throbber
Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 67 Filed 04/12/24 Page 1 of 20
`
`
`JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`§
`
`§
`Case No. 6:23-cv-00158-ADA
`§
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`META PLATFORMS, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC’S RESPONSE
`IN OPPOSITION TO META PLATFORMS, INC.’S OPPOSED
`MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (DKT. 28)
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 67 Filed 04/12/24 Page 2 of 20
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 1
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS ...................................................................................................... 2
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`The Private Interest Factors Do Not Favor Transfer .............................................. 3
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Relative Ease of Access to Sources of Proof Weighs Against
`Transfer ....................................................................................................... 3
`
`Cost of Attendance for Willing Witnesses Weighs Against
`Transfer ....................................................................................................... 5
`
`The Availability of Compulsory Process to Secure the
`Attendance of Witnesses Weighs Against Transfer .................................. 10
`
`Judicial Economy Weighs Against Transfer............................................. 14
`
`B.
`
`The Public Interest Factors Do Not Favor Transfer .............................................. 14
`
`The Local Interests Do Not Weigh in Favor of Transfer ...................................... 14
`
`Court Congestion Weigh Against Transfer........................................................... 14
`
`Familiarity of the Forum with the Law Does Not Favor Transfer ........................ 15
`
`The Totality of the Circumstances Fails to Show NDCA is Clearly More
`Convenient ................................................................................................ 15
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 67 Filed 04/12/24 Page 3 of 20
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`In re Clarke,
`94 F.4th 502 (5th Cir. Mar. 1, 2024) ..........................................................................3, 6, 14, 15
`
`Content Guard Holdings, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`No. 2:13-CV-1112-JRG, 2015 WL 1885256 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 24, 2015) ................................15
`
`Defense Distrib. v. Bruck,
`30 F.4th 414 (5th Cir. 2022) ..................................................................................................2, 3
`
`Gentex Corp. v. Meta Platforms, Inc.,
`No. 6:21-cv-00755-ADA, 2022 WL 2654986 (W.D. Tex. June. 30, 2022) ........................5, 13
`
`In re Google LLC,
`58 F.4th 1379 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 1, 2023) ....................................................................................15
`
`In re Google LLC,
`No. 24-117, Dkt. 9 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 4, 2024) ............................................................................14
`
`Immersion Corp. v. Meta Platforms Inc.,
`No. 6:22-cv-00541-ADA, Dkt. 84 (W.D. Tex., May 5, 2023) ........................................ passim
`
`Jawbone Innovations, LLC v. Google LLC,
`No. 6:21-cv-00985-ADA, Dkt. 88 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 14, 2022) ................................................14
`
`In re Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc.,
`52 F.4th 625 (5th Cir. 2022) ....................................................................................................15
`
`Rafqa Star LLC v. Google LLC,
`No. 6:22-cv-01207-ADA, 2023 WL 6050593, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 15,
`2023) ............................................................................................................................3, 4, 5, 14
`
`In re Volkswagen AG,
`371 F.3d 201 (5th Cir. 2004) .....................................................................................................2
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 67 Filed 04/12/24 Page 4 of 20
`
`Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc.’s (Meta”) Motion should be denied. Every private interest
`
`factor weighs against transfer. Plaintiff Jawbone Innovations, LLC (“Jawbone”) identifies specific
`
`sources of proof in or closer to WDTX, whereas Meta fails to identify any specific sources of proof
`
`located in NDCA, instead relying on
`
`
`
`. Jawbone identifies at least 21 witnesses subject to compulsory process in
`
`WDTX, whereas Meta identifies at most 3 such witnesses in NDCA. Jawbone identifies at least
`
`25 willing witnesses in or closer to WDTX, whereas Meta identifies at most 16. This Court’s prior
`
`experience construing claims of three asserted patents further weighs against transfer. Public
`
`interest factors including at least court congestion further weigh against transfer, and none weigh
`
`in favor of transfer.
