throbber
Case 6:19-cv-00532-ADA Document 72 Filed 06/22/20 Page 1 of 34
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`UNILOC 2017 LLC,
` Plaintiff
`
`-v-
`
`APPLE INC.,
` Defendant
`
`
`
`
`
`
`








`
`
`
`
`CIVIL NO. 6-19-CV-00532-ADA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER DENYING MOTION TO TRANSFER
`
`Came on for consideration this date is Defendant Apple Inc.’s motion for transfer to the
`
`Northern District of California (“NDCA”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The Court held a
`
`hearing on the Motion on May 12, 2020. ECF No. 58. After considering the Motion, the briefs
`
`filed by the Parties, and oral argument, the Court is of the opinion that the Motion should be
`
`DENIED.
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`A party seeking a transfer to an allegedly more convenient forum carries a significant
`
`burden. Babbage Holdings, LLC v. 505 Games (U.S.), Inc., No. 2:13-CV-749, 2014 U.S. Dist.
`
`LEXIS 139195, at *12–14 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 1, 2014) (stating the movant has the “evidentiary
`
`burden” to establish “that the desired forum is clearly more convenient than the forum where the
`
`case was filed.”). Apple does not contest that venue is proper in the Western District of Texas
`
`(“WDTX”), nor could it. See generally, Def.’s Mot., ECF No. 15; Pl.’s Resp., ECF No. 38, at 2.
`
`The burden that a movant must carry is not that the alternative venue is more convenient, but that
`
`it is clearly more convenient. In re Volkswagen, Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 314 n. 10 (5th Cir. 2008)
`
`(hereinafter “Volkswagen II). Apple moved to have this case transferred to NDCA. Apple relies
`
`heavily on the fact that other courts have transferred other patent cases between it and three Uniloc
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00532-ADA Document 72 Filed 06/22/20 Page 2 of 34
`
`entities, including cases outside this judicial District. This Court finds that Apple fails to show that
`
`transfer is warranted. While other cases involving Uniloc and Apple may be informative, the Court
`
`notes that this case involves a different asserted patent and different technology from any other
`
`case that Apple relies on and the Court believes that its determination in this case should be based
`
`on the facts that are unique to this case. In short, discretionary decisions by other courts in different
`
`cases do not compel the transfer of the current case. Thus, NDCA is not a clearly more convenient
`
`venue and Apple’s Motion must be denied.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Title 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) provides that, for the convenience of parties and witnesses, a
`
`district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been
`
`brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented. “Section 1404(a) is
`
`intended to place discretion in the district court to adjudicate motions for transfer according to an
`
`‘individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.’” Stewart Org., Inc. v.
`
`Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988) (quoting Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 622 (1964)).
`
`The party moving for transfer carries the burden of showing good cause. Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d
`
`at 314 (“When viewed in the context of § 1404(a), to show good cause means that a moving party,
`
`in order to support its claim for a transfer, must . . . clearly demonstrate that a transfer is ‘[f]or the
`
`convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice.’”) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)).
`
`“The preliminary question under § 1404(a) is whether a civil action ‘might have been
`
`brought’ in the destination venue.” Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 312. If so, in the Fifth Circuit, the
`
`“[t]he determination of ‘convenience’ turns on a number of public and private interest factors,
`
`none of which can be said to be of dispositive weight.” Action Indus., Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar.
`
`Co., 358 F.3d 337, 340 (5th Cir. 2004). The private factors include: “(1) the relative ease of access
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00532-ADA Document 72 Filed 06/22/20 Page 3 of 34
`
`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 AG, 371 F.3d 201, 203
`
`(5th Cir. 2004) (hereinafter “Volkswagen I”) (citing to Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235,
`
`241 n.6 (1982)). The public factors include: “(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 of the application of foreign law.” Id. Courts evaluate these factors based on
`
`“the situation which existed when suit was instituted.” Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 343
`
`(1960).
