Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 44 Filed 02/25/22 Page 1 of 20
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`GENTEX CORPORATION and INDIGO
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`THALES VISIONIX, INC.,
`
`Involuntary Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`FACEBOOK, INC. and FACEBOOK
`TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-00755-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`PUBLIC VERSION
`
`DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TRANSFER
`TO THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`

`

`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 44 Filed 02/25/22 Page 2 of 20
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
`
`Factual Background................................................................................................................... 2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Voluntary Plaintiffs Gentex and Indigo ........................................................................... 2
`
`Involuntary Plaintiff Thales ............................................................................................. 2
`
`Defendants ....................................................................................................................... 3
`
`Relevant Third Parties ...................................................................................................... 4
`
`III.
`
`Legal Standard ........................................................................................................................... 5
`
`IV. Argument .................................................................................................................................... 6
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`This Action Could Have Been Filed in N.D. Cal. ........................................................... 6
`
`The Private-Interests Factors All Favor Transfer to N.D. Cal. Or Are Neutral ............... 7
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`The Relative Ease of Access to Sources of Proof Favors Transfer ................ 7
`
`The Availability of Compulsory Process to Secure the Attendance of
`Witnesses Favors Transfer ................................................................................ 8
`
`The Cost of Attendance for Willing Witnesses Favors Transfer ................... 9
`
`Other Factors That Make Trial Easy, Expeditious, and Inexpensive
`Are Neutral ....................................................................................................... 11
`
`C.
`
`The Public-Interest Factors All Favor Transfer Or Are Neutral .................................... 12
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Court Congestion Is Neutral ........................................................................... 12
`
`Local Interests in Having This Case Decided at Home Favor Transfer
`............................................................................................................................ 12
`
`Familiarity of the Forum With the Law Is Neutral ...................................... 13
`
`Conflicts of Law or Foreign Law Is Neutral ................................................. 13
`
`V.
`
`Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 14
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 44 Filed 02/25/22 Page 3 of 20
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Blackberry Ltd.,
`No. 6:13-CV-362, 2014 WL 10748106 (W.D. Tex. June 11, 2014) .......................................12
`
`In re Apple Inc.,
`979 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2020)..........................................................................................12, 13
`
`In re Apple, Inc.,
`581 F. App’x 886 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................................................9
`
`In re Atlassian Corp. PLC,
`21-177, 2021 WL 5292268 (Fed. Cir. Nov 15, 2021) ...............................................................8
`
`Bascom v. Maxim Integrated Prods., Inc.,
`534 F. Supp. 2d 700 (W.D. Tex. 2008) ....................................................................................13
`
`Fintiv Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 6:18-cv-00372, 2019 WL 4743678 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 13, 2019) ........................................7
`
`Fujitsu Ltd. v. Tellabs, Inc.,
`639 F. Supp. 2d 761 (E.D. Tex. 2009) .......................................................................................8
`
`In re Genentech, Inc.,
`566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009)........................................................................................7, 9, 11
`
`In re Google LLC,
`2021-170, 2021 WL 4427899 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 27, 2021) ................................................7, 8, 10
`
`In re Hoffmann-La Roche Inc.,
`587 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................13
`
`In re Hulu, LLC,
`No. 2021-142, 2021 WL 3278194 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 2, 2021) ...............................................9, 12
`
`IpVenture, Inc. v. Prostar Computer, Inc.,
`503 F.3d 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2007)..................................................................................................6
`
`In re Juniper Networks,
`14 F.4th 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ................................................................................................10
`
`MasterObjects, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc.,