`
`This Court has previously denied Meta’s similar motion concerning the same accused
`
`Quest headsets and overlapping witnesses in Immersion Corp. v. Meta Platforms Inc., No. 6:22-
`
`cv-00541-ADA, Dkt. 84 (W.D. Tex., May 5, 2023) (hereinafter “Immersion” attached as “Ex. G”).
`
`Meta utterly ignores the Immersion witnesses in WDTX who this Court found relevant, stating in
`
`its brief that “Meta is unaware of any relevant witnesses located in WDTX, let alone witnesses
`
`who would likely testify.” Dkt. 28, “Mot.” at 1. The Court should accordingly deny Meta’s motion
`
`for at least the same reasons as in Immersion.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`Jawbone asserts infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,779,080 (the “’080 Patent”);
`
`11,122,357 (the “’357 Patent”); 8,503,691 (the “’691 Patent”); 8,321,213 (the “’213 Patent”); and
`
`8,326,611 (the “’611 Patent”).1 See Dkt. 1. The asserted patents claim novel acoustic noise
`
`suppression techniques with arrays of microphones, and the accused products include Meta’s
`
`
`1 Jawbone’s complaint originally asserted infringement of three additional patents which it no
`longer asserts.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 67 Filed 04/12/24 Page 5 of 20
`
`Quest, smart glasses, and Portal products. Jawbone acquired Aliphcom d/b/a Jawbone’s IP
`
`portfolio and continues Aliphcom’s work in developing and distributing the patented technology.
`
`Dr. Greg Burnett, Aliphcom’s former Chief Scientist—and named inventor on all the asserted
`
`patents—is continuing his work as Chief Scientist at Jawbone. Jawbone is the sole owner of the
`
`Patents-in-Suit. Ex. A, Setton Decl., ¶ 3. Jawbone is a Texas LLC, with a place of business at 2226
`
`Washington Avenue, Suite Number 1, Waco, Texas 76701. Jawbone
`
`
`
` from that office. Id., ¶¶ 9, 11.
`
`Defendant Meta also has significant connections to WDTX. Meta maintains offices in
`
`WDTX. Dkt. 13, ¶ 2. As shown below, Meta’s Reality Labs division (abbreviated as “RL”) which
`
`works on the Accused Products has a significant presence in WDTX.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARDS
`In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201, 203 (5th Cir. 2004), sets forth the private and public
`
`interest factors concerning transfer. “When a defendant is haled into court, some inconvenience is
`
`expected and acceptable.” Defense Distrib. v. Bruck, 30 F.4th 414, 433 (5th Cir. 2022). A motion
`
`to transfer venue should be denied unless the movant “adduce[s] evidence and arguments that
`
`clearly establish good cause for transfer based on convenience and justice.” Id. The party seeking
`
`transfer must demonstrate good cause for the transfer, i.e., that the transferee venue is clearly more
`
`convenient for both the parties and the witnesses. Id. Indeed, “the standard is not met by showing
`
`one forum is more likely than not to be more convenient.” Id. at 433. Rather, “[t]he burden that a
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 67 Filed 04/12/24 Page 6 of 20
`
`movant must carry is not that the alternative venue is more convenient, but that it is clearly more
`
`convenient.” Rafqa Star LLC v. Google LLC, No. 6:22-cv-01207-ADA, 2023 WL 6050593, at *2
`
`(W.D. Tex. Sept. 15, 2023) (Albright, J.). The standard is not met if it is merely shown that the
`
`transferee venue “is more likely than not to be more convenient.” In re Clarke, 94 F.4th 502, 508
`
`(5th Cir. Mar. 1, 2024).
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`The Private Interest Factors Do Not Favor Transfer
`A.
`Relative Ease of Access to Sources of Proof Weighs Against Transfer
`1.
`This factor weighs strongly against transfer. Jawbone’s and third parties’ sources of proof
`
`are overwhelmingly in or closer to WDTX than NDCA. Meta’s sources of proof are also accessible
`
`in WDTX. Meta fails to identify any sources of proof located in NDCA, instead citing
`
`, presumably to
`
`manipulate this transfer factor.