`
`A plaintiff’s choice of venue is not an independent factor in the venue transfer analysis,
`
`and courts must not give inordinate weight to a plaintiff’s choice of venue. Volkswagen II, 545
`
`F.3d at 313 (“[W]hile a plaintiff has the privilege of filing his claims in any judicial division
`
`appropriate under the general venue statute, § 1404(a) tempers the effects of the exercise of this
`
`privilege.”). However, “when the transferee venue is not clearly more convenient than the venue
`
`chosen by the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s choice should be respected.” Id. at 315; see also QR Spex,
`
`Inc. v. Motorola, Inc., 507 F.Supp.2d 650, 664 (E.D. Tex. 2007) (characterizing movant’s burden
`
`under § 1404(a) as “heavy”).
`
`A. Current case
`
`III. BACKGROUND
`
`Uniloc filed this lawsuit on September 10, 2019 alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No.
`
`6,467,088 (“the ’088 Patent.). Pl.’s Compl., ECF No. 1. Previously, Uniloc filed suit against Apple
`
`in WDTX alleging infringement of the ’088 Patent, in which Apple filed a petition for inter partes
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00532-ADA Document 72 Filed 06/22/20 Page 4 of 34
`
`review. Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 1:18-CV-296 (W.D. Tex. April 9, 2019). On April 29,
`
`2019, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) found no reasonable likelihood that Apple
`
`would prevail on its assertions of invalidity and denied to institute inter partes review. PTAB
`
`Decision, Ex. 1 at 21, ECF No. 38-2. Uniloc then filed the present suit.
`
`According to Uniloc, the ’088 Patent is generally directed at “a reconfiguration manager
`
`that may be implemented on a computer or other data processing device to control the
`
`reconfiguration of software or other components of an electronic device . . . .” ’088 Patent at 2:22–
`
`25, ECF No. 38-3. The claimed invention addresses the difficulty in “determin[ing] if a new or
`
`improved component is compatible with the rest of the device . . . .” Id. at 1:22–25. Uniloc alleges
`
`that the Accused Products include at least the Apple macOS, iOS, and iPadOS operating systems
`
`and associated servers implementing iOS/macOS/iPadOS update functionality, Mac desktop and
`
`notebook computers, iPad, iPhone, and iPod devices running the Apple operating systems, the App
`
`Store, and associated servers implementing App Store functionality. ECF No. 1 at ¶ 10; Claim
`
`Chart Ex. 3 at 1, ECF No. 38-4. According to Uniloc, “Apple (through a contractor, Flextronics)
`
`has manufactured the accused Mac Pro computers in Austin.” ECF No. 38 at 2.
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC is a Delaware company that is part of the larger Uniloc family of entities.
`
`Uniloc has an office in Tyler, Texas, and employees in Plano, Texas. Uniloc also has an office in
`
`California. Apple is a California corporation headquartered in Cupertino, California. Apple has a
`
`second campus in Austin, Texas that has 8,000 employees, with plans to have 15,000 employees
`
`in the near future.1 Apple has several stores within WDTX, notably two in Austin, and three others
`
`in San Antonio and El Paso.2
`
`
`1 See Press Release, Apple, Apple Expands in Austin, Apple.com, https://apple.com/newsroom/2019/11/apple-
`expands-in-austin/ (last visited June 10, 2020).
`2 Apple Inc., https://www.apple.com/retail/storelist/ (last visited June 10, 2020).
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00532-ADA Document 72 Filed 06/22/20 Page 5 of 34
`
`Apple filed a Motion to Transfer Venue on November 12, 2019. ECF No. 15. On January
`
`17, 2020, the Court granted the Parties’ Motion For Leave to Conduct Venue Discovery. On
`
`February 10, 2020, Uniloc filed its Response in Opposition to Apple’s Motion to Transfer Venue.
