Case 6:22-cv-00350-ADA Document 33 Filed 09/02/22 Page 1 of 24
`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`ECOFACTOR, INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:22-cv-00350-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GOOGLE LLC’S RULE 12(B)(3) MOTION TO DISMISS
`PURSUANT TO THE FIRST-TO-FILE RULE
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:22-cv-00350-ADA Document 33 Filed 09/02/22 Page 2 of 24
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 1
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`The California Action is First-Filed .........................................................................2
`
`EcoFactor Fully Litigated its Claims and Lost in the ITC .......................................2
`
`EcoFactor Nonetheless Filed this Duplicative Action Thirteen Months
`Later .........................................................................................................................3
`
`D.
`
`The Complaint is Consistent with EcoFactor’s Pattern of Forum Shopping ...........4
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ........................................................................................................ 5
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 7
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`The First-to-File Rule Requires This Case To Be Dismissed ..................................7
`
`No Compelling Circumstances Justify Departing From The First-to-File
`Rule ..........................................................................................................................8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`The California Action is Not Anticipatory ..................................................9
`
`The California Action is Not Forum Shopping..........................................11
`
`This Matter Belongs in the Northern District ............................................12
`
`C.
`
`The Court Should Stay Any Standing Order Deadlines While It Considers
`This Motion ............................................................................................................18
`
`
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 18
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00350-ADA Document 33 Filed 09/02/22 Page 3 of 24
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`10Tales, Inc. v. TikTok Inc.,
`No. 6:20-CV-00810-ADA, 2021 WL 2043978 .......................................................................13
`
`In re Apple Inc.,
`979 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2020)..........................................................................................14, 17
`
`Cadle Co. v. Whataburger of Alice, Inc.,
`174 F.3d 599 (5th Cir. 1999) ...............................................................................................6, 15
`
`Commc’ns Test Design, Inc. v. Contec, LLC,
`952 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2020)..................................................................................................9
`
`Data Gen. Corp. v. Johnson,
`78 F.3d 1556 (Fed. Cir. 1996)..................................................................................................11
`
`Datascape, Ltd. v. Dell Techs., Inc.,
`No. 6:19-CV-00129-ADA, 2019 WL 4254069 (W.D. Tex. June 7, 2019) .............................16
`
`DynaEnergetics Eur. GMBH v. Hunting Titan, Inc.,
`No. 6:20-CV-00069-ADA, 2020 WL 3259807 (W.D. Tex. June 16, 2020) .............................6
`
`EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC,
`No. 6:22-cv-00032 .......................................................................................................4, 5, 8, 14
`
`Elecs. for Imaging, Inc. v. Coyle,
`394 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2005)........................................................................................6, 9, 10
`
`Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 6:18-cv-00372-ADA, 2019 WL 4743678 (W.D. Tex. Sep. 10, 2019) .............................13
`
`Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct.,
`141 S. Ct. 1017 (2021) .............................................................................................................11
`
`Futurewei Techs., Inc. v. Acacia Rsch. Corp.,
`737 F.3d 704 (Fed. Cir. 2013)....................................................................................................6
`
`Gabarick v. Laurin Mar. (Am.) Inc.,
`753 F.3d 550 (5th Cir. 2014) ...................................................................................................10
`
`Google LLC v. EcoFactor, Inc.,
`No. 4:22-cv-00162 .....................................................................................................................5
`
`ii
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00350-ADA Document 33 Filed 09/02/22 Page 4 of 24
`
`
`
`Healthpoint, Ltd. v. Derma Scis., Inc.,
`939 F. Supp. 2d 680 (W.D. Tex. 2013)....................................................................................12
`
`In re Juniper Networks, Inc.,
`14 F.4th 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ................................................................................................16
`
`Kahn v. Gen. Motors Corp.,
`889 F.2d 1078 (Fed. Cir. 1989)................................................................................................11
`
`Mann Mfg., Inc. v. Hortex, Inc.,
`439 F.2d 403 (5th Cir. 1971) .............................................................................................6, 7, 9
`
`Maxell Holdings, Ltd. v. Amperex Tech. Ltd.,
`No. 6:21-CV-347-ADA, 2022 WL 1176723 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2022) .........................1, 7, 9
`
`Merial Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd.,
