Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 51-5 Filed 04/28/22 Page 1 of 9
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 51-5 Filed 04/28/22 Page 1 of 9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT AA
`EXHIBIT AA
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00116-ADA Document 48 Filed 02/02/22 Page 1 of 8Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 51-5 Filed 04/28/22 Page 2 of 9
`
`
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`SONRAI MEMORY LIMITED,
`Plaintiff
`
`-v-
`
`ORACLE CORPORATION,
`Defendant
`
`
`
`
`6:21-CV-00116-ADA
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`TRANSFER OPINION AND ORDER
`
`Before the Court is Oracle Corporation’s Motion to Transfer. After considering the parties’
`
`briefs (Dkt. Nos. 29, 33, 34), the Court GRANTS defendant’s motion to transfer.
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`Plaintiff Sonrai Memory Limited filed this lawsuit on November 19, 2020, accusing
`
`Defendant Oracle Corporation of patent infringement. Dkt. No. 1. The complaint alleges
`
`infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,829,691 (“the ’691 Patent” or “Asserted Patent”) by Oracle’s
`
`SPARC servers and SPARC processors. Id.
`
`Sonrai is a company based in Ireland. Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 2. The inventors reside in California.
`
`Dkt. No. 1-1 (listing residences on patent cover).
`
`Oracle has its principal place of business and world headquarters in Austin, with
`
`approximately 3,000 employees occupying roughly 900,000 square feet located at 2300 Oracle
`
`Way, just three miles from the Austin Courthouse. Dkt. No. 29-1 ¶ 3. Oracle has no relevant
`
`facilities, operations, or documents in Waco. Id. ¶ 8. Former Oracle engineer Christopher Olson
`
`has relevant knowledge of the accused products and resides in Austin. Id. ¶ 5. Other unidentified
`
`engineers worked in Northern California. Id. Current Oracle engineer Anne Powell has relevant
`
`knowledge and resides in British Columbia. Id. Oracle’s Director of Sales Tania Bawa works in
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00116-ADA Document 48 Filed 02/02/22 Page 2 of 8Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 51-5 Filed 04/28/22 Page 3 of 9
`
`Austin, along with other regional managers and sales representatives, all of whom have relevant
`
`knowledge of sales of the accused SPARC product. Id. ¶ 6.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`In patent cases, motions to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) are governed by the law of
`
`the regional circuit. In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008). 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1404(a) provides that, “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice,
`
`a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have
`
`been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented.” “Section 1404(a)
`
`is intended to place discretion in the district court to adjudicate motions for transfer according to
`
`an ‘individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.’” Stewart Org., Inc. v.
`
`Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988) (quoting Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 622 (1964)).
`
`The preliminary question under Section 1404(a) is whether a civil action might have been
`
`brought in the transfer destination venue. In re Volkswagen, Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 312 (5th Cir. 2008)
`
`(“Volkswagen II”). If the destination venue would have been a proper venue, then “[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 Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 241 n.6 (1981)). 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
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00116-ADA Document 48 Filed 02/02/22 Page 3 of 8Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 51-5 Filed 04/28/22 Page 4 of 9
`
`that will govern the case; and (4) the avoidance of unnecessary problems of conflict of laws of the
`
`application of foreign law.” Id. Courts evaluate these factors based on the situation which existed
`
`at the time of filing, rather than relying on the conduct of a defendant after suit has been instituted.
`
`Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 343 (1960).
`
`The burden to prove that a case should be transferred for convenience falls on the moving
`
`party. Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 314. The burden that a movant must carry is not that the
`
`alternative venue is more convenient, but that it is clearly more convenient. Id. at 315. Although
`
`the plaintiff’s choice of forum is not a separate factor entitled to special weight, respect for the
`
`plaintiff’s choice of forum is encompassed in the movant’s elevated burden to “clearly
`
`demonstrate” that the proposed transferee forum is “clearly more convenient” than the forum in
`
`which the case was filed. Id. at 314-315. While “clearly more convenient” is not necessarily
`
`equivalent to “clear and convincing,” the moving party “must show materially more than a mere
`
`preponderance of convenience, lest the standard have no real or practical meaning.” Quest NetTech
`
`Corp. v. Apple, Inc., No. 2:19-cv-118, 2019 WL 6344267, at *7 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 27, 2019).
