Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 98-3 Filed 09/21/22 Page 1 of 19
`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 98-3 Filed 09/21/22 Page 1 of 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT 12
`EXHIBIT 12
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00435-JRG Document 60 Filed 09/21/22 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 5885Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 98-3 Filed 09/21/22 Page 2 of 19
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON.COM
`SERVICES, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`ORDER
`
`
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:21-CV-00435-JRG
`
`
`
`
`Before the Court is the Motion to Transfer Venue to the Northern District of California
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (the “Motion”) filed by Defendants Amazon.com, Inc. and
`
`Amazon.com Services, Inc. (collectively, “Amazon”). (Dkt. No. 25.) In the Motion, Amazon
`
`requests that the Court transfer the above-captioned case from this District (“EDTX”) to the
`
`Northern District of California (“NDCA”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The Court held a
`
`hearing on the Motion on July 19, 2022. (Dkt. Nos. 53, 56.) Having considered the Motion, the
`
`relevant briefing, the applicable law, and the arguments presented at the July 19, 2022 hearing, the
`
`Court finds that the Motion should be GRANTED.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`On February 28, 2022, Jawbone Innovations, LLC (“Jawbone”) filed its Amended
`
`Complaint asserting infringement of nine patents directed generally to acoustic noise suppression
`
`and arrangements of microphones directed to the same. (Dkt. No. 24, ¶¶ 17–26 (“Amended
`
`Complaint”).) The asserted patents were developed by a company called AliphCom, Inc.
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00435-JRG Document 60 Filed 09/21/22 Page 2 of 18 PageID #: 5886Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 98-3 Filed 09/21/22 Page 3 of 19
`
`(“AliphCom”) (later Jawbone, Inc.)1, which was headquartered in San Francisco from 1998 until
`
`its bankruptcy in 2017. (Dkt. No. 25 at 1, 3; see also Dkt. No. 24, ¶¶ 27–29.) The asserted patents
`
`are being concurrently asserted against parties in this District and in the Western District of Texas.
`
`(Dkt. No. 25 at 5.) Jawbone accuses of infringement various Amazon products, including Echo
`
`smart speakers, Echo Show smart displays, Fire TV Cube, and Echo buds (collectively, the
`
`“Accused Products”). (Id. at 2; Dkt. No. 24, ¶ 83.)
`
`a. Amazon
`The Accused Products were developed by Lab126 in Sunnyvale, California, which is “part
`
`of an Amazon subsidiary.” (Dkt. No. 25 at 2.) Lab126 employs a team of approximately 115 people
`
`who “design and develop” the Accused Products. (Dkt. No. 56 at 8:10–19.) Amazon therefore
`
`contends that Lab126 is the site of “[e]xtensive evidence relating to the design, development, and
`
`functionality” of the Accused Products. (Dkt. No. 25 at 2.) Amazon also identifies fourteen current
`
`and former employees of Lab126—both by name and by job description—that “worked on the
`
`audio signal processing” for the Accused Products. (Id.) Amazon represents that the four “former
`
`employees” remain in the San Francisco Bay Area in the NDCA. (Id. at 3.) Amazon concedes that
`
`two employees with knowledge of the financial and marketing aspects of the Accused Products
`
`work in Seattle, Washington, but emphasizes that “[n]o relevant Amazon employee works in this
`
`District, nor are any Amazon documents related to the [Accused Products] maintained by Amazon
`
`in this District.” (Id.) Jawbone contends that venue is proper in this District as to Amazon due to
`
`the presence of a Fulfillment Center and “Amazon lockers” in this District. (Dkt. No. 24, ¶¶ 7–16.)
`
`Jawbone argues that Amazon also has a “data center” in Carollton, Texas which “likely” stores
`
`computer servers that provide access to Amazon’s documents. (Dkt. No. 39 at 4.)
`
`
`1 The Court notes that this is a different Jawbone than the Plaintiff, Jawbone Innovations. (See, e.g., Dkt. No. 56 at
`4:19–5:13.)
