`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`SOLAS OLED LTD.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION 6:19-cv-00537-ADA
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT APPLE’S
`MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)
`
`Came on for consideration this date the Motion of Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) to
`
`transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), filed on January 21, 2020. ECF No. 23. Plaintiff Solas OLED
`
`Ltd. (“Solas”) responded on January 30, 2020 (ECF No. 29) and Apple replied on February 7,
`
`2020. (ECF No. 31). After careful consideration of the above briefings, the Court DENIES
`
`Apple’s motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of California for the reasons described
`
`below.
`
`I.
`
`Factual Background and Procedural History
`
`Solas filed this lawsuit on September 12, 2019 alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`6,072,450, 7,446,338, and 7,573,068. ECF No. 1. According to Solas, the ’450 Patent, titled
`
`“Display Apparatus,” “relates
`
`to a display apparatus, and more particularly
`
`to an
`
`electroluminescent display apparatus with a matrix display including [electroluminescent]
`
`elements.” ECF No. 1, Ex. 1, 1:5–9. The ’338 Patent, titled “Display Panel,” “relates to a display
`
`panel using a light-emitting element.” ECF No. 1, Ex. 2, 1:14–15. The ’068 Patent, titled
`
`“Transistor array substrate and display panel,” “relates to a transistor array substrate having a
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 46 Filed 06/23/20 Page 2 of 18
`
`plurality of transistors and, more particularly, to a display panel using light-emitting elements
`
`which cause self-emission when a current is supplied by the transistor array substrate.” ECF No.
`
`1, Ex. 3, 1:16–20. Solas alleges that certain products with organic light-emitting diode (OLED)
`
`displays such as particular iPhone, Apple Watch, and MacBook Pro models infringe on the ’450,
`
`’338, and ’068 Patents. ECF No. 1, ¶ 6. Apple filed a motion to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1404(a) requesting that the case be transferred to the Northern District of California (“NDCA”).
`
`ECF No. 23 at 1.
`
`II.
`
`Standard of Review
`
`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. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
`
`“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 preliminary question under § 1404(a) is whether a civil action ‘might
`
`have been brought’ in the destination venue.” In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 312
`
`(5th Cir. 2008) (Volkswagen II) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)). Once this requirement has been
`
`met, 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)).
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 46 Filed 06/23/20 Page 3 of 18
`
`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 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) (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.
`
`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 314 n.10 (“[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.
`
`A court may “consider undisputed facts outside the pleadings, but it must draw all
`
`reasonable inferences and resolve all factual conflicts in favor of the non-moving party.”
`
`Weatherford Tech. Holdings, LLC v. Tesco Corp., No. 2:17-CV-00456-JRG, 2018 WL 4620636,
`
`at *2 (E.D. Tex. May 22, 2018). The briefings submitted by Apple and Solas primarily focused on
`
`the relative ease of access to sources of proof and convenience of witnesses, and the Court has
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 46 Filed 06/23/20 Page 4 of 18
`
`taken their additional arguments into consideration in determining whether to grant the Motion to
`
`Transfer.
`
`III. Discussion regarding transfer to the Northern District of California
`
`Both parties agree that NDCA would be a proper venue, and the suit could have been filed
`
`in NDCA.
`
`a. Relative ease of access to sources of proof
`
`In considering the relative ease of access to sources of proof, a court looks to where
`
`documentary evidence, such as documents and physical evidence, is stored. Volkswagen II, 545
`
`F.3d at 316. Apple argues that this factor weighs in favor of transfer because the “bulk of relevant
`
`evidence and witnesses” is in the NDCA. ECF No. 23 at 6. More specifically, Apple asserts that
`
`“the vast majority of the design, development, and implementation of the OLED displays” occurs
`
`in the NDCA and that “all of the likely witnesses on this topic are located in the NDCA.” Id. at 6–
`
`7 (citing Declaration of Shihchang Chang In Supp. of Mot. to Transfer (“Chang Decl.”), ¶¶ 6–7).