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`
`This case could have been brought in Austin. Dkt. No. 1 ¶¶ 3, 6. The Court now evaluates
`
`the private and public interest factors.
`
`A. The Private Interest Factors Clearly Favor Transfer.
`
`i.
`
`The Relative Ease of Access to Sources of Proof Slightly Favors 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-
`
`cv-00372, 2019 WL 4743678, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 10, 2019). “[T]he question is relative ease
`
`of access, not absolute ease of access.” In re Radmax, 720 F.3d 285, 288 (5th Cir. 2013) (emphases
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00116-ADA Document 48 Filed 02/02/22 Page 4 of 8Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 51-5 Filed 04/28/22 Page 5 of 9
`
`in original). “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).
`
`Although the physical location of electronic documents does affect the outcome of this
`
`factor under current Fifth Circuit precedent (see Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 316), this Court has
`
`stressed that the focus on physical location of electronic documents is out of touch with modern
`
`patent litigation. Fintiv, 2019 WL 4743678, at *8. “[A]ll (or nearly all) produced documents exist
`
`as electronic documents on a party’s server. Then, with a click of a mouse or a few keystrokes, the
`
`party produces these documents” and makes them available at almost any location. Uniloc 2017
`
`LLC v. Apple Inc., 6-19-CV-00532-ADA, 2020 WL 3415880, at *9 (W.D. Tex. June 22, 2020).
`
`Other courts in the Fifth Circuit similarly found that access to documents that are available
`
`electronically provides little benefit in determining whether a particular venue is more convenient
`
`than another. See, e.g., Uniloc USA Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., No. 2:16-CV-638-JRG, 2017
`
`WL 11631407, at *4 (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.”).
`
`Here, the parties have not identified any physical evidence to sway this factor. Nor have
`
`the parties identified any electronic documents in Waco. The accused infringer, Oracle, has
`
`electronic documents in Austin. Thus, this factor favors transfer, but only slightly due to the ease
`
`of transferring electronic documents.
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00116-ADA Document 48 Filed 02/02/22 Page 5 of 8Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 51-5 Filed 04/28/22 Page 6 of 9
`
`ii.
`
`The Availability of Compulsory Process to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses is
`
`Neutral.
`
`
`
`Neither party argues for this factor in their favor. The Court finds this factor neutral.
`
`iii.
`
`The Cost of Attendance for Willing Witnesses Favors Transfer.
`
`“The convenience of witnesses is the single most important factor in the transfer analysis.”
`
`Fintiv, 2019 WL 4743678, at *6. This factor appropriately considers the cost of attendance of all
`
`willing witnesses including party and non-party. In re Pandora, No. 2021-172, 2021 WL 4772805,
`
`at *2-3 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 13, 2021). “Courts properly give more weight to the convenience of non-
`
`party witnesses than to party witnesses.” Netlist, Inc. v. SK Hynix Inc., No. 6:20-CV-00194-ADA,
`
`2021 WL 2954095, at *6 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 2, 2021).
`
`Neither party has witnesses in Waco. Oracle has numerous witnesses in Austin, including
`
`Tania Bawa, regional managers and additional sales representatives. More importantly, Oracle
`
`identified a non-party engineer in Austin. Due to multiple Oracle witnesses residing in Austin, this
`
`factor favors transfer. Because this factor already favors transfer, the Court does not need to
`
`address whether out-of-state witnesses further favors transfer.
`
`iv.
`
`All Other Practical Problems Are Neutral.
`
`When considering the private interest factors, courts must consider “all other practical
`
`problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive.” Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at
`
`315. “Particularly, the existence of duplicative suits involving the same or similar issues may
`
`create practical difficulties that will weigh heavily in favor or against transfer.” PersonalWeb
`
`Techs., LLC v. NEC Corp. of Am., Inc., No. 6:11-cv-655, 2013 WL 9600333, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Mar.
`
`21, 2013).
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00116-ADA Document 48 Filed 02/02/22 Page 6 of 8Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 51-5 Filed 04/28/22 Page 7 of 9
`
`Motions to transfer venue are to be decided based on “the situation which existed when
`
`suit was instituted.” In re EMC Corp., 501 F. App’x 973, 976 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (citations and
`
`quotations omitted). “While considerations of judicial economy arising after the filing of a suit do
`
`not weigh against transfer, a district court may properly consider any judicial economy benefits
`
`which would have been apparent at the time the suit was filed.” Id. at 976. A district court's
`
`“experience with a patent in prior litigation and the co-pendency of cases involving the same patent
`
`are permissible considerations in ruling on a motion to transfer venue.” Id. “[C]ourts have
`
`consistently held that judicial economy plays a paramount role in trying to maintain an orderly,
`
`effective, administration of justice.” In re Vistaprint Ltd., 628 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
`
`Sonrai identifies multiple co-pending cases here in the Waco Division of the Western
`
`District of Texas. Dkt. No. 33 at 7 (citing cases). None of these co-pending cases involve the same
`
`patent, except for Sonrai Memory Ltd. v. Amazon.com, Inc., filed on September 24, 2021. No.
`
`6:21-cv-991-ADA (W.D. Tex.). The Court does not weigh this later-filed case in its analysis.
`
`Sonrai’s brief fails to explain how this Court can gain any efficiency from the other co-pending
`
`cases regarding different patents. As a result, the Court finds this factor neutral.
`
`B. The Public Interest Factors Favor Transfer.
`
`i.
`
`Administrative Difficulties is Neutral.
`
`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, at 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re
`
`Apple, 979 F.3d at 1343.
`
`Oracle argues that this factor favors transfer by comparing the number of patent cases in
`
`Waco and in Austin. This is the wrong comparison. Oracle presents no evidence that cases in
`
`Austin reach trial any faster than cases in Waco. Due to the lack of evidence of trial times presented
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00116-ADA Document 48 Filed 02/02/22 Page 7 of 8Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 51-5 Filed 04/28/22 Page 8 of 9
`
`by Oracle, the Court agrees with Sonrai that this factor “does not favor transfer to Austin.” Dkt.
`
`No. 33 at 9. Because Sonrai also does not present evidence comparing the times to trial, the Court
`
`finds this factor neutral.
`
`ii.
`
`Local Interest Favors Transfer.
`
`Under this factor, the Court must evaluate whether there is a local interest in deciding local
`
`issues at home. Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 317. “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, 2015 WL 13870507, at *4 (N.D. Tex. Jul. 23, 2015).
`
`Oracle recently relocated its worldwide headquarters to Austin. Sonrai argues that little
`
`weight should be given to the “recent and ephemeral” presence of a party. Oracle’s 3,000
`
`employee, 900,000 square feet campus required a long-term investment in Austin is anything but
`
`ephemeral. This campus includes Oracle’s employees who sell the accused product. The
`
`salespeople will have an interest in whether they infringe or not. Thus, this factor favors transfer,
`
`and the Court does not discount the weight of this factor.
`
`iii.
`
`Familiarity of the Forum with the Law Is Neutral.
`
`Neither party argues for this factor in their favor.
`
`iv.
`
`Avoidance of Conflict of Laws Is Neutral.
`
`Neither party argues for this factor in their favor.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`All factors either favor transfer or are neutral. No factors weigh against transfer. Having
`
`considered the Section 1404(a) factors, the Court finds that Austin is “clearly more convenient”
`
`than this District. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Transfer.
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00116-ADA Document 48 Filed 02/02/22 Page 8 of 8Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 51-5 Filed 04/28/22 Page 9 of 9
`
`The transfer shall proceed according to the regular transfer process regardless of which
`
`court in Austin this case will be assigned to.
`
`SIGNED this 2nd day of February 2022.
`
`
`
`
`
`ALAN D ALBRIGHT
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`8
`
`