Case 6:19-cv-00527-ADA Document 31 Filed 03/30/20 Page 1 of 65
`
`1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`WACO DIVISION
`
`SYNKLOUD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`
`
`VS.
`
`
`DROPBOX, INC.
`ADOBE, INC.
`
`March 27, 2020
`
`*
`*
`*
`*
`*
`* W-19-CV-525, W-19-CV-526
`*
` W-19-CV-527
`
`CIVIL ACTION NOS.
`
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE ALAN D ALBRIGHT, JUDGE PRESIDING
`TELEPHONIC MOTION HEARING
`
`Kevin James Terrazas, Esq.
`Cleveland Terrazas PLLC
`4611 Bee Cave Rd., #306 B
`Austin, TX 78746
`
`Deepali A. Brahmbhatt, Esq.
`One LLP, 4000 MacArthur Blvd.
`East Tower, Suite 500
`Newport Beach, CA 92660
`
`John E. Lord, Esq.
`One LLP
`9301 Wilshire Blvd., Penthouse Suite
`Beverly Hills, CA 90210
`
`J. Stephen Ravel, Esq.
`Kelly Hart & Hallman LLP
`303 Colorado Street, Suite 2000
`Austin, TX 78701
`
`Gregory H. Lantier, Esq.
`Wilmer Hale LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20006
`
`Liv Herriot, Esq.
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr
`950 Page Mill Rd
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`09:49
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`For the Plaintiff:
`
`18
`
`For Defendant Dropbox:
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`WACO DIVISION
`
`SYNKLOUD TECHNOLOGIES, LLC
`
`
`VS.
`
`
`DROPBOX, INC.
`ADOBE, INC.
`
`March 27, 2020
`
`*
`*
`*
`*
`*
`* W-19-CV-525, W-19-CV-526
`*
` W-19-CV-527
`
`CIVIL ACTION NOS.
`
`BEFORE THE HONORABLE ALAN D ALBRIGHT, JUDGE PRESIDING
`TELEPHONIC MOTION HEARING
`
`Kevin James Terrazas, Esq.
`Cleveland Terrazas PLLC
`4611 Bee Cave Rd., #306 B
`Austin, TX 78746
`
`Deepali A. Brahmbhatt, Esq.
`One LLP, 4000 MacArthur Blvd.
`East Tower, Suite 500
`Newport Beach, CA 92660
`
`John E. Lord, Esq.
`One LLP
`9301 Wilshire Blvd., Penthouse Suite
`Beverly Hills, CA 90210
`
`J. Stephen Ravel, Esq.
`Kelly Hart & Hallman LLP
`303 Colorado Street, Suite 2000
`Austin, TX 78701
`
`Gregory H. Lantier, Esq.
`Wilmer Hale LLP
`1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20006
`
`Liv Herriot, Esq.
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr
`950 Page Mill Rd
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`09:49
`
`
`APPEARANCES:
`
`For the Plaintiff:
`
`18
`
`For Defendant Dropbox:
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 6:19-cv-00527-ADA Document 31 Filed 03/30/20 Page 2 of 65
`
`2
`
`For Defendant Adobe:
`
`Court Reporter:
`
`Deron R. Dacus, Esq.
`The Dacus Firm, P.C.
`821 ESE Loop 323, Suite 430
`Tyler, TX 75701
`
`Eugene Y. Mar, Esq.
`Farella Braun & Martel, LLP
`235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`
`Winston Liaw, Esq.
`Farella Braun & Martel, LLP
`235 Montgomery Street, 17th Floor
`San Francisco, CA 94104
`
`Kristie M. Davis
`United States District Court
`PO Box 20994
`Waco, Texas 76702-0994
`
`Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography, transcript
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`produced by computer-aided transcription.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`Case 6:19-cv-00527-ADA Document 31 Filed 03/30/20 Page 3 of 65
`
`3
`
`MS. MILES: Telephonic motion hearing in Civil Action
`
`W-19-CV-525 and W-19-CV-526, styled SynKloud Technologies, LLC
`
`versus Dropbox, and Civil Action W-19-CV-527 styled SynKloud
`
`Technologies, LLC versus Adobe, Incorporated.
`
`THE COURT: Good morning, everyone. If we can start off
`
`by having counsel for plaintiff who's going to be speaking or
`
`whoever -- a combination if there's more than one -- introduce
`
`themselves and then if we can have counsel for defendants do
`
`the same and who will be speaking.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10:22
`
`10:31
`
`10:31
`
`10:31
`
`10:31
`
`10:31
`
`10:31
`
`10:31
`
`10:31
`
`10:31
`
`10
`
`We're learning a couple of lessons by doing these, one of
`
`10:31
`
`11
`
`which is if you are speaking on behalf of your client, if
`
`10:32
`
`12
`
`you're on speaker phone, you have to make sure that you stay
`
`10:32
`
`13
`
`pretty close to the speaker phone or we lose you, which is not
`
`10:32
`
`14
`
`good.