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00435-JRG Document 60 Filed 09/21/22 Page 3 of 18 PageID #: 5887Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 98-3 Filed 09/21/22 Page 4 of 19
`
`b. Jawbone
`Jawbone is incorporated in Texas and has its place of business at 104 East Houston Street,
`
`Suite 165, in Marshall, Texas. (Dkt. No. 24, ¶ 1; Dkt. No. 25 at 5.) Jawbone was formed on
`
`February 1, 2021 and its managers are located in Maryland and New Jersey. (Dkt. No. 25 at 5;
`
`Dkt. No. 39 at 2.) Jawbone argues that these managers, as well as other executives that live in New
`
`York and New Jersey, are “located much close to this District than to the Northern District of
`
`California.” (Dkt. No. 39 at 2–3.) Jawbone acquired the asserted patents in May of 2021. (Dkt. No.
`
`56 at 5:11–16.) Jawbone contends that it “receives audio products” at its offices in Marshall and
`
`Waco and “distributes those products to customers in the United States.” (Dkt. No. 39 at 1.)
`
`Jawbone states that, in its Marshall office, it stores documents related to the asserted patents,
`
`marketing, contracts, distribution, sales activities, and “inventory of Jawbone’s products.” (Id.)
`
`c. AliphCom
`AliphCom was originally founded in 1998 and “set out to develop a noise reducing headset
`
`that would allow soldiers to communicate better in combat conditions.” (Dkt. No. 24, ¶ 27.)
`
`AliphCom later changed its name to Jawbone, Inc. (Id.) Until its bankruptcy in 2017,
`
`AliphCom/Jawbone, Inc. was based in the NDCA. (Dkt. No. 25 at 3.) The former Chief Executive
`
`Officer (“CEO”) and Chief Technology Officer (“CTO”) of AliphCom are both located in the
`
`NDCA. (Id. at 4–5.)
`
`All six of the named inventors on the asserted patents worked for AliphCom/Jawbone, Inc.
`
`in the NDCA, and at least three of them remain there. (Id. at 3–4.) None of the named inventors
`
`live in Texas. (Id.) The prosecuting attorneys were also based in the NDCA. (Id. at 4.)
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`a. Transfer Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)
`“For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may
`
`3
`
`II.
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00435-JRG Document 60 Filed 09/21/22 Page 4 of 18 PageID #: 5888Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 98-3 Filed 09/21/22 Page 5 of 19
`
`transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it may have been brought.” 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1404(a). The question of whether a suit “might have been brought” in the transferee forum
`
`encompasses subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and propriety of venue. Viking
`
`Technologies, LLC v. Assurant, Inc., 2021 WL 3520756, at *1 (E.D. Tex. June 21, 2021) (quoting
`
`Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 343–44 (1960).) If this threshold burden is satisfied, the party
`
`seeking transfer must then establish that transfer is warranted in the interest of convenience.
`
`In evaluating a motion to transfer pursuant to § 1404(a), the Court considers the Fifth
`
`Circuit’s non-exhaustive list of private and public interest factors. In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d
`
`201, 203 (5th Cir. 2004). 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 trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive.” (Id.) 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 govern the case;” and (4) “the avoidance of unnecessary problems of conflict of laws of the
`
`application of foreign law.” (Id.)
`
`While a plaintiff’s choice of venue is not an express factor in this analysis, the appropriate
`
`deference afforded to the plaintiff’s choice is reflected in a defendant’s elevated burden of proof. In
`
`re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 315 (5th Cir. 2008) (Volkswagen II). To support its
`
`claim for a transfer under § 1404(a), the defendant must demonstrate that the transferee venue is
`
`“clearly more convenient” than the venue chosen by the plaintiff. (Id.) (emphasis added). Absent
`
`such a showing, however, the plaintiff’s choice is to be respected. (Id.)