`No. 6:20-CV-00087-ADA, Dkt. No. 86 (W.D. Tex. July 13, 2021) (Albright, J.) .........7, 9, 11
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 44 Filed 02/25/22 Page 4 of 20
`
`
`
`Monolithic Power Sys., Inc. v. Meraki Integrated Circuit (Shenzhen) Tech. Ltd.,
`No. 6:20-cv-00876-ADA, 2021 WL 5316454 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 5, 2021) ..............................10
`
`Neil Bros. Ltd. v. World Wide Lines, Inc.,
`425 F.Supp.2d 325 (E.D.N.Y.2006) ......................................................................................7, 9
`
`In re Nintendo Co., Ltd.,
`589 F.3d 1194 (Fed. Cir 2009).............................................................................................6, 11
`
`Opperman v. Path, Inc.,
`A-12-CA-219-SS, 2013 WL 7753577 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 15, 2013) ............................................6
`
`In re Quest Diagnostics Inc.,
`Case No. 2021-193, Dkt. 10 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 10, 2021) ...........................................................11
`
`Texas v. Google LLC,
`No. 4:20-CV-957-SDJ, 2021 WL 2043184 (E.D. Tex. May 20, 2021)...................................12
`
`In re Toyota Motor Corp.,
`747 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................10
`
`In re Volkswagen AG (Volkswagen I),
`371 F.3d 201 (5th Cir. 2004) ...............................................................................................5, 10
`
`In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc. (Volkswagen II),
`545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) .......................................................................................5, 6, 9, 12
`
`XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, LC,
`No. W-16-CA-00447-RP, 2017 WL 5505340 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 5, 2017) .................................7
`
`Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) .............................................................................................................1, 5, 6, 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 44 Filed 02/25/22 Page 5 of 20
`
`
`
`Defendants Meta Platforms, Inc.1 and Facebook Technologies, LLC (collectively, “Meta”
`
`or “Defendants”) move to transfer this action to the Northern District of California pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1404(a).2
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`This case has no relevant connection to the Western District of Texas, a venue located far
`
`away from the parties and events that gave rise to this matter. None of the events leading up to
`
`this action arose in Waco or Texas. No party calls Texas home, and none of the patents or accused
`
`products were developed in Texas or anywhere nearby. Defendants have not identified any
`
`witnesses relevant to this suit who are located in Waco or Texas. In short, none of the evidence
`
`relevant to this suit is located in Waco or Texas.
`
`By contrast, the core of this litigation lies in California.
`
`
`
`
`
` and a significant portion of the relevant Meta witnesses are located in the Northern
`
`District of California specifically. Additionally, numerous relevant third-party witnesses are
`
`located in the Northern District of California or on the West Coast, including Eric Foxlin (the
`
`named inventor of all of the asserted patents and the sole named inventor of four out of five
`
`patents), numerous prior art authors, and multiple companies and research institutions that
`
`developed prior art products. Accordingly, Meta respectfully requests that the Court transfer this
`
`case to the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) because it is a clearly more
`
`convenient forum than the Western District of Texas.
`
`
`1 Effective October 28, 2021, Facebook, Inc. changed its name to Meta Platforms, Inc. Dkt. 26.
`2 Meta reserves the right to move for intradistrict transfer.
`
`1
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 44 Filed 02/25/22 Page 6 of 20
`
`
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`Plaintiffs Gentex Corporation (“Gentex”) and Indigo Technologies, LLC (“Indigo”), along
`
`with involuntary plaintiff Thales Visionix, Inc. (“Thales”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), filed this suit
`
`on July 22, 2021. The lawsuit alleges that certain features in Meta’s Oculus-branded virtual reality
`
`products infringe five patents owned by Thales that are allegedly licensed to Gentex and Indigo.
`
`A.
`
`Voluntary Plaintiffs Gentex and Indigo
`
`Gentex is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Carbondale,
`
`Pennsylvania. Compl. ¶ 4. Although Gentex has facilities in various other states, including in
`
`California, it lists no facilities or presence anywhere in Texas. See Deoras Decl. ¶ 3; Ex. A. Meta
`
`has not been able to identify any relevant officers, directors, or employees of Gentex in this District
`
`or anywhere else in Texas (and Plaintiffs have not alleged that there are any).
`
`According to the allegations in the Complaint, Indigo is wholly-owned by Gentex and was
`
`previously the exclusive field-of-use licensee of the Asserted Patents.3 Compl. ¶ 5. Indigo’s
`
`principal place of business is in Simpson, Pennsylvania. Id; See Deoras Decl. ¶ 4; Ex. B. Indigo
`
`does not have any facilities or presence in Waco or elsewhere in Texas. Id. Meta also has not
`
`been able to identify any relevant officers, directors, or employees of Indigo in this District or
`
`anywhere else in Texas (and Plaintiffs have not alleged that there are any).
`
`B.