`
`Apple further asserts that the likely witnesses and documents “concerning the marketing, sales,
`
`and financial information” as well as the licensing for the OLED displays are in the NDCA. Id. at
`
`7 (citing Declaration of Mark Rollins In Supp. of Mot. to Transfer (“Rollins Decl.”), ¶¶ 12, 15–
`
`21). Apple points to six specific employees that it contends would likely be witnesses in the case,
`
`all of whom reside in the NDCA. Id. at 3–4 (citing Rollins Decl., ¶¶ 12, 15–21; Chang Decl., ¶¶
`
`6–9). Finally, Apple asserts that no unique sources of proof exist in the Western District of Texas
`
`(“WDTX”) as Solas has no physical presence in the WDTX, no third-party witnesses reside in the
`
`WDTX, and the likely witnesses and relevant documents are in the NDCA. Id. at 7.
`
`In its response, Solas argues that the litigation focuses on the OLED displays that are
`
`“mainly designed and made by Samsung Display Co., LG Display (Korea), and other Asian-based
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 46 Filed 06/23/20 Page 5 of 18
`
`companies,” so the third-party suppliers possess the relevant sources of proof. ECF No. 29 at 3
`
`(citing ECF No. 23 at 4). Solas points to Samsung’s production of over 800,000 pages of
`
`documents for similar patent-infringement litigation as an example of the ease of access to sources
`
`of proof. ECF No. 29 at 4. (citing Solas OLED Ltd. v. Samsung Display Co., et al., No. 2:19-cv-
`
`00152 (E.D. Tex.), ECF No. 15 (amended complaint)). Likewise, Solas refers to its case with LG
`
`Display in a similar patent infringement action where LG has already produced technical
`
`documents concerning its OLED products. ECF No. 29 at 5. (citing Solas OLED Ltd. v. LG Display
`
`Co., Ltd., et al., No. 6:19-cv-00236). Solas argues that no burden exists for electronically
`
`transferring the electronic documents to the WDTX. ECF No. 29 at 4–5.
`
`In addition, Samsung has informed Solas of its intention to file a motion to intervene to
`
`become a party in this case since the case “alleges infringement based on components supplied by
`
`Samsung.” Id. (quoting Declaration of Reza Mirzaie In Support of Solas OLED Ltd.’s Opposition
`
`to Motion to Transfer Venue (“Mirzaie Decl.”), Ex. H). Samsung also has identified potentially
`
`ten relevant witnesses with OLED and/or closely related knowledge. Id. at 5. Seven of the
`
`witnesses live in Asia and would have no meaningful difference in convenience between the
`
`WDTX and the NDCA. Id. Two of the witnesses live within 100 miles of the WDTX. Id. Thus,
`
`Solas argues that Samsung’s production of sources of evidence in Texas are more relevant and
`
`point against transfer. Id. at 4.
`
`Solas also argues that Apple’s sources of proof do not alter the factor analysis. Solas
`
`contends that the knowledge possessed by the employees chosen by Apple would likely not exceed
`
`the knowledge from the witnesses provided by Samsung. Id. at 6. In addition, Solas asserts that
`
`the method of Apple’s selection of witnesses is unclear and may only serve as a method to “game
`
`the system” to support a motion to transfer. Id. (quoting Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 6:18-CV-00372-
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 46 Filed 06/23/20 Page 6 of 18
`
`ADA, 2019 WL 4743678, at *4 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 13, 2019). Solas argues that there are 7,000
`
`employees working at the Apple campus in Austin. This is in response to this non-specific method
`
`of selection and particularly notes that several display engineers appear to work in Austin. Id. at
`
`6–7.
`
`Apple responds by reiterating that the “vast majority of the design and implementation of
`
`the OLED displays” and that the six likely Apple witnesses are in the NDCA. ECF No. 31 at 2.
`
`Apple asserts that the likely witnesses are “particularly knowledgeable on the topics for which
`
`they were identified.” Id. Apple also asserts that the employees cited by Solas are display engineers
`
`that do not have any involvement with the OLED displays, so they are irrelevant to the factor
`
`analysis. Id. at 2–3, n. 2.