`
`Jawbone’s sources of proof are in its Waco office, and Dr. Burnett’s
`
`
`
`. Ex. A, ¶ 9; Ex. B, ¶ 7. These
`
`sources of proof include
`
` Id. The Waco office also houses
`
`
`
`
`
`. Ex. A, ¶ 9. Jawbone has no offices or facilities in NDCA. Id., ¶ 7. These activities and
`
`documents weigh against transfer. Defense Distrib., 30 F.4th at 434 & n.25.
`
`Locations of third-party sources of proof also weigh against transfer. Qualcomm
`
`
`
`
`
` have Austin offices which at least house specifications and source code for those products.
`
` The presence of these sources of proof is corroborated by
`
` Qualcomm
`
`employees in WDTX. Infra IV.A.3. EssilorLuxottica, Meta’s partner for the accused smartglasses,
`
`also has offices in Dallas, Texas and will possess at least relevant pricing strategy and marketing
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 67 Filed 04/12/24 Page 7 of 20
`
`information. The presence of relevant EssilorLuxottica employees throughout Texas corroborates
`
`the sources of proof in that office. Infra IV.A.3; Ex. Z.
`
`Meta ignores its suppliers under this factor, instead pointing generally to inventors and
`
`prosecution counsel and speculating they may have some unspecified documents in California.
`
`Meta’s speculation is unfounded.
`
`¶ 7.
`
`
`
` Ex. B, Burnett Decl.,
`
`
`
`Id., ¶ 6. While one inventor on the ’213 and ’611 Patents, Zhinian Jing, may reside in California,
`
`Meta fails to identify any relevant proofs he may possess. Similarly, Scott Kokka, prosecution
`
`counsel for the asserted patents now resides in Austin, TX,
`
`
`
` Infra Section IV.A.3. The only two prosecution counsel
`
`who may reside in California are Mr. Kokka’s former employees. Exs. U-5; U-6. There is no
`
`evidence they retained copies of the files
`
`
`
`Meta offered no evidence regarding the location of its sources of proof, and they are all
`
`accessible from WDTX, weighing against transfer. Instead of actually identifying its own relevant
`
`sources of proof, Meta speculates that some sources may exist in NDCA solely based on
`
`employees. This Court rejected that argument in Rafqa Star, 2023 WL 6050593, at *8.
`
`The remainder of Meta’s argument relies on a
`
`5 (
`
`2
`
`); Ex. E at 20 (
`
`
`
`.2
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`. Ex. F at 100:9-16; see also Mot. at
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 67 Filed 04/12/24 Page 8 of 20
`
` See Ex.
`
`G, at 22. Meta’s position amounts to an argument that, for ligation only, its sources of proof are
`
`only accessible from those locations because it says so. Meta’s preference is irrelevant. See Gentex
`
`Corp. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00755-ADA, 2022 WL 2654986, at *4 (W.D. Tex.
`
`June. 30, 2022) (“[W]here the documentation will be collected is not relevant and therefore has no
`
`bearing on this factor. . . . Looking to the location of future document collection invites
`
`gamesmanship and venue manipulation.”); Ex. G at 22 (rejecting similar argument).
`
`
`
`
`
` See Rafqa Star, 2023 WL 6050593, at *8. Indeed,
`
`Meta’s declarant and 30(b)(6) designee testified
`
`
`
`
`
` Ex. F at 103:7-23. Moreover, there are more such data centers in
`
`Texas than California. Ex. E, 19‒21.
`
`Accordingly, this factor weighs strongly against transfer.
`
`Cost of Attendance for Willing Witnesses Weighs Against Transfer
`2.
`Jawbone identifies 25 willing witnesses for whom WDTX is more convenient than the
`
`NDCA, 18 of whom reside in WDTX and 7 of whom live closer to WDTX than NDCA. Meta
`
`identifies only 17 purported witnesses, 5 of whom reside outside NDCA (1 of whom is closer to
`
`WDTX than NDCA). Mot. at 2-5. To the extent Meta challenges the relevance of the witnesses
`
`Jawbone identifies, they are at least as relevant as witnesses identified by Meta, for at least the
`
`same reasons found in Immersion. This factor weighs strongly against transfer.
