Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 45 Filed 07/14/22 Page 1 of 17
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`AIRE TECHNOLOGY LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-01101-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`PLAINTIFF AIRE TECHNOLOGY LTD.’S RESPONSE TO
`DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S SEALED OPPOSED MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
`UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 45 Filed 07/14/22 Page 2 of 17
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`LEGAL STANDARDS ...................................................................................................... 1
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 3
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`A.
`B.
`
`This Case Could Have Been Filed in NDCA. ......................................................... 3
`The Private Interest Factors Do Not Favor Transfer. ............................................. 3
`1. The cost of attendance for willing witnesses weighs against transfer. ........... 3
`2. The relative ease of access to sources of proof weighs against
`transfer. ............................................................................................................ 6
`3. The availability of compulsory process to secure the attendance of
`witnesses does not weigh in favor of transfer. ................................................ 8
`i. Apple can identify only three third-party witnesses ..................................... 8
`ii. Aire has identified five third-party witnesses ............................................... 9
`4. All other practical problems that make trial of a case easy,
`expeditious, and inexpensive weigh against transfer. ................................... 10
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 11
`
`IV.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 45 Filed 07/14/22 Page 3 of 17
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Action Indus., Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co.,
` 358 F.3d 337 (5th Cir. 2004) ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Huawei Device USA Inc.,
`No. 2:17-CV-00513-JRG, 2018 WL 2329752 (E.D. Tex. May 23, 2018) ................................. 9
`
`Aircraft Co. v. Reyno,
` 454 U.S. 235 (1981) ................................................................................................................... 2
`
`EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC,
`No. 6-20-CV-00075-ADA, 2021 WL 1535413 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 16, 2021) .............................. 8
`
`Hammers v. Mayea-Chang,
`No. 2:19-CV-00181-JRG, 2019 WL 6728446(E.D. Tex. Dec. 11, 2019) .......................... 2, 6, 7
`
`In re Apple Inc.,
`979 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2020)................................................................................................... 7
`
`In re TS Tech USA Corp.,
` 551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2008).................................................................................................. 1
`
`In re Volkswagen AG,
`371 F.3d 201 (5th Cir. 2004) ...................................................................................................... 2
`
`In re Volkswagen, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) ...................................................................................................... 1
`
`Quest NetTech Corp. v. Apple, Inc.,
` No. 2:19-cv-118, 2019 WL 6344267 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 27, 2019) .............................................. 2
`
`Scramoge Tech. Ltd. v. Apple Inc.,
` No. 6:21-CV-00579-ADA, 2022 WL 1667561 (W.D. Tex. May 25, 2022) ............................. 6
`
`Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp.,
` 487 U.S. 22 (1988) ..................................................................................................................... 1
`
`Turner v. Cincinnati Ins. Co.,
` No. 6:19-CV-642-ADA-JCM, 2020 WL 210809 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 14, 2020) ........................... 9
`
`Van Dusen v. Barrack,
`376 U.S. 612 (1964) .................................................................................................................... 1
`
`Statutes
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 45 Filed 07/14/22 Page 4 of 17
`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 45 Filed 07/14/22 Page 4 of 17
`
`
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) ........................................................................................................................ 1
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) vocceccccccsssssecessccssssssscssccessssssessecessssesecseceesssnseseecessssusecseceessanseseceussssnsesseeersnanseets 1
`
`
`
`iii
`i
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 45 Filed 07/14/22 Page 5 of 17
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiff Aire Technology Ltd. (“Aire”) files this response to Defendant Apple Inc.’s
`
`(“Apple”) motion to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to the Northern District of California
`
`(“NDCA”) (Dkt. No. 24, “Mot.”). Apple’s motion opens with the assertion that “[t]his suit has no
`
`relevant connection to the Western District of Texas” (“WDTX”). Mot. at 1. That is not true, as
`
`Aire was able to identify dozens of Apple employees with potentially relevant knowledge at
`
`Apple’s Austin location. When properly analyzing the convenience factors, Apple cannot show
`
`that NDCA is more convenient, much less clearly more convenient as required to transfer this case.