`
`ECF No. 38. Apple filed its Reply to Uniloc’s Response on February 20, 2020. ECF No. 40. The
`
`Court held a telephonic hearing on the Motion to Transfer Venue on May 12, 2020 and denied the
`
`Motion to Transfer. ECF No. 58.
`
`B. Apple’s serial motions to transfer
`
`Apple’s current motion to transfer is the latest in a series of motions to transfer that Apple
`
`has filed in this Court. As of the date of this order, Apple has been sued for patent infringement
`
`ten times in this Court. Of those ten cases, Apple has yet to file an answer or otherwise respond in
`
`two cases (VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Apple Inc. (6:20-cv-00275) and Neonode Smartphone LLC v.
`
`Apple Inc. (6:20-cv-00505))), while another case (Neodron Ltd. v. Apple, Inc. (6:20-cv-00116))
`
`was stayed pending ITC review. Of the remaining seven cases, Apple has filed a motion to transfer
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 1404 in five of them (Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple Inc. (1:19-cv-01238), STC.UNM
`
`v. Apple Inc.(1:20-cv-00351), the instant case, Solas OLED Ltd. v. Apple Inc. (6:19-cv-00537),
`
`and Parus Holdings Inc. v. Apple Inc. (6:19-cv-00432)). Of the five cases in which Apple has filed
`
`a motion to transfer, the Court has denied three (including the instant case), while two more are
`
`pending. In the two cases (excluding the instant case) in which the Court has denied Apple’s
`
`motion to transfer, Apple has filed petitions for writ of mandamus in both of them. In re Apple Inc,
`
`No. 20-00104 (Fed. Cir. 2019), petition for en banc review denied; In re Apple Inc, 2020-127,
`
`2020 WL 3249953 (Fed. Cir. June 16, 2020). The Federal Circuit denied both petitions for writ of
`
`mandamus, as well as Apple’s petition for en banc review.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00532-ADA Document 72 Filed 06/22/20 Page 6 of 34
`
`Based on the fact that Apple has thousands of employees working in WDTX (with
`
`thousands more projected to be added) and has its second largest physical campus here, and given
`
`that, in the Fifth Circuit, the transferee venue must be “clearly more convenient,” the Court doubts
`
`that it is likely that NDCA would actually be the “clearly more convenient” in each and every one
`
`of the cases in which Apple has filed a motion to transfer venue.
`
`Rather, it appears that Apple refuses to accept that the transferee district must be “clearly
`
`more convenient.” See Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 315; see also Sanger Ins. Agency, Inc. v. HUB
`
`Int'l, Ltd., No. 2:13-CV-528, 2014 WL 5389936, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 2014) (holding that the
`
`defendants failed to carry their burden of “clearly more convenient,” a “significant burden” which
`
`is “a difficult burden to carry”); Konami Digital Entm't Co., Ltd. v. Harmonix Music Sys., Inc., No.
`
`6:08CV286, 2009 WL 781134, at *1 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 23, 2009) (citing Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at
`
`314 n.10) (stating that a plaintiff's choice of venue must be respected because that choice places
`
`the burden on the defendant to demonstrate why venue should be transferred); Estate of Bentley v.
`
`Marriott Int’l Inc., No. 3:15-CV-1412-B, 2015 WL 5836256, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 2, 2015)
`
`(stating that the “balance of these factors must clearly weigh in favor of transferring to the new
`
`venue”); Fausto v. Parko Group, LLC, No. 3:18-CV-00323, 2019 WL 6686678, at *2 (S.D. Tex.
`
`Oct. 31, 2019) (holding that defendants failed to prove transfer was clearly more convenient when
`
`equal numbers of relevant factors favored both transfer and retention of the suit) (citing In re
`
`Radmax, Ltd., 720 F.3d 285, 290 n.8 (5th Cir. 2013) (“We do not suggest—nor has this court
`
`held—that a raw counting of the factors in each side, weighing each the same and deciding transfer
`
`only on the resulting ‘score,’ is the proper methodology”)). But, at least in partial deference to
`
`plaintiff’s choice of forum, the standard under which cases may be transferred is when the
`
`transferee district is “clearly more convenient” than the transferor district, and not just a “little
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00532-ADA Document 72 Filed 06/22/20 Page 7 of 34
`
`more convenient.” See Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 315 (holding that “when the transferee venue is
`
`not clearly more convenient than the venue chosen by the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s choice should
`
`be respected.”) (emphasis added).
