Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 51-7 Filed 04/28/22 Page 1 of 15
`Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 51-7 Filed 04/28/22 Page 1 of 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT AC
`EXHIBIT AC
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00024-ADA Document 60 Filed 01/20/22 Page 1 of 14Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 51-7 Filed 04/28/22 Page 2 of 15
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC,
` Plaintiffs
`
`-v-
`
`DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC AND
`DELL INC.,
` Defendants
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`6:21-CV-00024-ADA
`
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Before the Court is Defendants Dell Technologies Inc. and Dell Inc.’s (collectively, “Dell”)
`
`ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Motion for Intra-District Transfer of Venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to the Austin Division of
`
`the Western District of Texas (“WDTX”). ECF No. 25. Plaintiff Neo Wireless LLC (“Neo
`
`Wireless”) filed its Response (ECF No. 26), and Dell filed its Reply (ECF No. 34). After careful
`
`consideration of the parties’ briefs and the applicable law, the Court GRANTS Dell’s Motion for
`
`Intra-District Transfer to Austin.
`
`I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Neo Wireless filed this lawsuit accusing Dell of patent infringement on January
`
`12, 2021. ECF No. 1. Neo Wireless alleges that Dell infringes on five patents. Id. These include
`
`U.S. Patent No. 8,467,366 (“the ’366 Patent”); 9,363,066 (“the ’066 patent”); 9,948,908 (“the
`
`’908 patent”); 10,075,941 (“the ’941 patent”); and 10,447,450 (“the ’450 patent”) (collectively,
`
`“the Patents-in-Suit”). Id.
`
`
`
`Neo Wireless is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Wayne,
`
`Pennsylvania. Id. It is a non-practicing entity. ECF No. 25 at 2.
`
`
`
`
`
`Both Dell Technologies and Dell Inc. are Delaware corporations with their principal places
`
`of business in Round Rock, Texas. Id. Dell also employs over 165,000 employees all over the
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00024-ADA Document 60 Filed 01/20/22 Page 2 of 14Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 51-7 Filed 04/28/22 Page 3 of 15
`
`world. ECF No. 26 at 2. It maintains offices all over Texas, including Austin, Dallas/Fort Worth,
`
`San Antonio, and El Paso. Id. Dell maintains five large campuses in Austin and employs over
`
`14,000 employees in Austin. ECF No. 25 at 2. Neo Wireless also alleges that Dell has “been
`
`committed to a ‘more flexible work culture’ since 2009 and allows its eligible workforce to work
`
`from home”. ECF No. 26 at 2.
`
`
`
`Neo Wireless also alleges that AT&T Inc. (“AT&T”) is an important non-party witness in
`
`this litigation. Id. Neo Wireless states that AT&T witnesses will testify about the use of the
`
`Accused Products on AT&T’s network, including how often the Accused Devices use AT&T’s
`
`network in an infringing manner, and about how AT&T operates its base stations that allow access
`
`to the Accused Products. Id. at 3. AT&T is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
`
`business in Dallas, Texas. Id.
`
`
`
`Neo Wireless filed two similar suits against Apple Inc. and LG Electronics Inc. in this
`
`Court. See Neo Wireless LLC v. Apple Inc., Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-0026, ECF No. 1 (W.D. Tex.
`
`Jan. 13, 2021); Neo Wireless LLC v. LG Electronics, Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-0025, ECF No. 1
`
`(W.D. Tex. Jan. 13, 2021). The same patents asserted in those cases are also asserted here. The
`
`lawsuit against Apple Inc. has since been voluntarily dismissed.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`In the Fifth Circuit, the § 1404(a) factors apply to both inter-district and intra-district
`
`transfers. In re Radmax Ltd., 720 F.3d 285, 288 (5th Cir. 2013). It is well-settled that trial courts
`
`have even greater discretion in granting intra-district transfers than they do in the case of inter-
`
`district transfers. See, e.g., Sundell v. Cisco Systems Inc., 1997 WL 156824, at *1, 111 F.3d 892
`
`(5th Cir. 1997) (“Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(b), the district court has broad discretion in deciding
`
`whether to transfer a civil action from a division in which it is pending to any other division in the
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00024-ADA Document 60 Filed 01/20/22 Page 3 of 14Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 51-7 Filed 04/28/22 Page 4 of 15
`
`same district.”).
`
`Title 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) provides that, for the convenience of parties, witnesses and in
`
`the interests 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 VanDusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S.
`
`612, 622 (1964)). A motion for transfer, whether intra- or inter-district, involves a two-step
`
`analysis: (1) whether the case could have been properly brought in the forum to which transfer is
`
`sought and (2) whether transfer would promote the interest of justice and/or convenience of the
`
`parties and witnesses. Radmax, 720 F.3d 285, 288; see also In re Volkswagen of America, Inc.,
`
`545 F.3d 304, 312, 314 (5th Cir. 2004) (en banc).
`
`The Fifth Circuit has held that “[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. US. 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) (hereinafter “Volkswagen I”) (citing to Piper
`
`Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 241 n.6 (1982)). The public factors include: “(1) the
`
`administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion; (2) the local interest in having localized
`
`interests decided at home; (3) the familiarity of the forum with the law that will govern the case;
`
`and (4) the avoidance of unnecessary problems of conflict of laws of the application of foreign
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00024-ADA Document 60 Filed 01/20/22 Page 4 of 14Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 51-7 Filed 04/28/22 Page 5 of 15
`
`law.” Id.
`
`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 314–15.
`
`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 314–15. 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. DISCUSSION
`
`The threshold determination in the § 1404(a) analysis is whether this case could initially
`
`have been brought in the destination venue—the Austin Division of the WDTX. Dell asserts that
`
`this case could have originally been brought in Austin because it regularly conducts business in
`
`Austin, and Neo Wireless originally filed its Complaint in the same district. ECF No. 25 at 5.
`
`Because venue is proper in Waco, this suit could have originally been brought in the Austin
`
`Division. Thus, the Court proceeds with its analysis of the private and public interest factors to
`
`determine if Austin is clearly more convenient than Waco.
`
`
`
`A. The Private Interest Factors
`
`i. The Relative Ease of Access to Sources of Proof
`
`“In considering the relative ease of access to proof, a court looks to where documentary
`
`evidence, such as documents and physical evidence, is stored.” Fintiv Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:18-
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00024-ADA Document 60 Filed 01/20/22 Page 5 of 14Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 51-7 Filed 04/28/22 Page 6 of 15
`
`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
`
`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) (citing
`
`In re Genentech, 566 F.3d 1388, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2009)).
`
`The bulk of relevant evidence in this case is in the Austin Division. The documents from
`
`Dell are primarily located in or accessible from its Round Rock headquarters. ECF No. 25 at 7.
`
`Although Neo Wireless correctly notes that these documents could easily be produced in the
`
`nearby Waco Division, they are still more easily accessible in Austin. And the fact that no relevant
`
`evidence resides in the Waco Division, a point that Neo Wireless does not contest, means that this
`
`factor weighs in favor of transfer to Austin.
`
`For those reasons, this Court finds that the relative ease of access to sources of proof factor
`
`favors transfer.
`
`ii. The Availability of Compulsory Process to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses
`
`Under the Federal Rules, a court may subpoena a witness to attend trial only (a) “within
`
`100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person”; or
`
`(b) “within the state where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in
`
`person, if the person . . . is commanded to attend a trial and would not incur substantial expense.”
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1)(A), (B)(ii); Gemalto S.A. v. CPI Card Grp. Inc., No. 15-CA-0910, 2015
`
`WL 10818740, at *4 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 16, 2015). Under this factor, the Court focuses on 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). This factor “weigh[s]
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00024-ADA Document 60 Filed 01/20/22 Page 6 of 14Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 51-7 Filed 04/28/22 Page 7 of 15
`
`heavily in favor of transfer when more third-party witnesses reside within the transferee venue
`
`than reside in the transferor venue.” In re Apple, 581 F. App’x 886, 889 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
`
`The Court will analyze the AT&T employees under this factor. Because they are neither
`
`party witnesses nor identified as willing, they will all presumed to be unwilling and are properly
`
`analyzed under this factor. In re Dish Network L.L.C., No. 2021-182, 2021 WL 4911981, at *3
`
`(Fed. Cir. Oct. 21, 2021) (holding that “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”) (citing In re HP Inc., No. 2018-149, 2018 WL 4692486, at *3 n.1 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 25,
`
`2018)). Dell’s assertion that it is improper for this Court to consider the AT&T witnesses because
`
`they were not identified as unwilling is therefore without merit. ECF No. 34 at 2.
`
`Although Dell contends that this factor is neutral, Neo Wireless argues that it strongly
`
`weighs against transfer. ECF No. 26 at 6. Neo Wireless argues that the AT&T employees as non-
`
`party witnesses may need a court order to testify. Id. Because AT&T headquarters are in Dallas
`
`and 97 miles from the Waco courthouse, Neo Wireless argues that this Court would have absolute
`
`subpoena power over those witnesses. The problem with this argument is that under Federal Rule
`
`45(c)(1)(B)(ii), the second prong of the subpoena power, is that a court may subpoena a witness
`
`“within the state where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person,
`
`if the person . . . is commanded to attend a trial and would not incur substantial expense.” Fed. R.
`
`Civ. P. 45(c)(1)(B)(ii). The Austin courthouse would therefore be able to subpoena those same
`
`witnesses who reside in Texas, unless they would incur “substantial expense” attending trial. Neo
`
`Wireless has not shown that these witnesses would incur substantial expense, in part because it
`
`fails to identify any witnesses by name or job title. This Court cannot say that the Waco courthouse
`
`is in a better position to subpoena hypothetical witnesses when the Austin courthouse could just
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00024-ADA Document 60 Filed 01/20/22 Page 7 of 14Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 51-7 Filed 04/28/22 Page 8 of 15
`
`as easily do the same.
`
`For those reasons, the Court finds this factor to be neutral.
`
`iii. The Cost of Attendance and Convenience for Willing Witnesses
`
`The most important factor in the transfer analysis is the convenience of the witnesses. In
`
`re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d at 1342. When analyzing this factor, the Court should consider all
`
`potential material and relevant witnesses. Alacritech Inc. v. CenturyLink, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-
`
`00693, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152438, 2017 WL 4155236, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 19,
`
`2017). “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 or inconvenience to witnesses increases in direct
`
`relationship to the additional distance to be travelled.” Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at
`
`317 (quoting Volkswagen I, 371 F.3d at 203). But it is unclear when the 100-mile rule applies, as
`
`the Federal Circuit has stated that courts should not apply the rule “rigidly” in some cases where
`
`witnesses would be required to travel a significant distance no matter where they testify. In re
`
`Apple, 979 F.3d at 1342 (discussing witnesses traveling from New York) (citing Volkswagen II,
`
`545 F.3d at 317). “[T]he inquiry should focus on the cost and inconvenience imposed on the
`
`witnesses by requiring them to travel to a distant forum and to be away from their homes and work
`
`for an extended period of time.” In re Google, LLC, No. 2021-170, slip op. at 9 (Fed. Cir. Sept.
`
`27, 2021). The Federal Circuit has indicated that time away from an individual’s home is a more
`
`important metric than distance. Id. Although Neo Wireless argues that this Court should discount
`
`the weight of party witnesses, the Federal Circuit has since rejected this argument. See In re Hulu,
`
`LLC, No. 2021-142, 2021 WL 3278194, at *5 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 2, 202); In re Juniper Networks,
`
`Inc., 14 F.4th at 1319.
`
`Austin would be more convenient for the willing witnesses in this case than the Waco
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00024-ADA Document 60 Filed 01/20/22 Page 8 of 14Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 51-7 Filed 04/28/22 Page 9 of 15
`
`Division. There are no witnesses who reside in the Waco Division. By contrast, Dell has over
`
`14,000 employees in the Austin Division, some of which have knowledge of Dell’s “deign,
`
`development, marketing, or sales of the Accused Products.” Kennedy Decl. ¶7. Dell even identifies
`
`six employees by name who have information related to LTE, 4G, and 5G technology that is at
`
`issue. This includes Dell’s two consultant commodity managers, vice president of consumer client
`
`engineering, direct of systems development engineering, consultant on strategic business
`
`development, and a distinguished engineer. ECF No. 25 at 8. All those employees work and live
`
`in the Austin Division in either Round Rock or Cedar Park. Id. Both Cedar Park and Round Rock
`
`are approximately 85 miles from the Waco courthouse and 20 miles from the Austin courthouse.
`
`Austin is therefore a more convenient venue for the Dell witnesses.
`
`Austin would similarly be more convenient for the Neo Wireless witnesses. No Neo
`
`Wireless witnesses live in Texas. ECF No. 25 at 9. In fact, Neo Wireless fails to identify any
`
`witnesses, nor does it argue that Waco would be convenient for any of its witnesses. Without any
`
`affirmative argument by Neo Wireless, this Court cannot say that Waco would be more convenient
`
`for its witnesses. If this Court were to assume that the witnesses would hail from Neo Wireless’
`
`Pennsylvania headquarters, they could easily fly into Austin’s international airport to attend trial
`
`and would not have to drive 90 miles to Waco.
`
`For those reasons, the Court finds this factor favors transfer.
`
`iv. All Other Practical Problems That Make Trial of a Case Easy, Expeditious and
`Inexpensive
`
`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
`
`314. “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
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00024-ADA Document 60 Filed 01/20/22 Page 9 of 14Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 51-7 Filed 04/28/22 Page 10 of 15
`
`Techs., LLC v. NEC Corp. of Am., Inc., No. 6:11-cv-655, 2013 WL 9600333, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Mar.
`
`21, 2013). “[W]here there is a co-pending litigation . . . involving the same patent-in-suit, . . .
`
`pertaining to the same underlying technology and accusing similar services, . . . the Federal Circuit
`
`cannot say the trial court clearly abuses its discretion in denying transfer.” In re Vistaprint Ltd.,
`
`628 F.3d at 1346 n.3.
`
`
`
`The existence of one co-pending case does raise some practical problems to transferring
`
`this case. Neo Wireless has filed two other cases against various defendants, and in each case Neo
`
`Wireless also asserted the same patents as it did in this one. See See Neo Wireless LLC v. Apple
`
`Inc., Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-0026, ECF No. 1 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 13, 2021); Neo Wireless LLC v.
`
`LG Electronics, Civil Action No. 6:21-cv-0025, ECF No. 1 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 13, 2021). The Apple
`
`case has since been voluntarily dismissed. Transfer of this case to Austin, while another case
`
`involving the same patent proceeds here, would create some practical difficulties. There would
`
`presumably be overlapping factual and legal issues with the present litigation that are relevant to
`
`invalidity and claim construction. Not only would two courts be ruling on the same patent asserted
`
`by the same plaintiff, thus wasting judicial resources, but there would also be the risk of
`
`inconsistent rulings on the asserted patents.
`
`
`
`For those reasons, the Court finds that this factor weighs against transfer. But because there
`
`is only one co-pending case, and because the defendant is also challenging venue in that case, this
`
`factor is given less weight. See Correct Transmission LLC v. Adtran, Inc., No. 6:20-CV-00669-
`
`ADA, 2021 WL 1967985, at *4 (W.D. Tex. May 17, 2021).
`
` B. The Public Interest Factors
`
`
`i. Administrative Difficulties Flowing from Court Congestion
`
`This factor concerns “whether there is an appreciable difference in docket congestion
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00024-ADA Document 60 Filed 01/20/22 Page 10 of 14Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 51-7 Filed 04/28/22 Page 11 of 15
`
`between the two forums.” Parsons v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co., 375 U.S. 71, 73
`
`(1963); Parkervision, Inc. v. Intel Corp., No. 6:20-CV-00108, 2021 WL 401989, at *6 (W.D. Tex.
`
`Jan. 26, 2021). This factor considers the “[t]he speed with which a case can come to trial and be
`
`resolved[.]” In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d at 1347. Additionally, court congestion is considered
`
`“the most speculative” factor, and when “relevant factors weigh in favor of transfer and others are
`
`neutral, then the speed of the transferee district court should not alone outweigh all those other
`
`factors.” Id.
`
`
`
`This Court would likely be able to get this case to trial quicker than in Austin. Recent data
`
`from the past few years indicated that this Court has been able to bring patent cases to trial in
`
`approximately two years after the filing of the complaint. See, e.g., MV3 Partners v. Roku, 6-18-
`
`CV-00308 (W.D. Tex., filed Oct. 16, 2018) (23.7 months from case filing to trial); CloudofChange,
`
`LLC, 2020 WL 6439178 (20.3 months from case filing to trial); VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel
`
`Corporation, No. 6-21-CV-00057 (W.D. Tex., filed Apr. 11, 2019) (22.4 months from case filing
`
`to trial); Freshub, Inc. et al v. Amazon.Com Inc. et al, No. 6-21-CV-00511 (W.D. Tex., filed Jun.
`
`24, 2019) (23.7 months from case filing to trial); ESW Holdings, Inc. v. Roku, Inc. No. 6-19-CV-
`
`00044 (W.D. Tex., filed Feb. 8, 2019) (25.9 months from case filing to trial); Profectus v. Google,
`
`No. 6-20-CV-00101 (W.D. Tex., filed Feb. 10, 2020) (19.6 months from case filing to trial);
`
`Jiaxing Super Lighting v. CH Lighting Tech., No. 6-20-cv-00018 (W.D. Tex., filed Jan. 10, 2020)
`
`(21.7 months from case filing to trial); VideoShare v. Google LLC, No. 6-19-CV-663 (W.D. Tex.,
`
`filed Nov. 15, 2019) (23.8 months from case filing to trial); NCS Multistage Inc. v. Nine Energy
`
`Service, Inc., No. 6-20-cv-00277 (W.D. Tex., filed Apr. 8, 2020) (21.3 months from case filing to
`
`trial). This Court has previously noted that the significant pre-judge caseload in Austin skews the
`
`overall time-to-trial statistics in the WDTX. See Solas OLED Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 6-19-cv-00537,
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00024-ADA Document 60 Filed 01/20/22 Page 11 of 14Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 51-7 Filed 04/28/22 Page 12 of 15
`
`2020 WL 3440956 (W.D. Tex. June 23, 2020). But neither party in this case provides any reliable
`
`up-to-date statistics on the differences in time-to-trial comparing Austin and Waco. In recent
`
`decisions by this Court on motions to transfer, the parties have identified substantial disparities in
`
`the time-to-trial statistics. See Identity Security v. Apple, No. 6:21-CV-460 (W.D. Tex. Jan 20,
`
`2022) (comparing average time-to-trial in Austin of 33 months to Waco’s 23 months).
`
`
`
`The substantial disparity in the time-to-trial statistics show that this factor disfavors
`
`transfer. There is clearly an appreciable difference in in the degree of docket congestion, insofar
`
`as it relates to time-to-trial. That is bolstered by this Court’s proven track record in expeditiously
`
`resolving patent cases specifically. Rapid disposition of this case is important given the Federal
`
`Circuit’s longstanding sentiment that “[r]ecognition must be given to the strong public policy
`
`favoring expeditious resolution of litigation.” Kahn v. General Motors Corp., 889 F.2d 1078, 1080
`
`(Fed. Cir. 1989). The Federal Circuit has even acknowledged Congress’s interest in the “quick”
`
`resolution of patent disputes. See, e.g., Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien LP, 826 F.3d 1366,
`
`1367 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
`
`For those reasons, the Court finds this factor disfavors transfer.
`
`ii. Local Interest in Having Localized Interests Decided at Home
`
`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. Local interests in patent cases “are not a fiction.”
`
`In re Samsung Elecs. Co., Nos. 2021-139, 2021-140, 2021 U.S. App. LEXIS 19522, at *20 (Fed.
`
`Cir. June 30, 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). “[T]he sale of an accused product offered nationwide
`
`does not give rise to a substantial interest in any single venue.” In re Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., 587
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00024-ADA Document 60 Filed 01/20/22 Page 12 of 14Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 51-7 Filed 04/28/22 Page 13 of 15
`
`F.3d 1333, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “This factor most notably regards not merely the parties’
`
`significant connections to each forum writ large, but rather the ‘significant connections between a
`
`particular venue and the events that gave rise to a suit.’” In re Apple, 979 F.3d at 1344 (quoting In
`
`re Acer Am. Corp., 626 F.3d 1252, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2010)) (emphasis in original). But courts should
`
`not heavily weigh a party’s general contacts with a forum that are untethered from the lawsuit,
`
`such as a general presence. Id. Moreover, “little or no weight should be accorded to a party’s
`
`‘recent and ephemeral’ presence in the transferor forum, such as by establishing an office in order
`
`to claim a presence in the district for purposes of litigation.” In re Juniper Networks, Inc., 14 F.4th
`
`at 1320 (quoting In re Microsoft Corp., 630 F.3d 1361, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)). To determine which
`
`district has the stronger local interest, the Court looks to where the events forming the basis for
`
`infringement occurred. See In re Juniper Networks, Inc., 14 F.4th at 1320.
`
`The Austin Division likely has a greater local interest because Dell, the accused infringer,
`
`is located in that division. Datascape, 2019 WL 4254069. Round Rock has been home to Dell for
`
`over 30 years, so its presence is not merely recent and ephemeral. ECF No. 25 at 11. Because this
`
`case could call into question the work and reputation of several individuals who work in the
`
`community, the Austin Division would have a significant localized interest. See, e.g., In re
`
`Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., 587 F.3d at 1336.
`
`Waco similarly has a localized interest because it is in the same district and is only 85 miles
`
`from Dell headquarters. Indeed, the Federal Circuit has indicated that a localized interest remains
`
`when the employees reside near the district. Id. (“the Eastern District of North Carolina’s local
`
`interest in this case remains strong because the cause of action calls into question the work and
`
`reputation of several individuals residing in or near that district and who presumably conduct
`
`business in that community.”) (emphasis added). By establishing its headquarters near this venue,
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00024-ADA Document 60 Filed 01/20/22 Page 13 of 14Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 51-7 Filed 04/28/22 Page 14 of 15
`
`Dell has given Waco a localized interest in this case. Still, the local interest in Austin is likely
`
`stronger because the physical offices are in that division, and the employees reside closer to the
`
`Austin courthouse than the Waco courthouse. Neo Wireless does not argue this factor.
`
`For those reasons, this factor favors transfer.
`
`
`iii. Familiarity of the Forum with the Law That will Govern the Case
`
`Neo Wireless argues that this factor disfavors transfer because this Court has standing
`
`
`
`orders particular to patent law and procedure, while the Austin courthouse does not. Issuing a
`
`standing order for patent-specific rules is not enough to show that the Austin judges are not familiar
`
`with patent law. The Austin judges have handled patent cases, and this Court finds no reason to
`
`question their familiarity with patent law.
`
`
`iv. Avoidance of Unnecessary Problems of Conflict of Laws or in the Application of
`Foreign Law
`
`Both parties agree that this factor is neutral.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`Having considered the private and public interest factors, Court’s conclusions for each
`
`factor is summarized in the following table:
`
`
`
`Factor
`Relative ease of access to sources of proof
`
`The Court’s Finding
`Favors transfer
`
`Availability of compulsory process to secure the
`attendance of witnesses
`
`Neutral
`
`Cost of attendance for willing witnesses
`
`Favors transfer
`
`All other practical problems that make trial of a case
`easy, expeditious and inexpensive
`
`Disfavors transfer
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00024-ADA Document 60 Filed 01/20/22 Page 14 of 14Case 6:21-cv-00569-ADA Document 51-7 Filed 04/28/22 Page 15 of 15
`
`Administrative difficulties flowing from court
`congestion
`
`Disfavors transfer
`
`Local interest
`
`Favors transfer
`
`Familiarity of the forum with law that will govern
`case
`
`Neutral
`
`Problems associated with conflict of law
`
`Neutral
`
`
`
`
`
`Ordinarily, when only three factors favor transfer and two disfavor transfer, the defendant
`
`has not met its burden to show the transferee venue is clearly more convenient. But in this case,
`
`the two factors weighing against transfer are not enough to keep the case in Waco. The Court gives
`
`the “practical problems” factor less weight because the Federal Circuit has held that judicial
`
`economy considerations from related cases—especially when venue is also contested in those
`
`cases—cannot “negate[] the significance of having trial close to where most of the identified
`
`witnesses reside and where the other convenience factors clearly favor. In re Zimmer Holdings,
`
`Inc., 609 F.3d 1378, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Here, Neo Wireless did not identify a single witness,
`
`all the identified relevant willing witnesses live in the Austin Division, which is the most important
`
`factor. That, combined with the sources of proof being more easily accessible in Austin, and the
`
`fact that Austin has a stronger local interest means that Dell has met its burden that Austin is a
`
`clearly more convenient venue.
`
`
`
`IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue to the Austin Division is
`
`GRANTED.
`
`SIGNED this 20th day of January, 2022.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`__________________________________
`ALAN D ALBRIGHT
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`14
`
`