`
`Apple agrees that the relevant engineers of the third-party suppliers of the OLED displays
`
`are all located in Asia. Id. at 3. Apple notes though that two of its four suppliers—Tianma
`
`Microelectronics Co. (China) and Japan Display Inc. (Japan)—are not parties to any suit against
`
`Solas, so it would not be reasonable to expect production of documents or witnesses from those
`
`suppliers. Id. In addition, while LG Display is a defendant in an action against Solas before this
`
`Court, the OLED engineers located in Asia cannot be compelled to produce documents or provide
`
`witnesses regardless of venue. Id. Apple further argues that Samsung’s OLED engineers are in
`
`Asia, and the employees identified by Samsung are not knowledgeable on OLED displays. Id. at
`
`3–4 (citing Mirzaie Decl., Ex. I at 6–7). Apple also argues that Samsung’s production of documents
`
`for its case against Solas likely occurred with Solas’s lead counsel located in California whereas
`
`no evidence exists that Samsung has any sources of proof in Texas. Id. at 4. Finally, Apple points
`
`to Samsung’s potential intervention in the case as a favorable factor. Id. Apple asserts that the
`
`NDCA is more convenient than the WDTX since the Samsung engineers located in Korea could
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 46 Filed 06/23/20 Page 7 of 18
`
`fly directly to the NDCA on several available non-stop flights each day which are not available to
`
`Waco or Austin. Id. (citing Declaration of John M. Guaranga, Exs. 7–9).
`
`In coming to its conclusion, the Court considered the location of the relevant documents
`
`and witnesses. See Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 316. As Apple is the accused infringer, Apple likely
`
`possesses the bulk of the relevant documents for this case. See, e.g., In re Genentech, Inc., 566
`
`F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“In patent infringement cases, the bulk of the relevant evidence
`
`usually comes from the accused infringer. Consequently, the place where the defendant's
`
`documents are kept weighs in favor of transfer to that location.”). Therefore, in accordance with
`
`Fifth Circuit precedent, the Court finds that the location of the documents relevant in this case
`
`weighs towards transfer.1
`
`When determining the weight and impact of the location of witnesses, this Court looks at
`
`the totality of the circumstances, including but not limited to, “the witness’s title and relevant
`
`experience, the likelihood that a witness may have relevant information, the number of witnesses,
`
`the location of those witnesses, whether the testimony of those witnesses goes to an element of a
`
`claim, the amount of public information available to the parties, etc.” Fintiv, 2019 WL 4743678,
`
`at *8. The Court reasons that while international travel is burdensome regardless of destination,
`
`the addition of five to ten hours of travel time (with some itineraries extending the trip by twenty
`
`
`1 As noted previously in Fintiv, the Court believes that this factor conflicts with the realities of modern patent litigation.
`Fintiv, 2019 WL 4743678, at *4. Most documents produced in modern patent litigation exist as electronic documents
`on a party’s server. In this Court’s view, there is no difference in the relative ease of access to sources of proof from
`the transferor district as compared to the transferee district when the vast bulk of documents are electronic. District
`courts—particularly those with patent-heavy dockets which have very significant document productions—have
`recently begun to acknowledge this reality. Uniloc USA Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Am., No. 2:16-cv-00642-JRG, ECF
`No. 216 at 8-9 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 19, 2017) (“Despite the absence of newer cases acknowledging that in today’s digital
`world computer stored documents are readily moveable to almost anywhere at the click of a mouse, the Court finds it
`odd to ignore this reality in favor of a fictional analysis that has more to do with early Xerox machines than modern
`server forms.”). However, under current Fifth Circuit precedent, the physical location of electronic document does
`affect the outcome of this factor. See, e.g., Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 316.
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 46 Filed 06/23/20 Page 8 of 18
`
`or more hours) when traveling to the WDTX as opposed to the NDCA is somewhat significant.