`681 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .................................................................................................7
`
`Needbasedapps, LLC v. Robbins Rsch. Int’l, Inc.,
`926 F. Supp. 2d 907 (W.D. Tex. 2013)....................................................................................11
`
`Netlist, Inc. v. SK Hynix Inc.,
`No. 6:20-CV-00194-ADA, 2021 WL 2954095 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 2, 2021) ..........................8, 15
`
`In re Nitro Fluids LLC,
`978 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2020)..................................................................................................7
`
`Platt v. Nash,
`No. 4:16-CV-00294, 2016 WL 6037856 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 14, 2016) .....................................8, 9
`
`In re Radmax,
`720 F.3d 285 (5th Cir. 2013) ...................................................................................................14
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Netflix, Inc.,
`No. 2021-1484, 2022 WL 2961668 (Fed. Cir. July 27, 2022) .............................................4, 12
`
`Save Power Ltd. v. Syntek Fin. Corp.,
`121 F.3d 947 (5th Cir. 1997) ........................................................................................... passim
`
`Scorpcast, LLC v. MG Freesites, Ltd.,
`No. W-20-CV-00877-ADA, 2021 WL 7286024 (W.D. Tex. June 21, 2021) .............7, 8, 9, 12
`
`Sherwin-Williams Co. v. Holmes Cnty.,
`343 F.3d 383 (5th Cir. 2003) .........................................................................................9, 10, 11
`
`Super Interconnect Technologies v. Google LLC,
`6:21-CV-00259-ADA, 2021 WL 6015465 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 8, 2021) ..............................12, 13
`
`iii
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00350-ADA Document 33 Filed 09/02/22 Page 5 of 24
`
`Sutter Corp. v. P & P Indus., Inc.,
`125 F.3d 914 (5th Cir. 1997) .....................................................................................................6
`
`Texas Instruments Inc. v. Micron Semiconductor, Inc.,
`815 F. Supp. 994 (E.D. Tex. 1993) ....................................................................................12, 18
`
`True View Surgery Ctr. One, L.P. v. Goodman Glob. Holdings, Inc.,
`No. CV H-15-3287, 2016 WL 755494 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 24, 2016) ......................................9, 10
`
`Twin City Ins. Co. v. Key Energy Servs., Inc.,
`No. CIV A H-09-0352, 2009 WL 1544255 (S.D. Tex. June 2, 2009) .....................................10
`
`Unification Techs. LLC v. Micron Tech., Inc.,
`No. 6:20-CV-500-ADA, 2022 WL 92809 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 10, 2022) ....................................17
`
`In re Verizon Bus. Network Servs. Inc.,
`635 F.3d 559 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..................................................................................................15
`
`In re Vistaprint Ltd.,
`628 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................15
`
`In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc.,
`545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc) .................................................................13, 14, 16, 17
`
`In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc.,
`566 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................15
`
`Statutes
`
`19 U.S.C. § 1337 ..........................................................................................................................3, 4
`
`19 U.S.C. § 1337(c) .........................................................................................................................3
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1659 ..........................................................................................................................2, 3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 101 ................................................................................................................................3
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1 ..........................................................................................................................3
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) .............................................................................................................1, 18
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00350-ADA Document 33 Filed 09/02/22 Page 6 of 24
`
`
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Pursuant to the first-to-file rule and Rule 12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
`
`Defendant Google LLC (“Google”) respectfully moves to dismiss this case in favor of Google’s
`
`complaint in the Northern District of California (the “Northern District”). On March 1, 2021,
`
`thirteen months before Plaintiff EcoFactor, Inc. (“EcoFactor”) filed its Complaint here, Google
`
`filed an action in the Northern District (the “California Action”) seeking declaratory judgment of
`
`non-infringement of the same patents. Under Fifth Circuit law and principles of judicial comity,
`
`the Court should dismiss this case in favor of the California Action or, at a minimum, stay this
`
`case while the Northern District resolves the parties’ disputes as to the patents-in-suit. See Save
`
`Power Ltd. v. Syntek Fin. Corp., 121 F.3d 947, 950 (5th Cir. 1997) (under the first-to-file rule, “the
`
`court in which an action is first filed . . . determine[s] whether subsequently filed cases involving
`
`substantially similar issues should proceed.”); Maxell Holdings, Ltd. v. Amperex Tech. Ltd., No.
