Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 23 Filed 11/23/21 Page 1 of 20
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`vs.
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:21-cv-735-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT GOOGLE LLC’S OPPOSED MOTION TO TRANSFER
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Page
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................ 1
`A.
`The Vast Majority of Google’s Witnesses and Documents Are in the
`NDCA .................................................................................................................... 1
`Ancora Has No Ties to the WDTX ........................................................................ 3
`No Known Third Party Witnesses Are Located in the WDTX, But
`Numerous Third Party Witnesses Are in California and the NDCA ..................... 3
`Litigation History ................................................................................................... 5
`D.
`LEGAL STANDARD ........................................................................................................ 5
`ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 6
`A.
`This Case Could Have Been Filed in the NDCA ................................................... 6
`B.
`The Private Interest Factors Favor Transfer .......................................................... 7
`1.
`Cost of Attendance for Willing Witnesses Favors Transfer ...................... 7
`2.
`The Relative Ease of Access to Sources of Proof Favors Transfer ......... 10
`3.
`The Availability of Compulsory Process to Secure the Attendance
`of Witnesses Favors Transfer................................................................... 11
`The Practical Problems That Make Trial of a Case Easy,
`Expeditious, and Inexpensive Weigh in Favor of Transfer ..................... 11
`The Public Interest Factors Also Favor Transfer ................................................. 12
`1.
`Administrative Difficulties Flowing from Court Congestion Favor
`Transfer .................................................................................................... 12
`Local Interest Favors Transfer ................................................................. 12
`The Courts’ Familiarity with the Law and the Avoidance of
`Conflicts Concerning the Application of Foreign Law Factors
`Favor Transfer .......................................................................................... 13
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 13
`
`B.
`C.
`
`C.
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 23 Filed 11/23/21 Page 2 of 20
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`4.
`
`2.
`3.
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 23 Filed 11/23/21 Page 3 of 20
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`In re Acer Am. Corp.,
`626 F.3d 1252 (Fed. Cir. 2010)............................................................................................8, 12
`
`Adaptix, Inc. v. HTC Corp.,
`937 F. Supp. 2d 867 (E.D. Tex. 2013) .....................................................................................11
`
`Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 10-10045-AG, 2011 WL 13157060 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2011) ..........................................3
`
`Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 2:10-cv-10045-AG-MLGx, Dkt. 55 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 21, 2011) .....................................3, 4
`
`Correct Transmission LLC v. ADTRAN, Inc.,
`No. 6:20-CV-00669-ADA, 2021 WL 1967985 (W.D. Tex. May 17, 2021) ...........................11
`
`Cub Club Inv., LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`No. 6:20-cv-00856-ADA, Dkt. 28 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 7, 2021) ........................................ passim
`
`DataQuill, Ltd. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. A-13-CA-706-SS, 2014 WL 2722201 (W.D. Tex. June 13, 2014) ....................................7
`
`In re Genentech, Inc.,
`566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009)......................................................................................7, 10, 12
`
`In re Google LLC,
`No. 2021-170, 2021 WL 4427899 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 27, 2021) ......................................... passim
`
`In re Google LLC,
`No. 2021-178, 2021 WL 5292267 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2021) .............................................9, 10
`
`In re HP, Inc.,
`No. 2018-149, 2018 WL 4692486 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 25, 2018) ...................................................7
`
`In re Juniper Networks, Inc.,
`14 F.4th 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ..................................................................................6, 9, 12, 13
`
`In re Nintendo Co.,
`589 F.3d 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..................................................................................................6
`
`Parus Holdings Inc. v. LG Elecs. Inc.,
`No. 6:19-cv-00432-ADA, 2020 WL 4905809 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 20, 2020) ............................10
`
`In re Volkswagen AG,
`371 F.3d 201 (5th Cir. 2004) .....................................................................................................9
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 23 Filed 11/23/21 Page 4 of 20
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc.,
`545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) ........................................................................................... passim
`
`Wet Sounds, Inc. v. Audio Formz, LLC,
`No. A-17-CV-141-LY, 2017 WL 4547916 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 11, 2017) ..............................9, 10
`
`Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) .........................................................................................................................6
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) .................................................................................................................1, 5, 8
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 23 Filed 11/23/21 Page 5 of 20
`
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Ancora Technologies Inc. filed this case in the Western District of Texas even though there
`
`are no relevant witnesses or evidence here. In contrast, a substantial amount of evidence and
`
`witnesses is located in the Northern District of California where Google LLC has been
`
`headquartered since its founding in 1998. In addition, Ancora concedes that many of its witnesses
`
`and much of its evidence are located in California. Thus, considering the convenience of the
`
`witnesses leads to only one conclusion: NDCA is significantly more convenient than this district.
