Case 6:22-cv-00535-ADA Document 102 Filed 08/02/23 Page 1 of 28
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`DODOTS LICENSING SOLUTIONS
`LLC,
` Plaintiff
`
`-vs-
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. and
`LTD., SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC.,
` Defendants
`
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`W-22-CV-00535-ADA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TRANSFER
`
`Before the Court is Defendants Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd (“SEC”) and Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc.’s (“SEA”) (collectively, “Samsung”) Motion to Transfer Venue to the
`
`Northern District of California.1 ECF No. 58. Plaintiff DoDots Licensing Solutions LLC
`
`(“DoDots”) opposes the motion. ECF No. 80. Samsung filed a reply to further support its motion.
`
`ECF No. 84. After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the applicable law, the Court
`
`DENIES Samsung’s motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of California.
`
`I.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`
`
`In its complaint, DoDots claims Samsung infringes of U.S. Patent Nos. 9,369,545 (“’545
`
`patent”), 8,020,083 (“’083 patent”), and 8,510,407 (“’407 patent”) (collectively, the “asserted
`
`patents”), which are directed to a method and system for accessing and displaying content to a
`
`user. ECF No. 29 ¶¶ 12, 45, 48, 51. DoDots, the owner of the asserted patents, is a limited liability
`
`company organized under the laws of Texas. Id. ¶ 1. DoDots’ principal place of business is in
`
`
`1 The Court notes that Samsung filed this motion with its former co-defendants, Best Buy Stores, L.P., BestBuy.com,
`LLC, and Best Buy Texas.com, LLC. ECF No. 58 at 1. Because the Court has severed and stayed the claims against
`Best Buy Stores, L.P., BestBuy.com, LLC, and Best Buy Texas.com, LLC (ECF No. 93), the Court only considers
`whether the claims against Samsung should be transferred in this Order.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00535-ADA Document 102 Filed 08/02/23 Page 2 of 28
`
`Dana Point, California. Id. ¶ 1. SEC is a company organized under the laws of the Republic of
`
`Korea with a principal place of business in South Korea. Id. ¶ 2. SEA is a wholly owned subsidiary
`
`of SEC. Id. ¶ 3. SEA is a corporation organized under the laws of New York with a principal place
`
`of business in New Jersey. Id. ¶ 4. According to DoDots, Samsung sells products that infringe the
`
`asserted patents, including Samsung Galaxy Z Series Mobile Phones, Galaxy S Series Mobile
`
`Phones, Galaxy Note Series Mobile Phones, Galaxy A Series Mobile Phones, Galaxy M Series
`
`Mobile Phones, and Galaxy Tab Series Tables. Id. ¶ 58. The Court will refer to these products as
`
`the “accused products.” DoDots claims that Samsung launched and continues to operate, use, and
`
`sell an operating system customized from the Android OS (e.g., Android OS12, OS 11, QOS 10,
`
`Pie (9.0),Oreo (8.0), Nougat (7.0), Marshmallow (6.0), Lollipop (5.0), KitKat (4.4), Jellybean (4.3,
`
`4.2 and 4.1), Ice Cream Sandwich (4.0), Honeycomb (3.0), Gingerbread (2.3), Froyo (2.2), Éclair
`
`(2.1), Donut (1.6)) along with other software (e.g., installers, the Play Store app, and the Galaxy
`
`App Store app) that are pre-installed or updated on each accused product. Id. ¶ 59.
`
`
`
`Along with its claims against Samsung, DoDots also filed claims against Best Buy Stores,
`
`L.P., BestBuy.com, LLC, and Best Buy Texas.com (collectively, the “Best Buy Defendants”) in
`
`this case. The Court severed and stayed DoDots’ claims against the Best Buy Defendants under
`
`the customer-suit exception. ECF No. 93. Along with this case, DoDots also filed an action against
`
`Apple Inc., Best Buy Stores, L.P., BestBuy.com, LLC, and Best Buy Texas.com. DoDots
`
`Licensing Solutions LLC v. Apple Inc. et al., No. 6:22-cv-533-ADA (W.D. Tex. May 24, 2022),
`
`ECF No. 1 [hereinafter “Apple Litigation”]. The Court also severed and stayed the claims against
`
`the Best Buy Defendants in the Apple Litigation. DoDots Licensing Solutions LLC v. Apple Inc.
