Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 48 Filed 04/20/22 Page 1 of 21
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`TOUCHSTREAM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Case No. 6:21-cv-569-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF TOUCHSTREAM TECHNOLOGIES, INC.’S OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANT GOOGLE’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 48 Filed 04/20/22 Page 2 of 21
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 1
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARDS ........................................................................................................... 3
`
`III. ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................................... 3
`A. The Balance of the Private Interest Factors Weigh Against Transfer ................................. 3
`
`1. The Relative Ease of Access to Sources of Proof Weighs Against Transfer.................... 3
`
`2. The Availability of Compulsory Process to Secure Attendance of Witnesses Weighs
`Against Transfer..................................................................................................................... 5
`
`3. The Convenience and Cost of Attendance for Willing Witnesses Weighs Against
`Transfer .................................................................................................................................. 9
`
`4. The Other Practical Problems Affecting This Case Weigh Against Transfer or Are
`Neutral.................................................................................................................................. 12
`5. Google’s delay in filing its motion to transfer venue should weigh heavily against
`transfer. ................................................................................................................................ 12
`B. The Balance of the Public Interest Factors Weigh Against Transfer ................................. 13
`
`1. The Western District of Texas has Significant Local Interests ........................................ 13
`
`2. Administrative Difficulties Flowing from Court Congestion Weigh Against Transfer .. 14
`
`3. The Remaining Public Interest Factors Are Neutral ........................................................ 15
`IV. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 48 Filed 04/20/22 Page 3 of 21
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Touchstream filed its Complaint against Google on June 4, 2021. Two months later, the
`
`parties held a meet-and-confer on Google’s proposed transfer motion. Afterwards, instead of
`
`promptly filing, Google waited over four more months—until the night before Christmas Eve—
`
`before finally moving for transfer. See Dkt. 31 at 2-3. While this maneuver delayed the Markman
`
`hearing (which has been fully briefed for months), fact discovery has proceeded according to the
`
`original schedule, and the parties have been engaged in non-venue related discovery since
`
`February of 2022.
`
`Despite Google’s resistance to venue discovery,1 Touchstream has amassed a wealth of
`
`information showing that this case clearly belongs in the Western District of Texas (“WDTX”)—
`
`not the Northern District of California (“NDCA”).
`
`
`
` None of the witnesses Google
`
`identified in its transfer motion worked on Chromecast that early. In fact, most of Google’s NDCA
`
`witnesses started working on the accused technology within the past few years, and none appear
`
`to possess unique information. Rather, they appear to possess vanilla technical information—much
`
`of which is available through Google’s public APIs—or other corporate facts that would be
`
`typically be developed through Rule 30(b)(6) depositions. Indeed, for every category of
`
`information Google identified as relevant to this case—and for which it identified witnesses in the
`
`NDCA—Touchstream has identified similar, or more relevant, witnesses in the WDTX.
`
`Likewise, none of Touchstream’s likely trial witnesses are in the NDCA. Rather, they
`
`either live in or around New York City—where Touchstream is headquartered—or are in Texas.
`
`
`1 See Dkt. 39, Order Regarding Venue Discovery Dispute.
`1
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 48 Filed 04/20/22 Page 4 of 21
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`For instance,
`
`Google erroneously claimed.2 Similarly,
`
`
`
` as
`
`
`
`
`
`far more convenient to travel to Texas for trial than to California, which is roughly twice as far
`
` For the rest of Touchstream’s witnesses, it would be
`
`from New York.
`
`The evidence also shows that the dispute between Touchstream and Google has significant
`
`ties to Texas—indeed, more than any other district. The parties battled each other for market share
`
`extensively in Texas:
`
` Similarly,
`
` Likewise,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Remarkably, the
`
`head of the business unit responsible for Chromecast (and the now-CEO of Google, Sundar Pichai)
`
`traveled to Austin in 2014 to tout the sales of Google’s newly-launched product—which he
`
`claimed had achieved “millions” in sales (which was news to Touchstream, who was also in
`
`attendance).