`
`WDTX is more convenient than NDCA for Jawbone witnesses including Daniel Setton,
`
`named inventor on all asserted patents, particularly as Dr. Burnett
`
` and Dr. Burnett,
`
` and
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 67 Filed 04/12/24 Page 9 of 20
`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 67 Filed 04/12/24 Page 9 of 20
`
`a. Ex. A, §§ 14-16; Ex. B, §§ 12-17. The increased distancePo
`I oe een anes est
`
`re Clarke, 94 F4th at 514. These willing witnesses’ NDCAtravel will also cost much more — even
`
`assuming equivalent flight costs — as costs of lodging (including parking) aloneare nearly triple in
`
`San Francisco compared to Waco. Ex. AA. This difference in expenseis particularly significant,
`
`as many of Meta’s own identified witnesses would needto travel fortrial regardless.
`
`Meta’s Texas personnel also have relevant knowledge. As discussed below, Meta limited
`
`its search for technical witnesses to a preferred roster drawn from two teams based in Washington
`
`and California, and apparently conducted no real search for relevant financial/marketing witnesses
`
`outside of California. In denying Meta’s motion to transfer to NDCA in Jmmersion, this Court
`
`found at least 22 Texas-domiciled Meta employees have relevant information regarding the same
`
`Quest products accusedin this case, over similar arguments Meta presents here. Ex. G at 22. Many
`
`of those employees including at least
`
`PO are equally relevant here for the same reasons. /d. at 8-17. As in
`
`Immersion, Meta did not interview or disclose these employees here. Many other Texas witnesses
`
`listed below are members of the same groups the Court found relevant in Jmmersion and have
`
`experience in the relevant audio functionality:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 67 Filed 04/12/24 Page 10 of 20
`
`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 67 Filed 04/12/24 Page 10 of 20
`
`

`

`
`
`The following additional Meta employees are closer to WDTX than NDCA:
`
`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 67 Filed 04/12/24 Page 11 of 20
`
`
`
`
`Less than two days before this opposition was due, Meta belatedly supplemented its
`
`Interrogatory responses to attempt to minimize the importance of the above witnesses. Ex. O.
`
`Meta’s supplementationessentially repeats the same arguments this Court rejected in Jmmersion.
`
`Indeed, Meta’s declarant and 30(b)(6) witness did not investigate the above witnesses.
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 67 Filed 04/12/24 Page 12 of 20
`
`Even taking Meta’s arguments at face value, four out of Meta’s 11 identified technical
`
`witnesses and one out of five of Meta’s identified financial and marketing witnesses reside outside
`
`NDCA, and at least one, including
`
`, resides closer to WDTX than the NDCA. Dkt. 28-
`
`1, ¶¶ 10-23. Neither Meta’s declarant, Chris Evans, nor
`
`
`
`, have personal knowledge specific to the accused
`
`functionalities, and both are therefore irrelevant. Ex. F, 14:21-15:6, 18:21-24 (Testimony that
`
`Mr. Evans works on
`
`); Dkt. 28-1, ¶ 25.
`
` is
`
`essentially irrelevant because he is knowledgeable on physical VADs (e.g., accelerometers) which
`
`are no longer accused in this case. Id., ¶ 10. Indeed, Meta identifies only one witness,
`
`
`
` (who does not reside in NDCA) as working on the noise suppression algorithms at the
`
`heart of this case. Meta’s remaining witnesses are identified largely on general experience with
`
`“audio capture” functionality, physical microphones, and some unspecified software “algorithms”
`
`for audio processing. This experience is similar if not identical to the knowledgeable Texans
`
`identified above who Meta excluded in its search. To the extent Meta takes issue with Jawbone’s
`
`witness identification, its own identification of at least 10 of 11 technical witnesses is equally
`
`deficient.
`
`Meta did not conduct a legitimate investigation regarding relevant Texas-domiciled
`
`employees in this action and did not attempt to distinguish the employees this Court found relevant
`
`regarding the same products in Immersion. Meta relies on the Evans Declaration for its
`
`identification of allegedly relevant witnesses and sources of proof.
`
`
`
`”
`
`9
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 67 Filed 04/12/24 Page 13 of 20
`
`esee)
`
`. Id. Mr. Evansalso stated
`
`|| Id. at 44:7-13. For example,
`
`On balance, this factor weighs strongly against transfer.
`
`3.
`
`The Availability of Compulsory Process to Secure the
`Attendance of Witnesses Weighs Against Transfer
`Jawboneidentifies at least 24 relevant witnesses subject to the subpoena powerof this
`
`Court in Texas, whereas Meta identifies at most 3 witnesses — two prosecution counsel and one
`
`inventor — subject to compulsory process by NDCA. This factor weighs heavily against transfer.
`
` First, at least 6 former Meta employees with relevant knowledge regarding Accused
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`
`
`Phillip Dang
`
`Jason Gall
`
`Leonard
`Soskin
`
`Director, Product Marketing, RL Cross-Product.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 67 Filed 04/12/24 Page 14 of 20
`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 67 Filed 04/12/24 Page 14 of 20
`
`Products reside in Texas within the subpoena powerof this Court:
`
`John Carmack|CTO for Oculus before acquisition by Meta. This Court recognized
`
`Mr. Carmackas an important witness regarding the accused Oculus products,
`and held he was properly considered underthis factor. Ex. G at 9-10; Ex. H(1)
`at 102, 112.
`Data Scientist.
`
`Product Management Lead in Austin, TX. “Driving product for the platform
`Anish
`Tallapureddy|that powers audio/video and other remote presence experiences across...
`Oculus and other Reality labs/ metaverse products.” Ex. V-1.
`Director of Product Marketing (AR & Smart Glasses) in Austin, TX, “Directed
`the Business, Marketing, and Product Operations teams as the GM,driving the
`AR and Smart Glasses portfolio within Reality Labs.” Ex. V-4.
`Prasad Selvan|Sr. Engineering Leader, “[p]ioneered the strategic development and execution
`of a data collection and software engineering initiative [] bolstering Meta’s
`Go-To-Marketstrategy for [] Rayban Glasses and Quest headsets.” Ex. V-6
`Second, Meta sources
`
`Pe from vendors in WDTX,including Qualcomm
`ee. Atleast the following current and former employees
`
`within the subpoena power of this Court possess relevant technical
`
`information regarding
`
` components,
`
`Qualcomm
`
`Titash R
`
`Hitesh Puri
`
`VP Technology at Qualcomm in Austin, Texas with experience as “[l]ead core
`
`“Leading AI/ML driven business use-cases definition and enablement on XR
`devices” in Austin, TX. Leading AI/ML driven business use-cases definition
`and enablement on XR devices, “[d]eployed in low power, high performance
`algorithm-HW co-designed XR devices e.g. RayBan smartglasses and Quest
`MR headsets.” Ex. X-7.
`Sr. Director of Engineering, in Austin, TX. “50+ DSPcores within the past 11
`ing Audio/Video. .
`. and] AR/VR, ML.. . usage.” Ex. X-3.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 67 Filed 04/12/24 Page 15 of 20
`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 67 Filed 04/12/24 Page 15 of 20
`
`
`
` Venkumahanti|micro architect and design manager for Hexagon DSP.” Ex. X-6.
`Digital Engineer in Austin, TX working on “[d]esign verification of the
`Hexagon DSP.” Previously worked at Meta working on “internal SW tooling”
`and published papers on “DSP filter verification.” Ex. X-2.
`Former Qualcomm Advanced Tech R&D in Dallas, TX with experience
`working on “multi microphone and loudspeaker array processing ...
`integration of audio/voice processing with other device sensor modalities” and
`“evaluating
`performance of audio signal processing algorithms. Ex. X-4.