`
`et al., No. 6:22-cv-533-ADA (W.D. Tex. July 20, 2023), ECF No. 124.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00535-ADA Document 102 Filed 08/02/23 Page 3 of 28
`
`
`
`After responding to DoDots’ complaint, Samsung filed this motion to transfer. ECF No.
`
`58. Samsung does not argue that the Western District of Texas (“WDTX”) is an improper venue
`
`for this case; instead, it argues that the Northern District of California (“NDCA”) is a more
`
`convenient forum, pointing to the location of potential witnesses and the relevant records in
`
`California. Id. at 1. DoDots contends that this case should remain in the WDTX, pointing to, among
`
`other factors, Samsung’s witnesses and evidence in Texas and the presence of relevant third parties
`
`in this state. ECF No. 80 at 1.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`
`
`In patent cases, motions to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) are governed by the law of
`
`the regional circuit—here, the Fifth Circuit. In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315, 1319 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2008). 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) provides in part that “[f]or the convenience of parties and
`
`witnesses, . . . a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where
`
`it might have been brought . . . ” Id. “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 § 1404(a) is whether a civil action “‘might have been
`
`brought’ in the destination venue.” In re Volkswagen, Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 312 (5th Cir. 2008)
`
`[hereinafter 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. Co., 358
`
`F.3d 337, 340 (5th Cir. 2004) (footnote omitted). 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
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00535-ADA Document 102 Filed 08/02/23 Page 4 of 28
`
`problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive.” In re Volkswagen AG, 371
`
`F.3d 201, 203 (5th Cir. 2004) [hereinafter Volkswagen I] (citing Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454
`
`U.S. 235, 241 n.6 (1982)). 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.” Id. Courts evaluate
`
`these factors based on the situation which existed at the time of filing, rather than relying on
`
`hindsight knowledge of the defendant’s forum preference. Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 343
`
`(1960).
`
`The moving party has the burden to prove that a case should be transferred for convenience.
`
`Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 314. The burden is not simply that the alternative venue is more
`
`convenient, but that it is clearly more convenient. Id. at 314–15. While “clearly more convenient”
`
`is not the same as the “clear and convincing” standard, the moving party must still show more than
`
`a mere preponderance. Quest NetTech Corp. v. Apple, Inc., No. 2:19-cv-118, 2019 WL 6344267,
`
`at *7 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 27, 2019). Yet, the Federal Circuit has clarified that, for a court to hold that
`
`a factor favors transfer, the movant need not show an individual factor clearly favors transfer. In
`
`re Apple Inc., 979 F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
`
`III. DISCUSSION
`
`The threshold determination in the § 1404(a) analysis is whether this case could initially
`
`have been brought in the destination venue—the NDCA. Samsung argues that the threshold
`
`determination is met because SEA has facilities in California and over 220 full-time employees in
`
`the NDCA and SEC is a foreign corporation. No. 58 at 7. DoDots argues that the threshold is not
`
`met because DoDots brought this action against Samsung and the Best Buy Defendants and
`
`Samsung has failed to show that venue is proper in the NDCA for the Best Buy Defendants. ECF
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00535-ADA Document 102 Filed 08/02/23 Page 5 of 28
`
`No. 89 at 2−3. In its reply, Samsung argues that the Best Buy Defendants should not be a party to
`
`this suit. ECF No. 84 at 5.
`
`Because the Court has severed and stayed the claims against the Best Buy Defendants, the
`
`Court only considers here whether transfer is appropriate for DoDots’ claims against Samsung.
`
`Because Samsung has shown that venue is proper for the claims against SEC and SEA, the Court
`
`determines that the threshold determination is met. Because the threshold determination is met, the
`
`Court now analyzes the private and public interest factors to determine whether the NDCA is a
`
`clearly more convenient forum than the WDTX.
`
` The Private Interest Factors
`
`
`
`The Cost of Attendance and Convenience for Willing Witnesses
`
`The 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). According to Fifth Circuit law, if the
`
`distance between a current venue and a proposed venue is more than 100 miles, the inconvenience
`
`to witnesses increases in direct relationship to the additional distance they must travel if the matter
`
`is transferred. Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 317. But it is unclear when the 100-mile rule applies, as
`
`the Federal Circuit has stated that courts should not apply the rule “rigidly” in cases where
`
`witnesses would be required to travel a significant distance no matter what venue they testify in.
