Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 28 Filed 12/30/21 Page 1 of 21
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`TOUCHSTREAM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Civil Case No. 6:21-cv-569-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
` §
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`OPPOSED MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE BY DEFENDANT GOOGLE LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 28 Filed 12/30/21 Page 2 of 21
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 28 Filed 12/30/21 Page 2 of 21
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`e
`
`INTRODUCTION o.oo ccccccccccccesccescesceeseeseeeseeseesseeseeseesseeseceaesaeeseeesecseeeeeeseeeseeeeeeeesaeeeees 1
`
`<a5
`
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND......0.......:ccccesceeseeseeeseeeseeeeeeseeeseeeees 1
`
`A.
`
`B
`
`Cc.
`
`D
`
`Litigation Status ..........ecceccceccesccesceeceeseeeseeseeeseeeseeseeeseeseceeeseeeseeeeeeeeseeeeeeneeeeeees 1
`
`Touchstream Has No Known Connection to This District .......0..0.......:eseeeeeeeeees 2
`
`Google’s Relevant Presence Is in N.D. Call. ..........ccccccecccescesceeseeeceeeeeeseeeseeeeeeeeeees 2
`
`
`
`E.
`
`Third Parties Are Located in N.D. Call. ..........ccecccecceccceseeeseeeceeseeeceeeeeseeneteeeeseeees 4
`
`LEGAL STANDARD... ooocccccceeccc cc cccccccceseeeeeeeeeeeseeeeaaaececececseeeesnaeeeeeeeeeseeesssneeeeeeeeeeeseeses 5
`
`ARGUMENT..0...occcccecccesccescesceeseesseeseessesseneesseeseseessecsaesecesecsseeseeeseceaeeeeeseeeseeeeeeeeeeseessees 7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Touchstream Could Have Brought This Case in N.D.Call......0...000.0ccceceeeeeeeeeeees 7
`
`The Balanceof the Private Interest Factors Favors Transfet..................0:0::000++ 7
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`The Relative Ease of Access to Sources of Proof Favors Transfer........... 7
`
`The Availability of Compulsory Process to Secure Attendance of
`Witnesses Favors Transfer................ceccccccescceccesceeseeeceseceeteseeeaeeeseeeeeeaeenees 8
`
`The Convenienceand Cost of Attendance for Willing Witnesses
`Favors Transfer ..............cceccescceseesceeseesseeseeeseeseeesecseeseeeseeeseeseeeseeeaeeneeeseenees 9
`
`The Other Practical Problems Affecting This Case Are Neutral............. 12
`
`Cc.
`
`The Balance of the Public Interest Factors Weigh in Favor of Transfer............. 13
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`The LocalInterests Favor Transfer to ND. Call. ..0......0..cceceeeeeeeeeeteeteees 13
`
`Administrative Difficulties Flowing from Court Congestion Favor
`Transfer Are Neutral and Should Be GivenLittle Weight...................... 14
`
`The Remaining Factors Favor Transfer or Are Neutral.........................-- 15
`
`CONCLUSION..00..o cece ceceeccesceescesceseesseeseesseseeesecscecseeesecsaeesaceaeceaeeseseseceaeeeceaeeeseeeeeaeeeees 15
`
`-i-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 28 Filed 12/30/21 Page 3 of 21
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`10Tales, Inc. v. TikTok Inc.,
`No. 6:20-CV-00810-ADA, 2021 WL 2043978 (W.D. Tex. May 21, 2021) ...........................12
`
`Flexiworld Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al.,
`No. 6:20-cv-00553-ADA, Dkt. 101 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 2, 2021) ...............................................11
`
`HD Silicon Sols. LLC, v. Microchip Tech. Inc.,
`6:20-cv-01092-ADA, Dkt. 49 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 25, 2021) ...............................................6, 7, 14
`
`In re Acer Am. Corp.,
`626 F.3d 1252 (Fed. Cir. 2010)......................................................................................7, 13, 14
`
`In re Apple, Inc.,
`581 F.App’x 886 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................................8, 10
`
`In re Apple Inc.,
`979 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2020)........................................................................................ passim
`
`In re Apple, Inc.,
`No. 21-181, 2021 WL 5291804 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2021) ...............................................10, 15
`
`In re Genentech,
`566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..................................................................................7, 9, 11, 15
`
`In re Google Inc.,
`No. 2017-107, 2017 WL 977038 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 23, 2017) ....................................................14
`
`In re Google LLC (Jenam Tech.),
`No. 2021-171, 2021 WL 4592280 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 6, 2021)...........................................7, 10, 12
`
`In re Google LLC (Sonos),
`No. 2021-170, 2021 WL 4427899 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 27, 2021) .....................................10, 12, 13
`
`In re HP Inc.,
`No. 2018-149, 2018 WL 4692486 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 25, 2018) ...............................................1, 8
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 28 Filed 12/30/21 Page 4 of 21
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`In re Hulu, LLC,
`No. 2021-142, 2021 WL 3278194 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 2, 2021) .....................................................8
`
`In re Juniper Networks, Inc.,
`14 F.4th 1313, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ................................................................................11, 15
`
`In re Pandora Media, LLC,
`No. 2021-172, 2021 WL 4772805 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 13, 2021)...................................................11
`
`In re TOA Techs., Inc.,
`543 F. App’x 1006 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ........................................................................................13
`
`In re Toyota Motor Corp.,
`747 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................6
`
`In re TS Tech USA Corp.,
`551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..................................................................................................6
`
`In re Volkswagen AG,
`371 F.3d 201 (5th Cir. 2004) .........................................................................................5, 12, 13
`
`In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc.,
`545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) ........................................................................................... passim
`
`Media Chain, LLC v. Roku, Inc.,
`No. 1:21-CV-27-LY, Dkt. 65 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 7, 2021) ...........................................................9
`
`Proven Networks, LLC. v. NetApp, Inc.,
`No. 6:20-cv-00369-ADA, Dkt. 61 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 19, 2021) ............................................9, 14
`
`Touchstream Technologies, Inc. v. Vizbee, Inc.,
`1:17-cv-6247-PGG, Dkt. 20 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2017) ...........................................................12
`
`STATUTES
`
`28 U.S.C.
`§ 1404(a) ........................................................................................................................1, 5, 6, 9
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 28 Filed 12/30/21 Page 5 of 21
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Defendant Google LLC (“Google”) respectfully requests transfer of this case to the
`
`Northern District of California (“N.D. Cal.”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) because this case
`
`has no connection to this District, no factor favors retaining this case in this District, and several
`
`factors favor transfer.
`
`Nothing ties this case to this District. Plaintiff Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
`
`(“Touchstream”) does not have any employees, facilities, or presence in this District or Texas.
`
`Touchstream, its CEO, and the sole named inventor on the asserted patents, all are based in New
`
`York and New Jersey.
`
`In contrast, N.D. Cal. is where Google was founded, maintains its headquarters, and
`
`researches, develops, designs, and primarily maintains the accused functionality in the accused
`
`Chromecast products. Google’s relevant design and development does not occur in this District.
`
`In addition, several third-party witnesses are in N.D. Cal.
`
`A straightforward application of controlling precedent establishes that multiple factors—
`
`at least (1) access to sources of proof; (2) compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses;
`
`(3) cost of attendance for willing witnesses; and (4) having localized interests decided at home—
`
`heavily favor transfer to N.D. Cal. The other factors are neutral. Accordingly, “[w]ith nothing on
`
`the transferor-forum side of the ledger, the analysis shows that the transferee forum is ‘clearly
`
`more convenient’” and the case should be transferred. In re HP Inc., No. 2018-149, 2018 WL
`
`4692486, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 25, 2018).
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Litigation Status
`
`On June 4, 2021, Touchstream sued Google for alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`8,356,251 (“’251 patent”), 8,782,528 (“’528 patent”), and 8,904,289 (“’289 patent”) (collectively,
`
`NAI-1522366864v5
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 28 Filed 12/30/21 Page 6 of 21
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`the “Asserted Patents”). Dkt. 1 (“Compl.”) ¶ 3. Touchstream’s infringement allegations are
`
`directed to Google’s Chromecast technology including “standalone Chromecast devices . . . as
`
`well as devices implementing Chromecast built-in” (“Accused Products”). Id. ¶ 48. Touchstream
`
`alleges infringement due to the Accused Products’ “functionality and structure that facilitates the
`
`controlling of presentation content, such as audio and/or video content, on a content presentation
`
`device that loads any one of a plurality of different media players” (“Accused Functionality”). Id.
`
`Touchstream also alleges willful infringement. Id. ¶¶ 67, 72, 77.
`
`This case is in its early stages. Google has moved to dismiss the complaint (which is still
`
`pending), and the parties exchanged contentions and proposed claim constructions. While claim
`
`construction briefing has just begun, discovery has yet to commence. Google’s motion is timely.
`
`Dkt. 21; see also the Court’s Aug. 18, 2021 Standing Order.
`
`B.
`
`Touchstream Has No Known Connection to This District
`
`Touchstream acknowledges it “is a New York corporation with its principal place of
`
`business in New York, New York.” Compl. ¶ 1. In addition, Mr. David Strober, the sole listed
`
`inventor on the Asserted Patents, resided in New York when he purportedly conceived of the
`
`claimed inventions and filed the parent patent application, and still lives in New York now. Id.
`
`¶¶ 21–22; Ex. D. Touchstream’s CEO, Herb Mitschele, resides in New Jersey. Ex. E. Per its
`
`Complaint, Touchstream has no offices in or any apparent connections to this District or Texas,
`
`except for this lawsuit.
`
`C.
`
`Google’s Relevant Presence Is in N.D. Cal.
`
`Google is a California-based company that has been headquartered in N.D. Cal. since its
`
`founding in 1998. Declaration of Senior Legal Operations Manager, André Golueke (“Golueke”)
`
`¶ 2. First, the accused Chromecast technology was initially developed at Google’s headquarters
`
`in Mountain View, California, and development has primarily continued in or around Mountain
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 28 Filed 12/30/21 Page 7 of 21
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`View. Id. ¶ 6. Second, Google personnel that work on technical, financial, and marketing aspects
`
`of the Accused Functionality in the Accused Products, including engineers and engineering
`
`managers, are primarily in Mountain View or in Google’s other N.D. Cal. offices. Id. ¶ 7. Google
`
`has specifically identified nine such individuals in N.D. Cal. Id. Third, relevant documents
`
`relating to the Accused Functionality in the Accused Products, including source code and
`
`technical, finance, and marketing documents, are primarily created and maintained in or around
`
`Mountain View or Seattle. Id. ¶ 10. Fourth, Google does not have any known employees based
`
`in Texas that currently perform work relevant to the Accused Functionality in the Accused
`
`Products. Id. ¶ 11.
`
`Perhaps anticipating a venue challenge, Touchstream alleges that a Google employee with
`
`relevant knowledge of this case resides in Texas, but, notably, did not name the employee. See
`
`Compl. ¶ 17. (“On information and belief, the team lead or ‘director’ responsible for the
`
`development and execution of Google’s initial go-to-market strategy, global retail sales strategy,
`
`and hardware distribution for Chromecast, as well as the development of partnerships for
`
`Chromecast, currently resides in or around Austin, Texas, and is currently employed by Google.”).
`
`
`
`
`
` See Golueke
`
`¶ 12.
`
`
`1 As discussed above, Google is unaware of any current employees in this District with
`responsibilities relating to the Accused Functionality in the Accused Products. Golueke ¶¶ 7-11.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 28 Filed 12/30/21 Page 8 of 21
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 28 Filed 12/30/21 Page 8 of 21
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`es
`
`In support of its willful infringementallegations in the Complaint, Touchstream points to
`
`pre-suit discussions between Touchstream and Google about a potential partnership concerning
`
`Touchstream’s technology. Compl. §§] 36-40. Touchstream alleges that, during these discussions,
`
`Touchstream signed Google’s NDA.
`
`Jd. § 37. Touchstream also alleges that (1) the NDA
`
`“provided that neither company would get rights to the other company’s intellectual property as a
`
`result of the meeting” (id.) and (2) during these discussions, Touchstream informed Google that
`
`Touchstream had filed a patent application covering its technology (id. § 39). The NDA that
`
`Touchstream references includes the followingPo
`
`
`
`Id.
`
`E.
`
`Third Parties Are Located in N.D. Cal.
`
`Several potential witnesses with relevant knowledgereside in or near N.D. Cal. Prior art
`
`witnesses include the following inventors of prior-art patents and related prior art systems who
`
`reside in N.D. Cal. or California:
`
`(1) Thirumalai Arunachalam, Balamurugan Krishnan, and
`
`Sivasubramanian Muthukumarasamy from Zelfy Peel, who are imventors of U.S. Patent
`
`Publication No. 2010/0241699 and residents of Santa Clara, CA; and (ii) Ralph Neff, Magdalena
`
`Leuca Espelien, Osama Al-Shaykh, and Dann Wilkens
`
`from PacketVideo Corp.
`
`and
`
`TwonkyMedia, whoare inventors ofU.S. Patent No. 8,544,046, WIPO No. WO 2011/078879, and
`
`WIPO No. WO 2010/151284 and residents of San Diego County, CA. Exs.I-L.
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 28 Filed 12/30/21 Page 9 of 21
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
` Again attempting to create a connection with this District, Touchstream alleges that at
`
`least one person involved in previous communications with Google lives in Texas.2 Compl. ¶ 18
`
`(“On information and belief, at least one person involved in the discussion between Touchstream
`
`and Google regarding a potential partnership . . . currently resides in Texas”). And, again,
`
`Touchstream has not specifically identified this individual.
`
`(“McLean”) ¶ 18; Ex. R.
`
`
`
`
`
` Declaration of Evan McLean
`
` resides
`
`in the San Francisco Bay Area, not Texas. McLean ¶ 18; see also Ex. C; Ex. R.
`
`To confirm that this case is wholly unrelated to this District, Google attempted to determine
`
`the identity and location of whoever it was to whom Touchstream’s unidentified employee had
`
`spoken. Based on Google’s investigation,
`
` McLean ¶ 18; Golueke ¶ 13; see also Compl. ¶ 18.
`
` Golueke ¶ 13.
`
` but still appears to reside in the San Francisco Bay Area. Id.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A court may grant a motion to transfer “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses” and
`
`“in the interest of justice.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The “preliminary question” in a transfer analysis
`
`is whether a civil action “might have been brought” in the judicial district to which a transfer is
`
`requested. In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201, 202 (5th Cir. 2004) (“Volkswagen I”).
`
`
`2As discussed in its Motion to Dismiss, Google contests the relevance of the early business
`discussions to this patent infringement case. See generally Dkt. 14. Touchstream has also
`acknowledged the irrelevance of these discussions in opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. See
`Dkt. 19 (Reply) at 4 n.2. Accordingly, Google also contests the relevance of
`
` to this case. However, Google addresses them in this motion due to Touchstream’s
`allegations.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 28 Filed 12/30/21 Page 10 of 21
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`If so, the court weighs the relative convenience of the transferee district and the original
`
`district, an analysis that involves weighing several private and public interest factors. Id. at 203.
`
`The private interest 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 of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 315 (5th Cir. 2008) (“Volkswagen
`
`II”). The public interest factors that the court may consider 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 or in the application of foreign law.”
`
`Id. (alterations omitted).
`
`The movant’s proffered venue need only be “clearly more convenient,” not “far more
`
`convenient,” for transfer to be appropriate. In re Toyota Motor Corp., 747 F.3d 1338, 1341 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2014) (ordering transfer because “[t]aken on its own terms, the district court’s analysis
`
`presents a clear overall picture: nothing favors the transferor forum, whereas several factors favor
`
`the transferee forum.”); see also HD Silicon Sols. LLC v. Microchip Tech. Inc., 6:20-cv-01092-
`
`ADA, Dkt. 49, at *14 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 25, 2021) (finding N.D. Cal as the “clearly more
`
`convenient” venue and granting transfer where four factors favored transfer, three factors were
`
`neutral, and one factor disfavored transfer) (emphasis in original). And “Fifth Circuit precedent
`
`clearly forbids treating the plaintiff’s choice of venue as a distinct factor in the § 1404(a) analysis.”
`
`In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 28 Filed 12/30/21 Page 11 of 21
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Touchstream Could Have Brought This Case in N.D. Cal.
`
`Touchstream could have brought this case in N.D. Cal. because Google has been
`
`headquartered there since its founding in 1998. Golueke ¶ 2.
`
`B.
`
`The Balance of the Private Interest Factors Favors Transfer
`
`1.
`
`The Relative Ease of Access to Sources of Proof Favors Transfer
`
`“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.” In re Apple Inc., 979 F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citing
`
`In re Genentech, 566 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). Under controlling law, this “is a
`
`meaningful factor in the analysis” and favors transfer in this case. Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 316
`
`(noting that technological developments “do[] not render this factor superfluous”); see also HD
`
`Silicon Sols., Dkt. 49, at 7 (finding that evidence of documents stored in N.D. Cal., and the lack of
`
`evidence of documents in W.D. Tex., favored transfer).
`
`As explained in Section II.C, relevant documents—including source code and technical,
`
`finance, and marketing documents—were created and are maintained in N.D. Cal. or in locations
`
`more convenient to N.D. Cal. (including Seattle) than this District. See Genentech, 566 F.3d at
`
`1345-46 (concluding that the first factor favored transfer even when some documents were housed
`
`closer to, but outside of, the transferee forum). By contrast, no documents or any sources of proof
`
`are regularly created or maintained in this District. See supra II.B-C; see also In re Google LLC
`
`(Jenam Tech.), No. 2021-171, 2021 WL 4592280, at *7 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 6, 2021) (finding that even
`
`though “sources of proof would not be difficult to access electronically from Google’s offices in
`
`the Western District of Texas, that does not support weighing this factor against transfer”).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 28 Filed 12/30/21 Page 12 of 21
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`2.
`
`The Availability of Compulsory Process to Secure Attendance of
`Witnesses Favors Transfer
`
`A district’s “ability to compel testimony through subpoena power is . . . an important
`
`factor,” and may be “invaluable.” In re Acer Am. Corp., 626 F.3d 1252, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
`
`To that end, the availability of compulsory process “will weigh heavily in favor of transfer when
`
`more third-party witnesses reside within the transferee venue than reside in the transferor venue.”
`
`In re Apple, Inc., 581 F.App’x 886, 889 (Fed. Cir. 2014). And “when there is no indication that a
`
`non-party witness is willing, the witness is presumed to be unwilling and considered under the
`
`compulsory process factor.” In re HP, 2018 WL 4692486, at *3 n.1; see also In re Hulu, LLC,
`
`No. 2021-142, 2021 WL 3278194, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 2, 2021) (“[W]here . . . the movant has
`
`identified multiple third-party witnesses and shown that they are overwhelmingly located within
`
`the subpoena power of only the transferee venue, this factor favors transfer even without a showing
`
`of unwillingness for each witness.”).
`
`Here, this factor favors transfer because several third parties are located within the
`
`subpoena power of N.D. Cal.
`
`Transfer would permit the potential prior art witnesses who are located in California, or
`
`who were located in California at the time of relevant filings (see supra II.E), to be subject to
`
`compulsory process. See In re Hulu, 2021 WL 3278194, at *4 (holding that potential prior art
`
`witnesses located in the transferee district were relevant to the compulsory process factor and
`
`favored transfer); see also In re Apple, 581 F.App’x at 889 (holding that the district court erred in
`
`concluding that the compulsory process factor was neutral where “six potential third-party
`
`witnesses reside[d] within [N.D. Cal.]” as compared to zero third-party witnesses in E.D. Tex.).
`
`As explained in Section II.E, if Touchstream’s willfulness claims survive Google’s motion
`
`to dismiss, non-party individual witnesses with relevant knowledge based on Touchstream’s
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 28 Filed 12/30/21 Page 13 of 21
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`allegations also reside in N.D. Cal. Specifically,
`
`
`
` and may have relevant
`
`information relating to Touchstream’s willfulness allegations. See supra II.E. Accordingly, the
`
`ability to compel testimony from these individuals in N.D. Cal. to defend against Touchstream’s
`
`infringement claims supports transfer.
`
`By contrast, there are no known non-party witnesses within the subpoena power of this
`
`District. While Touchstream’s Complaint alleges that
`
` resides in
`
`Texas generally (Compl. ¶ 18), he appears to reside in N.D. Cal. See supra II.E. Otherwise,
`
`Touchstream has no known affiliates or current or former employees within this Court’s subpoena
`
`power. See Media Chain, LLC v. Roku, Inc., No. 1:21-CV-27-LY, Dkt. 65, at 4 (W.D. Tex. Dec.
`
`7, 2021) (finding factor favored transfer even though the defendant identified a potential witness
`
`in Austin, Texas). Indeed, the inventor of the Asserted Patents, who was also a co-founder of
`
`Touchstream, is a New York resident. See supra II.B; see also Proven Networks, LLC. v. NetApp,
`
`Inc., No. 6:20-cv-00369-ADA, Dkt. 61, at 6 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 19, 2021) (finding factor favored
`
`transfer when third-party witnesses, including prior art witnesses, all reside in transferee district).
`
`3.
`
`The Convenience and Cost of Attendance for Willing Witnesses
`Favors Transfer
`
`The “single most important factor in transfer analysis” is the convenience to and cost for
`
`the witnesses to travel to and attend trial. In re Genentech, 566 F.3d at 1343. Under Fifth Circuit
`
`law, “[w]hen the distance between an existing venue for trial of a matter and a proposed venue
`
`under § 1404(a) is more than 100 miles, the factor of inconvenience to witnesses increases in direct
`
`relationship to the additional distance to be traveled.” Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 317. “[I]t is an
`
`‘obvious conclusion’ that it is more convenient for witnesses to testify at home and that
`
`‘[a]dditional distance means additional travel time; additional travel time increases the probability
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 28 Filed 12/30/21 Page 14 of 21
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`for meal and lodging expenses; and additional travel time with overnight stays increases the time
`
`which these fact witnesses must be away from their regular employment.’” Id.
`
`Here, this factor favors transfer because Google is unaware of any relevant witnesses that
`
`reside in this District. As described in Section II.C, Google does not have relevant engineers or
`
`relevant finance or marketing employees in this District. In contrast, Google—which will be the
`
`primary source of evidence regarding the operation, design, and implementation of the Accused
`
`Functionality in the Accused Products—is headquartered in N.D. Cal., and the accused technology
`
`was developed there. See supra II.C. In addition, relevant project management, marketing, and
`
`finance personnel are also in N.D. Cal. See id. While Google has an Austin office, there are no
`
`known employees based there who work on the Accused Functionality in the Accused Products.
`
`See id. The facts here are similar to those in In re Apple, where the Federal Circuit found transfer
`
`appropriate because “Apple identified at least eight prospective party witnesses in the transferee
`
`venue with relevant material information, while [the plaintiff] failed to identify a single
`
`prospective witness in [the transferor district].” 581 F. App’x at 889. In recent Google cases, the
`
`Federal Circuit has found that similar circumstances warrant transfer. See In re Google LLC
`
`(Sonos), No. 2021-170, 2021 WL 4427899, at *3-4 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 27, 2021) (granting transfer
`
`where “Google identified a number of potential witnesses located in the Northern District of
`
`California, including witnesses who were responsible for developing the accused products and
`
`functionalities.”); In re Google (Jenam), 2021 WL 4592280, at *4 (holding that “the convenience
`
`of willing witnesses must be regarded as weighing heavily in favor of transfer because there are
`
`several potential witnesses in the Northern District of California and none in the Western District
`
`of Texas”).
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 28 Filed 12/30/21 Page 15 of 21
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`While Touchstream has alleged there is a single unnamed relevant Google employee in this
`
`District, such an identification cannot override the weight of the relevant witnesses located in N.D.
`
`Cal. Indeed,
`
`
`
`. See supra II.C. This does not warrant weighing this factor
`
`against transfer. See In re Apple, Inc., No. 21-181, 2021 WL 5291804, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15,
`
`2021) (stressing “the relevance and materiality of the information the witness[es] may provide”
`
`(quoting Genentech, 566 F.3d at 1343)). Moreover, even assuming the single employee is relevant,
`
`in closely analogous circumstances, the Federal Circuit recently held that such facts warrant
`
`transfer to N.D. Cal. For example, in In re Juniper Networks, Inc., the Court granted transfer
`
`because “[the defendant] identified eleven potential party witnesses who were located in the
`
`Northern District of California, while [the plaintiff] identified only one party witness in the
`
`Western District of Texas.” 14 F.4th 1313, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Likewise, in In re Pandora
`
`Media, LLC, the Federal Circuit acknowledged four potential sales and marketing witnesses
`
`employed by the defendant in the transferor district. No. 2021-172, 2021 WL 4772805, at *5 (Fed.