`
`Nothing favors keeping this case here. Therefore, transfer of this case to the NDCA pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1404(a) is appropriate.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`A.
`
`The Vast Majority of Google’s Witnesses and Documents Are in the NDCA
`
`Google’s Mountain View headquarters, which includes offices in neighboring Sunnyvale,
`
`(collectively referred to as “Mountain View”) is the strategic center of Google’s business.
`
`Declaration of Google Senior Legal Project Manager (“Project Manager Decl.”) ¶ 2. As of June
`
`2021, the Mountain View headquarters employed approximately 39,887 employees, which is
`
`approximately 45.3% of Google’s U.S. employees. Id. As of June 2021, Google also had
`
`approximately 10,932 other employees in offices in San Francisco, California and other smaller
`
`offices also within the NDCA. Id. As of June 2021, approximately 57.7% of Google’s 88,023 total
`
`U.S. employees, including engineers, product managers, marketers, executives, and staff were
`
`employed out of Google’s offices located in the NDCA. Id. Although Google has an office in
`
`Austin, Texas, it houses only a very small fraction of Google’s U.S. employees (2%). Id. ¶ 3. And
`
`neither Google nor Ancora have identified any employees in Texas who are knowledgeable about
`
`the accused functionalities.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 23 Filed 11/23/21 Page 6 of 20
`
`
`
`Ancora has accused certain Google products1, to which Google allegedly sent an over-the-
`
`air (“OTA”) update, of infringement. Declaration of Robert W. Unikel (“Unikel Decl.”) ¶ 2. The
`
`vast majority of engineers knowledgeable about this feature are based in or near the NDCA,
`
`including the following (see Project Manager Decl. ¶ 6):
`
`● An engineer who is knowledgeable about OTA updates for Cast OS is based in
`
`Mountain View. The other individuals who work on this feature with this engineer
`
`are based in Mountain View with some engineers being based in East Asia.
`
`● An engineer who is knowledgeable about Android OTA updates is based in
`
`Mountain View. The other individuals who work on this feature with this engineer
`
`are based in Mountain View and Cambridge, Massachusetts.
`
`● An engineer who is knowledgeable about OTA updates on certain Nest Thermostat
`
`devices is based in Mountain View. The other individuals who work on this feature
`
`with this engineer are based in Mountain View, Palo Alto (California), and Japan.
`
`● An engineer who is knowledgeable about OTA updates for Chrome OS is based in
`
`Mountain View. The other individuals who work on this feature with this engineer
`
`are based in Mountain View and Boulder, Colorado.
`
`● An engineer who is knowledgeable about Android verified boot, which is also
`
`accused of infringement, is based in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
`
`Documents can be found in the same locations. As a matter of Google practice, documents
`
`about its products and services are normally created and maintained by the employees working on
`
`those products and services. Id. ¶ 4.
`
`
`1 Google’s identification of the accused products is based on Google’s current understanding of
`Ancora’s infringement contentions.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 23 Filed 11/23/21 Page 7 of 20
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Ancora Has No Ties to the WDTX
`
`Miki Mullor, one of the inventors of the asserted patent (Ex. A), is the Founder and former
`
`CTO and CEO of Ancora. Exs. B–C. Mullor developed the technology underlying the patent in
`
`California. Ancora Technologies, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 10-10045-AG, 2011 WL 13157060, at *1
`
`(C.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2011). Mullor is currently Ancora’s president. Dkt. 1 ¶ 14. Ancora is a
`
`corporation organized and existing under the laws of the state of Delaware, with a principal place
`
`of business at 23977 S.E. 10th Street, Sammamish, Washington 98075. Id. ¶ 2. Mullor resides at
`
`the same address listed as Ancora’s principal place of business, in Washington. Ex. D. That
`
`“business” appears to be a residence. Ex. E. This is consistent with findings in previous Ancora
`
`litigations that “Ancora is ‘really a one-person company’ and that one person is Mullor.” Ancora
`
`Techs., 2011 WL 13157060, at *1.
