora’s motion fails to identify a single fact specific to Waco other than the cost of its
`
`hotel rooms. See Motion at 7. However, economical hotel rooms do not dictate where trials are
`
`held. Rather, the touchstone is one of convenience for those participating in the trial. Denver &
`
`Rio Grande W. Ry. Co. v. Brotherhood of R.R. Trainmen, 387 U.S. 556, 560 (1967) (“[V]enue is
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 239 Filed 04/30/21 Page 9 of 15
`
`primarily a matter of convenience of litigants and witnesses). Tellingly, Ancora’s motion is silent
`
`as to its own witnesses and sources of proof as Ancora has no connection to Texas. But even more
`
`egregious is Ancora’s failure to address the real world convenience for LGE, the party that is being
`
`haled into Court in place where it also has no connection. Indeed, LGE has no place of business
`
`in the entire Western District of Texas and has not identified a single fact witness that resides in
`
`Texas. Yoon Decl. ⁋ 3.
`
`LGE’s witness list identifies a number of potential LGE witnesses that are currently “may
`
`call” live witnesses. Dkt. 230-3. All of LGE’s potential fact witnesses with knowledge of
`
`engineering issues reside overseas in Korea while any potential domestic fact witnesses with
`
`business expertise reside in Overland Park, Kansas (Mr. Mitch Peterson), Alpharetta, Georgia (Mr.
`
`Jin Han Cho), and Newburgh, New York (Mr. Tim Alessi). Yoon Decl. ⁋ 6. LGE’s witness list
`
`further identifies three expert witnesses that are “will call” live witnesses. Ancora fails to mention
`
`in its motion that two of LGE’s three experts reside in Texas and Dr. Barber, LGE’s technical
`
`expert, resides in Austin, Texas.
`
`When the Volkswagen factors are applied to these LGE facts omitted from Ancora’s
`
`motion, Fifth Circuit law cannot support finding Waco a “clearly more convenient” forum.
`
`2.
`
`It Is Ancora’s Burden to Demonstrate That the Transferee Venue Is
`“Clearly More Convenient”
`
`Ancora also fails to acknowledge the hefty showing it must make to secure transfer under
`
`§ 1404(a). The party moving for a change of venue “bears the burden of demonstrating why the
`
`forum should be changed.” Nikaj v. Texas Christian University, No. 20-cv-171, 2020 WL
`
`2219906, at *1 (N.D. Tex. May 6, 2020) (citing Jarvis Christian College v. Exxon Corp., 845 F.2d
`
`523, 528 (5th Cir. 1988)). This burden is especially heavy here where Ancora already stipulated
`
`to trial in Austin and the Court already exercised its discretion in endorsing the parties’ stipulation.
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 239 Filed 04/30/21 Page 10 of 15
`
`3.
`
`In re Radmax Compels Denial of the Motion to Transfer
`
`Ancora’s motion notably fails to address the Fifth Circuit’s pronouncements on intra-
`
`district transfer, but In re Radmax dictates that intra-district transfer is not appropriate here. See
`
`In re Radmax, Ltd., 720 F.3d 285 (5th Cir. 2013). The Fifth Circuit is unequivocal that the
`
`convenience of witnesses is paramount, even when considering two courthouses less than 100
`
`miles apart and, as particularly important here, the Fifth Circuit has rejected Ancora’s concerns
`
`regarding potential delay. Id. at 288-89.
`
`In re Radmax clarified that delay should only be considered in a § 1404(a) motion to
`
`transfer in “rare and special circumstances.” Id. at 289 (quoting In re Horseshoe Entm’t, 337 F.3d
`
`429, 435 (5th Cir. 2003)). Any delay that was incurred in waiting for the Austin courthouse to
`
`open would likely be “garden-variety” delay since the opening of the Austin courthouse seems
`
`imminent. Supra at 3-4. Because the facts on the ground do not point to a significant delay as
`
`they might have six months ago during the height of the pandemic, Ancora’s concerns regarding
`
`delay should not outweigh the parties previous stipulation and the witness conveniences achieved
`
`by holding the trial in Austin.
`
`B.