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00435-JRG Document 60 Filed 09/21/22 Page 5 of 18 PageID #: 5889Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 98-3 Filed 09/21/22 Page 6 of 19
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`a. This Case Could Have Been Brought in California
`The first issue to consider is whether this case could have been brought in the transferee
`
`forum. Lab126, “which is part of Amazon and designed” the Accused Products, is in the NDCA.
`
`(Dkt. No. 25 at 6.) Further, Amazon has “many offices” in the NDCA. (Id.) Jawbone does not
`
`dispute that the case could have been brought in the NDCA. (See generally Dkt. Nos. 39, 49.) As
`
`such, the NDCA is a proper transferee district. Having found that the threshold requirement for
`
`transfer under § 1404(a) has been met, the Court now turns to the public and private factors to
`
`determine if Amazon has established that the NDCA is the clearly more convenient forum.
`
`b. Private Interest Factors
`1. Relative Ease of Access to Sources of Proof
`In considering the relative ease of access to sources of proof, a court looks to determine
`
`where evidence, such as documents and physical evidence, is stored. Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at
`
`316. For this factor to weigh in favor of transfer, Amazon must show that transfer to the NDCA
`
`will result in more convenient access to such sources of proof. See Diem LLC v. BigCommerce,
`
`Inc., 2017 WL 6729907, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 28, 2017).
`
`Amazon contends that the evidence related to this case is concentrated at the Lab126
`
`location in Sunnyvale, California. (Dkt. No. 25 at 7.) Such “evidence” includes the source code
`
`and technical documentation for all the Accused Products. (Id.) Amazon concedes that any relevant
`
`documents that are not located in the NDCA are located in Seattle but argues that because the
`
`Lab126 facility shares the same computer infrastructure as Amazon’s Seattle offices, remote
`
`access to those documents is easier from Lab126 than from Texas. (Id.)
`
`Amazon argues that there is no relevant evidence stored at its Fulfillment Center in this
`
`District. (Id.) Further, Amazon argues that any Amazon employees at facilities in this District have
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00435-JRG Document 60 Filed 09/21/22 Page 6 of 18 PageID #: 5890Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 98-3 Filed 09/21/22 Page 7 of 19
`
`no responsibility for the Accused Products, including the technology, marketing, or finances, and
`
`do not know how to access relevant materials in Sunnyvale or Seattle. (Id.)
`
`In response, Jawbone points to its office in Marshall, Texas as the location of Jawbone’s
`
`own “sources of proof,” including “documents related to the Asserted Patents, marketing,
`
`contracts, distribution, and sales activities.” (Dkt. No. 39 at 6.) The Marshall office also “houses
`
`Jawbone’s products for distribution.” (Id.)2
`
`Jawbone does not identify any other sources of proof located in this District. (See generally
`
`Dkt. No. 39 at 6–8.) Instead, Jawbone posits that Lab126’s technical documents and source code,
`
`although they might be “maintain[ed]” in Sunnyvale, are likely not “physically” stored in
`
`Sunnyvale. (Id. at 6.) In other words, Jawbone contends that even if the Lab126 documents “were
`
`physically located where they are ‘maintained,’ Amazon does not specify whether they are equally
`
`accessible from its Texas facilities.” (Id. at 7.)
`
`Amazon responds to Jawbone’s arguments about “maintenance” of Amazon documents by
`
`pointing to the declaration of Amazon’s Director of Audio Technology, Mr. Hilmes, who testified
`
`under oath that the technical documents for the Accused Products are maintained in Sunnyvale,
`
`that the “employees ‘most knowledgeable about the design, development, and operation of’ those
`
`products work” in the NDCA, and that “hard copy documents, such as lab notebooks, are stored
`
`in” NDCA along with relevant “[l]ocally saved electronic files.” (Dkt. No. 48 at 1.) Mr. Hilmes
`
`also testified that the “relevant documents are not stored on any cloud server in Texas.” (Id.)
`
`As the Federal Circuit has noted, “the bulk of the relevant evidence usually comes from
`
`the accused infringer.” In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Here, the
`
`
`2 Amazon replies that Jawbone “never identifies the products or alleges they embody the patent claims[]” and notes
`that “[n]othing suggests that these products have any relevance.” (Dkt. No. 48 at 1.) The Court notes that it is the
`Amazon products, and not those distributed by Jawbone, that are at issue in this case.