`
`Google is unaware of any connections whatsoever between Ancora and the WDTX.
`
`C.
`
`No Known Third Party Witnesses Are Located in the WDTX, But Numerous
`Third Party Witnesses Are in California and the NDCA
`
`
`
`None of the presently known third-party witnesses reside in the WDTX. But many reside
`
`in the NDCA or within California. In fact, Ancora conceded in a prior litigation that California
`
`houses a large number of relevant witnesses. Ancora has stated:
`
`Ancora also had business dealings and/or discussions with several
`California based companies including Electronic Arts, MicroMedia,
`Macrovision, BAE Systems, Phoenix Technologies, Active Card
`and the Warner Brothers Music Group located in Hollywood.[]
`These dealings all centered on the technology of the ‘941 patent
`developed in [the CDCA]. . . . Ancora identifies a litany of relevant
`witnesses located in [the CDCA]. Alberto Saavedra, the president of
`Ancora, resides in the Los Angeles area and maintains the Sherman
`Oaks address. [] Dan Weil also resides in the greater Los Angeles
`area, namely, Calabasas.[] The company that owned the ‘941 patent
`before Ancora, [Beeble] Inc., was also located in Irvine and had a
`place of business in [the CDCA]. [] Those individuals with [Beeble]
`that were involved with the technology of the ‘941 patent also reside
`in the Los Angeles area including: Blair Bryant (Newport Beach),
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 23 Filed 11/23/21 Page 8 of 20
`
`
`
`Michael Sentovich (Newport Beach), Fred Fourcher (Newport
`Beach), Stuart Rose (Tustin). []Ancora also executed an alliance
`agreement with American Megatrends concerning the ‘941 patent
`which clearly lists Ancora’s business address in the Central District.
`[] Other individuals have also worked with Beeble and/or Ancora on
`technical development in [the CDCA]: Dan Bright, Mark Andre,
`and Jeff Lorenzini.[]
`
`Ancora Techs., Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 2:10-cv-10045-AG-MLGx, Dkt. 55 at 4–5 (C.D. Cal. Nov.
`
`21, 2011) (Ex. F). Based on publicly available information, none of the companies listed by Ancora
`
`appear to be based in Texas. See Exs. G–L, P. Instead, many of them now appear to be based in
`
`the NDCA, including Electronic Arts Inc. (Redwood City), MicroMedia Systems, Inc.
`
`(Sunnyvale), Macrovision Corp. (San Jose), and Phoenix Technologies (Campbell). Exs. G–L, P.
`
`Beeble, Inc. and Warner Brothers Music Group could not be located by Google. Unikel Decl. ¶ 15.
`
`The above-listed individuals each appear to still reside in the Central District of California or their
`
`current location could not be confirmed. See Exs. M–O; Unikel Decl. ¶ 20.
`
`At least one prior artist resides within the NDCA, while none reside in the WDTX. For
`
`example, one IPR has been instituted based on three prior art references: U.S. Patent Nos.
`
`4,658,093 (“the ’093 Patent”), 5,892,906 (“the ’906 Patent”), and 5,933,498 (“the ’498 Patent”).
`
`Unikel Decl. ¶ 21. Martin E. Hellman, the sole named inventor of the ’093 Patent, resides in
`
`Stanford, California. Exs. Q–R. The inventors of the ’906 Patent live in various locations, but none
`
`reside in the WDTX: Joseph M. Kulinets resides in Massachusetts and Laszlo Elteto resides in
`
`Irvine (California). Exs. S–U. Wayne Chou and Joseph LaRussa’s locations could not be
`
`confirmed, but based on the face of the patent they may reside in Connecticut and New York
`
`respectively. Ex. S; Unikel Decl. ¶ 27. Inventors of the ’498 Patent also reside outside of both
`
`NDCA and the WDTX. Marshall D. Abrams resides in Maryland. Ex. W. Paul B. Schneck’s
`
`location could not be confirmed, but based on the face of the patent he may reside in Maryland.