`
`Involuntary Plaintiff Thales
`
`The Complaint alleges that Thales is the sole owner of the Asserted Patents and is a
`
`Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Maryland. Compl. ¶ 6. On its website,
`
`Thales indicates that its main office is in Aurora, Illinois, with an additional office in Billerica,
`
`
`3 The asserted patents are U.S. Patent Nos. 6,757,068 (“’068 Patent”); 7,301,648 (“’648
`Patent”); 8,224,024 (“’024 Patent”); 6,922,632 (“’632 Patent”); and 7,725,253 (“’253 Patent”)
`(collectively hereinafter, the “Asserted Patents”).
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 44 Filed 02/25/22 Page 7 of 20
`
`
`
`Massachusetts. See Deoras Decl. ¶ 5; Ex. C. Thales appears to be a subsidiary of Thales Defense
`
`& Security, Inc., which is based in Clarksburg, Maryland. See Deoras Decl. ¶ 6; Ex. D. Thales
`
`does not have any facilities or presence in Waco or elsewhere in Texas. Id. Meta has not identified
`
`any relevant officers, directors, or employees of Thales in this District or anywhere else in Texas
`
`(and Plaintiffs have not alleged that there are any).
`
`C.
`
`Defendants
`
`Meta Platforms, Inc. (formerly Facebook, Inc.) is a Delaware corporation headquartered in
`
`the Northern District of California. Wong Decl. ¶ 2. It opened its first office in Palo Alto,
`
`California in 2004, and in 2011 it moved its headquarters and principal place of business to Menlo
`
`Park, California, where it remains. Id. at ¶ 2. Approximately half of Meta Platforms, Inc.’s full-
`
`time U.S. employees are based in its northern California offices. Id. at ¶ 2.
`
`Oculus was founded in 2012 in Southern California. Id. at ¶ 3. Facebook, Inc. (now Meta
`
`Platforms, Inc.) acquired Oculus in 2014 and, shortly thereafter, moved its headquarters to Menlo
`
`Park, California, where it remains today. Id. at ¶ 3. Oculus later changed its name to Facebook
`
`Technologies, LLC, one of the named Defendants in this matter. Id. at ¶ 3.
`
`The features accused of infringing the Asserted Patents (the “Accused Features”) involve
`
`headset and handheld controller tracking algorithms and functionality for determining location
`
`using cameras that are allegedly found in Defendants’ Oculus Rift S, Oculus Quest, and Oculus
`
`Quest 2 products. Id. at ¶¶ 5, 6, 11
`
` Id. at ¶¶ 6–15.
`
`Id. at ¶¶ 14-15.
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 44 Filed 02/25/22 Page 8 of 20
`
`
`
`D.
`
`Relevant Third Parties
`
`No third parties with any connection to this case are located in this District, but several
`
`third parties are located in California.
`
`For example, inventor Eric Foxlin (named inventor of all of the Asserted Patents in this
`
`case and the sole named inventor of four of the five patents4) is located in San Mateo County,
`
`California, within N.D. Cal. Deoras Decl. ¶¶ 7–8; Exs. E–F. Gentex’s claims regarding the
`
`priority date of several of the Asserted Patents depend on Mr. Foxlin’s hard-copy inventor notes—
`
`which are apparently located in N.D. Cal. See Deoras Decl. ¶¶ 26–27; Exs. X–Y (GNTX0001598).
`
`Additionally, many authors of relevant prior art are based in California.5 For example,
`
`Mike. A. Horton, Michael A. Teitel, and Vaibhav Vaish all invented prior art patents that are
`
`material to the patentability of the Asserted Patents and are all located in California.6 Additionally,
`
`authors of relevant non-patent prior art are also located in N.D. Cal. For example, Michael Zyda
`
`and Bill Cockayne, who authored an article cited in the Asserted Patents that is entitled “Off-the-
`
`Shelf, Real-Time, Human Body Motion Capture for Synthetic Environments,” are both California
`
`residents, with one based in northern California. See Deoras Decl. ¶¶ 14–17, 33; Exs. L–O, EE.
`
`Similarly, the Naval Postgraduate School, which is located in N.D. Cal., published relevant prior
`
`
`4 Mr. Foxlin has one named co-inventor on the ’024 Patent, Leonid Naimark, who appears to be
`located in Massachusetts. Deoras Decl. ¶ 18; Ex. P.