`
`At minimum, given that Apple has its second largest campus in WDTX, has thousands of
`
`employees within the District, manufactures accused products within the District (e.g., Flex), and
`
`many of its suppliers have a significant presence within the District (e.g., Cypress Semiconductor,
`
`Maxim Integrated, Samsung Electronics, Cirrus Logic, Intel, Microchip Technology, Micron
`
`Technology, NXP Semiconductor, Qualcomm, Renesas Electronics, SK Hynix,
`
`STMicroelectronics, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing,),3 the Court does not expect that
`
`another district in the country will be frequently “clearly more convenient” than WDTX.
`
`But given that Apple has filed several motions to transfer, despite needing to show that the
`
`transferee is “clearly more convenient,” given that Apple has filed multiple petitions for writ of
`
`mandamus, given that Apple has several thousand employees and its second largest campus in the
`
`District, and given that Apple has closed its stores in the Eastern District of Texas (“EDTX”) (thus
`
`making venue improper in EDTX), it appears that Apple is attempting to essentially change the
`
`venue laws such that it cannot be sued in Texas, but rather that it can only be sued in NDCA. In
`
`other words, if district courts or the Federal Circuit consistently find that a particular transferee
`
`forum is consistently “clearly more convenient” than the transferor forum for a corporation like
`
`Apple, then the only place where that corporation can be sued is the transferee forum where its
`
`primary headquarters is located. Not only is this not the law in the Fifth Circuit, it effectively—
`
`but incorrectly—transmutes plaintiff’s choice of forum into defendant’s choice of forum. See
`
`Norwood v. Kirkpatrick, 349 U.S. 29, 31 (1955) (“[p]laintiffs are generally afforded the privilege
`
`
`3 Supplier List, Apple.com, https://www.apple.com/supplier-responsibility/pdf/Apple-Supplier-List.pdf (last visited
`May 20, 2020).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00532-ADA Document 72 Filed 06/22/20 Page 8 of 34
`
`of bringing an action where he chooses.”); see also Van Dusen, 376 U.S. at 622 (stating the purpose
`
`of 1404 “ . . . militates against restricting the number of permissible forums within the federal
`
`system.”). Nothing would be more restrictive than limiting the number of available forums to
`
`solely where a defendant’s primary headquarters is located.
`
`C. Uniloc v. Apple
`
`Uniloc and Apple are no strangers in the courtroom. Since 2016, Uniloc has filed two dozen
`
`patent infringement cases against Apple in either the Eastern or Western Districts of Texas. Apple
`
`heavily bases its arguments on the fact that, of the twenty-four previous suits between the two
`
`parties, twenty-one were transferred to NDCA. ECF No. 15 at 3–4.
`
`In its briefing and during the hearing, Apple attempts to make much of the fact that Judges
`
`Gilstrap and Yeakel transferred several Uniloc v. Apple cases from the Eastern and Western
`
`Districts of Texas to NDCA in 2017 and 2019, respectively. But, as the Court noted during the
`
`hearing, decisions by Judges Gilstrap and Yeakel are not binding on this Court. See Tr. 7:1–17,
`
`9:1–5. Therefore, the fact that other Texas judges transferred other Uniloc cases from Texas to
`
`NDCA is—at the most—only persuasive evidence. But the Court is not persuaded by the reasoning
`
`supporting those transfers for the reasons that follow.