`
`In re Apple, 979 F.3d at 1342 (discussing witnesses traveling from New York) (citing Volkswagen
`
`II, 545 F.3d at 317). “[T]he inquiry should focus on the cost and inconvenience imposed on the
`
`witnesses by requiring them to travel to a distant forum and to be away from their homes and work
`
`for an extended period of time.” In re Google, LLC, No. 2021-170, 2021 WL 4427899, at *4 (Fed.
`
`Cir. Sept. 27, 2021). According to the Federal Circuit, time is a more important metric than
`
`distance. Id. However, the Federal Circuit has also held that when willing witnesses will have to
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00535-ADA Document 102 Filed 08/02/23 Page 6 of 28
`
`travel a significant distance to either forum, the slight inconvenience of one forum in comparison
`
`to the other should not weigh heavily on the outcome of this factor. In re Apple, 979 F.3d at 1342.
`
`According to Samsung, the relevant witnesses from Samsung Research America (“SRA”)
`
`and Google are located in California. ECF No. 58 at 12. Samsung also identifies SEA employees
`
`in the NDCA in its reply. ECF No. 84 at 1. Additionally, Samsung claims that it has relevant
`
`employees in Korea. ECF No. 58 at 12. According to DoDots, Samsung also has relevant
`
`employees in Texas. ECF No. 80 at 4. DoDots has also identified one person affiliated with its
`
`company. Id. at 10. Each group of witnesses will be discussed below.
`
`1. Third-Party Witnesses in the NDCA
`
`According to Samsung, the relevant witnesses in the United States are from SRA and
`
`Google in Mountain View, California. ECF No. 58 at 12. Samsung argues that the Court should
`
`afford greater weight to the convenience of third-party witnesses. Id. In response, DoDots argues
`
`that Samsung has failed to show that anyone from SRA is a willing witness. ECF No. 80 at 6.
`
`DoDots points to the declaration of two SRA employees,
`
`. Id.
`
`Neither
`
` declaration state that they, or their teams, are willing
`
`to testify at trial in this case. ECF No. 58-10; ECF No. 58-9. Additionally, Samsung does not point
`
`to any evidence suggesting that Google employees are willing to testify at trial.
`
`The Court agrees with DoDots—Samsung has failed to show that any of the third-party
`
`witnesses from SRA or Google are willing to testify in this case. The Federal Circuit has held that
`
`“when there is no indication that a non-party witness is willing, the witness is presumed to be
`
`unwilling and considered under the compulsory process factor.” In re HP Inc., No. 2018-149, 2018
`
`WL 4692486, at *3 n.1 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 25, 2018). Because Samsung has not shown that the
`
`witnesses from SRA and Google are willing to testify at trial, the Court considers these witnesses
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00535-ADA Document 102 Filed 08/02/23 Page 7 of 28
`
`under the compulsory process factor below. Since this factor considers the convenience of the
`
`willing witnesses, Volkswagen I, 371 F.3d at 203, the Court does not consider the potential
`
`witnesses from SRA and Google under the analysis of this factor.
`
`2. SEA Employees in the NDCA
`
`In its reply, Samsung notes that discovery revealed that Samsung’s
`
`
`
`that manages Samsung’s U.S. Galaxy App Store, which DoDots accuses of infringement, is based
`
`in San Jose, California. ECF No. 84 at 1. Samsung points to the deposition transcript of SEA’s
`
`employee
`
`on the
`
`. Id.
`
` stated that more than ten SEA employees in San Jose are
`
`, including
`
`. ECF No. 84-2 at 74:5-76:13.
`
`The Court weighs the presence of Samsung’s
`
` at best slightly in
`
`favor of transfer. The Court has minimal information about these individuals’ roles with SEA. But
`
`the Court acknowledges that
`
` has testified that SEA’s
`
`
`
`“manage[s]” the accused “Samsung Galaxy Store.” Id. at 74:15-20. Because the Court finds that
`
`members of this team may possess relevant knowledge, the Court concludes that the presence of
`
`approximately ten members of this team, including
`
`, weighs slightly in favor of transfer.
`
`3. Samsung’s Employees in Korea
`
`Samsung claims that the remaining technical witnesses are located in Korea. ECF No. 58
`
`at 12. Samsung claims that a sub-team of SEC’s
`
`collaborates with
`
`
`
`. Id. at 5. This sub-team
`
`consists of twenty employees all based in Korea. Id. Samsung also contends that SEC in Korea
`
`“conducts all design and engineering work relating to Samsung’s Galaxy App Store for
`
`downloading mobile apps.” Id. Samsung claims that its employees in Korea would find the NDCA
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00535-ADA Document 102 Filed 08/02/23 Page 8 of 28
`
`more convenient because travel from Korea to the NDCA takes less time than travel from Korea
`
`to the WDTX. Id. at 12.