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00435-JRG Document 60 Filed 09/21/22 Page 7 of 18 PageID #: 5891Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 98-3 Filed 09/21/22 Page 8 of 19
`
`accused infringer, Amazon, maintains the evidence related to the Accused Products at its
`
`subsidiary’s location in California. Jawbone does not dispute that the “bulk of the relevant
`
`evidence” will come from Amazon, but only disputes where such evidence is stored. (See generally
`
`Dkt. Nos. 39, 49.) However, aside from attorney argument casting doubt on the veracity of
`
`Amazon’s declarations, Jawbone submits no evidence showing that the sources of proof related to
`
`the Accused Products in this case are located anywhere in Texas.
`
`Moreover, Jawbone’s focus on evidence relating to its own products is unpersuasive.
`
`Jawbone does not contend that it manufactures or distributes any products that embody the asserted
`
`patents. Jawbone admits that only one employee, the Vice President of Distribution, ever
`
`distributes product from Jawbone’s Marshall office. (See Dkt. No. 56 at 34:1–20.)3 Jawbone’s
`
`briefing also seems to acknowledge that most, if not all, of the evidence relating to the prosecution
`
`and acquisition of the asserted patents will come from the inventors and other former employees
`
`of AliphCom. (See, e.g., Dkt. No. 39 at 3.) Jawbone does not dispute that none of the inventors or
`
`AliphCom employees are in Texas and concedes that several of them are physically located in
`
`California. (Id.) Accordingly, this factor weighs in favor of transfer.
`
`2. Availability of Compulsory Process
`This factor instructs the Court to consider the availability of compulsory process to secure
`
`the attendance of witnesses, particularly non-party witnesses whose attendance may need to be
`
`secured by a court order. Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 316. A district court’s subpoena power is
`
`governed by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45. For purposes of § 1404(a), there are three
`
`important parts to Rule 45. See VirtualAgility, Inc. v. Salesforce.com, Inc., 2014 WL 459719, at
`
`*4 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 31, 2014) (explaining 2013 amendments to Rule 45). First, a district court has
`
`
`3 Jawbone stated that this employee occupies the Marshall office for approximately two days per month and travels
`from New York to do so. (Id.)
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00435-JRG Document 60 Filed 09/21/22 Page 8 of 18 PageID #: 5892Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 98-3 Filed 09/21/22 Page 9 of 19
`
`subpoena power over witnesses that live or work within 100 miles of the courthouse. Fed. R. Civ.
`
`P. 45(c)(1)(A). Second, a district court has subpoena power over residents of the state in which the
`
`district court sits—a party or a party’s officer that lives or works in the state can be compelled to
`
`attend trial, and non-party residents can be similarly compelled as long as their attendance would
`
`not result in “substantial expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1)(B)(i)–(ii). Third, a district court has
`
`nationwide subpoena power to compel attendance of a nonparty witness at a deposition within 100
`
`miles of where the witness lives or works. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(a)(2), 45(c)(1).
`
`In its Motion, Amazon names four categories of third-party witnesses that have relevant
`
`and material information to the claims and defenses in this case. (See generally Dkt. No. 25 at
`
`8–11; see also id. at 2–5.) First, Amazon names the six inventors of the asserted patents, four of
`
`whom live in the NDCA and two of whom live outside of California, but not in Texas. (Id. at 3–4,
`
`9.)4 According to Amazon, the named inventors will be particularly relevant to this case because
`
`Jawbone “claims an invention date that precedes the earliest filing date in the patent’s priority
`
`chain,” and thus evidence regarding the inventors’ activities preceding the filing of the patent
`
`applications will be highly relevant. (Id. at 9.)