`
`Cir. Oct. 13, 2021). Despite this, the Court found that the relative burden associated with witnesses
`
`in the transferee district far exceeded that of the four witnesses: “While there would be some
`
`burden associated with requiring those four Pandora employees to travel from Texas to California
`
`for trial, that burden would be greatly exceeded by the burden of requiring Pandora’s many
`
`witnesses [to] travel from California to Texas. The convenience of the party witnesses thus clearly
`
`favors transfer.” Id.; see also Flexiworld Techs., Inc., v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al., No. 6:20-cv-
`
`00553-ADA, Dkt. 101, at * (W.D. Tex. Aug. 2, 2021) (finding this factor “heavily favors
`
`transferring” because “[f]or the majority of relevant witnesses, the Court finds traveling to the
`
`WDWA more convenient than to the WDTX.”).
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 28 Filed 12/30/21 Page 16 of 21
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`There are similarly no known Touchstream witnesses located in this District. In fact, all
`
`the Touchstream witnesses appear to be located in New York or New Jersey, including
`
`Touchstream’s CEO and the inventor of the Asserted Patents. See supra II.B. In such
`
`circumstances, the Federal Circuit has found that “[a]lthough it might be true that these individuals
`
`will need to travel a greater distance to reach NDCA than WDTX, and although a flight from New
`
`York to WDTX might take a bit less time than from New York to NDCA, in either instance these
`
`individuals will likely have to leave home for an extended period of time and incur travel, lodging,
`
`and related costs.” In re Apple, 979 F.3d at 1342. Accordingly, Touchstream’s east coast
`
`witnesses should not affect the outcome of this factor. See, e.g., In re Google (Jenam), 2021 WL
`
`4592280, at *5 (“There is no major airport in the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas;
`
`consequently, the total travel time from Atlanta, Georgia, to Waco would be only marginally less
`
`than the travel time from Atlanta to San Francisco.”); In re Google (Sonos), 2021 WL 4427899, at
`
`*4 (“Our cases have emphasized that when there are numerous witnesses in the transferee venue
`
`and the only other witnesses are far outside the plaintiff’s chosen forum, the witness-convenience
`
`factor favors transfer.”); 10Tales, Inc. v. TikTok Inc., No. 6:20-CV-00810-ADA, 2021 WL
`
`2043978, at *4 (W.D. Tex. May 21, 2021) (finding that “the east coast witnesses will be
`
`inconvenienced by extensive travel regardless of the forum”).
`
`Thus, this factor strongly favors transfer.
`
`4.
`
`The Other Practical Problems Affecting This Case Are Neutral
`
`No “other practical problems” exist in this case that would make trial more “easy,
`
`expeditious and inexpensive” in either the N.D. Cal or this District. Volkswagen I, 371 F.3d at
`
`203. A transfer would not present a significant challenge to either party or to courts in either
`
`District. In particular, there are no other co-pending cases in either court. There should also be
`
`no inconvenience to Touchstream in prosecuting these cases in N.D. Cal. given that it (1)
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 28 Filed 12/30/21 Page 17 of 21
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
` (see supra
`
`II.D); and (2) previously filed suit on these patents in New York, demonstrating its willingness
`
`and ability to litigate outside of this District (see Ex. M (Touchstream Technologies, Inc. v. Vizbee,
`
`Inc., 1:17-cv-6247-PGG, Dkt. 20 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 2017))).
`
`C.
`
`The Balance of the Public Interest Factors Weigh in Favor of Transfer
`
`1.
`
`The Local Interests Favor Transfer to N.D. Cal.
`
`Courts should consider the local interests in the litigation because “[j]ury duty is a burden
`
`that ought not to be imposed upon the people of a community which has no relation to the
`
`litigation.” Volkswagen I, 371 F.3d at 206. For this factor, interests that “could apply virtually to
`
`any judicial district or division in the United States,” such as the sale of infringing products, are
`
`disregarded in favor of particularized local interests. Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 318; In re TOA
`
`Techs., Inc., 543 F. App’x 1006, 1009–10 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (stating that “in cases where there is a
`
`significant connection between a particular venue and a suit[,] the sale of a product in the plaintiff’s
`
`preferred forum should not negate this fa