`
`In response, DoDots argues that SEC’s employees in Korea handle technical issues related
`
`to mobile apps. ECF No. 80 at 5. DoDots claims that it is unclear what relevant information these
`
`SEC employees possess. Id. DoDots further argues that even if any of SEC’s employees in Korea
`
`possess relevant information, their presence in Korea should not weigh in favor of transfer. Id.
`
`DoDots cites In re Apple Inc., 979 F.3d 1332, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2020) for the proposition that the
`
`slight inconvenience of traveling to the WDTX rather than the NDCA does not weigh heavily on
`
`the outcome of this factor. Id. at 6.
`
`The Court agrees with DoDots. While SEC employees may possess relevant information
`
`for trial, the slight inconvenience of traveling to the WDTX rather than the NDCA does not impact
`
`the outcome of this factor. In In re Apple Inc., the Federal Circuit explained that while witnesses
`
`in New York would travel significantly less distance for trial in the WDTX than in the NDCA, “in
`
`either instance these individuals will likely have to leave home for an extended period of time and
`
`incur travel, lodging, and related costs.” 979 F.3d at 1342. The court determined that these
`
`witnesses “will only be ‘slightly more inconvenienced by having to travel to California’ than to
`
`Texas.’” Id. Similarly here, while SEC’s employees in Korea are closer to the NDCA than the
`
`WDTX, the slight inconvenience of having to travel to Texas rather than California does not weigh
`
`heavily on the outcome of this factor.
`
`4. Samsung’s Employees in Texas
`
`DoDots claims that this factor weighs against transfer because the vast majority of the
`
`relevant Samsung employees reside near Plano, Texas. ECF No. 80 at 3. DoDots identifies
`
`fourteen Samsung employees in Plano, including: (1)
`
`, who testified that he is
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00535-ADA Document 102 Filed 08/02/23 Page 9 of 28
`
`responsible for Samsung’s relationship with forty mobile app development partners; (2)
`
` who has knowledge regarding the marketing and sales of the accused products; (3)
`
` who has knowledge regarding the marking and sales of the accused products; (4)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` who supports marketing for mobile applications; and (5)
`
`, who
`
`is responsible for quality assurance and testing of mobile apps on the accused products. Id. at 4.
`
` team includes nine other employees in Plano involved in the testing of mobile
`
`apps. Id. at 4−5. DoDots argues that there may have been other relevant Samsung witnesses in
`
`Texas, but Samsung’s corporate representative was instructed to limit his investigation to only his
`
`team. Id. at 5.
`
`In its reply, Samsung argues that the Samsung employees identified by DoDots do not have
`
`any technical involvement in the accused features. ECF No. 84 at 2. Samsung argues that only
`
`three of the Samsung employees identified by DoDots may possess relevant information: (1)
`
`, (2)
`
` and (3)
`
`. Id. at 2 & n.3. Samsung argues that neither
`
` nor any member of his team possesses relevant information. Id. at 2. Samsung argues
`
`that
`
` merely manages business relationship with app partners. Id. Samsung argues that
`
`all technical questions are referred to teams in Korea. Id. Samsung also argues that
`
`and his team do not possess relevant information. Id. Samsung claims that
`
`
`
` and his
`
`team test the look and feel of third-party mobile apps. Id. Samsung claims that this team does not
`
`have any knowledge of the apps’ technical details. Id. Samsung claims that all issues found by
`
`
`
` and his team are handled by Samsung’s teams in Korea. Id.
`
`To begin, the Court acknowledges that both parties agree that three Samsung employees in
`
`Texas possess relevant knowledge: (1)
`
`, (2)
`
`, and (3)
`
`. The
`
`Court agrees.
`
` likely possess knowledge regarding marketing and sales that
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00535-ADA Document 102 Filed 08/02/23 Page 10 of 28
`
`may be relevant to determining damages. ECF No. 80 at 4; ECF No. 80-1 at 19.
`
` likely
`
`possess knowledge regarding marketing that may be relevant to determining damages in this case.
`
`ECF No. 80 at 4; ECF No. 80-3 at 58:13−59:19. Because these three employees are located within
`
`a short drive of this District, the Court concludes that these Samsung employees would find the
`
`WDTX a more convenient forum than the NDCA. The Court weighs their presence in Texas
`
`against transfer.