`
`6:21-CV-347-ADA, 2022 WL 1176723, at *10 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 20, 2022).
`
`
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`EcoFactor has asserted sixteen patents against Google’s Nest Thermostats (the “Accused
`
`Products”) across nine cases filed in the International Trade Commission (“ITC”), the District of
`
`Massachusetts, the Northern District, and this District. Gagen Decl. ¶ 2. As explained in more
`
`detail below, this case involves four patents that EcoFactor first asserted in the ITC in early 2021—
`
`U.S. Patent Nos. 8,019,567 (“’567 patent”), 8,596,550 (“’550 patent”), 8,886,488 (“’488 patent”),
`
`and 10,612,983 (“’983 patent”). Id. One week after EcoFactor filed its complaint in the ITC,
`
`Google filed the California Action. Id. EcoFactor then waited another thirteen months before
`
`filing this case—doing so only once it became clear that EcoFactor was about to lose in the ITC
`
`investigation. See id.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00350-ADA Document 33 Filed 09/02/22 Page 7 of 24
`
`
`
`A.
`
`The California Action is First-Filed
`
`On March 1, 2021, Google filed its complaint in the California Action against EcoFactor
`
`in the Northern District, seeking declaratory judgment of non-infringement of the patents-in-suit.
`
`Gagen Decl. ¶ 2. A week prior, on February 26, 2021, EcoFactor had filed its complaint in the
`
`ITC on the same patents, ITC Investigation No. 337-TA-1258 (“ITC 1258”). Id. EcoFactor did
`
`not communicate any intent to file a district court case, either before or after Google filed the
`
`California Action.1 Instead, EcoFactor waived service in the California Action, see Gagen Decl.
`
`¶ 5, and indeed relied on the California Action to argue against institution of certain inter partes
`
`review (“IPR”) proceedings. See, e.g., Ex. 4 at 71-74.2 The California Action is assigned to Judge
`
`James Donato and, on May 4, 2021, he stayed the case pending resolution of ITC 1258 and any
`
`appeal. Gagen Decl. ¶ 5; see 28 U.S.C. § 1659. ITC 1258 has since been resolved in favor of
`
`Google, and EcoFactor elected not to appeal. Gagen Decl. ¶ 4.
`
`B.
`
`EcoFactor Fully Litigated its Claims and Lost in the ITC
`
`In ITC 1258, the ALJ concluded that the asserted claims of the ’567 patent were indefinite
`
`at the Markman stage. Gagen Decl. ¶ 7; Ex. 5 at 24-25. Following the completion of fact and
`
`expert discovery, EcoFactor voluntarily terminated the ’567 and ’983 patents from the
`
`
`1
`As discussed further below, at the time, EcoFactor was maintaining suits on other patents
`against Google in both the District of Massachusetts and the Western District of Texas. See
`infra.