`
`See ECF No. 31 at 4 (citing Declaration of John M. Guaranga, Exs. 7–9). Thus, obtaining the
`
`testimony of the third-party engineers would be more difficult in the WDTX as opposed to the
`
`NDCA. Solas provides two employees identified by Samsung that could potentially have relevant
`
`information and have more convenience traveling to the WDTX than the NDCA. ECF No. 29 at
`
`7. The Court notes that Apple’s reply states that the Samsung employees in the WDTX work on
`
`unrelated matters, but the Court resolves the conflict of factual matter in favor of Solas. See
`
`Weatherford, 2018 WL 4620636, at *2; ECF No. 31 at 4.
`
`Although the Court’s resolution of factual conflicts in favor of the non-movant here is not
`
`outcome determinative, the Court takes this opportunity to address the issue. The Court recognizes
`
`the Federal Circuit’s concern with the Court’s reliance on Weatherford Tech. Holdings, LLC v.
`
`Tesco Corp. to support drawing all reasonable inferences and resolve all factual conflicts in favor
`
`of the non-moving party when assessing a § 1404(a) motion. In re Apple Inc., 2020 WL 3249953,
`
`at *2 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citing Weatherford Tech. Holdings, LLC v. Tesco Corp., No. 2:17-CV-
`
`00456-JRG, 2018 WL 4620636, at *2 (E.D. Tex. May 22, 2018)). These factual conflicts and
`
`reasonable inferences almost wholly relate to witnesses and documentary evidence, so the Court
`
`will focus its attention on this matter. While the Federal Circuit points out that this standard sounds
`
`like summary judgment, the Court likens the standard to a motion to dismiss standard. Id.; Bell
`
`Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
`
`Similar to a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff’s facts are taken as true in order to resolve factual
`
`disputes. See Fernandez-Montez v. Allied Pilots Assoc., 987 F.2d 278, 284 (5th Cir. 1993).
`
`However, the Court has not engaged in a “blind deference” to the standard as Apple
`
`suggests. Apple Inc.’s Petition for Rehearing En Banc at 6, In re Apple Inc., No. 2020-104 (Fed.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 46 Filed 06/23/20 Page 9 of 18
`
`Cir. Jan. 21, 2020). This Court still requires a plaintiff to demonstrate the potential relevance and
`
`materiality of potential witnesses and evidence rather than provide mere lists. See Fintiv, Inc. v.
`
`Apple, Inc., No. 6:18-cv-00372-ADA, 2019 WL 4743678 at *6 (W.D. Tex. Sep. 13, 2019) (citing
`
`Alacritech Inc. v. CenturyLink, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-693, 2017 WL 4155236, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Sept.
`
`19, 2017)). If this Court were to “blindly defer” to lists of evidence and witnesses, future plaintiffs
`
`would simply provide long lists of potential witnesses and evidence in order to counter a transfer
`
`motion. See Fintiv, Inc., 2019 WL 4743678, at *4.
`
`This standard for factual disputes also draws another comparison to the motion to dismiss
`
`standard as the plaintiff has yet to conduct discovery that could help resolve factual disputes. The
`
`information imbalance places plaintiffs at a severe disadvantage especially considering that the
`
`location of witnesses and evidence has an impact on at least four of the eight transfer factors. See
`
`In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 315 (5th Cir. 2008). Without this standard, a
`
`defendant need only submit a declaration showing that a majority of relevant material witnesses
`
`and evidence are in the proposed transferee district in order to substantially shift the balance of
`
`factors in its favor. While this declaration can be factual and made in good faith, a plaintiff has no
`
`means to counteract this information beyond publicly available information while the defendant
`
`can rely on both confidential and public information.
`
`Moreover, as the Federal Circuit noted, a district court enjoys considerable discretion when
`
`assessing the relevance and materiality of potential witnesses and evidence. In re Genentech, Inc.,
`
`566 F.3d 1338, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “Those principles apply with particular force to a district
`
`court’s evaluation of whether an individual is deserving of consideration in the willing witness or
`
`compulsory process factors.” Order Denying Petition for Writ of Mandamus, In re Apple Inc., No.