`
`The motion should be denied.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`
`In patent cases, motions to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) are governed by the law of
`
`the regional circuit. See In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008). 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1404(a) provides that, “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of
`
`justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might
`
`have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented.” “Section
`
`1404(a) is intended to place discretion in the district court to adjudicate motions for transfer
`
`according to an ‘individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.’” Stewart
`
`Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988) (quoting Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612,
`
`622 (1964)).
`
`The preliminary question under Section 1404(a) is whether a civil action might have been
`
`brought in the transfer destination venue. See In re Volkswagen, Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 312 (5th Cir.
`
`2008) (en banc) (“Volkswagen II”). If the destination venue would have been a proper venue, then
`
`“[t]he determination of ‘convenience’ turns on a number of public and private interest factors,
`
`none of which can be said to be of dispositive weight.” Action Indus., Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar.
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 45 Filed 07/14/22 Page 6 of 17
`
`
`
`Co., 358 F.3d 337, 340 (5th Cir. 2004). The private factors include: “(1) the relative ease of access
`
`to sources of proof; (2) the availability of compulsory process to secure the attendance of
`
`witnesses; (3) the cost of attendance for willing witnesses; and (4) all other practical problems that
`
`make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive.” In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201, 203
`
`(5th Cir. 2004) (“Volkswagen I”) (citing Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 241 n.6
`
`(1981)). The public factors include: “(1) the administrative difficulties flowing from court
`
`congestion; (2) the local interest in having localized interests decided at home; (3) the familiarity
`
`of the forum with the law that will govern the case; and (4) the avoidance of unnecessary problems
`
`of conflict of laws of the application of foreign law.” Volkswagen I, 371 F.3d at 203.
`
`The burden to prove that a case should be transferred for convenience falls on the moving
`
`party. See Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 314. The burden that a movant must carry is not that the
`
`alternative venue is more convenient, but that it is clearly more convenient. Id. at 315. Although
`
`the plaintiff’s choice of forum is not a separate factor entitled to special weight, respect for the
`
`plaintiff’s choice of forum is encompassed in the movant’s elevated burden to “clearly
`
`demonstrate” that the proposed transferee forum is “clearly more convenient” than the forum in
`
`which the case was filed. Id. at 314-315. While “clearly more convenient” is not necessarily
`
`equivalent to “clear and convincing,” the moving party “must show materially more than a mere
`
`preponderance of convenience, lest the standard have no real or practical meaning.” Quest
`
`NetTech Corp. v. Apple, Inc., No. 2:19-cv-118, 2019 WL 6344267, at *7 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 27,
`
`2019). “When deciding a motion to transfer under § 1404(a), the court may consider undisputed
`
`facts outside of the pleadings, such as affidavits or declarations, but must draw all reasonable
`
`inferences and resolve factual conflicts in favor of the non-moving party.” Hammers v. Mayea-
`
`Chang, No. 2:19-CV-00181-JRG, 2019 WL 6728446, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 11, 2019).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 45 Filed 07/14/22 Page 7 of 17
`
`
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`A.
`
`This Case Could Have Been Filed in NDCA.
`
`Aire does not dispute that Apple is headquartered in NDCA, so venue is proper there.
`
`B.
`
`The Private Interest Factors Do Not Favor Transfer.
`1.
`
`
`The cost of attendance for willing witnesses weighs against
`transfer.
`
`Contrary to Apple’s motion, the center of gravity of Apple employees with relevant
`
`knowledge is in WDTX, not NDCA. As Apple acknowledges, Apple Pay features on the iPhone
`
`and Apple Watch are accused of infringement. Mot. at 2. Yet, Apple’s motion conspicuously
`
`omits the scores of Apple Pay employees located in Austin who appear to possess information
`
`relevant to this case:
`
`• Divya Patnaik is a Manager for Apple Pay Partner Enablement and may be
`
`knowledgeable about the benefits of the accused technology’s enablement for the
`
`accused products “to store at least two applications.” Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 15 (quoting
`
`Apple website stating: “The Wallet app lives right on your iPhone. It’s where you
`
`securely keep your credit and debit cards, transit cards, boarding passes, tickets, car
`
`keys, and more”); see Hollander Decl. Ex. 1 (explaining as part of Apple Pay
`
`description: “Supported programs include credit and debit cards, transit, identity,
`
`student ID, car key and many more”).
`
`• Jola Fatokun an Analyst for Strategy & Planning for Apple Pay and may be
`
`knowledgeable about damages issues and economics of implementing Apple Pay,
`
`particularly given her “ability to implement data-driven strategies with an
`
`understanding of digital marketing and mobile payment.” Hollander Dec. Ex. 2.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 45 Filed 07/14/22 Page 8 of 17
`
`• Michael Gwinn is a Global Business Operations Manager for Apple Pay and may
`
`be knowledgeable about damages issues, including how Apple and vendors benefit
`
`from Apple Pay’s increased usage via adoption of the accused technology.
`
`Hollander Decl. Ex. 3.
`
`• Robert Aguirre is a Release Quality Engineering Manager for Apple Pay and may
`
`be knowledgeable about testing of the accused technology. Hollander Decl. Ex. 4.
`
`• Miguel Gamez III is an Apple Pay Quality Computer Engineer and may be
`
`knowledgeable about testing of the accused technology, particularly given his work
`
`“to help validate and certify new Apple Pay features.” Hollander Decl. Ex. 5.
`
`• Kim Tryggestad is a Senior Engineering Program Manager for Apple Pay and may
`
`be knowledgeable about “User Acceptance Testing” of the accused technology.
`
`Hollander Decl. Ex. 6.
`
`• Leah Peterson is a Business Operations Manager for Apple Pay and Wallet and may
`
`be knowledgeable about damages issues, including strategic planning with
`
`“working in the financial services industry.” Hollander Decl. Ex. 7.
`
`• Zach Marshall is an Operations Manager for Apple Pay and may be knowledgeable
`
`about testing of the accused technology as an “operations and process improvement
`
`specialist at Apple Pay.” Hollander Decl. Ex. 8.
`
`• Jennifer Cervantes is a Manager of Global Business Operations for Apple Pay and
`
`may be knowledgeable about damages issues, including strategies involving
`
`“enterprise client relations.” Hollander Decl. Ex. 9.
`
`• Alexander Antunovic is a Payments and Servicing Readiness Lead for Apple Pay
`
`and may be knowledgeable about implementation of the accused features pertinent
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 45 Filed 07/14/22 Page 9 of 17
`
`
`
`to the ’706 and ’249 Patents-in-Suit in light of his “[o]ver 15 years of contactless
`
`EMV payment experience that has involved physical card issuance, digital (device
`
`& e-commerce) tokenization, merchant acceptance, implementation, remediation,
`
`business development, commercialization, product roadmap enhancement and
`
`drafting of business rules” and expertise in “[d]igital payments (mobile & E-
`
`commerce,” and “[c]ontactless & NFC payments (Cards, Mobile and Wearables).”
`
`Hollander Decl. Ex. 10.
`
`• John Alexander was a Project Manager for Apply Pay Business Operations and
`
`may be knowledgeable about damages issues and, particularly considering his
`
`experience with “onboarding partners onto Apple Pay,” “Tracking & analyzing
`
`metrics to determine opportunities for growth and quality improvements with our
`
`Apply Pay and Wallet partners,” and “Listening with the Product and Engineering
`
`teams to provide feature enhancements to improve the Apply Pay and Wallet
`
`experience.” Hollander Decl. Ex. 11.
`
`Apple also has scores of Apple Pay engineers located in Austin, demonstrating that a
`
`significant portion of the accused technology’s research, development, operations, testing, and
`
`strategy is located in WDTX. Hollander Decl. Ex. 12 (Stephanie Ponkoney); Hollander Decl. Ex.
`
`13 (Mohamad Noah El-Zein); Hollander Decl. Ex. 14 (Adithya Sreekumar); Hollander Decl. Ex.
`
`15 (Octavian Laies); Hollander Decl. Ex. 16 (Kunal Nikam); Hollander Decl. Ex. 17 (Prachi
`
`Yaduwanshi); Hollander Decl. Ex. 18 (Kenneth Lancaster); Hollander Decl. Ex. 19 (Ariel
`
`Fertman); Hollander Decl. Ex. 20 (Kevin Kissane); Hollander Decl. Ex. 21 (Niranjan Mohan);
`
`Hollander Decl. Ex. 22 (Abdullah Rababah); Hollander Decl. Ex. 23 (Dom Neill); Hollander Decl.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 45 Filed 07/14/22 Page 10 of 17
`
`
`
`Ex. 24 (Dongjun Lim); Hollander Decl. Ex. 25 (Adam Santillana); Hollander Decl. Ex. 26
`
`(Maheshwar Dattatri); Hollander Decl. Ex. 27 (Arvind Subramanian).
`
`This intense showing of relevant Apple Pay and Wallet activity in Apple’s Austin location
`
`conflicts with the sole Apple witness statement Apple has submitted in support of its motion. Dkt.
`
`No. 24-02 (Rollins Decl.) ¶ 8
`
`
`
`. The Rollins Declaration
`
`submitted in support of Apple’s motion here also “contains no description of the methodology he
`
`used to find all Apple engineers who work in WDTX and then to determine their relevance.”
`
`Scramoge Tech. Ltd. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:21-CV-00579-ADA, 2022 WL 1667561, at *3 (W.D.
`
`Tex. May 25, 2022). In such circumstances, as the Court has previously found, it is appropriate to
`
`“resolve[] all conflicting evidence, where provided, against Mr. Rollins.” Id. at *2; see Hammers,
`
`2019 WL 6728446, at *4 (“When deciding a motion to transfer under § 1404(a), the court may
`
`consider undisputed facts outside of the pleadings, such as affidavits or declarations, but must draw
`
`all reasonable inferences and resolve factual conflicts in favor of the non-moving party.”). This
`
`factor thus weighs against transfer.
`
`2.
`
`
`The relative ease of access to sources of proof weighs against
`transfer.
`
`The sizable number of Apple employees in Austin who work on the accused technology or
`
`have potentially relevant information suggests that significant sources of proof also reside in
`
`Austin or can be seamlessly accessed from there. Of course, Mr. Rollins’ statement is just as silent
`
`on WDTX evidence as it is with WDTX witnesses, but a careful reading of his declaration supports
`
`a finding that there are relevant sources of proof in WDTX. See id. at *3 (“the Rollins Declaration
`
`uses language that carefully limits the scope of declared facts to his personal, selectively fed
`
`knowledge”).
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 45 Filed 07/14/22 Page 11 of 17
`
`
`
`¶ 8. What does this mean? The vague use of
`
`suggests that all of this evidence
`
`
`
`
`
` Dkt. No. 24-02 (Rollins Decl.)
`
`elsewhere, including WDTX.
`
`Next, Mr. Rollins states:
`
`meaning that they could all be located
`
`
`
` Id. This statement should be
`
`similarly discounted as Mr. Rollins failed to identify any of the abovementioned relevant Apple
`
`employees who work in Austin. See Scramoge, 2022 WL 1667561, at *3 (“the Rollins Declaration
`
`contains no description of the methodology he used to find all Apple engineers who work in
`
`WDTX and then to determine their relevance”). The dozens of WDTX Apple employees identified
`
`above must either store their relevant documents and files in WDTX or have seamless access to
`
`them from WDTX in order to do their jobs. Mr. Rollins’s declaration does not exclude that
`
`possibility, carefully noting only that
`
`
`
` Dkt. No. 24-02 (Rollins Decl.) ¶ 8. Whatever the case
`
`may be, Apple’s substantial Apple Pay presence in Austin indicates that its relevant engineers,
`
`business strategists, and financial analysts must have ease of access to their own documents there
`
`in order to perform their functions. Again, it is appropriate to “resolve[] all conflicting evidence,
`
`where provided, against Mr. Rollins.” Scramoge, 2022 WL 1667561, at *2; see Hammers, 2019
`
`WL 6728446, at *4. As “the bulk of the relevant evidence usually comes from the accused
`
`infringer,” this factor thus weighs against transfer. In re Apple Inc., 979 F.3d 1332, 1339-40 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2020) (“Apple III”).
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 45 Filed 07/14/22 Page 12 of 17
`
`
`
`Apple fails to note that there is relevant evidence with NXP employees in Austin, where
`
`NXP hosts its U.S. headquarters. Mot. at 5. For example, as identified below, Jose Correa of NXP
`
`works on payments systems and likely has relevant documents in his Austin office regarding NFC
`
`functionality. Hollander Decl. Ex. 28. And the U.S. licensing files of NXP are also likely in
`
`Austin, where its Chief IP Officer Changhae Park is located. Hollander Decl. Ex. 29. Finally,
`
`although Apple asserts that there are “potential sources of proof in the possession of third-parties
`
`eBay, PayPal, Visa” in NDCA, Apple does not specify what these “potential” source of proof
`
`could be or how they would relate to Apple’s non-infringement or invalidity arguments. See
`
`EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 6-20-CV-00075-ADA, 2021 WL 1535413, at *2 (W.D. Tex.
`
`Apr. 16, 2021) (rejecting similar assertion where the defendant “does not point with particularity
`
`to any relevant physical documents, nor does it confirm the existence of any physical documents
`
`located in the NDCA”).
`
`3.
`
`The availability of compulsory process to secure the attendance of
`witnesses does not weigh in favor of transfer.
`i.
`Apple can identify only three third-party witnesses
`
`When properly counted, Apple can identify only three third-party witnesses in NDCA.
`
`First, Apple presents the declaration of
`
`
`
` at NXP in San Jose, submitted in conjunction with Apple’s motion
`
`to transfer. Dkt. No. 24-01 (
`
` Decl.) ¶ 1.
`
`
`
`coordination between
`
` and Apple’s motion, none of the witnesses identified in the
`
`
`
`Declaration should be considered unwilling witnesses to be counted under this factor. See id. ¶ 2
`
` Id. ¶ 6. Given the apparent
`
`interest factor carries far less weight when the movant has not alleged or shown that any witnesses
`
`. “This private
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 45 Filed 07/14/22 Page 13 of 17
`
`
`
`are unwilling to testify.” Turner v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., No. 6:19-CV-642-ADA-JCM, 2020 WL
`
`210809, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 14, 2020). Indeed, “the compulsory process factor weighs against
`
`transfer when neither side claims a witness would be unwilling to testify.” Id. (emphasis added).
`
`Second, Apple identifies a number of third-party witnesses associated with five pieces of
`
`prior art: U.S. Patent No. 7,827,115, U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2006/0229998, U.S. Pat. No. 6,150,948,
`
`PCT Pub. No. 00/52866, and the ViVoTech system. Mot. at 5-6. However, two of these
`
`references—U.S. Pat. Pub. No. 2006/0229998 and PCT Pub. No. 00/52866—do not appear in
`
`Apple’s preliminary invalidity contentions, so they are not relevant. Hollander Decl. Ex. 30. Of
`
`the remaining three pieces of prior art, the Court should credit only one witness each, as Apple has
`
`not shown that it is necessary to present more than one witness per reference, and double-counting
`
`is disfavored. See AGIS Software Dev. LLC v. Huawei Device USA Inc., No. 2:17-CV-00513-
`
`JRG, 2018 WL 2329752, at *3 (E.D. Tex. May 23, 2018) (“These factors do not permit a single
`
`source of proof or witness to be ‘double counted’ or unduly influence the analysis”).
`
`ii.
`
`Aire has identified five third-party witnesses
`
`In contrast to Apple’s NXP submission, there are potentially relevant NXP Austin
`
`employees who appear to be unwilling witnesses. For example, Jose Correa is an NXP “Business
`
`Develop Manager with technical background and significant expertise on the payment technology
`
`industry” and likely possesses relevant knowledges regarding the contactless payment technology
`
`at issue in this case. Hollander Decl. Ex. 28. As another example Changhae Park is an NXP Senior
`
`Vice President and its Chief IP Officer and may have knowledge of NXP’s “intellectual property
`
`monetization business of the new NXP after merger between Freescale and NXP,” including
`
`regarding comparable licenses. Hollander Decl. Ex. 29. Indeed, NXP’s Executive Vice President,
`
`General Counsel & Chief Sustainability Officer, Jennifer Wuamett, is located in Austin and is
`
`“responsible for worldwide legal, governance, compliance and intellectual property matters for
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 45 Filed 07/14/22 Page 14 of 17
`
`
`
`NXP” and also likely has knowledge relevant to damages and comparable licenses. Hollander
`
`Decl. Ex. 31. According to NXP’s declaration,
`
`
`
`and keeping this case here would subject them to the Court’s subpoena power.