`
`Application of the Private and Public Interest Factors Weigh Against Transfer
`
`The cost of attendance and convenience of witnesses weighs against transfer. This
`
`factor is “often regarded as the most important factor when deciding whether to transfer venue.”
`
`Nikaj, 2020 WL 2219906, at *2 (internal citations omitted). Based on the facts of this case, this
`
`factor is dispositive because all identified LGE witnesses would be inconvenienced by traveling
`
`to Waco instead of Austin.
`
`1.
`
`Any fact witnesses that LGE may call live at trial will either be traveling from
`
`Korea or a domestic location that will require flying to Texas. Yoon Decl. ⁋ 4. In each instance,
`
`the LGE witness would need to fly into Austin or Dallas and then rent a car or incur the cost of
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 239 Filed 04/30/21 Page 11 of 15
`
`transportation to travel more than 90 minutes from the airport to Waco. The witness would then
`
`need a rental car in Waco for basic necessities and to access the courthouse. By contrast, if the
`
`trial were in Austin, the LGE witnesses could stay in downtown Austin without the need for a
`
`rental car for the duration of their stay. Additionally, Waco is less convenient for these out-of-
`
`town fact witnesses because they would need to travel more than an hour each way from the
`
`location of the airport to Waco whereas the distance from the Austin airport to downtown is a
`
`decidedly shorter commute. See Lotief v. Bd. Of Supervisors for Univ. of Louisiana Sys., No. 18-
`
`cv-991, 2019 WL 3453918, at *5 (July 31, 2019) (noting that it is common for a “one-hour drive”
`
`to evolve into a “significantly lengthier and more complicated journey” that is ultimately a witness
`
`inconvenience). Ultimately the Court must consider the all conveniences gained when considering
`
`transfer under § 1404(a). See Nikaj, 2020 WL 2219906, at *2 (based on the convenience of the
`
`witnesses, finding that Forth Worth would be a more convenient courthouse than Dallas even
`
`though the two courthouses are close in proximity); Lotief, 2019 WL 3453918, at *5 (rejecting
`
`arguments that “minimize the importance and purpose of geographical boundaries for federal
`
`district courts” when considering transfer to a courthouse 57 miles away).
`
`2.
`
`Next, LGE’s technical expert Dr. Suzanne Barber is a Professor at the University
`
`of Texas at Austin. Ex. F. If the trial occurs in Austin, Dr. Barber will not have to stay at a hotel.
`
`This fact weighs against transfer for the simple reason that if the trial remains in Austin, it will be
`
`decidedly more convenient for at least one witness while the Waco courthouse has no connection
`
`to any of the witnesses. See In re HP Inc., 826 Fed. Appx. 899, 904 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 15, 2020).
`
`3.
`
`The above-identified inconveniences must be weighed in the context of the “100-
`
`mile” rule, which provides that “[w]hen 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
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 239 Filed 04/30/21 Page 12 of 15
`
`witnesses increases indirect relationship to the additional distance to be traveled.” In re
`
`Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201, 204-05 (5th Cir. 2004). Here, the distance between the Austin and
`
`Waco courthouses along the most direct I-35 route is 104 miles, Bennett Decl. ⁋ 9, and therefore
`
`the inconveniences LGE’s witnesses will experience are pronounced.
`
`4.
`
`LGE disagrees with Ancora’s assertion that trial in Waco will deliver meaningful
`
`cost-savings due to economical lodging. See Motion at 7. Not only are there also economical
`
`lodging options in Austin, but Waco requires the additional transportation costs related to rental
`
`cars for out-of-town witnesses and/or significant spend to transport witnesses to and from the
`
`airport. These additional transportation costs likely offset any hypothetical savings in lodging. At
`
`best, the financial considerations relating to this factor are neutral and the witness inconveniences
`
`that will be realized by witnesses having to travel to Waco compel a finding that Waco is not a
`
`“clearly more convenient” forum.
`
`There are no “practical problems” associated with trial in Austin. As discussed above,
`
`LGE maintains that Ancora overstates the current “practical problems” with holding trial in Waco
`
`since it is likely that the Austin courthouse will be open for civil trials this summer.
`
`There is also no “risk” of losing evidence. Motion at 7. Ancora suggests that LGE’s
`
`decision to discontinue its smartphone division impacts the scope of the evidence that will be
`
`available at trial but this assertion is misguided. As LGE recently conveyed to Ancora, LGE’s
`
`stated intention is to bring a corporate representative from the United States to trial and to call that
`
`corporate representative to testify regarding the company’s profile in the market. LGE has
`
`identified three domestic “may call” witnesses on its witness list that LGE is considering bringing
`
`live as its corporate representative, Messers. Peterson, Cho, and Alessi, but no decision has yet
`
`been made as to which individual will attend trial. Yoon Decl. ⁋ 5. Regardless of when this trial
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 239 Filed 04/30/21 Page 13 of 15
`
`is held, however, LGE will have one of these witnesses as its corporate representative and the
`
`scope of the topics covered will not significantly change based on which one of these individuals
`
`is called to testify. Accordingly, given that there will be a corporate representative who will be
`
`cross-examined, the jury will be able to hear the relevant evidence.
`
`The “administrative difficulties” factor is neutral. While the Court is carrying a heavy
`
`caseload and is undoubtedly extremely busy, the speed by which the case can proceed to trial
`
`“should not alone outweigh all [the] other factors.” In re Apple, 979 F.3d 1332, 1344 n.5 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2020). This is especially true where In re Radmax cautioned that delay should only be
`
`weighed in “rare and extraordinary circumstances.” 720 F. 3d at 289.
`
`This factor should be neutral in the transfer analysis because with the same Judge presiding
`
`over the trial regardless of which courthouse it takes place in, this case is still going to be
`
`competing for the Court’s undivided time. Indeed, at the time of filing this brief,
`
`the Court’s electronic calendar indicates that on the currently-designated pre-trial date of
`
`June 3, 2021, the Court is holding a claim construction hearing in a different matter. Likewise, on
`
`the currently-designated June 7, 2021 trial date in this case, the Court has set a number of criminal
`
`trials with additional claim construction hearings set for the same week this case is set for trial. As
`
`such, regardless of where the trial is held, the Court is going to have to organize its schedule to
`
`accommodate the busy docket and there is no reason to conclude that this case should take priority
`
`over the other matters that are currently slated for the week of June 7. Given the constant demands
`
`on the Court’s time, neither venue necessarily removes scheduling conflicts from the equation.
`
`The remaining private and public interest factors are neutral. LGE concurs that the
`
`remaining factors not specifically addressed herein are neutral.
`
`III.
`
`Conclusion
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Ancora’s Motion to Transfer this case to Waco should be denied.
`-10-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 239 Filed 04/30/21 Page 14 of 15
`
`Date: April 30, 2021
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Natalie A. Bennett
`
`Winstol D. Carter, Jr.
`Texas Bar No. 03932950
`winn.carter@morganlewis.com
`Thomas R. Davis
`Texas Bar No. 24055384
`thomas.davis@morganlewis.com
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 4000
`Houston, Texas 77002-5006
`T. 713.890.5000
`F. 713.890.5001
`
`Collin W. Park
`collin.park@morganlewis.com
`District of Columbia Bar No. 470486
`Natalie A. Bennett
`natalie.bennett@morganlewis.com
`Illinois Bar No. 6304611
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Washington, D.C. 20004-2541
`T. 202.739.3000
`F. 202.739.3001
`
`Elizabeth M. Chiaviello
`Texas Bar No. 24088913
`elizabeth.chiaviello@morganlewis.com
`MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
`1717 Main Street, Suite 3200
`Dallas, Texas 75201-7347
`T. 214.466.4000
`F. 214.466.4001
`
`Attorneys for Defendants LG Electronics
`Inc. and LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc.
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`Case 1:20-cv-00034-ADA Document 239 Filed 04/30/21 Page 15 of 15
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`The undersigned certifies that all counsel of record who have consented to electronic
`service are being notified of the filing of this document via the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local
`Rule CV-5(b)(1). I also hereby certify that Plaintiff’s counsel of record are being served with a
`copy of the foregoing document via electronic mail on this 30th day of April, 2021.
`
`/s/ Natalie A. Bennett
`Natalie A. Bennett
`
`-12-
`
`