`
`
`2 This is not the only factual error in Google’s motion to transfer: it also claimed that
`
`
`
` But
`when confronted with contrary evidence, Google’s Rule 30(b)(6) venue witness admitted that
` Ex. A at 62:7-20.
`2
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 48 Filed 04/20/22 Page 5 of 21
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`Put simply, after extensive venue discovery, the evidence shows that the factors strongly
`
`favor the retention of this suit in the WDTX.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a district court may, “[f]or the convenience of parties and
`
`witnesses, in the interest of justice,” transfer a civil action to “any other district or division where
`
`it might have been brought.” The primary task of the district court is determine if the transferee
`
`venue is clearly more convenient based on a number of public and private interest factors, none of
`
`which are dispositive. Action Indus., Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 358 F.3d 337, 340 (5th Cir.
`
`2004). Google’s Motion accurately lists these factors. Dkt. 26, at 6.
`
`The moving party bears the burden to prove that an alternate venue is clearly more
`
`convenient than the present one. Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 314. Merely showing that the
`
`transferee venue is more convenient is insufficient; instead, the movant must “clearly demonstrate”
`
`that the transferee forum is “clearly more convenient” than the forum chosen by the plaintiff. Id.
`
`at 314-15.
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A. The Balance of the Private Interest Factors Weigh Against Transfer
`
`1. The Relative Ease of Access to Sources of Proof Weighs Against Transfer
`
`Google’s electronic documents are not located in the NDCA, are more likely to be located
`
`closer to the WDTX, and can be accessed from anywhere. Meanwhile, Touchstream’s documents
`
`are located closer to the WDTX than to the NDCA. Accordingly, this factor weighs against
`
`transfer.
`
`“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 Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:18-
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 48 Filed 04/20/22 Page 6 of 21
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`CV-00372, 2019 WL 4743678, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 10, 2019). This factor relates to relative
`
`ease of access, not absolute ease of access. In re Radmax, 720 F.3d 285, 288 (5th Cir. 2013). The
`
`relevant access to electronic documents is most often tied to the physical location of the servers
`
`containing the electronic documents. Monterey Rsch., LLC v. Broadcom Corp., No. W-21-CV-
`
`00542-ADA, 2022 WL 526242, at *3-4 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 21, 2022). In patent infringement cases,
`
`where the accused infringer keeps its documents is given special weight. In re Apple Inc., 979 F.3d
`
`1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
`
`Google’s only argument that the NDCA would be a more convenient forum under this
`
`factor is that the relevant documents “were created and maintained in N.D. Cal. or in locations
`
`more convenient to N.D. Cal.” Dkt. 26 at 7. But such “general allegations unsupported by specific
`
`evidence do not tip the scales in a transfer analysis.” Monterey, 2022 WL 526242, at *3 (W.D.
`
`Tex. Feb. 21, 2022). And venue discovery shows that Google’s statement does not mean what it
`
`appears to.
`
`Specifically, when Google says the documents are “maintained” in the NDCA, what it
`
`means is that
`
`at 49:24-51:52. In fact,
`
` at 51:52
`
`witness also freely admitted that
`
` Ex. A.
`
`
`
`
`
` Google’s
`
`
`
` Id. at 21:24-22:8; 179:22-181:6; see Seven Networks,
`
`LLC v. Google LLC, No. 2:17-CV-00441-JRG, 2018 WL 4026760, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 15,
`
`2018) (holding that when documents are electronically accessible, the relevant inquiry is the
`
`location of the data servers).
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 48 Filed 04/20/22 Page 7 of 21
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`Google’s 30(b)(6) witness could not identify which of Google’s data centers housed the
`
`relevant documents. Id. 31:25-32:6. That said, it is substantially more likely that the relevant
`
`documents are stored in a location closer to the WDTX than the NDCA. Google currently has
`
`fourteen
`
`data
`
`centers.