`2
`Google sought inter partes review (“IPR”) of the ’567, ’488, and ’983 patents. The
`PTAB instituted review of the ’567 and ’983 patents. Ex. 4 at 2, 30. The final written decision
`for the ’567 patent is set to issue February 2023. See Ex. 4 at 55. The final written decision for
`the ’983 patent is set to issue in November 2022. See Ex. 4 at 67-68. The PTAB declined to
`institute IPR of the ’488 under NHK-Fintiv, relying on EcoFactor’s representation to the PTAB
`that it would be “difficult to maintain a district court proceeding on patent claims determined to
`be invalid at the ITC” and that, “as a practical matter, the parties’ validity disputes as to the ’488
`patent are likely to carry over to [Google’s Northern] [D]istrict [C]ourt case[].” Ex. 4 at 73.
`Indeed, EcoFactor relied on the existence of Google’s first-filed Northern District action in
`arguing against institution. (arguing the existence of and stay in the California Action weighs in
`favor of denying institution under NHK-Fintiv). Ex. 4 at 71-74.
`
`2
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00350-ADA Document 33 Filed 09/02/22 Page 8 of 24
`
`
`
`investigation, and, on the eve of the ITC trial, EcoFactor voluntarily withdrew most claims of the
`
`remaining ’550 and ’488 patents. Gagen Decl. ¶ 4; Ex. 2. At trial, every proffered party witness
`
`resided in the Northern District; none of the witnesses or evidence offered was located in Texas.
`
`Gagen Decl. ¶ 8. Following the week-long trial, the ALJ invalidated the remaining asserted claims
`
`of the ’550 and ’488 patents, and determined that Google did not infringe. Ex. 2.
`
`In particular, the ALJ issued his Initial Determination on April 4, 2022, finding no violation
`
`of 19 U.S.C. § 1337 because: (1) the Accused Products did not infringe the asserted claims of the
`
`’550 and ’488 patents; (2) all asserted claims were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1 for lack of
`
`written description, and most were patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101; and (3) EcoFactor
`
`lacked a domestic industry because it did not practice the ’550 and ’488 patents. See Ex. 2. On
`
`June 22, 2022, the Commission affirmed the ALJ’s determination of no violation on non-
`
`infringement, and EcoFactor failed to notice an appeal to the Federal Circuit within 60 days. Ex. 2;
`
`19 U.S.C. § 1337(c). Thus, EcoFactor did not appeal the Commission’s Final Determination.
`
`Gagen Decl. ¶ 4.
`
`C.
`
`EcoFactor Nonetheless Filed this Duplicative Action Thirteen Months Later
`
`EcoFactor filed its duplicative Complaint in this District on April 1, 2022—the Friday
`
`immediately before the scheduled Monday deadline for the ALJ’s Initial Determination, see Ex. 2,
`
`and thirteen months after Google filed its complaint in the Northern District, see Gagen Decl. ¶ 2.
`
`EcoFactor’s Complaint purports to reassert in this District all claims of the ’567, ’550, ’488, and
`
`’983 patents despite EcoFactor’s prior representations to the PTAB that the ITC and Northern
`
`District cases were dispositive; despite EcoFactor’s decision to withdraw many of the same patents
`
`and claims before the ITC; and despite EcoFactor’s knowledge that the party witnesses and
`
`evidence are located in the Northern District. Compl. ¶¶ 18, 29, 40, 51. On April 20, 2022, this
`
`Court stayed this case pending resolution of ITC 1258. ECF No. 14; see 28 U.S.C. § 1659.
`
`3
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00350-ADA Document 33 Filed 09/02/22 Page 9 of 24
`
`
`
`D.
`
`The Complaint is Consistent with EcoFactor’s Pattern of Forum Shopping
`
`EcoFactor’s choice to file this duplicative suit must be considered in context: EcoFactor
`
`and its counsel have a history of procedural gamesmanship when it comes to venue. See, e.g.,
`
`Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Netflix, Inc., 41 F.4th 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (affirming
`
`sanctions on EcoFactor’s counsel for similar pattern of filing, voluntary dismissal, and refiling to
`
`“reboot” failing litigation).