`
`10:32
`
`15
`
`Also, occasionally I will try and improve the sound by
`
`10:32
`
`16
`
`putting my phone on mute. I haven't left, but occasionally I
`
`10:32
`
`17
`
`do forget that it's on mute, and so if there's silence when you
`
`10:32
`
`18
`
`are thinking of me, I will -- I'll do my best to remember to
`
`10:32
`
`19
`
`unmute and get back on. So that being said, again, if counsel
`
`10:32
`
`20
`
`for plaintiff would introduce themselves, please.
`
`10:32
`
`21
`
`MS. BRAHMBHATT: Good morning, Your Honor. This is
`
`10:32
`
`22
`
`Deepali Brahmbhatt from One LLP for plaintiff SynKloud
`
`10:32
`
`23
`
`Technologies, LLC. With me we have local counsel Kevin
`
`10:32
`
`24
`
`Terrazas and John Lord also from One LLP.
`
`10:33
`
`25
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`
`
`Case 6:19-cv-00527-ADA Document 31 Filed 03/30/20 Page 4 of 65
`
`4
`
`MR. RAVEL: Your Honor, for defendant Dropbox this is
`
`Steve Ravel. Along with me are my co-counsel Greg Lantier and
`
`Liv Herriot from Wilmer Hale and our client representative
`
`Elena Dinuzio.
`
`MR. DACUS: Good morning, Your Honor. This is Deron Dacus
`
`on behalf of Adobe, and also on the phone are Eugene Mar and
`
`Winston Liaw with the Farella Braun law firm, and our client
`
`representative Andy Nguyen is also on the phone, Your Honor,
`
`and we're ready to proceed.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10:33
`
`10:33
`
`10:33
`
`10:33
`
`10:33
`
`10:33
`
`10:33
`
`10:33
`
`10:33
`
`10:33
`
`10
`
`THE REPORTER: Judge, this is Kristie. Can you ask
`
`10:33
`
`11
`
`everybody to mute their phone? There's a lot of feedback here.
`
`10:33
`
`10:33
`
`12
`
`13
`
`THE COURT: You took the words out of my mouth.
`
`THE REPORTER: Oh, thank you.
`
`10:33
`
`14
`
`THE COURT: If I could have everyone -- and I'm going to
`
`10:33
`
`15
`
`do the same thing -- mute their phone, maybe it'll make the
`
`10:33
`
`16
`
`sound quality better. If it doesn't in a very short time, then
`
`10:34
`
`17
`
`I may try calling back in because occasionally I'm --
`
`10:34
`
`18
`
`apparently I'm the problem. But if everyone will mute, I'm
`
`10:34
`
`19
`
`going to mute, other than whoever's going to be speaking on
`
`10:34
`
`20
`
`behalf of -- I guess we'll start with someone who is arguing on
`
`10:34
`
`21
`
`behalf of the movant who is moving to transfer.
`
`10:34
`
`22
`
`MR. RAVEL: Your Honor, it's Steve Ravel. I represent
`
`10:34
`
`23
`
`Dropbox, one of the movants, and I would be happy to go first.
`
`10:34
`
`10:34
`
`24
`
`25
`
`THE COURT: Please do.
`
`MR. RAVEL: Your Honor, may it please the Court. It has
`
`
`
`Case 6:19-cv-00527-ADA Document 31 Filed 03/30/20 Page 5 of 65
`
`5
`
`been my honor to read every word you have written or said from
`
`the bench concerning convenience transfers, and some takeaways
`
`from that body of works seem to be, one, trial witnesses count.
`
`And so the availability of compulsory process is significant in
`
`this Court's decision making. Two, local interests count and
`
`tend to play a significant role in this Court's decision
`
`making.
`
`During my part of the argument, I will very briefly
`
`preview Dropbox's compulsory process and local interest
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10:34
`
`10:34
`
`10:34
`
`10:34
`
`10:35
`
`10:35
`
`10:35
`
`10:35
`
`10:35
`
`10:35
`
`10
`
`position, leaving the other factors and the details entirely to
`
`10:35
`
`11
`
`Mr. Lantier.
`
`10:35
`
`12
`
`May I ask you to go to our Slide 2, the facts, before
`
`10:35
`
`13
`
`turning it over Mr. Lantier, and if I can direct Your Honor to
`
`10:35
`
`14
`
`that slide, I wanted to note that a rare set of facts these
`
`10:35
`
`15
`
`cases against Dropbox present. They are cases that stand out
`
`10:35
`
`16
`
`from the rest in terms of their singular connection to the
`
`10:35
`
`17
`
`transferee venue, the Northern District of California. A fair
`
`10:35
`
`18
`
`number of cases include a defendant whose headquarters,
`
`10:36
`
`19
`
`witnesses and documents are located somewhere else. We have
`
`10:36
`
`20
`
`that here. All of Dropbox's trial evidence is up in San
`
`10:36
`
`21
`
`Francisco where it is headquartered. For this reason San
`
`10:36
`
`22
`
`Francisco is more convenient.