`
`1. The Court is not bound by prior discretionary decisions
`
`First, by arguing that this Court should follow what Judges Gilstrap and Yeakel decided,
`
`Apple effectively seeks to short-circuit the transfer analysis by asking this Court to blindly follow
`
`what other Texas judges did in other cases at a different point in time, despite having a different
`
`sets of facts. But because analyzing transfer motions is a fact-intensive inquiry, the Court cannot
`
`just “follow the crowd,” in lieu of undertaking its own independent analysis. Van Dusen, 376 U.S.
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00532-ADA Document 72 Filed 06/22/20 Page 9 of 34
`
`at 622 (stating § 1404’s purpose is an “individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience
`
`and fairness”).
`
`2. There are significant differences with respect to Apple and Apple’s suppliers in
`the Eastern District of Texas and the Western District of Texas
`
`The first dozen cases between Uniloc and Apple were filed in EDTX, where they were
`
`subsequently transferred to NDCA. Although Judge Gilstrap did not analyze each factor in depth
`
`in every order to demonstrate which factors weighed in favor of transfer, there are several
`
`distinguishing features of WDTX that separate the present case from the EDTX cases. First, the
`
`most important feature is that Apple has a significant presence in WDTX through its large campus,
`
`manufacturing activities, and numerous stores in the forum. More specifically, Apple engages in
`
`engineering and manufacturing with approximately 5,000 employees at its large campus in Austin,
`
`with another 2,000 employees within the city. By contrast, Apple does not have any presence in
`
`EDTX by virtue of closing down its only two stores in April of 2019.4 Thus, with respect to Apple,
`
`EDTX is not only less convenient, but venue is also improper in EDTX. Accordingly, even if
`
`venue were proper in EDTX, WDTX is significantly more convenient for Apple than EDTX
`
`because there are more potential documents, more potential witnesses, and a potentially lower cost
`
`of attendance for those witnesses. Furthermore, the City of Austin, Travis County, and Williamson
`
`County’s grant of tax subsidies to Apple for its significant presence indicate that there is an
`
`extremely strong local interest in any Apple-related litigation, especially as compared to EDTX.5
`
`
`4 Chaim Gartenberg, Apple is reportedly closing two stores in a Texas district to avoid patent trolls, THE VERGE:
`CIRCUITBREAKER (Feb. 22, 2019) https://www.theverge.com/circuitbreaker/2019/2/22/18236424/apple-closing-
`stores-eastern-district-texas-avoid-patent-trolls (last visited June 9, 2020).
`5 Jay Wallis, Christy Millweard, Apple getting big tax rebate from Williamson County with Austin Expansion,
`KVUE.com
`(Dec. 18, 2019), https://www.kvue.com/article/news/local/apple-could-get-big-tax-break-from-
`williamson-county-with-austin-expansion/269-623955430 (last visited June 18, 2020); see also Cindy Widner, How
`Apple
`landed
`the
`Apple
`deal,
`CURBED
`AUSTIN
`(Dec.
`14,
`2018),
`https://austin.curbed.com/2018/12/14/18141017/austin-apple-incentives-taxes-city-state-county (last visited June 18,
`2020 (stating that Apple received state subsidies to build Austin campus location).
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00532-ADA Document 72 Filed 06/22/20 Page 10 of 34
`
`Second, Apple, through its contract manufacturer Flextronics, manufactures the accused
`
`products in the District. To the extent that Flextronics has relevant documents, these documents
`
`can be more easily accessed in WDTX as compared to accessing those documents in EDTX.
`
`Similarly, if any Flextronics employees were to testify at trial, there is a potentially lower cost of
`
`attendance in WDTX as compared to EDTX. Finally, because of companies like Flextronics,
`
`WDTX has potentially a greatest local interest than EDTX.