`
`First, EcoFactor and its counsel have previously engaged in similar re-filing
`
`maneuvers and forum shopping in parallel litigation between the parties. In October 2019,
`
`EcoFactor filed its first action against Google in the ITC (“ITC 1185”) on four patents. Gagen
`
`Decl. ¶ 2. Three weeks later, it filed a complaint on the same patents in the District of
`
`Massachusetts, which was stayed pending ITC 1185. Id. When the ITC found no violation of 19
`
`U.S.C. § 1337 and invalidated multiple patents, EcoFactor appealed to the Federal Circuit,
`
`extending the stay in the Massachusetts action. Gagen Decl. ¶ 3; Ex. 1. A few months later,
`
`though, EcoFactor abruptly withdrew its appeal of ITC 1185 and, without prior notice to Google,
`
`voluntarily dismissed the Massachusetts action. Gagen Decl. ¶ 3. But this was not the end of the
`
`litigation. Contrary to its prior representations, EcoFactor immediately re-filed the same complaint
`
`in this Court in the co-pending case EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 6:22-cv-00032 (“WDTex
`
`00032”). Id.; see Ex. 7 at 8-9, 33-34, 51-52 (EcoFactor asserting to the PTAB, to avoid IPR, that
`
`it would be “difficult” for EcoFactor “to maintain a district court proceeding on patent claims
`
`determined to be invalid [in ITC 1185].”).3
`
`
`3
`EcoFactor asserted these patents contrary to representations it made to the PTAB to avoid
`institution of IPRs. Specifically, EcoFactor represented that an adverse decision in ITC 1185
`would “likely be instructive and may be dispositive of certain issues,” particularly “invalidity,”
`and that it would be “difficult” for EcoFactor “to maintain a district court proceeding on patent
`claims determined to be invalid at the ITC.” Ex. 7 at 8, 33, 50-51. Relying on these arguments,
`the PTAB denied institution. Id. at 22-23, 65-66.
`
`4
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00350-ADA Document 33 Filed 09/02/22 Page 10 of 24
`
`
`
`Hours later, Google filed a complaint in both parties’ home venue—the Northern District—
`
`requesting declaratory judgment on the same patents, Google LLC v. EcoFactor, Inc., No. 4:22-
`
`cv-00162, Complaint, ECF No. 1 (Jan. 11, 2022) (“NDCal 00162”). There, EcoFactor moved to
`
`dismiss Google’s case, arguing that “the first filed Texas court”—WDTex 00032—“should decide
`
`any venue disputes” under the first-to-file rule. Ex. 8 at 15. Judge Jeffrey White in the Northern
`
`District stayed the case pending this Court’s decision on Google’s motion to transfer in WDTex
`
`00032. See NDCal 00162, Order Staying Case at 4, ECF No. 41 (May 16, 2022).
`
`Second, EcoFactor has previously accepted jurisdiction in its home forum, the
`
`Northern District, in parallel litigation between the parties. Google is headquartered in
`
`Mountain View, California. Compl. ¶ 6. EcoFactor is a privately held company with its only
`
`office in Palo Alto, California. Compl. ¶ 5. Accordingly, Google has filed another complaint in
`
`the Northern District, seeking declaratory judgment on four additional EcoFactor patents, Google
`
`LLC v. EcoFactor, Inc., 4:21-cv-03220, Complaint, ECF No. 1 (Apr. 30, 2021) (“NDCal 03220”).
`
`Gagen Decl. ¶ 2.4 EcoFactor did not contest jurisdiction or venue in that case, but instead, filed
`
`counterclaims. Ex. 9 at 7-23. The parties recently completed claim construction and await the
`
`court’s Markman order. Ex. 10 at 24-25. In August 2022, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`(“PTAB”) instituted Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) proceedings for three of the patents-in-suit: the
`
`’100, ’186, and ’597 patents, and Google moved for a stay of the proceedings pending resolution
`
`of the IPRs. Id. at 25.
`
` LEGAL STANDARD
`
`When two actions are filed, one for infringement and another for declaratory judgment
`
`of non-infringement, courts apply the first-to-file rule to determine which case should proceed.