`
`10:36
`
`10:36
`
`10:36
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`But it is the other facts --
`
`THE COURT: Mr. Ravel? Mr. Ravel?
`
`MR. RAVEL: Yes, Judge.
`
`
`
`Case 6:19-cv-00527-ADA Document 31 Filed 03/30/20 Page 6 of 65
`
`6
`
`THE COURT: And this is another problem with these is it's
`
`hard for us to not step over each other. I heard everything
`
`that you just said, and -- but isn't the standard here -- and
`
`this is really important in this case because I will tell you
`
`going into this call we think it is a very close call. Isn't
`
`the standard clearly more convenient?
`
`MR. RAVEL: As fate would have it, Judge, I'm going to be
`
`saying those words in about five seconds, though I agree that,
`
`yes. It is.
`
`THE COURT: Okay.
`
`MR. RAVEL: It's the other connections to the Northern
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`10:36
`
`10:36
`
`10:36
`
`10:36
`
`10:36
`
`10:36
`
`10:36
`
`10:36
`
`10:37
`
`10:37
`
`10:37
`
`10:37
`
`12
`
`District of California that set this case apart and push it
`
`10:37
`
`13
`
`over the line to being the case in which the Northern District
`
`10:37
`
`14
`
`of California is not just more convenient but clearly more
`
`10:37
`
`15
`
`convenient for the trial of these cases. And let me give you
`
`10:37
`
`16
`
`some reasons why it is clearly more convenient.
`
`10:37
`
`17
`
`First, the work that resulted in all seven of the patents
`
`10:37
`
`18
`
`at issue was done in California. It's unusual that the place
`
`10:37
`
`19
`
`from which the patents originated also happen to be the
`
`10:37
`
`20
`
`location of all the defendant's relevant activities, but that's
`
`10:37
`
`21
`
`true here.
`
`10:37
`
`22
`
`Second, the evidence I will preview now, and Mr. Lantier
`
`10:37
`
`23
`
`will discuss in more detail, supports a finding that the
`
`10:37
`
`24
`
`compulsory process factor strongly favors transfer. We have
`
`10:37
`
`25
`
`two inventors in these combined cases, one for the patent at
`
`
`
`Case 6:19-cv-00527-ADA Document 31 Filed 03/30/20 Page 7 of 65
`
`7
`
`issue in the 525 and one for the patents at issue in 526.
`
`Based on public information, both live in the Northern District
`
`of California. That's a rare coincidence, given the location
`
`of Dropbox's evidence as well.
`
`Third, SynKloud is alleging that Dropbox has been
`
`willfully infringing since the predecessor entity sent letters
`
`to Dropbox starting in 2015. There's a fact issue as to
`
`whether at least the first letter was ever actually sent. The
`
`alleged sender of that letter is a third party patent attorney
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10:38
`
`10:38
`
`10:38
`
`10:38
`
`10:38
`
`10:38
`
`10:38
`
`10:38
`
`10:38
`
`10:38
`
`10
`
`who lives and practices in the Northern District of California.
`
`10:38
`
`11
`
`Two inventors and a willfulness witness whom Dropbox will
`
`10:38
`
`12
`
`want to call live at trial are subject to process in the
`
`10:38
`
`13
`
`Northern District of California but not here. Let me say that
`
`10:38
`
`14
`
`again, Judge. Two inventors and a willfulness witness, likely
`
`10:39
`
`15
`
`trial witnesses all, are subject to process in ND Cal but not
`
`10:39
`
`16
`
`here.
`
`10:39
`
`17
`
`Finally, all of the work to develop the accused Dropbox
`
`10:39
`
`18
`
`services and the provision of those services to customers is
`
`10:39
`
`19
`
`done in San Francisco.
`
`10:39
`
`10:39
`
`10:39
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`THE COURT: Let me -- yes, Mr. Ravel.
`
`MR. RAVEL: Yes, Judge.
`
`THE COURT: Would the folks that you just mentioned,
`
`10:39
`
`23
`
`inventors, the willfulness, whatever, I understand that they
`
`10:39
`
`24
`
`are subject to subpoena in the Northern District of California.
`
`10:39
`
`25
`
`Is there any -- what is the -- what is the likelihood -- what
`
`
`
`Case 6:19-cv-00527-ADA Document 31 Filed 03/30/20 Page 8 of 65
`
`8
`
`do we know about whether or not they would be willing to attend
`
`a trial in the Western District of Texas?
`
`MR. RAVEL: Judge, I think that SynKloud has represented
`
`to you -- I think that one of those three might be willing to
`
`come here. I'll concede it that far and I'll let them
`
`elaborate on that when it's their turn if that --
`
`THE COURT: And that -- and that's the inventor, right?
`
`MR. RAVEL: That's one of the inventors.