`5 The relevance of the prior art discussed in this paragraph is demonstrated in Defendants’
`invalidity contentions. See Deoras Decl. ¶ 33; Ex. EE.
`6 Mr. Horton is the first-named inventor of U.S. Patent No. 5,615,132 (“Horton”), which is
`material to the invalidity of at least the ’068 and ’648 Patents (the other Horton inventor—A.
`Richard Newton—has passed away). See Deoras Decl. ¶¶ 11–12, 33; Exs. I–J, EE. Mr. Teitel
`is the first-named inventor of U.S. Patent No. 5,812,257 (“Teitel”), which is material to the
`invalidity of at least the ’632 and ’253 Patents. Teitel was also assigned to VPL Newco Inc.,
`a now-defunct corporation based in California. See Deoras Decl. ¶¶ 9–10, 24–25, 33; Exs. G–
`H; V–W, EE. Mr. Vaish is a co-inventor of U.S. Patent No. 7,242,818 (“Beardsley”), which
`is material to the invalidity of at least the ’024 Patent. See Deoras Decl. ¶¶ 13, 33; Exs. K, EE.
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 44 Filed 02/25/22 Page 9 of 20
`
`
`
`art related to tracking such as “NPSNET-HUMAN: Inserting the Human Into the Networked
`
`Synthetic Environment” and “Insertion of an Articulated Human into a Networked Virtual
`
`Environment”; third-party discovery may show that the Naval Postgraduate School houses relevant
`
`prior art prototypes (such as those referenced in the NPSNET-HUMAN article). See Deoras Decl.
`
`¶ 33; Ex. EE. Likewise, Crossbow Technology, Inc. and VPL Research, Inc. were both based in
`
`N.D. Cal. and developed relevant sensor and tracking prior art products; key engineering personnel
`
`for those companies, such as Darren Liccardo and Mitch Altman, respectively, remain in N.D.
`
`Cal., and third-party discovery from those individuals may lead to relevant prior art products. See
`
`Deoras Decl. at ¶¶ 28–31; Exs. Z, AA, BB, CC.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A federal district court may transfer any civil action to any other district where it may have
`
`been originally filed if doing so is in the interests of justice and for the convenience of the parties
`
`and witnesses. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). At the outset, “[t]he preliminary question under § 1404(a) is
`
`whether a civil action ‘might have been brought’ in the destination venue.” In re Volkswagen of
`
`Am., Inc. (Volkswagen II), 545 F.3d 304, 312 (5th Cir. 2008). If satisfied, the Court then
`
`determines whether venue convenience and the interests of justice favor transfer by considering
`
`public- and private-interest factors. Id. at 314-315. The private-interest factors include: “(1) the
`
`relative ease of access to sources of proof; (2) the availability of compulsory process to secure the
`
`attendance of witnesses; (3) the cost of attendance for willing witnesses; and (4) all other practical
`
`problems that make the trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive.” Id. at 315 (citing In re
`
`Volkswagen AG (Volkswagen I), 371 F.3d 201, 203 (5th Cir. 2004)). The public-interest 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
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 44 Filed 02/25/22 Page 10 of 20
`
`
`
`govern the case; and (4) the avoidance of unnecessary problems of conflict of laws or in the
`
`application of foreign law.” Id. “[T]he Fifth Circuit forbids treating the plaintiff’s choice of venue
`
`as a factor in the analysis of a request to transfer….” In re Nintendo Co., Ltd., 589 F.3d 1194,
`
`1200 (Fed. Cir 2009).
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`This case could have and should have been filed in the Northern District of California,
`
`where Meta is headquartered. Several factors strongly favor transfer to that District, and none
`
`favor keeping the case in this District. No reasonable grounds exist for keeping this case in Texas
`
`when most of the Accused Features were largely developed in California by a California-based
`
`company, and the Asserted Patents implicate necessary discovery from California-based and, in
`
`particular, Northern-District-of-California-based, third parties. Most importantly, there are no
`
`relevant connections to this District.
`
`A.
`
`This Action Could Have Been Filed in N.D. Cal.
`
`This case satisfies the threshold requirement under § 1404(a)—“whether a civil action
`
`‘might have been brought’ in the destination venue.” See Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 312.