`
`Ex. V; Unikel Decl. ¶ 28.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 23 Filed 11/23/21 Page 9 of 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Last, the second inventor of the asserted patent appears to reside in Israel. Exs. A, X.
`
`D.
`
`Litigation History
`
`Ancora has asserted the patent against numerous defendants in different forums including
`
`the CDCA, NDCA, WDTX, District of Delaware, Western District of Washington, and briefly in
`
`the Eastern District of Texas before it was transferred to California. See Unikel Decl. ¶ 33. Each
`
`district except the EDTX undertook substantive consideration and analysis of the asserted patent.
`
`Id. And three courts have construed the claims of the patent: the NDCA, WDTX, and CDCA. Id.
`
`¶ 34.
`
`There are three other active litigations regarding the asserted patent. This includes one case
`
`against VIZIO, Inc., which Ancora agreed to transfer from the WDTX to the CDCA. See No. 6:21-
`
`cv-00739-ADA, Dkt. 19 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 28, 2021). The second case is against Roku, Inc., which
`
`Roku has moved to transfer from this court to the NDCA. See No. 6:21-cv-00737-ADA, Dkt. 18
`
`(W.D. Tex. Oct. 5, 2021). Finally, the third case is against Nintendo Co., Ltd., and Nintendo has
`
`moved to transfer that case from this district to the Western District of Washington. See No. 6:21-
`
`cv-00738, Dkt. 29 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 4, 2021).
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`To evaluate transfer under § 1404(a), courts first consider “whether a civil action ‘might
`
`have been brought’ in the destination venue.” In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 312
`
`(5th Cir. 2008) (“Volkswagen II”) (citation omitted). If so, the court weighs eight private and public
`
`interest factors:
`
`(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.
`. . . [5] the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion;
`[6] the local interest in having localized interest decided at home;
`[7] the familiarity of the forum with the law that will govern the
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 23 Filed 11/23/21 Page 10 of 20
`
`
`
`case; and [8] the avoidance of unnecessary problems of conflict of
`laws [or in] the application of foreign law.
`
`Id. at 315 (citation omitted). “[I]n a case featuring most witnesses and evidence closer to the
`
`transferee venue with few or no convenience factors favoring the venue chosen by the plaintiff,
`
`the trial court should grant a motion to transfer.” See In re Nintendo Co., 589 F.3d 1194, 1198
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`The center of gravity for this case is in the NDCA, not the WDTX. This case should
`
`therefore be transferred. See In re Google LLC, No. 2021-170, 2021 WL 4427899, at *7 (Fed. Cir.
`
`Sept. 27, 2021). Indeed, the majority of witnesses and evidence are located in or around the NDCA.
`
`Even if the Court finds all other factors neutral, transfer is still appropriate. Indeed, in a recent
`
`case, this Court transferred a case to the NDCA where the location of witnesses and evidence
`
`favored transfer and the other factors were overall neutral. See Cub Club Inv., LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`
`No. 6:20-cv-00856-ADA, Dkt. 28 at 13 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 7, 2021) (Ex. Y). The Federal Circuit,
`
`too, has confirmed that transfer is warranted where the majority of witnesses and evidence are
`
`located in the transferee forum, even where at least some evidence is in the transferor forum. See
`
`In re Google LLC, 2021 WL 4427899, at *7; see also In re Juniper Networks, Inc., 14 F.4th 1313,
`
`1323 (Fed. Cir. 2021). This is an even clearer case for transfer as no witnesses or evidence are
`
`located in the WDTX.
`
`A.
`
`This Case Could Have Been Filed in the NDCA
`
`The threshold requirement for a transfer of venue is met here: Ancora could have brought
`
`this action in the NDCA, where Google is headquartered. See 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 23 Filed 11/23/21 Page 11 of 20
`
`
`
`B.
`
`The Private Interest Factors Favor Transfer
`1.
`
`Cost of Attendance for Willing Witnesses Favors Transfer
`
`“The convenience of the witnesses is probably the single most important factor in [the]
`
`transfer analysis.” In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (internal citation
`
`omitted). Here, the expected witnesses and their expenses for participating in this case demonstrate
`
`that this dispute belongs in the NDCA.