`
`Third, in addition to manufacturing partners, Apple also receives components for many of
`
`its products from suppliers that are within WDTX and not EDTX. These suppliers, such as Cirrus
`
`Logic, Intel, NXP Semiconductor, and Qualcomm, have design centers and manufacturing centers
`
`in Austin. As such, as compared to EDTX, the relative ease of access to sources of proof, the
`
`availability of compulsory process, the cost of attendance for willing witnesses, and the localized
`
`interest are significantly higher in WDTX, if these companies are relevant to a particular litigation.
`
`Fourth, some standards certification organizations are located within WDTX. Ct. Order at
`
`15–16, STC.UNM v. Apple, No. 1:20-cv-00351-ADA, (W.D. Tex Apr. 1, 2020), ECF No. 59.
`
`Therefore, as compared to EDTX, the relative ease of access to sources of proof, the availability
`
`of compulsory process, the cost of attendance for willing witnesses, and the localized interest are
`
`significantly higher in WDTX because of presence of these standards certification organizations.
`
`The above facts indicate that WDTX is more convenient than EDTX, with respect to Apple,
`
`for the following public and private factors: (1) relative ease of access to sources of proof, (2)
`
`availability of compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses (e.g., for Flextronics,
`
`NXP, and Wi-Fi Alliance personnel), (3) cost of attendance for willing witnesses, and (4) local
`
`interest. Therefore, logic dictates that even if NDCA is “clearly more convenient” than EDTX,
`
`because of these facts, NDCA is not also immediately per se “clearly more convenient” than
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00532-ADA Document 72 Filed 06/22/20 Page 11 of 34
`
`WDTX. As such, the Court rejects Apple’s argument that the Court should follow Judge Gilstrap’s
`
`lead in transferring the case to NDCA.
`
`3. Apple Has a Bigger Presence in Austin
`
`Similarly—but for different reasons—the Court also rejects Apple’s argument that the
`
`Court should follow Judge Yeakel’s lead in transferring the case to NDCA. The fatal flaw with
`
`Apple’s argument is that it ignores Apple’s explosive growth in the timeframe between when the
`
`Uniloc cases were filed in Judge Yeakel’s court and when they were filed in this Court.
`
`Apple has significantly increased its presence in WDTX in the past few years. For example,
`
`7,000 Apple employees work in Austin as of November 2019 which represents an increase from
`
`6,200 employees as of December 2018 and more than a 50% increase in the previous five years.6
`
`More importantly, this growing number of employees indicates an increase in the number of Apple
`
`engineers in Austin.7 Furthermore, on December 13, 2018, i.e., in the time between the filings of
`
`the previous WDTX cases (February, April, and November 2018) and the filing of the instant case
`
`(September 10, 2019), Apple announced the construction of a new campus to accommodate an
`
`additional 5,000 new employees, with the ability to have a total of 15,000 employees in WDTX.
`
`See Apple Expands in Austin, supra, note 6 at 11. This new campus will include a 192-room hotel
`
`to house Apple employees who presumably travel to Austin for work.8 When completed, Apple’s
`
`new campus will comprise three million square feet, including two million square feet of office
`
`space, which would make it one of the world’s largest office buildings. Id. As an incentive to build
`
`
`6 See Apple Expands in Austin, Apple.com, https://apple.com/newsroom/2019/11/apple-expands-in-austin/ (last
`visited June 10, 2020); see also Apple to Build New Campus in Austin and Add Jobs Across the US, Apple.com,
`https://apple.com/newsroom/2018/12/apple-to-build-new-campus-in-austin-and-add-jobs-across-the-us/ (last visited
`June 10, 2020).
`7See, e.g., Lori Hawkins, Apple Dives Deeper into Austin’s Talent Pool, AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN,
`https://www.statesman.com/news/20160907/apple-dives-deeper-into-austins-talent-pool (last visited June 3, 2020).
`8 Michael Potuck, Apple plans big upgrade to new $1B Austin campus with 192-room hotel, 9TO5Mac.com,
`https://9to5mac.com/2020/05/20/apple-austin-campus-hotel-upgrade/ (last visited June 18, 2020).