`
`Dkt. No. 24-01 (
`
` Decl.) ¶ 11
`
`
`
`Additionally, Apple has asserted that the ’249 Patent-in-Suit is invalid based on U.S. Pat.
`
`App. Pub. No. 2002/0095389, which lists Robert Vallee Gaines as the inventor. Hollander Decl.
`
`Ex. 32. Mr. Gaines currently resides in Midland, Texas, which is within the subpoena power of
`
`the Court. Hollander Decl. Ex. 33. Additionally, Apple has asserted that the ’249 Patent-in-Suit
`
`is invalid based on U.S. Patent No. 6,091,835, which lists Benjamin Wright as an inventor.
`
`Hollander Decl. Ex. 34. Mr. Wright resides in Dallas, Texas, which is within the subpoena power
`
`of the Court. Hollander Decl. Ex. 35. These five WDTX witnesses balance out Apple’s NDCA
`
`witnesses, meaning that this factor does not weigh in favor of transfer (and, actually, weighs
`
`against transfer).
`
`4.
`
`All other practical problems that make trial of a case easy,
`expeditious, and inexpensive weigh against transfer.
`
`This factor is neutral.
`
`C.
`
`The Public Interest Factors Do Not Favor Transfer.
`
`1.
`
`Administrative difficulties flowing from Court congestion weigh
`against transfer.
`This Court “has consistently reached trials faster than the NDCA by reaching trial in about
`
`two years from case filings” and that “the average time to trial in patent cases in the NDCA is now
`
`45.2 months.” Scramoge, 2022 WL 1667561, at *10. This factor weighs against transfer.
`
`2.
`
`The local interest in having localized interests decided at home weighs
`against transfer.
`
`As Apple insists, “‘general contacts with the forum that are untethered to the lawsuit, such
`
`as [a] general presence in the [district] and the state and local tax benefits it purportedly received
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 45 Filed 07/14/22 Page 15 of 17
`
`
`
`from the district’ do not support a local interest.” Mot. at 14 (citation omitted). Thus, the Court
`
`should not consider Apple’s headquarters in NDCA separate from evidence showing where the
`
`identified Apple Pay and Wallet employees work. As detailed above, the majority of these
`
`identified persons is in WDTX, not NDCA. Thus, this factor weighs against transfer. See Apple
`
`III, 979 F.3d at 1345 (weighing factor towards district where “the lawsuit calls into question the
`
`work and reputation of several individuals residing” in that district).
`
`3.
`
`Familiarity of the forum with the law that will govern the case is
`neutral.
`
`This factor is neutral.
`
`4.
`
`Avoidance of unnecessary problems of conflicts of laws or in the
`application of foreign law is neutral.
`
`
`This factor is neutral.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`A majority of the witnesses identified as having potentially relevant information are located
`
`in WDTX. It follows that the other factors, including sources of proof and localized interest, also
`
`similarly show a focus on WDTX. Given that this Court also has a faster time to trial, it cannot be
`
`said that NDCA is more convenient than WDTX, much less clearly more convenient—Apple’s
`
`motion should thus be denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 45 Filed 07/14/22 Page 16 of 17
`
`
`
`Dated: July 7, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/Brett Cooper
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Brett E. Cooper (NY SBN SBN 4011011)
`bcooper@raklaw.com
`Reza Mirzaie (CA SBN 246953)
`rmirzaie@raklaw.com
`Marc A. Fenster (CA SBN 181067)
`mfenster@raklaw.com
`Seth Hasenour (TX SBN 24059910)
`shasenour@raklaw.com
`Drew B. Hollander (NY SBN 5378096)
`dhollander@raklaw.com
`
`RUSS AUGUST & KABAT
`12424 Wilshire Blvd. 12th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90025
`Phone: (310) 826-7474
`Facsimile: (310) 826-6991
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Aire Technology
`Limited
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 45 Filed 07/14/22 Page 17 of 17
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that the counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic
`
`service are being served on July 7, 2022 with a copy of this document via the Court’s ECF system.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/Brett Cooper
`Brett Cooper
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`