`
`Google established its headquarters in the NDCA at its founding, and remains there to this
`
`day. Project Manager Decl. ¶ 2. Google’s key employees, including those with technical
`
`knowledge about the accused features and products, are primarily based in or nearer to the NDCA.
`
`The only exception are some engineers located in Massachusetts and Boulder, Colorado. Id. ¶ 6.
`
`All of Google’s key party witnesses have direct experience with the accused functionalities and
`
`will likely have information relevant to noninfringement, the state of the art, and alleged damages
`
`in this case. See id. “While it is true that the witnesses in the Northern District of California are
`
`largely affiliated with the parties, that does not negate the inconvenience and cost to those
`
`individuals to travel a significant distance to testify.” In re Google LLC, 2021 WL 4427899, at *4.
`
`Google has an Austin office, but none of the Google employees with relevant information
`
`are based there. Project Manager Decl. ¶¶ 6–7. A party’s presence in the transferor district does
`
`not affect the assessment of this factor if that presence is not relevant to the case. See, e.g., In re
`
`HP, Inc., No. 2018-149, 2018 WL 4692486, at *1–2 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 25, 2018) (finding transfer to
`
`the NDCA appropriate even though defendant “maintain[ed] an office” within the transferor
`
`district). Indeed, this Court has granted a motion to transfer, notwithstanding a defendant’s Austin
`
`office (housing 7,000 employees) where “there is no evidence . . . that demonstrates a single
`
`employee from the Austin campus has knowledge and/or documents relevant to this case.” Cub
`
`Club Inv., No. 6:20-cv-000856-ADA, Dkt. 28 at 8 (Ex. Y); see also DataQuill, Ltd. v. Apple Inc.,
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 23 Filed 11/23/21 Page 12 of 20
`
`
`
`No. A-13-CA-706-SS, 2014 WL 2722201, at *1, 3 (W.D. Tex. June 13, 2014) (granting transfer
`
`to the NDCA even though defendant “employs some 3,500 people” in this district where no
`
`witnesses were identified in the WDTX). Accordingly, Google’s presence in Austin does not affect
`
`transfer because that presence is irrelevant to the patent claims in this case.
`
`Ancora also does not appear to have any relevant witnesses in the WDTX. See supra
`
`Section II.B–C. In fact, most witnesses identified by Ancora in earlier actions reside in California
`
`or Washington, closer to the NDCA than the WDTX. Id.
`
`Under the Fifth Circuit’s 100-mile rule, “[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 (citation omitted). “[I]t is an ‘obvious conclusion’ that
`
`it is more convenient for witnesses to testify at home[.]” Id. (citation omitted). Distant witnesses
`
`“not only suffer monetary costs, but also the personal costs associated with being away from work,
`
`family, and community.” Id.
`
`Here, both the time and the distance the witnesses would need to travel favor transfer. The
`
`majority of the affected Google and Ancora witnesses must travel about 1,400 miles from
`
`California (or farther) to Waco, Texas to testify, resulting in costly and unnecessary travel
`
`expenses, missed work, and personal disruptions. See In re Acer Am. Corp., 626 F.3d 1252, 1255
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2010). Only some of Google’s employees who may have relevant information are
`
`located closer in distance to Waco. These witnesses are in Colorado and Massachusetts. Project
`
`Manager Decl. ¶ 6. But it would take about the same amount of time for them to travel to Waco as
`
`to San Francisco, if not longer, because there is no major airport in Waco. Exs. Z–CC. “In this
`
`regard, time is a more important metric than distance” because “[t]here is no major airport in the
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 23 Filed 11/23/21 Page 13 of 20
`
`
`
`Waco Division of the Western District of Texas[.]” In re Google LLC, 2021 WL 4427899, at *4.
`
`Ancora’s known party witness (Mullor) is located in Washington, closer to the NDCA.
`
`Litigating this case in the San Francisco Bay Area would allow many of the witnesses to
`
`commute to trial or hearings from home or work within the same day. “[T]he task of scheduling
`
`fact witnesses so as to minimize the time when they are removed from their regular work or home
`
`responsibilities gets increasingly difficult and complicated when the travel time from their home
`
`or work site to the court facility is five or six hours one-way as opposed to 30 minutes or an hour.”