`
`As for
`
`, the Court also weighs his presence in Texas against transfer. While
`
`Samsung contends that
`
` does not possess relevant knowledge to this case because he
`
`merely manages business relationships with app developers, the Court disagrees.
`
`
`
`manages contracts with app developers and manages vendors for the development of mobile apps.
`
`ECF No. 80-3 at 63:15−65:5, 65:21−66:21.
`
` knowledge of business relationships with
`
`app developers may be relevant to determining infringement and damages in this case. Thus, the
`
`Court weighs his presence in Texas against transfer.
`
`Lastly, for
`
` and his team, the Court weighs their presence in Texas at most
`
`slightly against transfer.
`
` and his team test mobile applications, but they raise all
`
`technical issues to Samsung employees in Korea. ECF No. 84-3 at 38:5-23. While
`
`
`
`and his team may possess knowledge regarding infringement, the Court concludes their knowledge
`
`is limited because they do not resolve technical issues with applications. Their relevance to this
`
`case is limited.
`
`5. DoDots’ Party Witnesses
`
`DoDots claims that it
`
`DoDots claims that there is
`
`. ECF No. 80 at 10.
`
`. Id. DoDots
`
`claims that
`
` splits his time between residences in Nevada and Mexico. Id. DoDots
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00535-ADA Document 102 Filed 08/02/23 Page 11 of 28
`
`contends that
`
` expects to travel from his home in San Jose Del Cabo, Mexico for trial.
`
`Id. DoDots notes that
`
` does not view Waco as more or less convenient than the NDCA.
`
`Id. DoDots claims that inventors John and George Kembel are also willing to testify at trial. Id.
`
`The Court concludes that none of DoDots’ witnesses bear on the outcome of this factor.
`
`As
`
` states in his declaration, neither forum is more convenient for him. ECF No. 80-23
`
`¶ 7. Further, inventors John and George Kembel have not clarified that they are willing to testify
`
`at trial in either forum. ECF No. 80-24 ¶ 8 (John Kembel’s declarations stating that he is willing
`
`to travel to Texas to testify); ECF No. 80-25 ¶ 8 (George Kembel’s declaration stating that he is
`
`willing to travel to Texas to testify). In any event, John and George Kembel are in Colorado, and
`
`they likely would not find either forum more convenient.
`
`6. Conclusion
`
`The Court finds this factor is weighs against transfer. Both parties agree that at least three
`
`Samsung employees in the Texas would be relevant at trial. ECF No. 80 at 4; ECF No. 84 at 2 n.3.
`
`There are also additional Samsung employees in Texas with knowledge that may be relevant to
`
`this case. Based on the evidence provided, the Court concludes that there are more relevant
`
`Samsung employees in Texas.
`
`
`
`The Relative Ease of Access to Sources of Proof
`
`“In considering the relative ease of access to proof, a court looks to where documentary
`
`evidence, such as documents and physical evidence, is stored.” Fintiv Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:18-
`
`cv-00372, 2019 WL 4743678, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 10, 2019). “[T]he question is relative ease
`
`of access, not absolute ease of access.” In re Radmax, 720 F.3d 285, 288 (5th Cir. 2013) (emphases
`
`in original). “In patent infringement cases, the bulk of the relevant evidence usually comes from
`
`the accused infringer. Consequently, the place where the defendant’s documents are kept weighs
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00535-ADA Document 102 Filed 08/02/23 Page 12 of 28
`
`in favor of transfer to that location.” In re Apple Inc., 979 F.3d at 1340 (citing In re Genentech,
`
`566 F.3d at 1345).
`
`According to Samsung, this factor favors transfer because DoDots’ infringement claims
`
`implicate sources of proof located in the NDCA. ECF No. 58 at 8. Samsung argues that there are
`
`no relevant Samsung employees in the WDTX and no relevant documents reside in this District.
`
`Id. Samsung also argues that there is no connection between the WDTX and DoDots. Id. Samsung
`
`argues that any presence DoDots has in Texas is “ephemeral, and a construct for litigation.” Id. at
`
`9 (quoting In re Samsung Elecs. Co., 2 F.4th 1371, 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2021)). Samsung argues that
`
`relevant DoDots document custodians likely reside in the NDCA because some of the inventors
`
`of the asserted patents are located in that district and DoDots’ predecessors-in-interest are located
`
`in that district. Id. Lastly, Samsung argues that this factor favors transfer because employees of
`
`third-party Google work on the accused technology in Mountain View, California. Id. at 9.