`
`Northern California, and more specifically Menlo Park, is home to both Defendants’ principal
`
`place of business. Wong Decl. ¶¶ 2–3. As a result, venue is proper in N.D. Cal.7 See Opperman
`
`v. Path, Inc., A-12-CA-219-SS, 2013 WL 7753577 at *3 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 15, 2013) (finding that
`
`because Apple is headquartered in the Northern District of California and conducts the heart of its
`
`business there, the threshold requirement for a transfer of venue under § 1404(a) was met and the
`
`
`7 To the extent that Thales was properly included as an involuntary plaintiff here, it could have
`equally been included as a plaintiff in an action filed in N.D. Cal. such that its residence is
`immaterial to the propriety of venue. See IpVenture, Inc. v. Prostar Computer, Inc., 503 F.3d
`1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[A]ll entities with an independent right to enforce the patent are
`indispensable or necessary parties to an infringement suit. When such an entity declines to join
`in the suit it may be joined involuntarily … as a party plaintiff….”).
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 44 Filed 02/25/22 Page 11 of 20
`
`
`
`matter could have been brought in the Northern District of California); see also MasterObjects,
`
`Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 6:20-CV-00087-ADA, Dkt. No. 86, at 13 (W.D. Tex. July 13, 2021)
`
`(Albright, J.) (transferring case to N.D. Cal. because requirements of § 1404(a) were satisfied).
`
`B.
`
`The Private-Interests Factors All Favor Transfer to N.D. Cal. Or Are Neutral
`
`1.
`
`The Relative Ease of Access to Sources of Proof 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. 13, 2019). “In patent infringement cases,
`
`the bulk of the relevant evidence usually comes from the accused infringer,” so “the place where
`
`the defendant’s documents are kept weighs in favor of transfer to that location.” In re Genentech,
`
`Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citing Neil Bros. Ltd. v. World Wide Lines, Inc., 425
`
`F.Supp.2d 325, 330 (E.D.N.Y.2006)); XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, LC, No. W-16-CA-00447-
`
`RP, 2017 WL 5505340, at *13 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 5, 2017) (relevant to this factor is “the location
`
`where the allegedly infringing products were researched, designed, developed and tested”).
`
`The majority of Meta’s corporate documents related to this litigation—
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Wong Decl. ¶¶ 16–17. This is no surprise because, as discussed
`
`above,
`
`
`
` Wong Decl. ¶¶ 6–15. See In re Google LLC, 2021-170, 2021 WL
`
`4427899 at *6 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 27, 2021) (finding that this factor favored transfer because
`
`“employees with [the] relevant knowledge of this litigation are located primarily in the San
`
`Francisco Bay Area … [therefore] the relevant documents” would be created and maintained
`
`there). Additionally, physical inventor notebooks that are critical to Plaintiffs’ priority claims—a
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 44 Filed 02/25/22 Page 12 of 20
`
`centrnl issue in this case for several of the Asse1ied Patents- are apparently in the custody of Mr.
`
`Foxlin, in N.D. Cal. See Deoras Deel. ,nr 26-27; Exs. X-Y.
`
`The Complaint alleges that Meta has facilities and employees in Austin, implying without
`
`factual support that some relevant evidence might be located in this District. Compl. ,r,r 12-14.
`
`But these employees and facilities are unrelated to the lawsuit,8 so they do not create or maintain
`
`documents or evidence relevant to this matter or othe1wise change the balance of this factor. See
`
`Fujitsu Ltd. v. Tellabs, Inc. , 639 F. Supp. 2d 761, 766-68 (E.D. Tex. 2009) (holding that, although
`
`defendant had employees and documents in Texas, because Illinois contained the relevant
`
`witnesses and documents, Illinois was the more convenient venue) (emphasis added); see also In
`
`re Atlassian Corp. PLC, 21-177, 2021 WL 5292268 at *3 (Fed. Cir. Nov 15, 2021) (favoring
`
`transfer where the "sole Texas employee on the engineering team ... is 'not knowledgeable about
`
`the accused functionalities' ... [and the] Austin employees do not have unique knowledge"); In re
`
`Google, 2021 WL 4427899 at *4-5 (favoring transfer where there was no explanation linking
`
`employees in Austin to the accused products).