`
`Second, Amazon names the prosecuting attorneys for the asserted patents. (Dkt. No. 25 at
`
`9; see also id. at 4.)5 Amazon contends that at least five of the prosecuting attorneys, spread among
`
`two different law firms, are based in the NDCA including Mr. Scott Kokka, who will give
`
`important testimony related to his “handling [of] the prosecution of two asserted patents when they
`
`were abandoned.” (Id. at 9.) According to Amazon, Mr. Kokka’s testimony will be particularly
`
`relevant to Amazon’s inequitable conduct defense. (Id.) Jawbone concedes that Mr. Kokka “could
`
`
`4 The named inventors include Nicholas Petit, Zhinian Jing, Andrew Einaudi, Eric Breitfeller, Gregory Burnett, and
`Alexander Asseily. (Dkt. No. 25 at 3–4.)
`5 The prosecuting attorneys include Richard Gregory, Barbara Courtney, Scott Kokka, Trueman Denny III, and
`Howard Yuan. (Dkt. No. 25 at 4.)
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00435-JRG Document 60 Filed 09/21/22 Page 9 of 18 PageID #: 5893Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 98-3 Filed 09/21/22 Page 10 of 19
`
`have knowledge that’s relevant to trial and…testify at trial.” (Dkt. No. 56 at 37:8–12.)
`
`Third, Amazon identifies Hosain Rahman and Michael Luna, the former CEO and CTO of
`
`AliphCom, respectively. (Dkt. No. 25 at 4; see also id. at 9–10.) Amazon contends that Mr.
`
`Rahman will have knowledge regarding the valuation of the asserted patents, which is relevant to
`
`the determination of a reasonable royalty. (Id. at 9.) Amazon argues that because the Accused
`
`Products began selling in 2014, when Mr. Rahman was still the CTO of AliphCom and when
`
`AliphCom still owned the asserted patents, Mr. Rahman would have informative testimony related
`
`to the hypothetical negotiation based on his personal involvement in several transactions involving
`
`the asserted patents. (Id. at 9–10.) As to Mr. Luna, Amazon argues that he submitted declarations
`
`to the USPTO during prosecution of two asserted patents that form part of Amazon’s inequitable
`
`conduct defense. (Id. at 10.) Amazon also contends that, as the person responsible for AliphCom’s
`
`patent portfolio and technical implementation of AliphCom’s products, “Mr. Luna would have
`
`knowledge of potential benefits provided by the patented technology, alternatives to this
`
`technology, and the state of the art at the time of the patents.” (Id.) Both Mr. Rahman and Mr.
`
`Luna reside in the NDCA. (Id.)
`
`Fourth, Amazon identifies former employees of Lab126 with knowledge of the
`
`functionality of the Accused Products. (Dkt. No. 25 at 10.)6 These employees developed the audio
`
`signal processing in the Accused Products, including the source code for the accused voice activity
`
`detection algorithm on the Echo Buds and Echo smart speakers. (Id.) Two of the former employees
`
`are “named inventors on an Amazon patent” that describes such algorithms. (Id.) All three of these
`
`employees, although no longer employed by Amazon, are still located in the NDCA. (Id.)
`
`In response, Jawbone does not name any third-party witness, other than those already
`
`
`6 The former Lab126 employees include Ziaozue (Cheryl) Li, Dan Harris, and Kuan-Chieh Yen. (Dkt. No. 25 at 2–3.)
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00435-JRG Document 60 Filed 09/21/22 Page 10 of 18 PageID #: 5894Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 98-3 Filed 09/21/22 Page 11 of 19
`
`named by Amazon, that it contends might be relevant at trial. (See generally Dkt. No. 39.) Instead,
`
`Jawbone argues that “key components of the Accused Products are supplied by Texas entities,”
`
`including NXP, STMicroelectronics, and Texas Instruments, which allegedly supply processors
`
`for the Accused Products. (Id. at 13; see also Dkt. No. 56 at 35:9–17.) However, rather than
`
`identify any specific witnesses from these companies, Jawbone states that it is “likely that they
`
`key audio processing functionality of the Asserted Claims is performed by or within those
`
`components” such that testimony from the manufacturers “will likely be required at trial.” (Dkt.
`
`No. 39 at 13.)
`
`Jawbone also takes issue with Amazon’s identified categories of third-party witnesses as
`
`“not show[ing] that any will be necessary for trial.” (Dkt. No. 39 at 10.) As to Amazon’s first
`
`category—the named inventors—Jawbone focuses on Mr. Burnett, who lives in Omaha, Nebraska,
`
`and notes that Mr. Burnett would “prefer” to testify in Marshall because he flies his own airplane
`
`and “he can fly himself from his home in Omaha to Harrison County Airport in Marshall.” (Id. at
`
`3, 10.) Jawbone also identifies Mr. Asseily and Mr. Petit, who are both named inventors currently
`
`located in Europe and beyond the subpoena power of either this Court or the NDCA. (Id. at 10–
`
`11.) The remaining named inventors, according to Jawbone, are only listed on four patents, and
`
`“Amazon does not identify any information that these inventors have that their co-inventor, Dr.
`
`Burnett, does not have.” (Id. at 11.) Amazon responds that “[e]very properly named inventor will
`
`have unique testimony relevant to his own contributions to the claimed inventions,” and notes that
`
`Jawbone does not dispute that half of the named inventors reside in NDCA. (Dkt. No. 48 at 1–2.)
`
`As to Amazon’s second category of third-party witnesses, the prosecuting attorneys,
`
`Jawbone notes that Mr. Gregory, who signed the initial applications for many of the asserted
`
`patents, has a California Bar registration which lists Houston as his residence. (Dkt. No. 39 at 11.)
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00435-JRG Document 60 Filed 09/21/22 Page 11 of 18 PageID #: 5895Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 98-3 Filed 09/21/22 Page 12 of 19
`
`As a result of his signature on the original patent applications, Jawbone contends that it is Mr.
`
`Gregory who is “likely to have relevant information regarding the conception and diligent
`
`reduction to practice of those patents.” (Id.) Amazon also identifies Mr. Kokka, based in the
`
`NDCA, as a prosecuting attorney with relevant information to Amazon’s inequitable conduct
`
`defense. (Dkt. No. 25 at 9.) In response, Jawbone attacks the merits of the inequitable conduct
`
`defense as “unfounded” and contends that relevant evidence, if any exists, would come from
`
`AliphCom’s former CTO, Mr. Luna, or a different attorney. (Dkt. No. 39 at 11.) At the hearing,
`
`Jawbone admitted that Mr. Kokka “could” have knowledge relevant to the inequitable conduct
`
`defense. (Dkt. No. 56 at 37:8–12.)
`
`
`
`Jawbone argues that Mr. Luna, the former CTO of AliphCom, is a willing witness and thus
`
`need not be addressed under this factor. (Dkt. No. 39 at 12.) As to AliphCom’s former CEO, Mr.
`
`Rahman, Jawbone merely argues that Amazon “fail[ed] to identify any specific information that
`
`Mr. Rahman possesses that is not also known by Mr. Luna.” (Id.) Jawbone makes a similar
`
`argument against Amazon’s identification of former Lab126 employees—namely, that “Amazon
`
`does not specify that these former employees have any specialized knowledge that its current
`
`employees lack,” speculating that “it is likely that the former employees’ knowledge is merely
`
`cumulative of Amazon’s internal witnesses.” (Id.)
`
`It is noteworthy that, in contrast to the fourteen third-party witnesses identified by Amazon,
`
`Jawbone has not identified any third-party witnesses that it will compel to attend trial other than
`
`unnamed witnesses from companies that “likely” produce the components on which the accused
`
`functionalities operate. (Dkt. No. 39 at 13.) Moreover, aside from the speculative component
`
`manufacturer witnesses, Jawbone has identified only one witness—Mr. Gregory, a prosecuting
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00435-JRG Document 60 Filed 09/21/22 Page 12 of 18 PageID #: 5896Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 98-3 Filed 09/21/22 Page 13 of 19
`
`attorney—for whom the EDTX’s subpoena power might be useful.7 In contrast, Amazon has
`
`identified at least four categories of third-party witnesses that it will seek testimony from, all of
`
`whom work or reside in NDCA. Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of transfer.