`
`2020-104 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 20, 2019). Therefore, in accordance with the reasons stated above, the
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 46 Filed 06/23/20 Page 10 of 18
`
`Court uses its discretion to draw all reasonable inferences and resolve all factual conflicts in favor
`
`of the non-moving party when assessing a § 1404(a) motion. See Weatherford, 2018 WL 4620636,
`
`at *2.
`
`Solas does point to Apple’s presence in Austin and to three Apple employees based in
`
`Austin with potentially relevant information, but the Court does not find this argument
`
`compelling.2 See ECF No. 29 at 6–7. Ultimately, the combination of the location of the third-party
`
`suppliers’ engineers as well as the greater number of potentially relevant witnesses provided by
`
`Apple in NDCA outweighs the Samsung employees and the potential Apple employees with
`
`relevant knowledge in WDTX. See id. (citing Mirzaie Decl., Ex. G). As such, the Court finds that
`
`the location of witnesses weighs in favor of transfer. Therefore, the Court finds that the “relative
`
`ease of access to sources of proof” weighs towards transfer.
`
`b. Availability of compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses
`
`The Court considers the availability of compulsory process to secure the attendance of
`
`witnesses, particularly non-party witnesses whose attendance may need to be secured by a court
`
`order. Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 316. A court may subpoena a witness to attend trial only “within
`
`100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person.” Fed.
`
`R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1)(A); Gemalto S.A. v. CPI Card Grp. Inc., No. 15-CA-0910, 2015 WL 10818740,
`
`at *4 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 16, 2015). Similarly, a court may subpoena a witness within the state when
`
`the witness is a party, an officer of the party, or a person who would not incur substantial expense
`
`when commanded to attend trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1)(B). Moreover, the ability to compel live
`
`
`2 The Court notes that while both parties address Apple’s presence in Austin regarding a potential mechanical counting
`of witnesses as a part of the analysis of this factor, this Court has rejected this method. Fintiv, 2019 WL 4743678, at
`*8. Consequently, the Court addresses Apple’s presence in Austin in a subsequent factor.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 46 Filed 06/23/20 Page 11 of 18
`
`trial testimony is crucial for evaluating a witnesses’ testimony. Aguilar-Ayala v. Ruiz, 973 F.2d
`
`411, 419 (5th Cir. 1992).
`
`Solas argues that this factor is neutral while Apple argues that this factor is neutral at worst.
`
`ECF No. 23 at 8 (Apple); ECF No. 29 at 8 (Solas). Apple contends that none of the relevant third-
`
`party engineers are ot within the subpoena power of either the NDCA or the WDTX. Solas counters
`
`that two Samsung witnesses actually are located within this Court’s subpoena power. ECF No. 29
`
`at 8. According to Solas, the presence of these witnesses in the WDTX pushes the analysis in its
`
`favor. While Samsung’s witnesses do fall within the WDTX subpoena range, the submission of
`
`the witnesses by Samsung signals a willingness to testify. See id. at 7. As such, a willing witness
`
`nullifies the need for compulsory process. See id. Therefore, as no compulsory process is required
`
`for this case, the Court finds that “availability of compulsory process” factor is neutral to transfer.
`
`c. Cost of attendance for willing witnesses
`
`The convenience of witnesses is the single most important factor in the transfer analysis.
`
`In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d at 1342. The Court considers all potential material and relevant
`
`witnesses. Fintiv, 2019 WL 4743678, at *6. However, the Court assumes that no more than a few
`
`party witnesses—and even fewer third-party witnesses, if any—will testify at trial, so long lists of
`
`potential party and third-party witnesses do not affect the Court’s analysis for this factor. Id. at
`
`*13. The convenience of party witnesses is given relatively little weight compared to non-party
`
`witnesses.3 See ADS Sec. L.P. v. Advanced Detection Sec. Servs., Inc., No. A-09-CA-773-LY,
`
`
`3 The Court notes Apple’s concern regarding the language in Fintiv. See ECF No. 23 at 8 no. 5 (citing Fintiv, 2019
`WL 4743678, at *4). The Court stands by giving little weight to the convenience of party witnesses in relation to non-
`party witnesses, but the Court would like to clarify that the convenience of party witnesses is given some weight.