`
`THE COURT: Okay. Okay.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10:39
`
`10:39
`
`10:39
`
`10:39
`
`10:39
`
`10:40
`
`10:40
`
`10:40
`
`10:40
`
`10:40
`
`10
`
`MR. RAVEL: On the other hand, Judge, there's no relevant
`
`10:40
`
`11
`
`connection to Texas, let alone the Western District. The
`
`10:40
`
`12
`
`plaintiff is a Delaware company whose only office is in
`
`10:40
`
`13
`
`Delaware and whose principal is in New York City. There are no
`
`10:40
`
`14
`
`likely trial witnesses in this district.
`
`10:40
`
`15
`
`The local interest proof, Judge, is equally stark. As an
`
`10:40
`
`16
`
`initial proposition, at the time the accused technology was
`
`10:40
`
`17
`
`developed, Dropbox had zero employees, zero presence here in
`
`10:40
`
`18
`
`Austin, and according to its slide, SynKloud will focus its
`
`10:40
`
`19
`
`local interest argument on Dropbox's 250 employees in Austin.
`
`10:40
`
`20
`
`And as glad as we are to have those good people and their good
`
`10:41
`
`21
`
`jobs here, Dropbox did not become all that to making the Austin
`
`10:41
`
`22
`
`Business Journal's 2019 list of Austin's 75 largest employers.
`
`10:41
`
`23
`
`No. 75 is the Texas Association of School Boards with 406
`
`10:41
`
`24
`
`employees.
`
`10:41
`
`25
`
`Mr. Lantier will now pick up with the formal analysis of
`
`
`
`Case 6:19-cv-00527-ADA Document 31 Filed 03/30/20 Page 9 of 65
`
`9
`
`the Section 1404(a) factors, but before he does, I did want to
`
`make one quick point about the court congestion factor. Your
`
`Honor sets matters for trial faster and runs a more hands-on
`
`docket than any other federal judge we know. That's a fact,
`
`and you may be justly proud of the manner in which you have
`
`elected to exercise your adherent power to manage your docket,
`
`but the fact that you are, and I expect always will be, the
`
`fastest and the most hands on does not mean that other courts
`
`are congested. Some other federal judges just have a different
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10:41
`
`10:41
`
`10:41
`
`10:41
`
`10:41
`
`10:41
`
`10:41
`
`10:41
`
`10:42
`
`10:42
`
`10
`
`approach to case management and set longer fact discovery
`
`10:42
`
`11
`
`disputes and longer trial settings. Whether they are right or
`
`10:42
`
`12
`
`wrong to do so really isn't for any of us here to say. It's
`
`10:42
`
`13
`
`their court and they can run it how they want to. The fact
`
`10:42
`
`14
`
`that the transferee court has a different more extended docket
`
`10:42
`
`15
`
`managing its style than this Court and intentionally longer
`
`10:42
`
`16
`
`trial settings cannot weigh against transfer. The relevant
`
`10:42
`
`17
`
`factor has to do with court congestion. If there is no showing
`
`10:42
`
`18
`
`of congestion in either court, and there is zero evidence of
`
`10:42
`
`19
`
`congestion here, then the factor is neutral.
`
`10:42
`
`20
`
`Judge, I've heard Mr. Lantier's argument, and my last word
`
`10:42
`
`21
`
`to the Court is that this case goes beyond more convenient to
`
`10:43
`
`22
`
`clearly more convenient.
`
`10:43
`
`23
`
`Now, if you would turn with us to Slide 3, Mr. Lantier
`
`10:43
`
`24
`
`will pick up with the application of the facts here to the
`
`10:43
`
`25
`
`1404(a) factors.
`
`
`
`Case 6:19-cv-00527-ADA Document 31 Filed 03/30/20 Page 10 of 65
`
`10
`
`MR. LANTIER: Thank you, Mr. Ravel. And thank you, Your
`
`Honor, for holding this hearing telephonically. This is Greg
`
`Lantier, and I represent the defendant Dropbox.
`
`Your Honor knows the Section 1404(a) transfer factors
`
`well, and we know that our burden here is to demonstrate to
`
`Your Honor that the Northern District of California is clearly
`
`more convenient than the Western District of Texas for the
`
`trials of these matters. So I will skip right to what we have
`
`on Slide 4 which is applying the facts of this case -- of these
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10:43
`
`10:43
`
`10:43
`
`10:43
`
`10:43
`
`10:43
`
`10:43
`
`10:43
`
`10:43
`
`10:44
`
`10
`
`cases, the 525 and the 526, to the transfer factors.