`
`3. Cost of Attendance for Willing Witnesses
`The third private interest factor focuses on the cost of attendance for willing witnesses.
`
`When considering this factor, the court should consider all potential material and relevant
`
`witnesses. See Alacritech Inc. v. CenturyLink, Inc., 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 of inconvenience to witnesses increases in direct
`
`relationship to the additional distance to be travelled.” Id. at 1343 (citing Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d
`
`at 317). However, as courts applying Fifth Circuit precedent have noted, the convenience of party
`
`witnesses is given little weight. See ADS Sec. L.P. v. Advanced Detection Sec. Servs., Inc., 2010
`
`WL 1170976, at *4 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 23, 2010), report and recommendation adopted in
`
`A-09-CA-773-LY (Dkt. No. 20) (Apr. 14, 2010) (“[I]t is unclear whether Defendant is contending
`
`that the transfer would be more convenient for non-party witnesses or merely for their own
`
`employee witnesses. If the Defendant is referring to employee witnesses, then their convenience
`
`would be entitled to little weight.”); see also Frederick v. Advanced Fin. Sols., Inc., 558 F. Supp.
`
`699, 704 (E.D. Tex. 2007) (“The availability and convenience of party-witnesses is generally
`
`insignificant because a transfer based on this factor would only shift the inconvenience from
`
`movant to nonmovant.”).
`
`Amazon argues that this factor favors transfer because the ten technical witnesses it
`
`
`7 Amazon points out that although Mr. Gregory resides in Houston, he “undisputedly has an office in NDCA” so he
`“‘transacts business’ there and is subject to subpoena in NDCA.” (Dkt. No. 48 at 2.) However, Jawbone argued at the
`hearing that Mr. Gregory’s California office recently closed and that he now works in Texas. (Dkt. No. 56 at 37:4–7.)
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00435-JRG Document 60 Filed 09/21/22 Page 13 of 18 PageID #: 5897Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 98-3 Filed 09/21/22 Page 14 of 19
`
`identified as relevant to this case are employed by Amazon and work in the NDCA. (Dkt. No. 25
`
`at 11.) Amazon also argues that the witnesses with relevant financial and marketing knowledge,
`
`who are also employed by Amazon, would have more convenient travel from Seattle to the NDCA
`
`than to the EDTX. (Id.) Amazon notes that Jawbone “has not identified any party witnesses in this
`
`District, or anywhere else, who have relevant or material testimony to offer.” (Id.)
`
`In opposing transfer, Jawbone argues that Amazon has not identified all relevant witnesses.
`
`(Dkt. No. 39 at 8.) To rebut Amazon’s declarations naming relevant witnesses located in the
`
`NDCA, Jawbone located, via LinkedIn, the profiles of “several Amazon employees who appear
`
`to have relevant information who reside in this District.” (Id.) (emphasis added). Jawbone also
`
`identifies, again via LinkedIn searches, various Amazon employees located in Texas who work on
`
`the Amazon Echo. (Id. at 9.) Amazon contends that these Amazon employees located in Texas
`
`“have no relevance to this case because none of them work[] on the accused microphone signal
`
`processing technology” and none of them have “access to the relevant source code.” (Dkt. No. 48
`
`at 3–4.) Jawbone responds that by characterizing the patented technology as relating only to
`
`“microphone signal processing,” Amazon unduly narrows the scope of the asserted patents. (Dkt.
`
`No. 56 at 29:41–24.)
