Case 6:19-cv-00527-ADA Document 15 Filed 11/26/19 Page 1 of 15
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`SYNKLOUD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`ADOBE, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No.: 6:19-cv-00527-ADA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT ADOBE INC.’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE NORTHERN
`DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §1404 AND MEMORANDUM
`IN SUPPORT
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00527-ADA Document 15 Filed 11/26/19 Page 2 of 15
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ..............................................................................................2 
`A. 
`Plaintiff SynKloud Has No Connection to This District .........................................2 
`B. 
`The Accused Products Have No Connection to This District ..................................2 
`C. 
`The Named Inventor and His Company May Have Sold Products In
`Violation of The On-Sale Bar And Are Located in Northern California ................4 
`LEGAL STANDARD ..........................................................................................................4 
`ARGUMENT .......................................................................................................................5 
`This Action Could Have Been Brought in the Northern District of
`A. 
`California .................................................................................................................5 
`The Private Interest Factors Overwhelmingly Favor Transfer ................................6 
`1. 
`Cost of Witnesses Favors Transfer ..............................................................6 
`2. 
`The Availability of Compulsory Process Also Favors Transfer ..................8 
`3. 
`The Ease of Access to Sources of Proof Favors Transfer to
`California .....................................................................................................9 
`All Other Practical Problems Are Either Neutral or Favor Transfer ...........9 
`4. 
`The Public Interest Factors Also Favor Transferring this Action ..........................10 
`C. 
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................10 
`
`B. 
`
`
`
`I. 
`II. 
`
`III. 
`IV. 
`
`V. 
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00527-ADA Document 15 Filed 11/26/19 Page 3 of 15
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Blackberry Ltd.,
`2014 WL 10748106 (W.D. Tex. June 11, 2014) ...............................................................6,8,10
`
`DataQuill, Ltd. v. Apple Inc.,
`2014 WL 2722201 (W.D. Tex. June 13, 2014) ....................................................................9,10
`
`In re Genentech, Inc.,
`566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009)...............................................................................................4,9
`
`GeoTag, Inc. v. Starbucks Corp.,
`2013 WL 890484 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 14, 2013) ..............................................................................9
`
`In re Nintendo Co., Ltd.,
`589 F.3d 1194 (Fed. Cir 2009)...................................................................................................5
`
`TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC,
`137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017) ...............................................................................................................6
`
`In re Toyota Motor Corp.,
`747 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................5
`
`In re TS Tech USA Corp.,
`551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..................................................................................................4
`
`Uniloc USA Inc. v. Box, Inc.,
`2018 WL 2729202 (W.D. Tex. June 6, 2018) .........................................................................10
`
`In re Volkswagen AG,
`371 F.3d 201 (5th Cir. 2004) ..................................................................................................4,5
`
`In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc.,
`545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc) .....................................................................................5
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`28 U.S.C.
`§ 1400(b) ....................................................................................................................................6
`§ 1404(a) ..............................................................................................................................1,4,6
`
`35 U.S.C.
`§102(b) .......................................................................................................................................4
`
`FEDERAL RULES AND REGULATIONS
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c) ........................................................................................................................8
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00527-ADA Document 15 Filed 11/26/19 Page 4 of 15
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Defendant Adobe, Inc. (“Adobe”) respectfully moves, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), to
`
`transfer this case to the Northern District of California. The nexus of this litigation lies in the
`
`Northern District of California. As explained below, the convenience of the witnesses, the cost
`
`of obtaining attendance of witnesses and production of documents, the location of third parties
`
`witnesses, and the interests of justice all favor transferring this case to Northern California.
`
`Crucially, Sheng Tai (Ted) Tsao, the named inventor of the patents-in-suit, and STT
`
`WebOS, the prior assignee and company formed by Mr. Tsao to commercialize the patents-in-
`
`suit, are located in the Northern District of California, beyond the subpoena power of this Court
`
`for trial. Mr. Tsao and STT WebOS have advertised that they had “demonstratable” products
`
`“protected by” most, if not all, of the patents-in-suit prior to the earliest filing date of the asserted
`
`patents, potentially invalidating them by violating the statutory on-sale bar. Thus, Mr. Tsao and
`
`STT WebOS have highly relevant information related to the validity issues in this case.