`
`10:44
`
`11
`
`Turning to Slide 4, to begin with the sources of proof,
`
`10:44
`
`12
`
`and in this case, I think more than almost any other, the
`
`10:44
`
`13
`
`sources of proof are overwhelmingly centered in the Northern
`
`10:44
`
`14
`
`District of California. That is where at least one and
`
`10:44
`
`15
`
`probably both of the named inventors of the patents asserted
`
`10:44
`
`16
`
`are located. It's where the Dropbox accused services were
`
`10:44
`
`17
`
`developed and it's the place where Dropbox supplies those
`
`10:44
`
`18
`
`services to its customers from. It's where all of Dropbox's
`
`10:44
`
`19
`
`trial witnesses are, and it's where J. James Li, the attorney
`
`10:44
`
`20
`
`who represented SynKloud's predecessor and interest with
`
`10:45
`
`21
`
`respect to the patents at issue in the 526 case is, it states,
`
`10:45
`
`22
`
`and where he is subject to compulsory process.
`
`10:45
`
`23
`
`On the other hand, we don't have any sources of proof in
`
`10:45
`
`24
`
`the Western District of Texas that are relevant to the transfer
`
`10:45
`
`25
`
`analysis. There are no likely trial witnesses here, and I
`
`
`
`Case 6:19-cv-00527-ADA Document 31 Filed 03/30/20 Page 11 of 65
`
`11
`
`would be happy to go through the list that SynKloud identifies
`
`in its motion papers, but we did that in our reply, and so
`
`unless there are questions, I don't think we need to go through
`
`those individually. Suffice it to say, none of those
`
`individuals is a likely trial witness, and we can tell that
`
`just from the backgrounds.
`
`And Dropbox's Austin office did not come into existence
`
`until well after the accused services here were developed and
`
`launched by Dropbox by people who were are in the Northern
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10:45
`
`10:45
`
`10:45
`
`10:45
`
`10:45
`
`10:45
`
`10:45
`
`10:45
`
`10:46
`
`10:46
`
`10
`
`District of California. So we think that this is a
`
`10:46
`
`11
`
`straightforward application for this factor and that it favors
`
`10:46
`
`12
`
`transfer.
`
`10:46
`
`13
`
`SynKloud argues on the other side that this factor does
`
`10:46
`
`14
`
`not weigh in favor of transfer because, one, SynKloud does not
`
`10:46
`
`15
`
`have any sources of proof in the Northern District of
`
`10:46
`
`16
`
`California, and, two, it says that it is making indirect
`
`10:46
`
`17
`
`infringement allegations and the existence of customers and
`
`10:46
`
`18
`
`customer service representatives could be relevant to those
`
`10:46
`
`19
`
`allegations.
`
`10:46
`
`20
`
`There is a decision that Your Honor issued a little under
`
`10:46
`
`21
`
`two weeks ago that I think is highly relevant on this factor,
`
`10:46
`
`22
`
`and that is Your Honor's decision in CloudofChange versus NCR
`
`10:47
`
`23
`
`Corporation, Docket -- or Case No. 6:19-CV-513-ADA. In that
`
`10:47
`
`24
`
`case where Your Honor ultimately found that the factors favored
`
`10:47
`
`25
`
`transfer but did not clearly favor transfer, the arguments made
`
`
`
`Case 6:19-cv-00527-ADA Document 31 Filed 03/30/20 Page 12 of 65
`
`12
`
`by the plaintiff there were the same arguments and Your Honor
`
`did reject them and found that the sources of proof factor did
`
`weigh in favor of transfer. I submit that Your Honor should
`
`reject SynKloud's arguments here for the same reasons and in
`
`fact for the reasons I stated before having to do with sources
`
`of proof specific to the asserted patents also being in the
`
`Northern District of California. This factor actually weighs
`
`more strongly in favor of the transfer in this case and in
`
`these two cases than it did in the CloudofChange case.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10:47
`
`10:47
`
`10:47
`
`10:47
`
`10:47
`
`10:47
`
`10:47
`
`10:47
`
`10:47
`
`10:48
`
`10
`
`Turning to Slide 5. I don't have a slide on each of the
`
`10:48
`
`11
`
`five interest factors, Your Honor. I'm trying to go through
`
`10:48
`
`12
`
`this expeditiously. The remaining three private interest
`
`10:48
`
`13
`
`factors are shown on Slide 5. Mr. Ravel already addressed the
`
`10:48
`
`14
`
`first one, the availability of compulsory process, which we
`
`10:48
`
`15
`
`think clearly favors transfer here. While it is the case that
`
`10:48
`
`16
`
`there is a declaration from one of the two named inventors
`
`10:48
`
`17
`
`indicating that he would be willing to travel to the Western
`
`10:48
`
`18
`
`District of Texas for trial, we do not have any indication from
`
`10:48
`
`19
`
`J. James Li, the third party witness, that he would be willing
`
`10:48
`
`20
`
`to do so, and there's a -- the public information shows that
`
`10:48
`
`21
`
`the second inventor is in the Northern District of California,
`
`10:48
`
`22
`
`but it does not appear that either party has been able to
`
`10:48
`
`23
`
`actually contact him in order to determine whether he is
`
`10:49
`
`24
`
`willing to travel or not. I will say he's not -- he does not
`
`10:49
`
`25
`
`appear to be affiliated with SynKloud, and so I don't have any
`
`
`
`Case 6:19-cv-00527-ADA Document 31 Filed 03/30/20 Page 13 of 65
`
`13
`
`reason to think he would be willing to travel.
