`
`
`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
`
`