`
`Jawbone also claims that Amazon has relevant witnesses in Seattle, outside of the NDCA’s
`
`subpoena power, which Amazon did not identify in its Motion. (Dkt. No. 39 at 9.) Specifically,
`
`Jawbone names “the inventors of Amazon’s U.S. Patent No. 9,111,542 (the “’542 patent”), which
`
`cites to the same patent family as [one of the asserted patents]”—namely, Gregory Hart and Jeffrey
`
`Bezos. (Id.) According to Jawbone, “the ’542 patent’s citation to the Patents-in-Suit strongly
`
`suggests that it covers audio processing similar to the Asserted Patents and the inventors’ location
`
`in Seattle suggests that Amazon conducts related activities there.” (Id. at 9–10.)
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00435-JRG Document 60 Filed 09/21/22 Page 14 of 18 PageID #: 5898Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 98-3 Filed 09/21/22 Page 15 of 19
`
`Finally, Jawbone emphasizes that two third-party witnesses are “willing to travel to this
`
`District.” (Dkt. No. 39 at 10.) Specifically, Dr. Burnett, a named inventor, would “prefer to travel
`
`to this District” due to the ease of flying his own plane from Omaha, Nebraska to Marshall Texas.
`
`(Id. at 3, 10.) Additionally, Mr. Luna, the former CTO of AliphCom, would be “willing to travel
`
`to this District” from his home, which is admittedly in the NDCA. (Id. at 10; see also Dkt. No. 25
`
`at 10.)
`
`The Court is not persuaded by Jawbone’s suggestion that, despite the various declarations
`
`submitted by Amazon with its Motion, Amazon has failed to identify all the relevant witnesses.
`
`Amazon has identified, by name and job role, ten technical witnesses that are employed by
`
`Amazon, possess knowledge relevant to the claims and defenses in this case, and work in the
`
`NDCA. (Dkt. No. 25 at 11.) In contrast, Jawbone searched LinkedIn for Amazon employees in
`
`this District and made its own judgment that such employees are relevant to this case. Jawbone
`
`even alleges that Mr. Luna, the former CTO of AliphCom, who admittedly lives in the NDCA,
`
`would find, on balance, that “Marshall [is] more convenient than NDCA.” (See generally Dkt. No.
`
`39 at 3, 10.) As a result, the only “willing” witness that Jawbone identifies is Dr. Burnett, a named
`
`inventor who lives in Nebraska. (Dkt. No. 39 at 10.) However, “a Nebraska-based witness’s desire
`
`to fly in his private plane non-stop is no reason to force the overwhelming majority of witnesses
`
`in NDCA to undertake burdensome travel to this District.” (Dkt. No. 48 at 4.) All these
`
`considerations taken together lead the Court to find that this factor weighs in favor of transfer.
`
`4. All Other Practical Problems
`The fourth private interest factor addresses concerns rationally based on judicial economy.
`
`Quest NetTech Corp. v. Apple, Inc., 2019 WL 6344267, at *6 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 27, 2019); see also
`
`In re Vistaprint Ltd., 628 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
`
`Amazon argues that this factor favors transfer because Jawbone “sued Amazon and
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00435-JRG Document 60 Filed 09/21/22 Page 15 of 18 PageID #: 5899Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 98-3 Filed 09/21/22 Page 16 of 19
`
`Samsung in this District while suing Apple and Google over the same asserted patents in the
`
`Western District of Texas,” further arguing that “Samsung, Google, and Apple have all expressed
`
`their intent to file motions to transfer to the [NDCA] based on that district’s obvious convenience
`
`advantages.” (Dkt. No. 25 at 12.) In response, Jawbone contends that Amazon “lacks any basis to
`
`speculate that all four cases will be successfully transferred” to the NDCA. (Dkt. No. 39 at 13.)
`
`The Court agrees with Jawbone and finds that Amazon’s “judicial economy” argument is
`
`speculative. Accordingly, this factor weighs slightly against transfer and is, at most, neutral.
`
`c. Public Interest Factors
`1. Administrative Difficulties Flowing from Court Congestion
`The parties agree that this factor weighs, at least slightly, against transfer. (Dkt. No. 25 at
`
`15; Dkt. No. 39 at 14.) The Court agrees that this factor weighs slightly against transfer.
`
`2. Local Interest in Having Localized Interest Decided at Home
`The Fifth Ci