`However, the weight only becomes consequential in the absence of a significant number of non-party witnesses. For
`example, the Court would give more weight to a non-party witness when comparing a non-party witness to a party
`witness. The Federal Circuit previously reviewed a motion to transfer and took no issue with a district court giving
`the convenience of party witnesses little weight in relation to non-party witnesses. See In re Altera Corp., 494 App’x.
`52, 53–54 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 46 Filed 06/23/20 Page 12 of 18
`
`2010 WL 1170976, at *4 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 23, 2010), report and recommendation adopted in A-
`
`09-CA-773-LY (ECF No. 20) (Apr. 14, 2010). “When 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
`
`travelled.” In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d at 1343.
`
`Apple argues that its likely witnesses located in the NDCA face little inconvenience to
`
`appear in the same district. ECF No. 23 at 8–9. As they reside closely to the courthouses in the
`
`NDCA, Apple’s witnesses would face more difficulties appearing in the WDTX. Id. For example,
`
`the travel would require flights to the WDTX, days as opposed to hours spent away from home
`
`and work, and additional meal and lodging expenses. Id. In addition, Apple points to the relative
`
`ease of travel between major cities in Asia and the NDCA, but a lack of flights to the WDTX. Id
`
`(citing Exs. 7–9). Similarly, Apple asserts that any potential Solas witnesses would face similar
`
`problems as non-stop flights are available from Dublin to the NDCA but travel to the WDTX
`
`would require costlier flights with extended travel times and connections. Id. (citing Exs. 5–6).
`
`Solas contends that the non-party witnesses located in Asia face “no meaningful difference
`
`in relative convenience” in traveling to either the NDCA or the WDTX. ECF No. 29 at 5. In
`
`addition, Solas points out that the two Samsung employees living near the WDTX would be
`
`inconvenienced by a transfer to the NDCA. Id. Moreover, Solas notes that LG and Samsung are
`
`already litigating in the WDTX, so a transfer to the NDCA would increase the cost by requiring
`
`travel to two districts. Id. at 7. Solas argues that the convenience of these non-party witnesses
`
`should be “appl[ied] with more force in this case” as Apple purchases the OLED displays from
`
`third-party suppliers who are also litigating in this district. Id.
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 46 Filed 06/23/20 Page 13 of 18
`
`The Court considers the cost of attendance for party and non-party witnesses but gives the
`
`cost of attendance of non-party witnesses considerably more weight. See ADS Sec. L.P., 2010 WL
`
`1170976, at *4. As mentioned above, the Court finds that the increased travel time to the WDTX
`
`for the third-party engineers from Asia is significant. See ECF No. 31 at 4 (citing Declaration of
`
`John M. Guaranga, Exs. 7–9). Even though Samsung and LG are currently litigating in the WDTX,
`
`a transfer to the NDCA would alleviate the cost of time and money as opposed to travelling to the
`
`WDTX. See id. While Samsung does have employees located near the WDTX, the burden on the
`
`third-party engineers located in Asia outweighs the burden on the Samsung employees. See id. at
`
`7. The inconvenience to non-party witnesses is enough to weigh in favor of transfer; moreover,
`
`the inconvenience to party witnesses for similar reasons would supplement this finding regardless
`
`of its less weight. See ADS Sec. L.P., 2010 WL 1170976, at *4. Therefore, the Court finds that the
`
`“cost of attendance” factor weighs in favor of transfer.
`
`d. All other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and
`inexpensive
`
`When examining practical problems, this Court considers problems such as those rationally
`
`based on judicial economy which will weigh heavily in favor of or against transfer. In re
`
`Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 566 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (Volkswagen III). Apple argues
`
`that Solas’s related action with Samsung in a second district regarding two of the three patents
`
`litigated in this case results in this factor being neutral. ECF No. 23 at 10–11. Solas argues that
`
`this Court is hearing four other cases regarding one or more patents asserted in this case. ECF No.