`
`The cost of attendance for willing witnesses also favors
`
`transfer to the Northern District of California, and I would
`
`submit, Your Honor, that this one is not a close call. There's
`
`no dispute that the majority of witnesses on both sides,
`
`including the inventor and then all of Dropbox's witnesses,
`
`live within driving distance of the San Francisco courthouse in
`
`the Northern District of California. There is one likely trial
`
`witness who's been identified that does not reside in the
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10:49
`
`10:49
`
`10:49
`
`10:49
`
`10:49
`
`10:49
`
`10:49
`
`10:49
`
`10:49
`
`10:49
`
`10
`
`Northern District of California, and that is SynKloud's
`
`10:49
`
`11
`
`principal Mr. Colao. Mr. Colao lives in New York City, and so
`
`10:49
`
`12
`
`he will have to transfer -- travel -- pardon me -- a great
`
`10:50
`
`13
`
`distance no matter where the case is tried, whether it's San
`
`10:50
`
`14
`
`Francisco or it's in Waco or in Austin, and, therefore, I don't
`
`10:50
`
`15
`
`think that his costs should factor in that greatly. He
`
`10:50
`
`16
`
`indicates that it would be less expensive for him to eat and to
`
`10:50
`
`17
`
`stay in Waco. I would say it is a little bit -- it's probably
`
`10:50
`
`18
`
`a little bit far field, but somebody who lives in New York City
`
`10:50
`
`19
`
`is sort of used to out of state San Francisco prices when it
`
`10:50
`
`20
`
`comes to eating, but more and to the point, he's one person
`
`10:50
`
`21
`
`compared to probably five or so, give or take, witnesses who
`
`10:50
`
`22
`
`could sleep at their own homes if this case were tried in the
`
`10:50
`
`23
`
`San Francisco courthouse, and so I think the cost of attendance
`
`10:50
`
`24
`
`for the willing witnesses quite clearly favors transfer.
`
`10:50
`
`25
`
`And then, finally, the -- oh, and let me say, Your Honor,
`
`
`
`Case 6:19-cv-00527-ADA Document 31 Filed 03/30/20 Page 14 of 65
`
`14
`
`that I think the CloudofChange case here is -- is relevant as
`
`well, and that is because on the availability of compulsory
`
`process factor, Your Honor rejected the same argument that
`
`SynKloud is making here which is that if you go out and cherry
`
`pick people who you find using LinkedIn profiles and say that
`
`they might be trial witnesses, that really isn't a relevant --
`
`that really should not be afforded much weight because those
`
`people aren't people who really are relevant, unlike, for
`
`example, the inventors, unlike, for example, the people who
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10:51
`
`10:51
`
`10:51
`
`10:51
`
`10:51
`
`10:51
`
`10:51
`
`10:51
`
`10:51
`
`10:51
`
`10
`
`Dropbox identified as being responsible for the accused
`
`10:51
`
`11
`
`technology here for marketing the accused technology and for
`
`10:51
`
`12
`
`the sales and finances of the accused technology.
`
`10:51
`
`13
`
`And then, Your Honor, the practical issues are neutral
`
`10:52
`
`14
`
`there. We don't make any argument that that's not the case.
`
`10:52
`
`15
`
`I'm nearly finished. Turning to Slide 6, though, we have
`
`10:52
`
`16
`
`our public interest factors, and I would like to go through
`
`10:52
`
`17
`
`those very briefly. The first public interest factor, I know
`
`10:52
`
`18
`
`that this is one that Your Honor has identified in the past and
`
`10:52
`
`19
`
`is a very important factor, and that is the factor of court
`
`10:52
`
`20
`
`congestion. We do submit that here the court congestion factor
`
`10:52
`
`21
`
`is neutral. We don't dispute that Your Honor will set this
`
`10:52
`
`22
`
`case for -- these cases for trial faster than I think any other
`
`10:52
`
`23
`
`judge in the United States would. That is true, and that is
`
`10:52
`
`24
`
`absolutely Your Honor's prerogative and that's why your name is
`
`10:52
`
`25
`
`judge and mine is not. But it's not the same thing as the --
`
`
`
`Case 6:19-cv-00527-ADA Document 31 Filed 03/30/20 Page 15 of 65
`
`15
`
`the transferee court being congested. In our view, and I think
`
`this is right, the case is that many other federal judges for
`
`their own reasons, whether right or wrong, set longer case
`
`schedules, and it's not because they couldn't do it more
`
`quickly, it's because they choose to spend more time on fact
`
`discovery or maybe need a longer period for the decision of
`
`dispositive motions or other things like that. And the fact
`
`that they make that choice, which is their prerogative, does
`
`not weigh against transfer, and we would submit that that
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10:53
`
`10:53
`
`10:53
`
`10:53
`
`10:53
`
`10:53
`
`10:53
`
`10:53
`
`10:53
`
`10:53
`
`10
`
`factor is neutral. We think that the only public interest
`
`10:53
`
`11
`
`factor that weighs one way or the other is the localized
`
`10:53
`
`12
`
`interest factor.