`
`
`4
`Both the NDCal 03220 and NDCal 00162 patents share common specifications with the
`patents-in-suit here and in the California Action. Gagen Decl. ¶ 12.
`
`5
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00350-ADA Document 33 Filed 09/02/22 Page 11 of 24
`
`
`
`Futurewei Techs., Inc. v. Acacia Rsch. Corp., 737 F.3d 704, 708 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “[T]he ‘first
`
`to file rule’ not only determines which court may decide the merits of substantially similar
`
`issues, but also establishes which court may decide whether the second suit filed must be
`
`dismissed, stayed or transferred and consolidated.” Cadle Co. v. Whataburger of Alice, Inc.,
`
`174 F.3d 599, 606 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting Sutter Corp. v. P & P Indus., Inc., 125 F.3d 914,
`
`920 (5th Cir. 1997)).
`
`Fifth Circuit district courts have applied Fifth Circuit law to the initial question of which
`
`court should decide which action should proceed. See, e.g., DynaEnergetics Eur. GMBH v.
`
`Hunting Titan, Inc., No. 6:20-CV-00069-ADA, 2020 WL 3259807, at *1 (W.D. Tex. June 16,
`
`2020). The ultimate “[r]esolution of whether the second-filed action should proceed presents a
`
`question sufficiently tied to patent law that the question is governed by [the Federal] [C]ircuit’s
`
`law.” Futurewei, 737 F.3d 704, 708 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Whether under either Fifth Circuit law
`
`or Federal Circuit law, the first-filed court generally decides which action should proceed. Save
`
`Power, 121 F.3d at 950; see Elecs. for Imaging, Inc. v. Coyle, 394 F.3d 1341, 1347-48 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2005) (“The considerations affecting transfer to or dismissal in favor of another forum do
`
`not change simply because the first-filed action is a declaratory action.”); NDCal 00162, Order
`
`Staying Case at 4, ECF No. 41 (May 16, 2022).
`
`Relevant here, “[t]he Fifth Circuit adheres to the general rule that the court in which an
`
`action is first filed is the appropriate court to determine whether subsequently filed cases
`
`involving substantially similar issues should proceed.” Save Power, 121 F.3d at 950. “Once
`
`the likelihood of substantial overlap between the two suits has been demonstrated, it [i]s] no longer
`
`up to the [second-filed court] to resolve the question of whether both should be allowed to
`
`proceed.” Id. (citing Mann Mfg., Inc. v. Hortex, Inc., 439 F.2d 403, 408 (5th Cir. 1971)). The
`
`6
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00350-ADA Document 33 Filed 09/02/22 Page 12 of 24
`
`
`
`second filed action should be dismissed, stayed, or transferred pending the first-filed court’s
`
`determination. Maxell Holdings, 2022 WL 1176723, at *10.
`
`This Court has required “a clearly compelling reason to avoid the use of the first-filed rule.”
`
`Scorpcast, LLC v. MG Freesites, Ltd., No. W-20-CV-00877-ADA, 2021 WL 7286024, at *3 (W.D.
`
`Tex. June 21, 2021); see also Mann, 439 F.2d at 407 (“In the absence of compelling circumstances
`
`the court initially seized of a controversy should be the one to decide whether it will try the case”).
`
`EcoFactor, as “the filer of the second-filed suit,” has the “burden to demonstrate [such] compelling
`
`circumstances.” Scorpcast, 2021 WL 7286024, at *2; see In re Nitro Fluids LLC, 978 F.3d 1308,
`
`1311 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Such clearly compelling circumstances can include improper anticipatory
`
`filings, forum shopping, or the existence of a clearly more convenient venue. See Maxell Holdings,
`
`2022 WL 1176723, at *10; Scorpcast, 2021 WL 7286024, at *2.
`
` ARGUMENT
`
`The first-to-file rule is “grounded in principles of comity and sound judicial
`
`administration”—“to avoid the waste of duplication, to avoid rulings which may trench upon the
`
`authority of sister courts, and to avoid piecemeal resolution of issues that call for a uniform result.”
`
`Save Power, 121 F.3d at 950; see Merial Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd., 681 F.3d 1283, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
`
`(similar). Here, the California Action is the first-filed case and, therefore, the Northern District
`
`should decide whether the first-to-file rule applies. EcoFactor has no compelling reason to depart
`
`from that rule.
`
`A.
`
`The First-to-File Rule Requires This Case To Be Dismissed
`
`Under Fifth Circuit law, it is well-established that the first-filed court decides which of two
`
`substantially similar cases should proceed—“[o]nce the likelihood of substantial overlap between
`
`the two suits had been demonstrated,” the second-filed court should dismiss or stay its case to
`
`facilitate the first-filed court’s decision. Mann, 439 F.2d at 408; see Maxell Holdings, 2022 WL
`
`7
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00350-ADA Document 33 Filed 09/02/22 Page 13 of 24
`
`
`
`1176723, at *10. Here, the California Action was filed first—more than a year prior to this case.
`
`Gagen Decl. ¶ 2; Compl. ¶ 1. Further, the cases are substantially similar, with the same parties,
`
`same patents, and same accused products. Compare Ex. 3, with Compl. Indeed, EcoFactor does
`
`not dispute this, but asserts that this case is nonetheless “the appropriate vehicle for adjudicating
`
`the parties’ dispute.” Compl. ¶ 1. Where, as here, “the overlap is complete,” Fifth Circuit law and
`
`judicial comity require that the second-filed court dismiss its case, leaving the first-filed court to
`
`resolve any venue disputes. Netlist, Inc. v. SK Hynix Inc., No. 6:20-CV-00194-ADA, 2021 WL
`
`2954095, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 2, 2021); see also Scorpcast, 2021 WL 7286024, at *3 (same).
`
`EcoFactor should be precluded from arguing that this Complaint should proceed. In
`
`NDCal 00162, EcoFactor moved to dismiss Google’s case because it was filed second by several
`
`hours, arguing that “the first filed Texas court”—WDTex 00032—“should decide any venue
`
`disputes” under the first-to-file rule. NDCal 00162, Motion to Dismiss at 15, ECF No. 30 (March
`
`22, 2022). Judge White stayed the case in anticipation of this Court’s decision on Google’s
`
`pending motion to transfer. NDCal 00162, Order Staying Case at 4, ECF No. 41 (May 16, 2022);
`
`see WDTex 00032, Mot. to Transfer, ECF No. 18 (May 9, 2022). Under the very same “reasons
`
`of comity and sound judicial administration” advanced by EcoFactor itself in its motion in NDCal
`
`00162, this case should similarly be dismissed or at the very least stayed, leaving the Northern
`
`District to resolve any venue disputes EcoFactor may raise. Save Power, 121 F.3d at 948.
`
`B.
`
`No Compelling Circumstances Justify Departing From The First-to-File Rule
`
`Under Fifth Circuit law, “[o]nce the likelihood of substantial overlap between the two suits
`
`had been demonstrated, it [is] no longer up to the [second-filed] court in Texas to resolve the
`
`question of whether both should be allowed to proceed.” Save Power, 121 F.3d at 950; see Platt
`
`v. Nash, No. 4:16-CV-00294, 2016 WL 6037856, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 14, 2016) (“As the second-
`
`filed court, the Court’s limited role is to determine whether there is substantial overlap between
`
`8
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00350-ADA Document 33 Filed 09/02/22 Page 14 of 24
`
`
`
`the two suits.”). Only “clearly compelling circumstances” have justified departing from this rule.
`
`Scorpcast, 2021 WL 7286024, at *3; see also Mann, 439 F.2d at 407; Commc’ns Test Design, Inc.