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00532-ADA Document 72 Filed 06/22/20 Page 12 of 34
`
`this new campus, Apple received tax breaks from Williamson County for building such a large
`
`campus and employing thousands of people. See Apple getting big tax rebate from Williamson
`
`County with Austin expansion, supra, note 5 at 9. The building of the new campus is a continuation
`
`of Apple’s partnership with the Austin area that has existed for thirty years.9
`
`In addition to an increase in the number of employees generally, and engineers specifically,
`
`the number of people engaged in Apple-related manufacturing is larger now than it was when the
`
`previous cases were filed. See Apple Expands in Austin, supra, note 6, at 11. For example, just
`
`days after this lawsuit was filed, Apple announced that its newly redesigned Mac Pro will be
`
`manufactured in Austin, at the same Austin facility where Mac Pros have been made since 2013.10
`
`The 240,000 square foot Flextronics plant employs about 500 employees and Apple has reportedly
`
`invested more than $200,000,000 in the facility. See id.
`
`It is significant to this Court that Apple presently employs approximately 8,000 people in
`
`WDTX and that its second largest campus is in this District. It is equally important to the Court
`
`that Apple is currently building an additional $1 billion facility in Austin to accommodate 5,000-
`
`15,000 additional employees and that, when completed, Apple will be the one of the largest private
`
`employers in the entire District, if not the largest. The thousands of employees who are and will
`
`be working at Apple in this District are performing a “broad range of functions including
`
`engineering, R&D, operations, finance, sales and customer support.” ECF No. 38, Ex. 5, Jaynes
`
`Depo. at 35:18–36:8; Ex. 6. Furthermore, it is also important that Apple has expanded and invested
`
`in its contract manufacturing facility in this District.
`
`
`9 Kirk Silas, Apple’s Austin Offices and Headquarters: History, Details, and Predictions, AQUILA,
`https://aquilacommercial.com/learning-center/apple-austin-offices-headquarters-history-details-predictions/
`(last
`visited June 18, 2020).
`10 See Apple’s new Mac Pro to be made in Texas, Apple.com, https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/09/apples-new-
`mac-pro-to-be-made-in-texas/ (last visited June 10, 2020);
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00532-ADA Document 72 Filed 06/22/20 Page 13 of 34
`
`Apple’s significant growth, and its announcements of planned future growth (as well as the
`
`associated tax incentives), in the timeframe between when the prior WDTX cases were filed and
`
`when the current case was filed dramatically change the transfer analysis. For example, a larger
`
`number of employees—especially engineers—in Austin means that more documents and
`
`engineers are more likely to be physically located in Austin. Thus, at minimum, the relative ease
`
`of access to sources of proof is likely to weigh less heavily towards NDCA, if not even weigh
`
`neutrally or against transfer. As another example, given the increased likelihood of local Apple
`
`employees testifying at trial, as well as the fact that Apple is building its own hotel, the cost of
`
`attending a trial in the Austin division of WDTX may also weigh against transfer. Finally, given
`
`that Apple is one of the largest employers in the District, WDTX has a much higher localized
`
`interest that it previously did, to the point that this factor may weigh against transfer.
`
`4. There are significant factual differences between the prior Western District
`cases and this case
`
`Finally, there are critical differences, unrelated to Apple, between the instant case and the
`
`prior WDTX cases. For example, the inventors of the patents-in-suit of the prior cases lived in
`
`California, whereas the inventors in the current case live in New York. Based on the Court’s
`
`experience, inventor testimony is one of the most critical witnesses that will testify live at trial. As
`
`such the inventors being located closer to WDTX is a significant fact that weighs against transfer
`
`with respect to the cost of attendance for willing witnesses factor.