`
`10:53
`
`13
`
`THE COURT: Let me ask you about your last point. You and
`
`10:53
`
`14
`
`Mr. Ravel both have said -- have both made the point that the
`
`10:54
`
`15
`
`fact that the Northern District judges take longer to get to
`
`10:54
`
`16
`
`trial is not necessarily evidence of congestion and that it's
`
`10:54
`
`17
`
`because, you know, the way they handle their case scheduling is
`
`10:54
`
`18
`
`just different than mine. What do you have other than just
`
`10:54
`
`19
`
`your assumption that that's correct? I mean, I'll tell you on
`
`10:54
`
`20
`
`the record that -- and I'm going to do my very best since it's
`
`10:54
`
`21
`
`not really evidence in the case, but, you know, I'm -- I do
`
`10:54
`
`22
`
`talk to other judges. I've talked to a fair number of other
`
`10:54
`
`23
`
`judges in the Northern District, and my sense is that it is
`
`10:54
`
`24
`
`more congested. Not across the board. I mean, there are lots
`
`10:55
`
`25
`
`of judges, and we don't know which one would get this case.
`
`
`
`Case 6:19-cv-00527-ADA Document 31 Filed 03/30/20 Page 16 of 65
`
`16
`
`You know, it might be, you know, John Tigar who just -- I was
`
`just on a panel with who's a phenomenal judge, phenomenal guy,
`
`and -- but what is your basis for saying that those courts are
`
`not -- I don't know that congestion is a mandate for -- I mean,
`
`there's no question if you're talking about Delaware, you know,
`
`where they're getting a bazillion cases a year. Congestion is
`
`a pretty easy thing to presume, but what do we have beside your
`
`argument that the fact that it takes longer to get to trial in
`
`the Northern District is not because of congestion?
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10:55
`
`10:55
`
`10:55
`
`10:55
`
`10:55
`
`10:55
`
`10:55
`
`10:55
`
`10:55
`
`10:55
`
`10
`
`MR. LANTIER: So, Your Honor, I think that's a very good
`
`10:55
`
`11
`
`and fair question, and I would make two points in response.
`
`10:56
`
`12
`
`The -- well, three, I suppose. The first is, as Your Honor
`
`10:56
`
`13
`
`well knows, Your Honor has had more patent cases filed in your
`
`10:56
`
`14
`
`court by far than any other judge in the country over the last
`
`10:56
`
`15
`
`12 months and by a very large degree more than any other --
`
`10:56
`
`16
`
`than any judge in the Northern District of California, and yet
`
`10:56
`
`17
`
`Your Honor still sets your cases for trial in a very speedy
`
`10:56
`
`18
`
`way. And so I don't think that we can say that there is a
`
`10:56
`
`19
`
`correlation between the number of cases pending before a
`
`10:56
`
`20
`
`particular judge and congestion because I think it's the case
`
`10:56
`
`21
`
`that judges are going to handle their own dockets their own
`
`10:56
`
`22
`
`ways, and Your Honor would -- I don't think Your Honor would
`
`10:56
`
`23
`
`say you're congested even though you've had more patent cases
`
`10:56
`
`24
`
`filed before you than any other judge in the country, and we
`
`10:57
`
`25
`
`wouldn't contend you're congested either.
`
`
`
`Case 6:19-cv-00527-ADA Document 31 Filed 03/30/20 Page 17 of 65
`
`17
`
`The second --
`
`THE COURT: Well, I can tell you if this were someone who
`
`you wanted a trial on a bankruptcy appeal, my court would
`
`suddenly be very congested and it would not get to trial for a
`
`very long time.
`
`(Laughter.)
`
`THE COURT: So that's probably a personal thing for me as
`
`well. So I'm sorry I interrupted you. You were about to make
`
`your second point.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10:57
`
`10:57
`
`10:57
`
`10:57
`
`10:57
`
`10:57
`
`10:57
`
`10:57
`
`10:57
`
`10:57
`
`10
`
`MR. LANTIER: No. The second point, Your Honor, I would
`
`10:57
`
`11
`
`make is -- and I don't think I'm telling Your Honor anything
`
`10:57
`
`12
`
`you don't already know, but there's a -- there is a wide
`
`10:57
`
`13
`
`variation amongst even individual judges in the Northern
`
`10:57
`
`14
`
`District of California as to how quickly they set cases for
`
`10:57
`
`15
`
`trial. So even cases before the same judge have variation in
`
`10:57
`
`16
`
`terms of how quickly they get to trial, and there are many
`
`10:57
`
`17
`
`cases in the Northern District of California and several judges
`
`10:57
`
`18
`
`who set cases for trial not quite as fast as Your Honor that
`
`10:58
`
`19
`
`I'm aware of but nearly as fast, particularly outside of the
`
`10:58
`
`20
`
`patent sphere. I think there may be some trial settings that
`
`10:58
`
`21
`
`are even faster in non patent cases which can make sense
`
`10:58
`
`22
`
`because there may not be as many steps to go through before
`
`10:58
`
`23
`
`trial. And so I don't think that there's any -- that as a
`
`10:58
`
`24
`
`factual matter it is true that the judges in the Northern
`
`10:58
`
`25
`
`District of California simply can't set their cases for trial
`
`
`
`Case 6:19-cv-00527-ADA Document 31 Filed 03/30/20 Page 18 of 65
`
`18
`
`more quickly because of congestion.