`
`Plaintiffs have not identified, and Meta is unaware of, any relevant evidence from the
`
`Plaintiffs that is located in this District or anywhere else in Texas. Thus, because the maj ority of
`
`the relevant evidence is maintained in or closer to N.D. Cal. and no relevant evidence is in this
`
`District, this factor concerning the ease of access to sources of proof strongly tilts in favor of
`
`2.
`
`The Availability of Compulsory Process to Secure the Attendance of
`Witnesses Favors Transfer
`
`transfer.
`
`8
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 44 Filed 02/25/22 Page 13 of 20
`
`
`
`This factor “weigh[s] heavily in favor of transfer when more third-party witnesses reside
`
`within the transferee venue than reside in the transferor venue.” MasterObjects, Inc. v. Facebook,
`
`Inc., No. 6:20-CV-00087-ADA, Dkt. No. 86, at 7 (W.D. Tex. July 13, 2021) (Albright, J.) (citing
`
`In re Apple, Inc., 581 F. App’x 886, 889 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). A showing of unwillingness is not
`
`required. In re Hulu, LLC, No. 2021-142, 2021 WL 3278194, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 2, 2021).
`
`Here, Meta has identified numerous relevant third-party witnesses that are within the
`
`subpoena power of N.D. Cal. but not of this Court, including Eric Foxlin (the named inventor of
`
`all of the Asserted Patents and the sole named inventor of four out of five of the Asserted Patents)
`
`and various authors of material prior art references. See Section II.D. By contrast, Meta is not
`
`aware of any third-party witnesses that reside within this District, and Plaintiffs have not identified
`
`any. The ability of the Northern District of California to compel these witnesses to testify—and
`
`the inability of this District to do so—confirms that this factor heavily favors transfer. Moreover,
`
`hearing this case in the Northern District of California would significantly reduce the personal,
`
`financial, and professional burdens for most if not all of the known third-party (and party)
`
`witnesses in this case.
`
`3.
`
`The Cost of Attendance for Willing Witnesses Favors Transfer
`
`The “convenience of … witnesses is probably the single most important factor in [the]
`
`transfer analysis.” In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d at 1343 (citing Neil Bros. Ltd., 425 F.Supp.2d
`
`at 329). If a substantial number of the witnesses reside in one venue, the factor will weigh in favor
`
`of the venue where the witnesses reside. In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d at 1343 (citing
`
`Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 317).
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 44 Filed 02/25/22 Page 14 of 20
`
` See Section II.C.9 In addition,
`
`-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` See Section II.C. By contrast,
`
` See Section II.C. It is therefore far more convenient and cost
`
`
`
`-
`
`effective for these witnesses to attend trial at or closer to home in the Northern District of
`
`California. See Volkswagen I, 371 F.3d at 205 (noting that it is “more convenient for witnesses to
`
`testify” at home).
`
`Conversely, Defendants have not identified any Gentex, Indigo, or Thales personnel in this
`
`District or anywhere else in Texas. None of the Plaintiffs appears to have any presence in this
`
`State. See Sections II.A–II.B. The Plaintiffs are headquartered in Pennsylvania, Illinois, and
`
`Maryland, so to the extent that their party witnesses testify at all, they will be required to travel
`
`regardless. Moreover, the Northern District of California is as convenient for Plaintiffs’ personnel
`
`as this District because travel time is not significantly different from their headquarters to northern
`
`California or to Waco, Texas.10 See Deoras Decl. at ¶¶ 19–23; Exs. Q–U; In re Google LLC, 2021
`
`-
`
`
`
`9 As discussed above,
` but their location is immaterial to the transfer analysis. See In re Juniper Networks,
`14 F.4th 1313, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“We have held that the fact that some evidence is stored
`in places other than either the transferor or the transferee forum does not weigh against
`transfer.”); In re Toyota Motor Corp., 747 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“The comparison
`between the transferor and transferee forums is not altered by the presence of other witnesses
`and documents in places outside both forums.”); Monolithic Power Sys., Inc. v. Meraki
`Integrated Circuit (Shenzhen) Tech. Ltd., No. 6:20-cv-00876-ADA, 2021 WL 5316454, at *4
`(W.D. Tex. Nov. 5, 2021) (“[A]ccording to the Federal Circuit, this factor is not affected where
`a substantial amount of evidence resides in China….”).
`
` and for those employees, travel time to N.D.
`Cal. is shorter than travel time to Waco, Texas. See Deoras Decl. at ¶ 32; Ex. DD.