`
`29 at 8. In addition, Solas points out that three of the four cases are on a common schedule with a
`
`Markman hearing set on a date particularly convenient to Apple due to conflicts. ECF No. 29 at 9.
`
`Solas argues that a transfer of venue would require an additional district court to construe the
`
`patents and require Solas, Samsung, and potentially other suppliers to appear in the additional
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 46 Filed 06/23/20 Page 14 of 18
`
`district. Id. Apple asserts that Solas should have been concerned with coordination of location and
`
`times when filing suit if it wanted to avoid litigation in a potential third district. ECF No. 31 at 5.
`
`With two districts already hearing claims regarding these patents and this district hearing four
`
`claims regarding these patents (three of which are on a common schedule), an additional venue
`
`would increase the expense and difficulty for parties involved and result in the increased
`
`expenditure of judicial resources. See Volkswagen III, F.3d at 1351. Therefore, the Court finds that
`
`the “all other practical problems” factor weighs heavily against transfer.
`
`e. Administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion
`
`The relevant inquiry under this factor is actually “[t]he speed with which a case can come
`
`to trial and be resolved[.]” In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Solas
`
`argues that this factor is neutral while Apple argues that this factor is neutral at worst. ECF No. 23
`
`at 11 (Apple), ECF No. 29 at 10 (Solas). Apple points out that the NDCA has a shorter time to trial
`
`for patent cases, but this Court is now scheduling patent cases for trial faster than in the past. The
`
`Court notes that most recent patent cases in the last few years were likely in the Austin Division.
`
`Since the Austin Division has one of the highest caseloads per judge in the country, the overall
`
`WDTX time-to-trial is not representative of the time-to-trial in the Waco Division which has a
`
`patent-specific Order Governing Proceedings (“OGP”). In the Court’s OGP, trial is scheduled to
`
`begin forty-four to forty-seven weeks after the Markman hearing. In this case, the Markman
`
`hearing is set for August 14, 2020, and the trial is scheduled for April 21, 2021. In addition, the
`
`time from filing to trial currently will be 15 months. As such, the Court is well within its OGP
`
`while a transfer could substantially impact the expediency of the trial. Moreover, the time from
`
`filing to trial is now approximately 42.5 percent faster than previous WDTX cases. See Uniloc
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Case 6:19-cv-00537-ADA Document 46 Filed 06/23/20 Page 15 of 18
`
`2017 LLC v. Apple Inc., 6:19-cv-00532-ADA, ECF No. 72 at 14, 31. Therefore, the Court finds
`
`that “the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion” factor weighs against transfer.
`
`f. Local interest in having localized interests decided at home
`
`Apple argues that the NDCA has a stronger local interest than the WDTX because Apple’s
`
`work on the OLED displays, headquarters, and relevant employees as potential witnesses are in
`
`the NDCA. ECF No. 23 at 11. Apple also points out that Solas, an Ireland-based company, has no
`
`connection to the WDTX. Id. Apple also points to a similar decision where this Court favored
`
`transfer to the district with interests more closely connected with the issues to be tried. Id. (citing
`
`Datascape, Ltd. v. Dell Techs., Inc., No. 6:19-cv-00129-ADA, 2019 WL 4254069, at *3 (W.D.
`
`Tex. June 7, 2019).
`
`Solas responds that the WDTX has a similar and indistinguishable local interest to the
`
`NDCA because Apple’s second largest campus with almost 7,000 employees is in Austin and
`
`Apple received significant state and local tax benefits to build its second campus in Austin. ECF
`
`No. 29 at 11. (citing Fintiv, 2019 WL 4743678, at *7). Solas also contends that Samsung and LG
`
`Display’s litigation in WDTX also represents a local interest. Id.
`
`While this Court did grant a transfer of venue in Datascape, the Court only granted an
`
`intra-district transfer to the Austin Division as opposed to an inter-district transfe