`
`Another significant difference are the quantity and significance of third parties. Third party
`
`witnesses are one of the biggest factors in the transfer analysis. For example, in the prior WDTX
`
`cases, Apple identified key third parties (Intel and Qualcomm) that might have relevant
`
`information. See, e.g., Uniloc USA, Inc. et al v. Apple Inc, 1-18-cv-00166 (W.D. Tex. February
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00532-ADA Document 72 Filed 06/22/20 Page 14 of 34
`
`22, 2018). By contrast, there are no comparable third-parties in this case which may have as many
`
`documents as Intel and Qualcomm reasonably could have had in the prior cases.
`
`This case also includes two potentially relevant third parties, Fortress and Flextronics.
`
`Fortress is an investment firm based in San Francisco and the parent company of Uniloc.11
`
`Flextronics is a manufacturer in Austin, Texas. But unlike prior cases where relevant activity for
`
`both third-parties, e.g., Intel and Qualcomm, are in NDCA, the relevant activity for Fortress and
`
`Flextronics are split between NDCA and WDTX, respectively. Because there is a third party in
`
`both the transferor and transferee districts, the relative ease of access to sources of proof factor,
`
`the availability of compulsory process, the cost of attendance for willing witnesses each may not
`
`weigh in favor of transfer, as it did in the prior cases.
`
`Time-to-trial is another important distinction between the prior cases and the current case.
`
`In the prior cases, Judge Yeakel decided that the time to trial did not favor one venue over the
`
`other. See Uniloc USA Inc., et al. v. Box, Inc., No. 1:17-CV-754-LY, 2018 WL 2729202, at *4
`
`(W.D. Tex. June 6, 2018). Prior to this Court taking the bench, the average time from filing to trial
`
`for patent cases in WDTX was approximately 32 months. Fintiv v. Apple, No. 6:19-cv-372-ADA,
`
`2019 WL 4743678, at *7 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 13, 2019); see also ECF No. 38 at 18 (stating that the
`
`median time interval for civil cases in WDTX is 25.4 months). The time from filing to trial in this
`
`case will be 18.4 months. As such, the time to trial in this case is now 13.6 months (42.5%) faster
`
`than when Judge Yeakel transferred the prior cases to NDCA. Therefore, the Court rejects Apple’s
`
`argument that the Court should follow Judge Yeakel’s lead in transferring the case to NDCA.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11 Because Fortress is Uniloc’s parent company, it seems a lot less likely that compulsory process will be required to
`compel documents and testimony from Fortress, at least as compared to Flextronics.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 6:19-cv-00532-ADA Document 72 Filed 06/22/20 Page 15 of 34
`
`IV. ANALYSIS
`
`The threshold step for a Court to determine in the 1404 analysis is whether this case could
`
`have been brought in NDCA. The parties agree that venue is proper in NDCA.
`
`A. The Private Interest Factors Weigh Against Transfer.
`
`1. The Relative Ease of Access to Sources of Proof
`
`“In considering the relative ease of access to proof, a court looks to where documentary
`
`evidence, such as documents and physical evidence, is stored.” Fintiv, 2019 WL 4743678, at *2.
`
`“[T]he question is relative ease of access, not absolute ease of access.” In re Radmax, 720 F.3d
`
`285, 288 (5th Cir. 2013) (emphases in original). Here, the location of relevant evidence, both from
`
`Apple and critical third parties, weighs slightly in favor of transfer for the following reasons.
`
`Uniloc’s sources: Apple contends that Uniloc has several sources of proof in NDCA,
`
`including executives, engineers, and management offices.12 ECF No. 15 at 10. Apple further
`
`contends that Uniloc does not have any physical presence in WDTX. Id.
`
`Uniloc responds by stating that Apple’s focus on Uniloc’s employees in this factor is
`
`flawed, since witnesses are not sources of proof. ECF No. 38 at 4. Uniloc cites Seven Networks,
`
`LLC v. Google LLC, which states that sources of proof are “sources of documentary and physical
`
`evidence.” No. 2:17-CV-442, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 146375, at *13 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 14, 2018).
`
`Uniloc contends that it stores physical,

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket