Case 6:22-cv-00466-ADA-DTG Document 54 Filed 01/04/23 Page 1 of 9
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`Case. No. 6:22-CV-0466-ADA-DTG
`
`ADVANCED SILICON
`TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`NXP SEMICONDUCTORS N.V.,
`NXP B.V., and
`NXP USA, INC.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT NXP USA, INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS
`OPPOSED MOTION FOR INTRA-DISTRICT TRANSFER
`TO THE AUSTIN DIVISION OF THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00466-ADA-DTG Document 54 Filed 01/04/23 Page 2 of 9
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`AlmondNet, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`2022 WL 17574082 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 28, 2022) ...................................................................1, 3
`
`In re Apple Inc.,
`979 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2020)..............................................................................................4, 5
`
`Brazos River Auth. v. GE Ionics, Inc.,
`469 F.3d 416 (5th Cir. 2006) .....................................................................................................4
`
`Corrino Holdings LLC v. Expedia, Inc.,
`2022 WL 1094621 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 12, 2022) ......................................................................2, 3
`
`DataScape, Ltd. v. Dell Techs., Inc.,
`2019 WL 4254069 (W.D. Tex. June 7, 2019) ...................................................................1, 2, 4
`
`Freshub, Inc. v. Amazon.com Inc.,
`6:19-cv-388-ADA, Dkt. 29 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 9, 2019) .........................................................1, 2
`
`Future Link Sys., LLC v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.,
`2021 WL 6015535 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 18, 2021) ..........................................................................4
`
`In re Genentech, Inc.,
`566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..............................................................................................2, 3
`
`In re Google LLC,
`2021 WL 4427899 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 27, 2021) ...........................................................................2
`
`Hammond Dev. Int’l, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`2020 WL 6136783 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2020) .........................................................................1
`
`In re Hoffmann-La Roche Inc.,
`587 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..................................................................................................5
`
`Identity Security LLC v. Apple, Inc.,
`6:21-cv-00460-ADA, Dkt. 59 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 20, 2022) .....................................................1, 5
`
`Mc Asset Recovery, LLC v. Castex Energy, Inc.,
`2013 WL 12171724 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 7, 2013) ...........................................................................4
`
`Neo Wireless, LLC v. Dell Techs. Inc.,
`6:21-cv-00024-ADA, Dkt. 60 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 20, 2022) .....................................................1, 3
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00466-ADA-DTG Document 54 Filed 01/04/23 Page 3 of 9
`
`
`
`ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel Corp.,
`2021 WL 401989 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 26, 2021) ............................................................................4
`
`Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`2022 WL 17420391 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 4, 2022) .........................................................................4
`
`In re Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc.,
`52 F.4th 625 (5th Cir. 2022) ..................................................................................................3, 5
`
`In re Toyota Motor Corp.,
`747 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2014)..................................................................................................3
`
`VLSI Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp.,
`2019 WL 8013949 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 7, 2019) ............................................................................4
`
`VLSI Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp.,
`2020 WL 8254867 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 31, 2020) .........................................................................4
`
`Rules and Statutes
`
`Rule 30(b)(6) ....................................................................................................................................4
`
`Rule 45 .............................................................................................................................................4
`
`
`
`
`
`- iii -
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00466-ADA-DTG Document 54 Filed 01/04/23 Page 4 of 9
`
`
`
`Advanced Silicon Technologies LLC’s (“AST”) Opposition to NXP USA, Inc.’s (“NXP”)
`
`Motion to Transfer Venue (Dkt. 46) unduly emphasizes third parties and foreign NXP employees
`
`with tenuous connections to the accused products while downplaying (or ignoring) substantial
`
`Austin connections—including witnesses, documents, and localized interest. AST does not
`
`dispute the absence of witnesses and evidence in the Waco Division. Instead, AST highlights two
`
`irrelevant issues: (1) foreign suppliers for technologies in the accused products, and (2) Texas
`
`Instruments’ (“TI”) Dallas headquarters (as TI employed non-Texas-based prior art authors).
`
`Neither factors into the transfer inquiry. By focusing on third parties (outside the Waco Division),
`
`AST ignores relevant Austin-based NXP personnel in finance, marketing, project management,
`
`and engineering. And, while AST correctly identifies TI prior art, AST does not—and cannot—
`
`contend the prior art authors are located in Dallas. See Exs. 17-21 (none in Texas).
`
`AST’s Opposition does not address NXP’s authority from this Court transferring cases,1
`
`but instead relies upon unsupported assertions and outdated law. AST contends without support
`
`that “NXP must show a particularly acute burden of proceeding here or advantage to [] Austin” to
`
`satisfy the clearly more convenient transfer burden (Dkt. 51, “Opp.” at 1), but NXP’s burden is
`
`between “clear and convincing” and “mere preponderance,” and NXP “need not show an
`
`individual factor clearly favors transfer” (AlmondNet, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 6:21-CV-00891-
`
`ADA, 2022 WL 17574082, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 28, 2022)). NXP’s Motion should be granted.
`
`I.
`
`NXP’S AUSTIN WITNESSES STRONGLY FAVOR TRANSFER
`
`The majority of NXP’s potential witnesses are in Austin, and NXP has no facilities or
`
`
`1 Mot. at 4 (citing Freshub, Inc. v. Amazon.com Inc., 6:19-cv-388-ADA, Dkt. 29 (W.D. Tex. Sept.
`9, 2019); DataScape, Ltd. v. Dell Techs., Inc., 2019 WL 4254069 (W.D. Tex. June 7, 2019)), 6
`(Hammond Dev. Int’l, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 2020 WL 6136783 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2020);
`Identity Security LLC v. Apple, Inc., 6:21-cv-00460-ADA, Dkt. 59 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 20, 2022); Neo
`Wireless, LLC v. Dell Techs. Inc., 6:21-cv-00024-ADA, Dkt. 60 at 4–5 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 20, 2022)).
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00466-ADA-DTG Document 54 Filed 01/04/23 Page 5 of 9
`
`
`
`presence in the Waco Division. Mot. at 1-2. NXP employees Percy Gilbert (Product
`
`Development) (Ex. 23 at 67:13, 70:8-22; Ex. 22 at 2), Jeff Kudrick (Software R&D Lead) (Dkt.
`
`46-1 (“Wagner Decl.”) at ¶ 5; Ex. 23 at 100:1 – 101:10; Ex. 22 at 4), Amanda McGregor
`
`(Marketing Lead) (Wagner Decl. at ¶ 6), Gowri Chindalore (Strategy) (Wagner Decl. at ¶ 6; Ex.
`
`23 at 67:12, 70:1-7; Ex. 22 at 6), Ray Henling (Finance Controller) (Wagner Decl. at ¶ 6; Ex. 23
`
`at 67:18-21; Ex. 22 at 2 ) are based in Austin, have relevant information, and are likely to testify
`
`in this case. AST incorrectly “relies on outdated law to argue that party witnesses should be given
`
`little weight.” Opp. at 11-12; Corrino Holdings LLC v. Expedia, Inc., 6:20-CV-309-ADA, 2022
`
`WL 1094621, at *4 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 12, 2022). AST also incorrectly suggests that NXP’s
`
`witnesses would not face inconvenience because they reside within about 100 miles of the Waco
`
`courthouse. Opp. at 11-12; see Freshub, No. 6:19-cv-388-ADA, Dkt. 29 at 2 (“With respect to the
`
`issue of the geographic distance between Waco and Austin being less than 100 miles, . . . even 80
`
`or 90 miles is inconvenient.”). And, AST’s offer to reimburse witness travel expense and lodging
`
`falls short, ignoring “[t]he most important factor in the transfer analysis is the convenience of the
`
`witnesses” (In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2009)), and the Federal Circuit
`
`has emphasized the inconvenience of “be[ing] away from their homes and work for an extended
`
`period of time” (In re Google LLC, 2021 WL 4427899, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 27, 2021)).
`
`To the extent it substantively addresses NXP’s Austin based witnesses, AST’s Opposition
`
`downplays the presence of these NXP witnesses because they allegedly were not involved in the
`
`“development of GPU or VPU drivers and codecs.” Opp. at 5. But AST cannot convincingly
`
`argue that only foreign-based witnesses with knowledge of GPU or VPU drivers and codecs would
`
`be trial witnesses. See generally Datascape, Ltd. v. Dell Techs., Inc., 6:19-CV-00129-ADA, 2019
`
`WL 4254069, at *2 (W.D. Tex. June 7, 2019) (finding this factor supported transfer to Austin
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00466-ADA-DTG Document 54 Filed 01/04/23 Page 6 of 9
`
`
`
`where employees with “knowledge of [movant]’s marketing and sales of the accused products and
`
`their financial performance” were in Austin and no witnesses were in Waco).
`
`Indeed, AST’s exclusive reliance on witnesses outside the Austin and Waco Divisions is
`
`misplaced, as “[t]he comparison between the transferor and transferee forums is not altered by
`
`the presence of other witnesses and documents in places outside both forums.” In re Toyota Motor
`
`Corp., 747 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (emphases added). Even if such reliance were proper,
`
`which it is not, these foreign witnesses “will be required to travel a significant distance no matter
`
`where they testify.” Genentech, 566 F.3d at 1344. And, these witnesses “could easily fly into
`
`Austin’s international airport to attend trial and would not have to drive 90 miles to Waco.” Neo
`
`Wireless, LLC v. Dell Techs. Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00024-ADA, Dkt. No. 60 at 8 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 20,
`
`2022); see also Corrino, 2022 WL 1094621, at *4 (similar).
`
`II.
`
`NXP’S AUSTIN SOURCES OF PROOF FAVOR TRANSFER
`
`Messrs. Gilbert, Kudrick, Chindalore, and Henling and Ms. McGregor are likely document
`
`custodians. And AST does not allege documents are present in the Waco Division. See Opp. at
`
`8-11; Neo Wireless, No. 6:21-cv-00024-ADA, Dkt. No. 60 at 5 (holding “the fact that no relevant
`
`evidence resides in the Waco Division . . . means that this factor weighs in favor of transfer to
`
`Austin”). AST instead argues “Planned Parenthood rejected the argument…that the presumption
`
`of evidence existing at Defendants’ facilities overrides the reality that electronic records can be
`
`accessed from nearly anywhere.” Opp. at 8-9 (citing In re Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc.,
`
`52 F.4th 625 (5th Cir. 2022)). But even after Planned Parenthood, “the Court still considers the
`
`location of document custodians of electronic documents in its analysis.” AlmondNet, 2022 WL
`
`17574082, at *6-7 (holding that this factor favored transfer). And NXP’s witness testified that it
`
`is more difficult to access NXP’s electronic documentation from outside of NXP’s network due to
`
`firewalls (Ex. 23 at 123:22 – 125:21), in contrast to AST’s assertion that he “identified no reason
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00466-ADA-DTG Document 54 Filed 01/04/23 Page 7 of 9
`
`
`
`employees could not access electronic documents from Waco.” Opp. at 10. “As [NXP]
`
`demonstrates, access to sources of proof is relatively easier in Austin than it is in Waco.”
`
`Datascape, 2019 WL 4254069, at *2 (finding factor favored transfer) (emphasis in original).
`
`III. OTHER PRACTICAL PROBLEMS FAVOR TRANSFER OR ARE NEUTRAL
`
`AST asserts that “the claim construction process running its course and invalidity
`
`contentions” favor this case remaining in Waco. Opp. at 13. But it is erroneous to reply upon any
`
`“‘significant steps’ that had been taken by the court and parties” after NXP’s motion for transfer
`
`was filed. In re Apple Inc., 979 F.3d 1332, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2020); see also Parus Holdings, Inc.
`
`v. Microsoft Corp., 2022 WL 17420391, at *9 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 4, 2022) (finding progress did not
`
`weigh against transfer where “case has not proceeded to a Markman hearing”). NXP “filed this
`
`Motion at an early stage, meaning that it is unlikely for transfer to result in any major delay.”
`
`Future Link Sys., LLC v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 2021 WL 6015535, at *7 (W.D. Tex. Oct.
`
`18, 2021). AST next argues that this Court’s OGP and cost to attend trial are other practical
`
`problems (Opp. at 13-14), but its cited cases lend no support. See ParkerVision, Inc. v. Intel Corp.,
`
`2021 WL 401989, at *7 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 26, 2021) (finding factor neutral); VLSI Tech. LLC v. Intel
`
`Corp., 2020 WL 8254867, at *4 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 31, 2020) (considering closure due to pandemic).