`
`Plaintiff SynKloud Technologies, LLC (“SynKloud”) is a Delaware corporation with its
`
`principal place of business in Milton, Delaware. Plaintiff asserts that Adobe’s Creative Cloud,
`
`Document Cloud, and Lightroom products (the “Accused Products”) infringe six patents (the
`
`“Asserted Patents”). Compl. ¶ 10. Aside from this lawsuit, SynKloud appears to have no
`
`connection to the Western District of Texas.
`
`Adobe is headquartered in San Jose, California, with offices in nearby San Francisco,
`
`California. The San Jose and San Francisco offices house many witnesses knowledgeable about
`
`the design, development, operation, marketing, and financial accounting of the Accused
`
`Products. While Adobe has two offices in Austin, Texas, those offices have nothing to do with
`
`the Accused Products or this case. Instead, U.S.-based party and third-party witnesses
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00527-ADA Document 15 Filed 11/26/19 Page 5 of 15
`
`knowledgeable about relevant information are primarily located in the Northern District of
`
`California, with no witnesses or evidence in the Western District of Texas:
`
`Witness and/or Evidence
`
`Primary U.S. Location
`
`Witnesses and documents related to the design,
`development, and operation of the Accused Products
`Witnesses and documents related to marketing of the
`Accused Products
`Witnesses and documents related to the financial data and
`accounting for the Accused Products
`Inventor of the Asserted Patents, also having evidence
`relevant to the on-sale bar
`Prior assignee, STT WebOS, having evidence relevant to
`the on-sale bar
`
`Northern District of California
`
`Northern District of California
`
`Northern District of California
`
`Northern District of California
`
`Northern District of California
`
`Accordingly, Adobe respectfully requests that this Court grant Adobe’s motion to transfer.
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Plaintiff SynKloud Has No Connection to This District
`
`SynKloud is a Delaware corporation, located in Milton, Delaware, and is a non-practicing
`
`entity “offering a beneficial and transparent portfolio license to the industry.” Ex. 1.1 It is not
`
`registered to do business in Texas, and does not appear to have any operations, offices,
`
`employees, customers, or licensees in Texas. Ex. 2; Compl. ¶ 2; see also Compl. generally. Its
`
`President resides in the “Greater New York Area.” Ex. 3. Other than this litigation, SynKloud
`
`does not appear to have any connection whatsoever to Texas.
`
`B.
`
`The Accused Products Have No Connection to This District
`
`Adobe was founded in San Jose, California and provides products and services that give
`
`individuals and business “everything they need to design and deliver great experiences.” Ex. 4.
`
`
`1 All exhibits referenced here are attached to the Declaration of Winston Liaw (“Liaw Decl.”).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00527-ADA Document 15 Filed 11/26/19 Page 6 of 15
`
`The Accused Products have no connection to Texas. Adobe employees knowledgeable
`
`on the design, development, and operation of the cloud storage aspects of Creative Cloud and
`
`Document Cloud are located in Adobe’s offices in San Jose, California, Seattle, Washington,
`
`India, and Germany. Declaration of Akshay Madan (“Madan Decl.”) ¶¶ 5-9; Declaration of
`
`Noah Edelstein (“Edelstein Decl.”) ¶¶ 5-9; Declaration of Dennis Griffin (“Griffin Decl.”) ¶¶ 5-
`
`10. No witnesses for Creative Cloud or Document Cloud are in Texas. Id. Adobe team
`
`members knowledgeable on the design, development, and operation of the cloud storage aspects
`
`of Lightroom, another Accused Product, are primarily located in Adobe’s San Jose, California
`
`office. Declaration of Peter Baust (“Baust Decl.”) ¶¶ 5-10. No witnesses for Lightroom are in
`
`Texas. Id. Adobe’s wiki sites, which host electronic documents for the Accused Products, are
`
`not located in Texas. Madan Decl. ¶ 14; Edelstein Decl. ¶ 13; Griffin Decl. ¶ 14; Baust Decl. ¶
`
`14. The servers that provide the cloud storage capabilities of the Accused Products are not
`
`located in Texas. Madan Decl. ¶¶ 12-13; Edelstein Decl. ¶ 12; Griffin Decl. ¶ 13; Baust Decl. ¶
`
`13. Adobe’s Austin offices have nothing to do with the design, development, or operation of the
`
`Accused Products. Madan Decl. ¶ 15; Edelstein Decl. ¶ 14; Griffin Decl. ¶ 15; Baust Decl. ¶ 15.
`
`Adobe’s marketing operations for each of the Accused Products are mostly or entirely
`
`located in Adobe’s Northern California offices. Edelstein Decl. ¶ 10; Griffin Decl. ¶ 11; Baust
`
`Decl. ¶ 11; Madan Decl. ¶ 10. Adobe’s financial reporting and accounting for the Accused
`
`Products are also located in Adobe’s Northern California offices. Edelstein Decl. ¶ 11; Griffin
`
`Decl. ¶ 12; Baust Decl. ¶ 12; Madan Decl. ¶ 11. Significantly, none of these operations for the
`
`Accused Products are conducted out of Texas.
`
`In 2018, Adobe acquired Magento. Ex. 5. Magento is part of Adobe Experience Cloud,
`
`and a separate and distinct product from the Accused Products. Exs. 6-7; Liaw Decl. ¶ 9; Ex. 8.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00527-ADA Document 15 Filed 11/26/19 Page 7 of 15
`
`SynKloud refers to Magento in its Complaint, but does not accuse any Magento products in this
`
`case. See Compl. ¶ 8, 10.
`
`C.
`
`The Named Inventor and His Company May Have Sold Products In
`Violation of The On-Sale Bar And Are Located in Northern California
`
`As noted above, Mr. Tsao is the named inventor of the Asserted Patents, and lives in the
`
`Northern District of California. See Exs. 9-10. The company he founded to commercialize the
`
`patents, STT WebOS, is located in the Northern District of California. Ex. 11.
`
`STT WebOS states on its website that it “has developed foudamental [sic] technologies
`
`aiming for creating a new platform for cloud computing since 2002” and that prior to 2007, it
`
`had “demonstratable earlier stage products.” Exs. 11, 12. Its website further states that “[e]ach
`
`of the STT products is protected by the following US Patents” including five of the six Patents-
`
`in-Suit. Ex. 12. Thus, it appears that STT WebOS publicly used and/or sold products more than
`
`one year before the earliest filing date of the Asserted Patents, December of 2003, in violation of
`
`the on-sale bar provided under pre-AIA 35 §102(b), and discovery from Mr. Tsao and STT
`
`WebOS, and their appearance at trial, are critical to the invalidity issues in this case.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`“For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court
`
`may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been
`
`brought….” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). In patent cases, the law of the local circuit in which the case
`
`was originally brought governs the analysis of a transfer motion. In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d
`
`1338, 1341-42 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`The movant must first show that the case could have been brought in the proposed
`
`transferee district. In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201, 203 (5th Cir. 2004) (“Volkswagen I”). If
`
`so, the court must weigh the relative convenience of the transferee district and the original
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00527-ADA Document 15 Filed 11/26/19 Page 8 of 15
`
`district by considering several private and public interest factors. Id. The private interest factors
`
`are “(1) the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (2) the availability of compulsory process
`
`to secure the attendance of witnesses; (3) the cost of attendance for willing witnesses; and (4) all
`
`other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive.” In re
`
`Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 315 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (“Volkswagen II”)
`
`(citations omitted). The public interest factors are “(1) the administrative difficulties flowing
`
`from court congestion; (2) the local interest in having localized interests decided at home; (3) the
`
`familiarity of the forum with the law that will govern the case; and (4) the avoidance of
`
`unnecessary problems of conflict of laws [or in] the application of foreign law.” Volkswagen II,
`
`545 F.3d at 315 (citations omitted). “[T]he Fifth Circuit forbids treating the plaintiff’s choice of
`
`venue as a factor in the analysis of a request to transfer….” In re Nintendo Co., Ltd., 589 F.3d
`
`1194, 1200 (Fed. Cir 2009).
`
`The Federal Circuit, in applying Fifth Circuit law, has found transfer appropriate where:
`
`nothing favors the transferor forum, whereas several factors favor the transferee
`forum. The analysis may not show that the transferee forum is far more
`convenient. But that is not what is required. With nothing on the transferor-forum
`side of the ledger, the analysis shows that the transferee forum is ‘clearly
`more convenient.’
`
`In re Toyota Motor Corp., 747 F.3d 1338, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (emphasis in original). Here,
`
`there are no factors favoring this District, and many favoring the Northern District of California.
`
`Thus, this action should be transferred to Northern California, which is “clearly more
`
`convenient.” Id.
`
`IV.
`
` ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`This Action Could Have Been Brought in the Northern District of California
`
`SynKloud could have brought this action in the Northern District of California. Adobe’s
`
`principal place of business is in the Northern District of California, rendering jurisdiction proper
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00527-ADA Document 15 Filed 11/26/19 Page 9 of 15
`
`over Adobe in that District. Compl. ¶ 3; Ex. 4. Venue is proper in a patent suit “where the
`
`defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of
`
`business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b); TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 137 S.
`
`Ct. 1514, 1516 (2017). Adobe is headquartered in San Jose, California, and the Accused
`
`Products were and are largely made, designed, developed, and marketed in Northern California.
`
`Compl. ¶¶ 3, 10; Griffin Decl. ¶¶ 5-12; Baust Decl. ¶¶ 5-12; Madan Decl. ¶¶ 5-11; Edelstein
`
`Decl. ¶¶ 5-11. Accordingly, this case could have been brought there.
`
`B.
`
`The Private Interest Factors Overwhelmingly Favor Transfer
`
`1.
`
`Cost of Witnesses Favors Transfer
`
`“The convenience of the witnesses is probably the single most important factor in transfer
`
`analysis.” Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Blackberry Ltd., 2014 WL 10748106, at *4 (W.D. Tex.
`
`June 11, 2014) (examining location of party witnesses in granting transfer). The Fifth Circuit
`
`applies the “100–mile rule” which holds 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 witnesses increases in direct relationship to the additional distance to be
`
`traveled.” Id. (citations omitted). “If the transferee venue would result in an average distance
`
`away from the witness that is shorter than the original venue, then the convenience factor weighs
`
`in favor of transfer.” Id. (citations omitted). Here, the cost to witnesses strongly favors transfer.
`
`The cloud storage aspects of Document Cloud are the responsibility of Adobe’s Core
`
`Storage Model and Document Cloud teams. Akshay Madan, a Principal Product Manager on
`
`Core Storage Model, and Dennis Griffin, a Director of Product Management on Document
`
`Cloud, are responsible for the cloud storage aspects of Document Cloud, and are located in San
`
`Jose, California, and San Francisco, California, respectively. Madan Decl. ¶¶ 2-3; Griffin Decl.
`
`¶¶ 2-3. The cloud storage aspects of Lightroom are the responsibility of Adobe’s Lightroom
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00527-ADA Document 15 Filed 11/26/19 Page 10 of 15
`
`Cloud Storage team, and Peter Baust, the responsible Principal Product Manager, is located in
`
`Adobe’s San Jose headquarters. Baust Decl. ¶¶ 2-3. The cloud storage aspects of Creative
`
`Cloud are the responsibility of Adobe’s Core Storage Model2 and Cloud File Systems (“CFS”)
`
`teams. Mr. Madan and Noah Edelstein, a Senior Director of Product Management on CFS, are
`
`responsible for the cloud storage aspects of Document Cloud, and are located in San Jose,
`
`California, and Seattle, Washington, respectively. Madan Decl. ¶ 2-3; Edelstein Decl. ¶¶ 2-3.
`
`Indeed, each of these teams has employees who work in Adobe’s offices in Northern
`
`California—crucially, none are located in Texas. Madan Decl. ¶¶ 5-11; Edelstein Decl. ¶¶ 5-11;
`
`Griffin Decl. ¶¶ 5-12; Baust Decl. ¶¶ 5-12. In short, many of the likely witnesses with
`
`knowledge of the design, development, and operation of the cloud storage aspects of the Accused
`
`Products are based in Northern California. Madan Decl. ¶¶ 5, 8-9; Griffin Decl. ¶¶ 5-10; Baust
`
`Decl. ¶¶ 5-10. In contrast there are no Adobe witnesses with relevant knowledge located in
`
`Texas. Madan Decl. ¶ 15; Edelstein Decl. ¶ 14; Griffin Decl. ¶ 15; Baust Decl. ¶ 15.
`
`In addition, Adobe’s marketing operations are also mostly located in Northern California.