`10 The same is true for Leonard Naimark (named inventor of the asserted ’024 patent and the only
`named inventor not in N.D. Cal.), who is a resident of Massachusetts, because travel time is
`10
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 44 Filed 02/25/22 Page 15 of 20
`
`
`
`WL 4427899, at *4 (noting that the travel burden for travel from northeastern U.S. to northern
`
`California is not significantly different than travel time to Waco, Texas, as there is no major airport
`
`in Waco and the courthouse is more than 100 miles from the nearest major airport); see also In re
`
`Quest Diagnostics Inc., Case No. 2021-193, Dkt. 10 at 5 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 10, 2021) (“[E]ven though
`
`the physical distance from Maryland and New Jersey to the Central District of California is greater
`
`than the distance to Waco, the record does not show that the total travel time for out-of-district
`
`witnesses would be significantly different.”).
`
`Given the abundance of witnesses in N.D. Cal. and the West Coast and the total lack of
`
`relevant witnesses in W.D. Tex., this factor overwhelmingly favors transfer. See, e.g.,
`
`MasterObjects, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 6:20-CV-00087-ADA, Dkt. No. 86 at 9 (W.D. Tex.
`
`July 13, 2021) (Albright, J.) (“Facebook has identified a significant amount of witnesses in
`
`California while MasterObjects has failed to identify a single relevant witness in the WDTX, let
`
`alone Texas. Therefore, the Court believes this factor weighs in favor of transfer.”); In re
`
`Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d at 1345 (where “a substantial number of material witnesses reside within
`
`the transferee venue and the state of California, and no witnesses reside within the Eastern District
`
`of Texas,” this factor weighs substantially in favor of transfer.); In re Nintendo Co., Ltd., 589 F.3d
`
`at 1199 (when some witnesses are located in the transferee forum and none are located in the
`
`transferor forum, this factor favor transfer even when other key witnesses may also be spread out
`
`across various other locations).
`
`4.
`
`Other Factors That Make Trial Easy, Expeditious, and Inexpensive
`Are Neutral
`
`
`not significantly different from Massachusetts to northern California or Waco, Texas. See
`Deoras Decl. at ¶¶ 19–20; Exs. Q–R.
`
`11
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00755-ADA Document 44 Filed 02/25/22 Page 16 of 20
`
`
`
`In analyzing this factor, the court will consider “all other practical problems that make [the]
`
`trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive.” Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. Blackberry Ltd.,
`
`No. 6:13-CV-362, 2014 WL 10748106, at *6 (W.D. Tex. June 11, 2014) (citing Volkswagen II,
`
`545 F.3d at 315). Meta is unaware of any practical problems or other issues relevant to the private
`
`convenience of the forum in which this matter is tried, beyond those discussed above. As a result,
`
`this factor is neutral.
`
`C.
`
`The Public-Interest Factors All Favor Transfer Or Are Neutral
`
`1.
`
`Court Congestion Is Neutral
`
`Under this factor, the Court focuses on “the administrative difficulties flowing from court
`
`congestion.” Affinity Labs, 2014 WL 10748106, at *3. N.D. Cal. has a median time to civil trial
`
`of 26.9 months, while W.D. Tex. averages a 23.8-month median time to trial. See Deoras Decl. at
`
`¶¶ 34; Ex. FF. Given the similar congestion metrics for both Districts, this factor is neutral. See
`
`In re Hulu, 2021 WL 3278194, at *5 (“[C]onsidering the close similarity of cases per judgeship
`
`and average time to trial of the two forums, and disregarding the particular District court's ability
`
`to push an aggressive trial date, this factor is neutral.”).
`
`2.
`
`Local Interests in Having This Case Decided at Home Favor Transfer
`
`The Northern District of California has a strong local interest in hearing this case for several
`
`reasons. First, Defendants are headquartered in the Northern District of California. See Texas v.
`
`Google LLC, No. 4:20-CV-957-SDJ, 2021 WL 2043184, at *7, *9 (E.D. Tex. May 20, 2021)
`
`(“‘There is little doubt’ that a district ‘has a local interest in the disposition of any case involving
`
`a resident corporate party.’”); Affinity Labs, 2014 WL 10748106, *3 (the District where a party
`
`has its principal p