`
`v. Contec, LLC, 952 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“The general rule is that the first-filed
`
`action is preferred, even if it is declaratory, unless considerations of judicial and litigant economy,
`
`and the just and effective disposition of disputes, require otherwise.”). EcoFactor, however, cannot
`
`show any such clearly compelling circumstances, and in any event, EcoFactor should present any
`
`such arguments to the first-filed court in the Northern District.
`
`
`
`The California Action is Not Anticipatory
`
`Google’s declaratory judgment action was properly filed and not anticipatory. Rather,
`
`EcoFactor’s duplicative suit filed thirteen months after Google’s—in anticipation of a finding of
`
`no violation in ITC 1258—should be dismissed. See Save Power, 121 F.3d at 950; Platt, 2016
`
`WL 6037856, at *2 (“[T]he question of whether the first-filed action was an improper anticipatory
`
`filing is for the first-filed court to determine.”).
`
`An anticipatory action can be an exception to the first-to-file rule where such an action
`
`“can create an opportunity for forum-shopping.” Maxell Holdings, 2022 WL 1176723, at *10
`
`(quoting True View Surgery Ctr. One, L.P. v. Goodman Glob. Holdings, Inc., No. CV H-15-3287,
`
`2016 WL 755494, at *6 (S.D. Tex. Feb. 24, 2016)). However, “[m]erely filing a declaratory
`
`judgment action in a federal court with jurisdiction to hear it, in anticipation of [another] litigation,
`
`is not in itself improper anticipatory litigation or otherwise abusive ‘forum shopping.’” Sherwin-
`
`Williams Co. v. Holmes Cnty., 343 F.3d 383, 391 (5th Cir. 2003); see also Elecs. for Imaging, 394
`
`F.3d at 1348. Rather, to be anticipatory, an action must be filed for “improper and abusive”
`
`reasons. Sherwin-Williams, 343 F.3d at 391. For example, an action is anticipatory where a party
`
`“ha[d] notice,” such as through settlement negotiations, that the other “party intend[ed] to file
`
`suit,” or “a party engaged in bad faith conduct” so that it “could file a preemptive lawsuit.” True
`
`9
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00350-ADA Document 33 Filed 09/02/22 Page 15 of 24
`
`
`
`View, 2016 WL 755494, at *6; see Twin City Ins. Co. v. Key Energy Servs., Inc., No. CIV A H-
`
`09-0352, 2009 WL 1544255, at *5 (S.D. Tex. June 2, 2009) (“[T]he primary reason courts have
`
`recognized the anticipatory suit exception to the first-to-file rule is to avoid penalizing a party that
`
`has attempted to settle a dispute out of court.”).
`
`Here, EcoFactor did not initiate settlement negotiations; it filed a complaint in the ITC.
`
`EcoFactor could have filed a companion complaint in district court, as it had previously done in
`
`Massachusetts and Texas, but it did not do so. Instead, EcoFactor waived service in the California
`
`Action, relied on the existence of the California Action in other proceedings, and waited more than
`
`a year before filing its own duplicative suit here. Google’s action, filed a week after EcoFactor’s
`
`ITC complaint and more than a year before this action, was not anticipatory. Sherwin-Williams,
`
`343 F.3d at 398 (suit not anticipatory even if party “may have predicted that there would be a
`
`related suit filed”); see True View, 2016 WL 755494, at *7 (finding no anticipation where first
`
`action was filed “nearly a year before [plaintiff] filed the Texas Action”); Twin City, 2009 WL
`
`1544255, at *5 (finding no anticipation where both parties knew there would be litigation and “had
`
`an equal opportunity to secure their desired forum”).
`
`Google was not obligated to wait a year to see what choice EcoFactor would eventually
`
`make as to whether and where EcoFactor might file a companion complaint to ITC 1258. The
`
`very “purpose of the Declaratory Judgment Act ... in patent cases is to provide the allegedly
`
`infringing party relief from uncertainty and delay regarding its legal rights.” Elecs. for Imaging,
`
`394 F.3d at 1346; see Sherwin-Willia