`
`Eric
`Jackowski
`
`Nils Peters
`
`
`
`Third, the accused Ray-Ban smart glasses are developed and distributed by Meta in
`
`partnership with EssilorLuxottica, the owner of Ray-Ban. Essilor of America is based in Texas
`
`(Ex. M), and Essilor employees with relevant knowledge of the development, distribution,
`
`marketing, finances, and customer preferences for accused smart glasses reside in Texas:
`
`Elodie
`Innovation Project Director (Smart Eyewear) in Dallas, TX “initiating and
`Camaret
`leading 2 to 4 projects with key partnerslike Meta”for smart glasses products.
`Ex. Z-1.
`VP — Head Global Manufacturing IT Solutions in Dallas, TX, “Ray-Ban Meta.”
`Ex. Z-2.
`Scott Smith|VP of Strategic Partnerships and Business Developmentin Dallas, TX.
`Ex. R at 10:6-17:
`
`Joe Ibarra
`
`Vishal
`Keswani
`
`Ex. Z-3.
`Senior Manager, Strategic Pricing in Dallas, TX with “experience in Reporting,
`Business development, Customer success engagement, Advanced Analytics,
`developing IT Strategy, product requirement definition, and business processes.”
`Ex. Z-4.
`
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 67 Filed 04/12/24 Page 16 of 20
`
`Finally, Scott Kokka, prosecution counsel for the asserted patents lives in Austin, Texas.
`
`Ex. U-4.
`
`In contrast, Meta identifies only prosecuting attorneys and inventors. While Meta asserts
`
`“two potential non-party witnesses are in NDCA, one in California, and the rest are located
`
`thousands of miles from either location,” citing the Evans Decl., it refers to companies with offices
`
`in California, not witnesses. See Dkt. 28-1, ¶¶ 12, 17. Of the three companies Meta identifies, one
`
`(Qualcomm) also has offices in WDTX. Meta adduces no evidence the other two (
`
`
`
`) are relevant to accused functionality. Indeed, Meta’s discovery responses only
`
`identify
`
`. Ex. K at 5‒6; see e.g., Ex. P (
`
`
`
`
`
`). Meta’s speculation regarding those companies does not meet its burden to identify specific
`
`witnesses. Gentex, 2022 WL 2654986, at *5.
`
`Meta’s arguments regarding prosecuting attorneys overstate the case. Meta incorrectly
`
`states “five prosecuting attorneys” reside in NDCA, and “none live in WDTX.” But the Nguyen
`
`Declaration acknowledges that one of the five, Richard Gregory, lives in Houston. Dkt. 28-2, ¶ 28;
`
`Exs. U-3-i; U-3-ii. Of the four remaining, Scott Kokka resides in Austin, Texas, and Barbara
`
`Courtney in Colorado. Exs. U-1; U-4. The remainder, Howard Yuan and Trueman Denny, are
`
`former employees of Mr. Kokka and neither is likely to have information which he lacks.
`
`Finally, Meta incorrectly asserts “four of the six named inventors currently reside in
`
`NDCA.” Three of the four, Alexander Asseily, Eric Breitfeller, and Andrew Einaudi, are on patents
`
`which are no longer asserted. Meta does not identify any information the fourth, Zhinian Jing (who
`
`is on two asserted patents), has that his co-inventor, Dr. Burnett (who is on all asserted patents),
`
`does not, and which would be presented at trial. No prior defendant has even deposed Mr. Jing
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 67 Filed 04/12/24 Page 17 of 20
`
`given Dr. Burnett’s availability. Mr. Jing does not weigh in favor of transfer.
`
`Accordingly, this factor weighs strongly against transfer.
`
`Judicial Economy Weighs Against Transfer
`4.
`Meta alleges because this case is “in its infancy,” this factor weighs in favor of transfer,
`
`but ignores this Court has previously construed claims and conducted claim construction. Jawbone
`
`Innovations, LLC v. Google LLC, No. 6:21-cv-00985-ADA, Dkt. 88 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 14, 2022).