`
`See Google Data Centers, Locations,
`
`available
`
`at
`
`https://www.google.com/about/ datacenters/locations/ (last visited Apr. 7, 2022). None of the data
`
`centers are in California, but one data center is in Midlothian, Texas. Id. Of the fourteen, eleven
`
`are closer to this district, and only three closer to the NDCA. Id. The Eastern District of Texas has
`
`recently cited this evidence in finding that this factor weighed against Google’s efforts to transfer
`
`to the NDCA. See Seven Networks, 2018 WL 4026760, at *2–7; Texas v. Google LLC, No. 4:20-
`
`CV-957-SDJ, 2021 WL 2043184, at *4 (E.D. Tex. May 20, 2021).
`
`Touchstream’s relevant documents, including the promotional materials used for the
`
`Austin, Texas-based conferences attended by Touchstream, are located in or around New York
`
`City, NY, or Philidelphia, PA—which are far closer to the WDTX than the NDCA. Bergsten Dec.,
`
`¶¶ 23-24. Therefore, the WDTX has more relative ease of access to both parties’ documentary
`
`evidence than the NDCA. This factor weighs against transfer.
`
`2. The Availability of Compulsory Process to Secure Attendance of Witnesses
`Weighs Against Transfer
`
`This factor weighs against transfer, as the majority of key non-party witnesses are within
`
`the subpoena power of WDTX, and not NDCA. Here, the focus is on the presence of non-party
`
`witnesses whose attendance may need to be secured by a court order. Fintiv Inc., No. 6:18-CV-
`
`00372, 2019 WL 4743678 at *14 (citing Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 316); see also In re Dish
`
`Network L.L.C., No. 2021-182, 2021 WL 4911981, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 21, 2021) (A non-party
`
`witness is presumed to be unwilling and thus considered under the compulsory process factor). If
`
`multiple third party witnesses are primarily located in a particular venue, this factor favors hearing
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 48 Filed 04/20/22 Page 8 of 21
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`the case in that venue. See In re Hulu, LLC, No. 2021-142, 2021 WL 3278194, at *3 (Fed. Cir.
`
`Aug. 2, 2021).
`
`a. Previous Employees that Google identified as having Relevant Knowledge are Within
`the Subpoena Power of the WDTX
`
`Google identified nine former employees who were involved with Chromecast. Ex. C at 8-
`
`12. Four of these people—
`
` Ex. B at 8-34.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Ex. C at 8-12. Four other
`
`identified individuals
`
` while they worked for Google. Ex. C at 9.
`
`Google points to only one relevant former Google employee residing in California—
`
`
`
`
`
` Google claims that “[o]n information and belief, at the
`
`time of the Original Complaint,
`
`” Id. at
`
`8-9. Thus, Google relies on
`
` to support its transfer motion. But
`
`under questioning, Google’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness admitted that
`
` Further, based on Google’s own statements, two Texas witnesses—
`
`—would know about those same subjects, id. 10-11, and
`
` Ex. A at 52:20-60:15.
`
`
`3
`83:10-19.
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Ex. A at
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 48 Filed 04/20/22 Page 9 of 21
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`b. Prior Touchstream Employees with the Most Relevant Knowledge are Either in Texas
`or on the East Coast
`
`Touchstream had a key group of four developers that were brought on during the earliest
`
`stages of the company and worked along with inventor David Strober to commercialize its product.
`
`Ex. D at 29:15-19. Almost all of those individuals
`
`
`
` Ex. E. Though neither district has subpoena power
`
`over
`
`, the WDTX has subpoena power over
`
`
`
`Further,
`
` an early advisor to Touchstream who assisted in everything from
`
`architecture review of the technology to business strategy—and who has knowledge of
`
`Touchstream’s early business development efforts and interactions with Google—is located in
`
`Texas. Ex. B at 16; Ex. D at 21:823:7. Google acknowledges that
`
`
`
`, and “appears to have communicated with Google on
`
`Touchstream’s behalf.” Dkt. 26 at 5.4 Google suggests that
`
` (see Dkt. 26 at 5), but this is not accurate.