`
`DoDots argues that this factor weighs against transfer because Samsung has failed to allege
`
`that there are any physical documents in the NDCA. ECF No. 80 at 10. DoDots argues that the
`
`vast majority of the relevant witnesses are in either Texas or Korea. Id. DoDots claims that based
`
`on testimony from
`
`, Samsung’s electronic documents can be
`
`accessed from anywhere. Id. DoDots argues that Samsung’s electronic documents are equally
`
`accessible in either the WDTX or the NDCA. Id. at 11. DoDots argues that Samsung’s and
`
`Google’s teams in the NDCA do not possess relevant knowledge and Samsung has not identified
`
`any relevant documents maintained by these teams. Id. With respect to any documents maintained
`
`by Google, DoDots argues that Samsung has failed to identify any documents that Google has any
`
`where these documents are located. Id. at 12. DoDots notes that a former Google employee testified
`
`that Google’s documents are stored in a share drive that is accessible from anywhere. Id. As for its
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00535-ADA Document 102 Filed 08/02/23 Page 13 of 28
`
`own documents, DoDots argues that it does not have any physical documents and its electronic
`
`documents are stored
`
`. Id. at 11. DoDots claims that there is no evidence
`
`that any of the inventors have relevant prosecution documents in their possession. Id. DoDots
`
`claims that all of the prosecution documents are located in
`
`. Id.
`
`In its reply, Samsung argues that Google must have relevant documentation because
`
`DoDots refers to Google documents in its infringement contentions. ECF No. 84 at 5. Samsung
`
`argues that relevant documents are created and maintained by Google employees in the NDCA.
`
`Id.
`
`The Court acknowledges that the Fifth Circuit’s decision in In re Planned Parenthood
`
`indicates a shift in the analysis of this factor. The Fifth Circuit has recently agreed with a district
`
`court that concluded that this factor is neutral because electronic evidence is equally accessible in
`
`either forum. In re Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc., 52 F.4th 625, 630 (5th Cir. 2022). The
`
`Fifth Circuit held that “[t]he location of evidence bears much more strongly on the transfer analysis
`
`when . . . the evidence is physical in nature.” Id. But the Federal Circuit has held that it is an error
`
`to conclude this factor is neutral because electronic documents are easily accessible in both forums.
`
`In re Apple, Inc., No., 2022 WL 1196768, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 22, 2022). To the extent that these
`
`two holdings can be reconciled, the Court concludes that the location of physical evidence is more
`
`important to this analysis than the location of where electronic documents are typically accessed.
`
`However, the Court still considers the location of document custodians of electronic documents in
`
`its analysis of this factor. In re Google LLC, No. 2021-178, 2021 WL 5292267, at *2 (Fed. Cir.
`
`Nov. 15, 2021).
`
`Here, neither party has shown that physical evidence is present in the WDTX or the NDCA.
`
`Thus, the Court finds that any physical evidence does not weigh in the analysis of this factor.
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00535-ADA Document 102 Filed 08/02/23 Page 14 of 28
`
`Turning to the electronic evidence, the Court concludes that the parties have identified document
`
`custodians in both districts. As discussed above, DoDots has identified relevant Samsung
`
`employees located in Texas. See supra section III(A)(i)(4) (discussing
`
`
`
`, and other potentially relevant Samsung employees in Plano, Texas). As
`
`discussed below, DoDots has also identified relevant third-party Samsung contractors and Google
`
`employees located in Texas. See infra section III(A)(iii) (discussing Samsung contractors in Plano
`
`and Google employees in Austin that may possess relevant knowledge). As discussed above,
`
`Samsung has identified a few SEA employees in the NDCA that may possess relevant knowledge.