`
`Wet Sounds, Inc. v. Audio Formz, LLC, No. A-17-CV-141-LY, 2017 WL 4547916 at *3 (W.D.
`
`Tex. Oct. 11, 2017) (quoting In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201, 205 (5th Cir. 2004)).
`
`Because the majority of the material witnesses reside within the NDCA or closer to the
`
`NDCA, and no known witnesses reside in the WDTX, this most important factor overwhelmingly
`
`favors transfer. The Federal Circuit’s 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.” In re Google LLC, 2021 WL 4427899, at
`
`*4; see also In re Juniper Networks, 14 F.4th at 1319 (ordering transfer to the NDCA where
`
`defendant identified eleven potential party witnesses in the NDCA and plaintiff identified only one
`
`party witness in the WDTX). Indeed, the Federal Circuit recently noted that this court correctly
`
`found this factor favored transfer where, similar to this case, “the Northern District of California
`
`would be more convenient for Google employees knowledgeable about the design and
`
`development of the accused functionalities as well as [the plaintiff’s] founder and CFO.” In re
`
`Google LLC, No. 2021-178, 2021 WL 5292267, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2021). The same result
`
`is warranted here.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 23 Filed 11/23/21 Page 14 of 20
`
`
`
`2.
`
`The Relative Ease of Access to Sources of Proof Favors Transfer
`
`The fact that documents may be stored electronically does not undermine the import of
`
`their location because “the Fifth Circuit [has] clarified that despite technological advances that
`
`make the physical location of documents less significant, the location of sources of proof remains
`
`a ‘meaningful factor in the analysis.’” Wet Sounds, 2017 WL 4547916, at *2 (quoting Volkswagen
`
`II, 545 F.3d at 316). And “[i]n 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.” Genentech, 566 F.3d at 1345 (citation omitted).
`
`Documents about Google’s products and services that are in Google’s possession are normally
`
`created and maintained by the employees working on those products and services. Project Manager
`
`Decl. ¶ 4. Because the employees with knowledge relevant to this litigation are based primarily in
`
`the NDCA, the relevant documents in this case would likely be created and maintained in the
`
`NDCA. See In re Google LLC, 2021 WL 5292267, at *2 (stating the district court erred by
`
`“analyzing only the location of servers where documents are stored, rather than also considering
`
`the location of document custodians and location where documents are created and maintained,
`
`which may bear on the ease of retrieval.”); In re Google LLC, 2021 WL 4427899, at *6.
`
`Meanwhile, there is no indication that any relevant evidence is created or maintained in the
`
`WDTX. Therefore, the geographic locus of evidence also favors transfer to California.
`
`This Court has found that this factor favored transfer to the NDCA where the movant
`
`asserted that “Google researches, designs, develops, and tests Google assistant in NDCA.” Parus
`
`Holdings Inc. v. LG Elecs. Inc., No. 6:19-cv-00432-ADA, 2020 WL 4905809, at *3 (W.D. Tex.
`
`Aug. 20, 2020). The Court should similarly do so here. As in Cub Club, this factor weighs in favor
`
`of transfer given “(1) that [Google] resides in the NDCA and (2) that the accused features were
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 23 Filed 11/23/21 Page 15 of 20
`
`
`
`apparently developed at [Google’s] offices in California.” Cub Club Inv., No. 6:20-cv-000856-
`
`ADA, Dkt. 28 at 6 (Ex. Y).
`
`Moreover, Ancora’s operations are based in Washington, closer to the NDCA than the
`
`WDTX, and its evidence is likely located there as well.
`
`3.
`
`The Availability of Compulsory Process to Secure the Attendance of
`Witnesses Favors Transfer
`
`“Transfer is favored” where, as here, a transferee district like the NDCA “has absolute
`
`subpoena power over a greater number of non-party witnesses.” Adaptix, Inc. v. HTC Corp., 937
`
`F. Supp. 2d 867, 874 (E.D. Tex. 2013). There are no known third party witnesses in the WDTX.
`
`Meanwhile, there are at least one prior artist and four companies that Ancora claims are relevant
`
`to this litigation located in the NDCA. This factor therefore favors transfer. See In re Google LLC,
`
`2021 WL 4427899, at *1, 6–7 (finding that weight should be given to the location of Google’s
`
`prior art witnesses, noting Google’s history in “several previous cases in which it had called such
`
`witnesses to testify during trial”).
`
`4.
`
`The Practical Problems That Make Trial of a Case Easy, Expeditious,
`and Inexpensive Weigh in Favor of Transfer
`
`“[T]his Court has previously held that the last private interest factor favors transfer when
`
`most witnesses are present in the transferee forum and the plaintiff has no presence in the Western
`
`District.” Correct Transmission LLC v. ADTRAN, Inc., No. 6:20-CV-00669-ADA, 2021 WL
`
`1967985, at *5 (W.D. Tex. May 17, 2021) (citation omitted). The location of the majority of likely
`
`Google witnesses, the location of the prior artist, and the complete lack of witnesses in the WDTX
`
`make this factor favor transfer.
`
`That this patent has been litigated in various forums is overall neutral to this analysis. Both
`
`the NDCA and WDTX have overseen cases regarding this patent, and thus both are familiar with
`
`the underlying technologies.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 23 Filed 11/23/21 Page 16 of 20
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`The Public Interest Factors Also Favor Transfer
`
`As with the private interest factors, the public interest factors favor transfer. Even if the
`
`Court should find the public interest factors neutral, a transfer is warranted because the private
`
`interest factors heavily favor transfer. See Cub Club Inv., No. 6:20-cv-000856-ADA, Dkt. 28 at 9–
`
`13 (Ex. Y) (transferring a case to the NDCA where the private interest factors related to the location
`
`of evidence and witnesses favored transfer and the public interest factors were neutral).
`
`1.
`
`Administrative Difficulties Flowing from Court Congestion Favor
`Transfer
`
`This factor favors transfer. This Court is more “congested” in that it has far more open
`
`patent cases (830 cases) than the NDCA (267 cases). Exs. DD–EE. Moreover, the median times
`
`to trial are roughly the same (about 20.9 months in this Court versus 25 months in the NDCA). Id.
`
`Although this Court’s default schedule could lead to a trial date sooner than the average time to
`
`trial in the NDCA, the Federal Circuit has made clear that “it is improper to assess the court
`
`congestion factor” based on a scheduling order. In re Juniper Networks, 14 F.4th at 1322. Even if
`
`the Court does find that its default schedule tilts this factor against transfer, the Federal Circuit has
`
`noted that this factor “appears to be the most speculative” and “cannot outweigh all of the other
`
`factors” in the transfer analysis. Genentech, 566 F.3d at 1347.
`
`2.
`
`Local Interest Favors Transfer
`
`The NDCA has a strong local interest in this dispute: Google was founded in the NDCA,
`
`where it still maintains its headquarters, and where most of its engineers knowledgeable about the
`
`accused features are based. Project Manager Decl. ¶¶ 2, 6. This factor focuses on the “significant
`
`connections between a particular venue and the events that gave rise to a suit[.]” In re Acer, 626
`
`F.3d at 1256; see also Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 318 (explaining that this factor pertains to a
`
`forum’s “connections with the events that gave rise to th[e] suit”). In contrast to the significant
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00735-ADA Document 23 Filed 11/23/21 Page 17 of 20
`
`
`
`connection between this litigation and the NDCA, there is no meaningful connection to the
`
`WDTX. None of the relevant Google employees with responsibilities related to the accused
`
`functionalities are based in Texas, and Google’s presence in Austin with respect to other products
`
`and technologies does not demonstrate a local interest in this case. “Because the accused products
`
`were designed and developed in the transferee venue and are not related to Google’s presence in
`
`Texas. . . the local interest factor should [be] weighted strongly in favor of transfer.” In re Google
`
`LLC, 2021 WL 4427899, at *6.
`
`Ancora’s connection to WDTX is nonexistent, other than the fact that it has litigated in this
`
`district (which is also true of the NDCA). In re Juniper Networks, 14 F.4th at 1320–21(“Juniper’s
`
`general presence in the Western District of Texas is not enough to establish a local interest in that
`
`district comparable to that of the