`
`Edelstein Decl. ¶ 10; Griffin Decl. ¶ 11; Baust Decl. ¶ 11; Madan Decl. ¶ 10. Individuals
`
`responsible for the marketing of the Accused Products there include Mala Sharma (Vice
`
`President of Creative Cloud Marketing & Engagement) and Jim Mohan (Senior Director of
`
`Product Marketing for Lightroom Cloud Storage), who have responsibility for marketing of
`
`Creative Cloud and Lightroom, respectively. Edelstein Decl. ¶ 10; Baust Decl. ¶ 11.
`
`Similarly, Adobe’s financial teams are primarily located in Northern California. Madan
`
`Decl. ¶ 11; Edelstein Decl. ¶ 11; Griffin Decl. ¶ 12; Baust Decl. ¶ 12. Individuals responsible for
`
`
`2 The Core Storage Model team provides underlying cloud storage functionality for Document
`Cloud and Creative Cloud services. Madan Decl. ¶ 2.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00527-ADA Document 15 Filed 11/26/19 Page 11 of 15
`
`the financial reporting and accounting of the Accused Products are located there, including Mike
`
`Garcia (Senior Director of Finance) for Lightroom and Creative Cloud, Shirley Chen (Manager
`
`for Digital Media Finance) for Lightroom, and Mary Pat Fernald (Director of Finance) for
`
`Document Cloud. Edelstein Decl. ¶ 11; Baust Decl. ¶ 12; Griffin Decl. ¶ 12.
`
`Given the location of Adobe’s relevant witnesses in Northern California, the cost and
`
`disruption to Adobe caused by making witnesses available to testify during discovery and at trial
`
`will be substantially higher should this action go forward here rather than in the Northern District
`
`of California. Applying the Fifth Circuit’s “100-mile rule,” the distance for each and every of
`
`these witnesses would be dramatically reduced, from about 1500 miles if they traveled to the
`
`Waco courthouse, to less than 50 miles, heavily weighing in favor of transfer to the Northern
`
`District of California. See Exs. 13, 14. For those Adobe witnesses in Germany or India, travel to
`
`Northern California would be no less convenient than traveling to this District. With respect to
`
`Delaware-based SynKloud, litigating in California will be equally inconvenient as litigating in
`
`Texas, as SynKloud’s party witnesses are likely to be required to travel regardless. In sum, this
`
`factor weighs in favor of transfer.
`
`2.
`
`The Availability of Compulsory Process Also Favors Transfer
`
`The location of third-party witnesses also favors transfer to the Northern District of
`
`California. “A Court cannot compel a non-party witness to travel 100 miles, or to travel within
`
`the same state the witness is located in, if he or she would incur substantial expense.” Affinity
`
`Labs, 2014 WL 10748106, at *5 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)). Here, the named inventor of the
`
`Asserted Patents, Mr. Tsao, resides in Northern California. See supra and Exs. 9-10. STT
`
`WebOS is also located in Northern California. Ex. 11. Both Mr. Tsao and STT WebOS have
`
`promoted that they have products that embody the patents-in-suit, and those products were
`
`potentially on the market more than one year prior to Mr. Tsao applying for the Asserted Patents.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00527-ADA Document 15 Filed 11/26/19 Page 12 of 15
`
`This information on the public use or sale of embodying products is of great importance in
`
`determining the validity of the Asserted Patents. Critically, only the Northern District of
`
`California has the subpoena power to compel the attendance of these non-party witnesses at trial.
`
`Conversely, there are no apparent third-party witnesses located in this District. This factor
`
`clearly weighs in favor of transfer. See GeoTag, Inc. v. Starbucks Corp., 2013 WL 890484, at *4
`
`(E.D. Tex. Jan. 14, 2013) (noting that “the convenience to non-party witnesses is afforded
`
`greater weight than that of party witnesses.”).
`
`3.
`
`The Ease of Access to Sources of Proof Favors Transfer to California
`
`“The Federal Circuit has observed that ‘[i]n patent infringement cases, the bulk of the
`
`relevant evidence usually comes from the accused infringer,’ and therefore the location of the
`
`defendant's documents tends to be the more convenient venue.” DataQuill, Ltd. v. Apple Inc.,
`
`2014 WL 2722201, at *3 (W.D. Tex. June 13, 2014) (citing In re Genentech, 566 F.3d at 1345).