`
`See supra section III(A)(i)(1) (discussing SEA’s
`
`). And as discussed below,
`
`Samsung has also identified potentially relevant third-party employees from SRA and Google
`
`based in the NDCA. See infra section III(A)(iii) (discussing SRA’s
`
`
`
`). Lastly, Samsung has identified a few inventors and witnesses related to predecessors-in-
`
`interest of the asserted patents based in or near the NDCA. See id. (discussing three inventors and
`
`two witnesses related to predecessors-in-interest of the asserted patents). Based on the scattering
`
`of witnesses throughout California and Texas, the Court concludes it is likely that individuals
`
`based in Texas and in California are custodians of the relevant electronic documents. See In re
`
`Google LLC, 2021 WL 5292267, *2 (holding that it is an error to not “also consider[] the location
`
`of document custodians and the location where documents are created and maintained, which may
`
`bear on the ease of retrieval”). Based on the information provided, the Court does not find that
`
`substantially more evidence is located in California or in Texas. The Court also notes that based
`
`on the evidence provided, much of the key technical evidence in this case is located in Korea. ECF
`
`No. 80-1 at 22−24 (explaining that other than SRA’s
`
`, all of the relevant technical
`
`employees are based in Korea).
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00535-ADA Document 102 Filed 08/02/23 Page 15 of 28
`
`Accordingly, the Court finds that this factor is neutral.
`
`
`
`The Availability of Compulsory Process to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses
`
`Under the Federal Rules, a court may subpoena a witness to attend trial only (a) “within
`
`100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person”; or
`
`(b) “within the state where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in
`
`person, if the person . . . is commanded to attend a trial and would not incur substantial expense.”
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1)(A), (B)(ii). Under this factor, the Court focuses on non-party witnesses
`
`whose attendance may need to be secured by a court order.” Fintiv Inc., 2019 WL 4743678, at *14
`
`(citing Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 316). This factor “weigh[s] heavily in favor of transfer when
`
`more third-party witnesses reside within the transferee venue than reside in the transferor venue.”
`
`In re Apple, 581 F. App’x 886, 889 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing In re Genentech, 566 F.3d at 1345).
`
`The Federal Circuit has held that “when there is no indication that a non-party witness is willing,
`
`the witness is presumed to be unwilling and considered under the compulsory process factor.” In
`
`re HP Inc., 2018 WL 4692486, at *3 n.1. However, the Fifth Circuit has clarified that “the
`
`availability of the compulsory process ‘receives less weight when it has not been alleged or shown
`
`that any witness would be unwilling to testify.’” In re Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc., 52
`
`F.4th at 630−31 (quoting Hefferan v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery Inc., 828 F.3d 488 (6th Cir. 2016)).
`
`Samsung argues that this factor favors transfer because the relevant witnesses from SRA
`
`and Google are based in the NDCA. ECF No. 58 at 10. Samsung argues that the SRA employees
`
`that have knowledge about the development of the accused functionality in this case are based in
`
`Mountain View, California and Korea. Id. at 10−11. Samsung identifies the following individuals
`
`in Mountain View: (1)
`
`, SRA Executive Vice President overseeing the
`
`, which
`
`is the point of contact and liaison with Google for mobile device issues; (2)
`
`, member of SRA’s
`
`; (3)
`
`, member of SRA’s
`
`
`
`; (4)
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00535-ADA Document 102 Filed 08/02/23 Page 16 of 28
`
`, member of SRA’s
`
`; (5)
`
`, member of
`
`SRA’s
`
`; (6)
`
`, member of SRA’s
`
`; (7)
`
`, member of the
`
`; (8)
`
`, member of Google’s
`
`, which works with SRA’s
`
`, member of Google’s
`
`; (10)
`
`, member of Google’s
`
`;
`
`;
`
`, member of Google’s
`
`. Id. at 9−10. SRA’s
`
` “works
`
`(9)
`
`and (11)
`
`with Google on engineering aspects of Google apps and the Android platform, as well as approval
`
`processes for apps.” ECF No. 58-10 ¶ 5. The
`
` works with Google on (1) the Android OS
`
`certification process for the accused products and (2) collaboration on Android OS and Google
`
`mobile app features. ECF No. 58-9 ¶ 8. The Android OS certification process ensures that
`
`Samsung’s devices can handle test cases and test scripts designed by Google. Id. ¶ 9. One of
`
`declarants from SRA,
`
` claims that this certification process is relevant to
`
`DoDots’ infringement allegations because testing graphical user interfaces and apps’ retrieval of
`
`information from the internet occurs during the certification process. Id. ¶¶ 10−11. The
`
`
`
`also collaborates with Google on the Android platform and app features by serving as a liaison
`
`between Google and Samsung technical teams. Id. ¶ 12.
`
`DoDots argues that SRA employees in the NDCA, including
`
`
`
`, are
`
`not relevant. ECF No. 80 at 6. DoDots claims that these employees “simply report bugs/i