`
`And then the third -- the third point I would make is on
`
`the record before Your Honor here, and other cases in the
`
`future might be different, but on the record before Your Honor
`
`here there's no evidence and not even an argument that has been
`
`made by the plaintiff SynKloud that the Northern District of
`
`California judges are actually congested such that they cannot
`
`set cases for trial as quickly as they would like to.
`
`Those would be the three points I would make in response
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10:58
`
`10:58
`
`10:58
`
`10:58
`
`10:58
`
`10:58
`
`10:58
`
`10:58
`
`10:59
`
`10:59
`
`10
`
`to Your Honor.
`
`10:59
`
`11
`
`THE COURT: Okay. And well done. I appreciate that.
`
`10:59
`
`12
`
`Thank you.
`
`10:59
`
`13
`
`MR. LANTIER: The only factor we think among the public
`
`10:59
`
`14
`
`interest factors that is not so neutral is the localized
`
`10:59
`
`15
`
`interest factor, but we do believe that the localized interest
`
`10:59
`
`16
`
`factor weighs heavily in favor of transfer, and that's because
`
`10:59
`
`17
`
`of the odd circumstance here that the patents that are being
`
`10:59
`
`18
`
`asserted originated from the same judicial district where the
`
`10:59
`
`19
`
`defendant's headquarters and all of the accused products are
`
`10:59
`
`20
`
`also based and where they originated. So here we have this
`
`10:59
`
`21
`
`sort of confluence of on the patent side there's a local
`
`10:59
`
`22
`
`interest in the Northern District of California in seeing --
`
`10:59
`
`23
`
`being the enforcement, if it's appropriate enforcement, of
`
`11:00
`
`24
`
`patents that originated there based on work performed in the
`
`11:00
`
`25
`
`Northern District of California based on -- or done by
`
`
`
`Case 6:19-cv-00527-ADA Document 31 Filed 03/30/20 Page 19 of 65
`
`19
`
`inventors who are from California and who, as far as we can
`
`tell, continue to reside in California.
`
`We have Dropbox and its 1,500 employees in the Northern
`
`District of California having done all of the development work
`
`for all of the accused products in that judicial district, and
`
`so there is a localized interest there and a strong localized
`
`interest because of the tight nexus between that judicial
`
`district and the accused services.
`
`And then for the 526 case we have this allegation of
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`11:00
`
`11:00
`
`11:00
`
`11:00
`
`11:00
`
`11:00
`
`11:00
`
`11:00
`
`11:00
`
`11:00
`
`10
`
`willfulness where the allegation is based in part and
`
`11:00
`
`11
`
`predominantly on this letter that was supposedly sent in
`
`11:00
`
`12
`
`October of 2015 to Dropbox by this individual named J. James
`
`11:01
`
`13
`
`Li, and then there was a back and forth -- after that there
`
`11:01
`
`14
`
`were more letters sent and those letters were exchanged
`
`11:01
`
`15
`
`exclusively between people in the Northern District of
`
`11:01
`
`16
`
`California up until right before this case was filed. So there
`
`11:01
`
`17
`
`is a very strong -- in the Northern District of California.
`
`11:01
`
`18
`
`On the other hand, you know, Dropbox is of course proud of
`
`11:01
`
`19
`
`its presence in Austin and its 250 employees there. It's also
`
`11:01
`
`20
`
`proud of its developer Bill Day and working with local
`
`11:01
`
`21
`
`individuals in Austin on future technologies that they may be
`
`11:01
`
`22
`
`trying to develop, and Dropbox would very much like to help
`
`11:01
`
`23
`
`them do that, but Dropbox's Austin office didn't even exist at
`
`11:01
`
`24
`
`the time that these accused services were developed, and it has
`
`11:01
`
`25
`
`no oversight or technical maintenance function with respect to
`
`
`
`Case 6:19-cv-00527-ADA Document 31 Filed 03/30/20 Page 20 of 65
`
`20
`
`the accused services. And so while it is true that Austin is
`
`excited of Dropbox's office with 250 people, those people are
`
`not people who worked on the accused technologies and
`
`developing it. They're not the people who currently maintain
`
`that technology, and so there's not nearly as strong an
`
`interest in Austin, we would submit, as there is in the
`
`Northern District of Californi
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