`
`“The Fifth Circuit has cautioned this factor remains relevant despite technological advances
`
`having made electronic document production commonplace.” Id. Here, not only are most
`
`witnesses in Northern California, but any hardcopies of documents will be located in there as
`
`well. No documents regarding the Accused Products are located in Austin. Madan Decl. ¶ 16;
`
`Edelstein Decl. ¶ 15; Griffin Decl. ¶ 16; Baust Decl. ¶ 16. Third party documents also are not
`
`located in this District or Texas at large, with documents instead being located in Northern
`
`California. As mentioned above, Mr. Tsao and STT WebOS are located in Northern California,
`
`along with their documents. This further weighs in favor of transfer.
`
`4.
`
`All Other Practical Problems Are Either Neutral or Favor Transfer
`
`The fourth factor looks at practical concerns in the expedient and inexpensive trial of the
`
`case. Here, party and non-party witnesses and documents are located in the Northern District of
`
`California, while no witnesses or documents are in this District. Indeed, other than being the
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00527-ADA Document 15 Filed 11/26/19 Page 13 of 15
`
`location where SynKloud filed suit, this District has no connection to this case. This weighs in
`
`favor of transfer. See DataQuill, 2014 WL 2722201, at *4 (finding this factor supported a
`
`transfer because “”[m]ost of the witnesses are in California,” “[plaintiff] has no presence in
`
`Austin,” and “it will be more practical to try this case in California than in Texas.”).
`
`C.
`
`The Public Interest Factors Also Favor Transferring this Action
`
`Here, the local interest in having localized interests decided at home weighs strongly in
`
`favor of transferring to Northern California.3 Adobe is headquartered there, giving that District a
`
`strong local interest. See Affinity Labs, 2014 WL 10748106, at *3 (“The district where a party
`
`has its principal place of business typically has a stronger local interest in the adjudication of the
`
`case.”). Many teams responsible for the design, development, and operation of the cloud storage
`
`aspects of the Accused Products are in Northern California. Madan Decl. ¶¶ 5, 8-9, 14-16;
`
`Edelstein Decl. ¶¶ 5, 8, 10-11, 13-15; Griffin Decl. ¶¶ 5-12, 14-16; Baust Decl. ¶¶ 5-12, 14-16.
`
`Thus, the “hub of activity” is in Northern California—not Texas. See Affinity Labs, 2014 WL
`
`10748106, at *6 (noting that “the trier of fact ought to be as close as possible to the milieu of the
`
`infringing device and the hub of activity centered around its production.”) (citations omitted).
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Adobe respectfully requests that the Court grant Adobe’s
`
`motion to transfer this case to the Northern District of California.
`
`
`3 The remaining public interest factors are neutral. See Uniloc USA Inc. v. Box, Inc., 2018 WL
`2729202, at *4 (W.D. Tex. June 6, 2018) (finding the average time to trial in Northern California
`for patent cases “marginally faster than in Western Texas”).
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00527-ADA Document 15 Filed 11/26/19 Page 14 of 15
`
`Dated: November 26, 2019
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Deron R. Dacus
`
`
`
`Deron R. Dacus
`State Bar No. 00790553
`The Dacus Firm, P.C.
`821 ESE Loop 323, Suite 430
`Tyler, TX 75701
`Phone: (903) 705-1117
`Fax: (903) 581-2543
`ddacus@dacusfirm.com
`
`Eugene Y. Mar (pro hac vice)
`emar@fbm.com
`Sushila Chanana (pro hac vice)
`schanana@fbm.com
`Winston Liaw (pro hac vice)
`wliaw@fbm.com
`Farella Braun + Martel LLP
`235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`Telephone: (415) 954-4400
`Fax: (415) 954-4480
`
`Counsel for Defendant Adobe, Inc.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00527-ADA Document 15 Filed 11/26/19 Page 15 of 15
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
`
`
`Winston Liaw, counsel for Defendant, hereby certifies that on November 20, 2019, he
`
`conferred with Deepali A. Brahmbhatt, counsel for Plaintiff, regarding the subject matter of the
`foregoing motion. The parties could not resolve the issues and Plaintiff opposes the relief
`requested by Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/_Winston Liaw____________
`Winston Liaw
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing document has
`
`been served on all counsel of record via the Court’s ECF system on November 26, 2019.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Deron R. Dacus__________
`Deron R. Dacus
`
`12
`
`