`
`IV. COMPULSORY PROCESS IS NEUTRAL
`
`AST incorrectly argues that “[o]nly the Waco Division can enforce a subpoena issued to
`
`[TI].” Opp. at 13. But the Austin Division, “pursuant [to] Rule 45(c)(1)(B)(ii), can compel Dallas-
`
`based non-party witnesses to attend trial in Austin.” VLSI Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp., 2019 WL
`
`8013949, at *4 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 7, 2019). In addition, “Rule 45 does not expressly authorize a
`
`party to subpoena a ‘corporate designee to testify “vicariously” at trial’ in the way that Rule
`
`30(b)(6) does for a deposition.” Mc Asset Recovery, LLC v. Castex Energy, Inc., 2013 WL
`
`12171724, at *1 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 7, 2013) (quoting Brazos River Auth. v. GE Ionics, Inc., 469 F.3d
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00466-ADA-DTG Document 54 Filed 01/04/23 Page 8 of 9
`
`
`
`416, 434 (5th Cir. 2006)). AST fails to name any potential TI witness or even allege that they
`
`reside, work, or regularly transact business in person in Dallas. See Opp. at 13. The authors of TI
`
`prior art appear to either be located in California, in the UK, or have current unknown whereabouts
`
`(though they appear to have previously been located in the United Kingdom). Exs. 17-21.
`
`V.
`
`COURT CONGESTION IS NEUTRAL
`
`AST ignores the congestion data in NXP’s motion, instead arguing that this factor “slightly
`
`favors the Waco Division” because, under Planned Parenthood, this case has progressed since
`
`NXP’s Motion was filed. Opp. at 14. But AST cites no post-Planned Parenthood case taking
`
`post-motion progress into account under this factor. See id.; but see In re Apple, 979 F.3d at 1343.
`
`VI. AUSTIN’S LOCAL INTEREST FAVORS TRANSFER
`
`AST argues without support that “[t]his factor should matter less…because the ‘localized
`
`interest’ factor acts as an abstraction of the more detailed inquiries under the private interest
`
`factors.” Opp. at 15. But the Austin Division’s local interest is “strong because the cause of action
`
`calls into question the work and reputation of several individuals residing in or near that district
`
`and who presumably conduct business in that community.” In re Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., 587
`
`F.3d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2009). AST again ignores relevant witnesses, and complains that
`
`NXP’s Austin employees did not work on “the GPU and VPU IP blocks at issue.” Opp. at 15. But
`
`even where “the majority of the work and material decisions were made” elsewhere—which is not
`
`true in this case—when “some of their work designing the accused technology occurred in Austin,”
`
`“the Austin Division has a localized interest in resolving this case.” Identity Security LLC v. Apple,
`
`Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00460-ADA, Dkt. No. 59 at 13 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 20, 2022).
`
`VII. CONCLUSION
`
`This case has no ties to Waco, and strong ties to Austin. AST’s third-party witness
`
`strawman is irrelevant, and respectfully NXP’s Motion to Transfer should be granted.
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00466-ADA-DTG Document 54 Filed 01/04/23 Page 9 of 9
`
`
`
`January 4, 2023
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Richard S. Zembek
`
`Richard S. Zembek (SBN 00797726)
`richard.zembek@nortonrosefulbright.com
`NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
`Fulbright Tower
`1301 McKinney, Suite 5100
`Houston, Texas 77010-3095
`Tel: (713) 651-5151
`Fax: (713) 651-5246
`
`Eric C. Green (SBN 24069824)
`eric.green@nortonrosefulbright.com
`Catherine Garza (SBN 24073318)
`cat.garza@nortonrosefulbright.com
`NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
`98 San Jacinto Boulevard, Suite 1100
`Austin, Texas 78701
`Tel: (512) 474-5201
`Fax: (512) 536-4598
`
`Counsel for Defendant NXP USA, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that on January 4, 2023, the foregoing was electronically filed with the Clerk of
`
`Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all counsel of
`
`record.
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Eric C. Green
`By:
` Eric C. Green
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`