`
`. Ex. B at 16.
`
`While Google questioned Touchstream’s Rule 30(b)(6) witness about
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`and Touchstream does not intend to call any of these witnesses at trial.
`
`
`
` none of them have knowledge relevant to this case,
`
`
`4 Despite Google’s statements to the contrary,
` are relevant witnesses.
` and
`Dkt. 26 at 5 n.2. The early conversations between the parties are evidence of willful infringement.
`See Dkt. 18 at 4-6. Touchstream alleges that its patent applications, and the fact that Touchstream
`believed its wireless casting product would be covered by them, were public knowledge at the time
`of the NDA, making those disclosures not confidential information and outside the bounds of the
`NDA. Dkt. 1 at ¶¶ 34, 39.
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Ex. D at 78:11-79:5.
`
` currently resides in Texas. Ex. B at 21.
`
` Ex. F; Ex. G; Ex. H.
`
`Ex. I.
`
` Ex. B at 28;
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 48 Filed 04/20/22 Page 10 of 21
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
` Ex. D at 35-48.
`
` Id. at 38-39.
`
`c. The Most Relevant Business Dealings were in Texas or with Texas Companies
`
`Texas was an important battleground between Touchstream and Google.
`
`6 Ex. J at 97:15-100:11.
`
`The witnesses with knowledge of Touchstream’s business and licensing deals
`
` Ex. D at 52:25-58:7. Touchstream
`
`representatives travelled to Texas
`
`
`
` Id.; Ex. B at 17-18. Touchstream’s other significant deal
`
` Ex. D at 66:18-73:18. Touchstream’s primary contacts
`
`B at 19-20.
`
` would be the most relevant witness, because he was
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Ex.
`
`
`
`
`
`Ex. D at 66:23-67:17.
`
`
`5
`
`6
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 48 Filed 04/20/22 Page 11 of 21
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`d. The Location of Google’s Prior Art Witnesses Should Be Given Minimal Weight
`
`Google relies on cherry-picked “potential prior art witnesses who are located in California”
`
`to argue this factor favors transfer. As this Court has stated, “[b]ecause prior art witnesses are very
`
`unlikely to testify…the Court gives their location ‘minimal’ weight.” Parus Holdings Inc. v. LG
`
`Elecs. Inc., No. 6:19-CV-00432-ADA, 2020 WL 4905809, at *4 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 20, 2020).
`
`Further, Google plainly ignores prior art witnesses residing in the WDTX that would be likely to
`
`testify, such as
`
`
`
` Ex. A at 52:20-60:15.
`
`3. The Convenience and Cost of Attendance for Willing Witnesses Weighs
`Against Transfer
`
`The most important factor in the transfer analysis is the convenience of willing witnesses,
`
`which includes all potential material and relevant witnesses. In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d at
`
`1342; Alacritech Inc. v. CenturyLink, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00693, 2017 WL 4155236, at *5 (E.D.
`
`Tex. Sept. 19, 2017). This factor also weighs against transfer to the NDCA.
`
`a. The Majority of Relevant Google Employees Reside in the Western District of Texas,
`Including Those That Are The Most Knowledgeable
`
`Google identified twelve current Google employees with relevant knowledge that reside in
`
`California. Ex. C at 2-12. These employees are allegedly knowledgeable on software design and
`
`development, engineering, marketing, finance, and product management related to the Chromecast
`
`product. Id. In response, Touchstream has identified 36 current Google employees
`
`
`
` and appear to have knowledge on the same topics as the California employees identified by
`
`Google. Ex. B at 8-34. The results of Touchstream’s investigation squarely contradict the assertion
`
`of Google’s declarant that “Google is unaware of any current employees in this District with
`
`responsibilities relating to the Accused Functionality and the Accused Products.” Dkt. 26 at 3.
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 48 Filed 04/20/22 Page 12 of 21
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`Indeed, once
`
`
`
`it was easy to find employees on the list who specifically list “Chromecast” and other related
`
`products as part of their job duties. Appendix 1 (and exhibit cited therein).
`
` was presented with Linkedin profiles for many
`
`
`
`
`
` and he could not dispute the accuracy of those profiles.
`
`Ex. A at 56:22-147:18.8 Further,
`
` was generally unable to testify regarding the specific
`
`duties of those individuals, or whether they have any responsibilities relating to Chromecast. Id.
`
`At best,
`
` appears to have cherry-picked NDCA witnesses who conveniently could not
`
`remember anyone with knowledge living and working in Texas. As this Court has found, this
`
`failure to educate a Rule 30(b)(6) witness can “easily stand alone as a basis for finding that a
`
`movant has failed to meet its burden.” Monterey, 2022 WL 526242, at *8.
`
`Google appears to argue that these Texas ties are irrelevant because the Chromecast work
`
`these individuals did was done while they were in California. See Dkt. 26 at 3. But this factor does
`
`not consider where or when the work was done, however; it considers where the witnesses
`
`currently reside, and the convenience to the witnesses based on that residence. In re Genentech,
`
`Inc., 566 F.3d at 1342. The WDTX will be more convenient to witnesses currently located in Texas
`
`than the NDCA. Regardless, it appears that many of the
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Further, the Google employees that are most knowledgeable about this case reside in Texas.
`
`
`8
` only questioned the accuracy of a single Linkedin profile, that of
`. Ex. A at 83:10-19.
`
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 48 Filed 04/20/22 Page 13 of 21
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
` Ex. Q; Ex. R; Ex. S. Further,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Ex. A at 52:20-60:15.
`
` Likewise,
`
` Ex. A, at 77:23-79:6.
`
`b. The Western District of Texas is a More Convenient Forum for Touchstream’s
`Witnesses
`
` who resides in Pennsylvania,
`
`
`
`
`
` Ex.
`
`D at 13:3-4; 16:18-17:7. The NDCA is nearly twice as far as the WDTX from Pennsylvania. The
`
`Fifth Circuit has held that “[w]hen the distance between an existing venue for trial of a matter and
`
`a proposed venue under § 1404(a) is more than 100 miles, the factor of inconvenience to witnesses
`
`increases in direct relationship to the additional distance to be traveled.” Volkswagen I, 371 F.3d
`
`at 204–05 (emphasis added). By this logic, it would be twice as inconvenient for
`
` if
`
`the case is tried in the NDCA instead of the WDTX. Even under the Federal Circuit’s softer
`
`approach to the “100-mile” rule, the NDCA would still be less convenient for
`
` than
`
`the WDTX. See Monterey, 2022 WL 526242, at *11 (citing In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338,
`
`1344 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). Likewise,
`
`
`
` Ex. D at 17.
`
`Given that the WDTX is a far more convenient forum than NDCA for most of the relevant
`
`Google employees—including the ones with the most knowledge, as well as Touchstream’s
`
`witnesses, this factor weighs against transfer.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 48 Filed 04/20/22 Page 14 of 21
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`4. The Other Practical Problems Affecting This Case Weigh Against
`Transfer or Are Neutral
`
`As Google admits, there are no “other practical problems” in this case that would make
`
`trial more “easy, expeditious and inexpensive” in the NDCA. Dkt. 26 at 12; Volkswagen II, 545
`
`F.3d at 314. This Court has a proven track record of resolving patent disputes expeditiously, and
`
`Google has litigated in this Court numerous times. See, e.g., Monterey, 2022 WL 526242, at *15
`
`(collecting cases); Hammond Dev. Int’l, Inc. v. Google LLC., No. 1:20-CV-00342-ADA, 2020 WL
`
`3452987, at *1 (W.D. Tex. June 24, 2020).
`
`Google argues that the NDCA is “not inconvenient” to Touchstream—an argument that
`
`turns the “clearly more convenient” standard on its head—
`
`
`
` that is irrelevant to this case. Dkt. 26 at 4, 12-13. This is a case
`
`about Google infringing Touchstream’s patents—
`
`(see Dkt. 16, Ex. F at ¶4)). Further, that
`
`at ¶ 11. The only reason the NDA was cited in the Complaint was to explain that
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Id.
`
`
`
`
`
` Dkt. 1 at ¶ 37.
`
`5. Google’s delay in filing its motion to transfer venue should weigh heavily
`against transfer.
`
`“[L]ate-filed motions to transfer are looked upon with extreme disfavor.” WSOU Invs.
`
`LLC v. Arista Networks, Inc., No. W-20-CV-01083-ADA, 2021 WL 6015526, at *5 (W.D. Tex.
`
`Nov. 5, 2021). Touchstream filed its Complaint on June 4, 2021. On August 13, 2021, Google
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 48 Filed 04/20/22 Page 15 of 21
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`filed a Motion to Dismiss Touchstream’s Willful Infringement Claims (Dkt. No. 14), declining to
`
`seek transfer at that time. On August 19, 2021, Google informed Touchstream that it intended to
`
`file its motion to transfer venue. But Google did not file this motion in August. Instead, it delayed
`
`for four more months, until after close of business on December 23, 2021 to file its Motion to
`
`Transfer. Courts have found delays like these weigh heavily against transfer. See TQP Dev., LLC
`
`v. LinkedIn Corp., No. 2:12-CV-191-JRG-RSP, 2013 WL 12247813, at *6 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 28,
`
`2013) (five-month delay weighed against transfer); N5 Techs., LLC v. Bank of Am., N.A., No. 2:12-
`
`CV-685-MHS-RSP, 2014 WL 558762, at *4–5 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 10, 2014) (six-month delay
`
`weighed against transfer); Good Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. Broadcom Ltd., No. 2:16-CV-0134-JRG-
`
`RSP, 2017 WL 750290, at *9 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 27, 2017) (six-month delay weighed against
`
`transfer).
`
`B. The Balance of the Public Interest Factors Weigh Against Transfer
`
`1. The Western District of Texas has Significant Local Interests
`
`Local interests in patent cases “are not a fiction.” Monterey, 2022 WL 526242, at *16
`
`(quoting In re Samsung Elecs. Co., 2 F.4th 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2021)). “A local interest is
`
`demonstrated by a relevant factual connection between the events and the venue.” Word to Info,
`
`Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 3:14-cv-04387-K, 2015 WL 13870507, at *4 (N.D. Tex. Jul. 23, 2015).
`
`As detailed above, Texas was an important battleground between Touchstream and Google with
`
`regards to the claimed technology at issue, and the site of numerous Touchstream deals and product
`
`launches. See Section IV(A)(2)(c), supra. Further,
`
` Id.
`
`
`
`
`
` and Google’s current CEO
`
`traveled there to announce the incredible sales of its product. Ex. K. The many connections
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 48 Filed 04/20/22 Page 16 of 21
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`between the WDTX and the events giving rise to this lawsuit make this factor weigh heavily
`
`against transfer. In re Apple, 979 F.3d at 1344 (quoting In re Acer Am. Corp., 626 F.3d 1252,
`
`1256 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (“This factor most notably regards … the ‘significant connections between
`
`a particular venue and the events that gave rise to a suit.’”).
`
`Google’s argument that it has “little to no presence in this District relevant to this case”
`
`does not track with reality. Google has an extensive and ever-expanding presence in this District,
`
`and—as detailed above—
`
`
`
` See supra Section III.A.3. Google
`
`simply ignores the significant connections between this District and the actions that gave rise to
`
`this suit, as well as the significant business connections Google has in this District related to the
`
`Chromecast product and related accused functionalities (see Section III(A)(2)(c), supra)—
`
`including
`
` (as discussed above).
`
`2. Administrative Difficulties Flowing from Court Congestion Weigh
`Against Transfer
`
`This factor considers “[t]he speed with which a case can come to trial and be resolved[.]”
`
`In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d at 1347. The analysis “looks to the number of cases per judgeship
`
`and the actual average time to trial.” See In re Juniper Networks, Inc., No. 2021-156, 2021 WL
`
`4519889, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 4, 2021). Touchstream notes that this case is set for trial in about
`
`ten months. If this case is transferred to NDCA, it could not possibly be tried in that time. At best,
`
`this factor is neutral. But to the extent any patent-specific inquiries should be made under this
`
`factor, they would weigh against transfer, because this court has a proven track record of resolving
`
`patent cases expeditiously. See, Monterey, 2022 WL 526242, at *15 (collecting cases).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 48 Filed 04/20/22 Page 17 of 21
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`3. The Remaining Public Interest Factors Are Neutral
`
`The remaining factors are neutral. Both forums are familiar with patent law, and—as
`
`discussed supra (see Section III(A)(4), supra), Google’s emphasis
`
` is entirely
`
`misplaced, and it is irrelevant to this venue analysis.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`Google has failed to meet its burden to show that the NDCA is a “clearly more convenient”
`
`forum for this dispute. Accordingly, Touchstream respectfully requests that the Court deny
`
`Google’s Motion to Transfer Venue to the Northern District of California.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 48 Filed 04/20/22 Page 18 of 21
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`Date: April 18, 2022
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
`
`/s/ Jordan T. Bergsten
`Jordan T. Bergsten, pro hac vice
`B. Trent Webb, pro hac vice
`Ryan D. Dykal, pro hac vice
`Samuel J. LaRoque, pro hac vice
`Shook, Hardy & Bacon, LLP
`2555 Grand Boulevard
`Kansas City, MO 64108
`(816) 474-6550
`Fax: (816) 421-5547
`Email: slaroque@shb.com
`Email: bwebb@shb.com
`Email: rdykal@shb.com
`Email: jbergsten@shb.com
`
`Fiona A. Bell (TX Bar No. 24052288)
`SHOOK, HARDY & BACON L.L.P.
`600 Travis Street, Suite 3400
`Houston, TX 77002
`(713) 227-2008
`Fax: 713-227-9508
`Email: fbell@shb.com
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff
`Touchstream Technologies, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 48 Filed 04/20/22 Page 19 of 21
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`Appendix 1: Google Employees Job Description
`
`Employee
`
`Job Description
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 48 Filed 04/20/22 Page 20 of 21
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 48 Filed 04/20/22 Page 20 of 21
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 48 Filed 04/20/22 Page 21 of 21
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL PURSUANT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules for the Western
`
`District of Texas, I hereby certify that on the 18th day of April, 2022, I served the foregoing to the
`
`following counsel of record via the e-mail addresses shown below:
`
`
`
`Michael E. Jones
`Patrick C. Clutter
`Potter Minton PC
`110 N College, Suite 500
`Tyler, TX 75702
`Tel: 903-597-8311
`Email: mikejones@potterminton.com
`E-mail: patrickclutter@potterminton.com
`
`Evan M. McLean, pro hac vice
`Michael C. Hendershot, pro hac vice
`Tharan Gregory Lanier, pro hac vice
`Jones Day
`1755 Embarcadero Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94303
`Tel: (650) 739-3939
`Email: emclean@jonesday.com
`Email: mhendershot@jonesday.com
`Email: tglanier@jonesday.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By: /s/ Jordan T. Bergsten
` Attorney for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`19
`
`