`
`Meta’s contention also relies on its incorrect arguments regarding witnesses. Judicial economy
`
`favors maintaining this case in WDTX, and this factor weighs against transfer. In re Google LLC,
`
`No. 24-117, Dkt. 9 at 3 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 4, 2024).
`
`B.
`
`The Public Interest Factors Do Not Favor Transfer
`
`The Local Interests Do Not Weigh in Favor of Transfer
`This factor does not weigh in favor of transfer. Meta concedes that development of the
`
`Accused Products occurred at least partially in Washington, identifies that it has employees
`
`working on accused technology throughout the country, and ignores its employees in WDTX.
`
`Rafqa Star, 2023 WL 6050593, at *10. Meta also incorrectly states the asserted patents were
`
`developed in California.
`
`
`
`Only one inventor named on two of the five asserted
`
`patents lives in California. In any case, Jawbone is a Texas entity that maintains an office in WDTX
`
`and
`
` Ex. A, ¶ 11; see also In re Clarke, 94 F.4th at
`
`511-12. This factor does not favor transfer.
`
`Court Congestion Weigh Against Transfer
`The most recent Judicial Caseload Profiles for United States District Courts show that the
`
`median time from filing to trial is nearly ten months faster in WDTX (25.8 months) than the NDCA
`
`(36.7 months). See Ex. S. In addition, NDCA has stated that “the District is currently in a judicial
`
`emergency resulting from increased case volumes, COVID-19 backlogs, limited resources, and
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 67 Filed 04/12/24 Page 18 of 20
`
`judicial vacancies.” Ex. T. Moreover, the Fifth and Federal Circuits routinely defer to the district
`
`court’s assessment of time to trial data. See In re Clarke, 94 F.4th at 509-10; In re Planned
`
`Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc., 52 F.4th 625, 631 (5th Cir. 2022). As Dr. Burnett,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Cf. In
`
`re Google LLC, 58 F.4th 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 1, 2023). This factor weighs against transfer.
`
`Even if this Court believes there is no need for a quick resolution, this factor would be neutral.
`
`Familiarity of the Forum with the Law Does Not Favor Transfer
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` This factor does not favor transfer.
`
`The Totality of the Circumstances Fails to Show NDCA is Clearly More
`Convenient
`The totality of convenience factors demonstrates that the NDCA is not clearly more
`
`convenient than WDTX, where both the private and public interest factors do not weigh in favor
`
`of transfer. Meta fails to demonstrate that the NDCA is clearly more convenient. Transfer is not
`
`warranted.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Meta’s Motion should be denied.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 67 Filed 04/12/24 Page 19 of 20
`
`
`Dated: April 5, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` /s/Peter Lambrianakos
`Raymond W. Mort, III
`Texas State Bar No. 00791308
`Email: raymort@austinlaw.com
`THE MORT LAW FIRM, PLLC
`100 Congress Avenue, Suite 2000
`Austin, Texas 78701
`Tel/Fax: 512-865-7950
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Alfred R. Fabricant (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`NY Bar No. 2219392
`Email: ffabricant@fabricantllp.com
`Peter Lambrianakos (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`NY Bar No. 2894392
`Email: plambrianakos@fabricantllp.com
`Vincent J. Rubino, III (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`NY Bar No. 4557435
`Email: vrubino@fabricantllp.com
`Jacob Ostling (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
`NY Bar No. 5684824
`Email: jostling@fabricantllp.com
`FABRICANT LLP
`411 Theodore Fremd Avenue
`Suite 206 South
`Rye, New York 10580
`Telephone: (212) 257-5797
`Facsimile: (212) 257-5796
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC
`
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 67 Filed 04/12/24 Page 20 of 20
`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 67 Filed 04/12/24 Page 20 of 20
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that all counsel of record who have consented to electronic service are
`
`being served with a copy of this documentvia electronic mail on April 5, 2024.
`
`Talso herebycertify that all counsel of record who have consentedto electronic service are
`
`being served with a notice offiling of this document, under seal, pursuant to L.R. CV-5(a)(7) on
`
`April 5, 2024.
`
`/s/ Peter Lambrianakos
`Peter Lambrianakos
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket