Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 73 Filed 04/26/24 Page 1 of 16
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:23-cv-00158-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`META PLATFORMS, INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT’S REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS
`MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO
`THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 73 Filed 04/26/24 Page 2 of 16
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`
`Page
`
`ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 1
`A.
`Jawbone’s Purported Sources of Proof and Witnesses are Irrelevant .................... 1
`1.
`The Immersion Witnesses Relate to Haptics, Not Audio .......................... 2
`2.
`Jawbone’s Purported Evidence Is Wrong (Again) ..................................... 3
`3.
`Jawbone’s Reliance on Texas Offices of Third Parties Has No
`Basis in Fact or Law .................................................................................. 4
`Jawbone’s Attempt to Discredit Mr. Evans’ Investigation Fails ........................... 5
`It Is Undisputed That This Action Could Have Been Brought in NDCA ............. 5
`Jawbone Speculates as to Facts and Contradicts Law on Private Interest ............. 5
`1.
`Jawbone’s Purported Sources of Proof Are Not Based On Fact or
`Law ............................................................................................................ 5
`Jawbone Fails To Identify Any Legitimate Willing Witness in
`WDTX........................................................................................................ 6
`Jawbone Cannot Contrive Relevance To Establish Compulsory
`Process ....................................................................................................... 8
`Jawbone Undermines Any Judicial Economy ........................................... 8
`4.
`Jawbone Ignores Fifth Circuit and Federal Circuit Law on Public Interest .......... 9
`1.
`NDCA’s Interests Strongly Favor Transfer ............................................... 9
`2.
`Court Congestion Slightly Favors Transfer ............................................... 9
`3.
`Familiarity of the Forum with the Law Favors Transfer ......................... 10
`4.
`Conflicts of Law or Foreign Law Is Neutral ............................................ 10
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 10
`
`B.
`C.
`D.
`
`E.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`-i-
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 73 Filed 04/26/24 Page 3 of 16
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`In re Clarke,
`94 F.4th 502 (5th Cir. 2024) ..................................................................................................9, 10
`
`Correct Transmission LLC v. ADTRAN, Inc.,
`No. 6:20-CV-00669-ADA, 2021 WL 1967985 (W.D. Tex. May 17, 2021) .............................9
`
`Gentex Corp. v. Meta Platforms, Inc.,
`No. 6:21-cv-00755, 2022 WL 2654986 (W.D. Tex. July 8, 2022) ........................................5, 6
`
`In re Google LLC,
`58 F.4th 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2023) .........................................................................................6, 9, 10
`
`In re Google,
`No. 2021-170, 2021 WL 4427899 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 27, 2021) ...............................................3, 4
`
`Jawbone Innovations, LLC v. Google LLC,
`No. 6:21-cv-00985-ADA (W.D. Tex.).......................................................................................9
`
`LoganTree LP v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 6:21-CV-00397-ADA, 2022 WL 1491097 (W.D. Tex. May 11, 2022) .............................4
`
`Odom v. Microsoft Corp.,
`596 F.Supp.2d 995 (E.D. Tex. 2009) .......................................................................................10
`
`Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
`No. 6:21-CV-00570-ADA, 2022 WL 17420391 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 4, 2022) .............................4
`
`In re TikTok, Inc.,
`85 F.4th 352 (5th Cir. 2023) ..............................................................................................5, 6, 10
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-ii-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 73 Filed 04/26/24 Page 4 of 16
`
`TABLE OF TRANSFER FACTORS
`
`Factor
`Relative ease of access to sources of
`proof
`Availability of compulsory process
`to secure the attendance of witnesses
`Cost of attendance
`for willing
`witnesses
`All other practical problems that
`make trial of a case easy, expeditious
`and inexpensive
`Administrative difficulties flowing
`from court congestion
`Local interests in having this case
`decided at home
`Familiarity of the forum with the law
`that will govern the case
`Avoidance of unnecessary problems
`of conflict of laws or the application
`of foreign law
`
`Meta
`Strongly favors transfer
`
`Jawbone
`Against transfer
`
`Strongly favors transfer
`
`Against transfer
`
`Strongly favors transfer
`
`Against transfer
`
`Favors transfer
`
`Against transfer
`
`Slightly favors transfer
`
`Against transfer / Neutral
`
`Strongly favors transfer
`
`Does not favor transfer
`
`Favors transfer
`
`Against Transfer / Neutral
`
`Neutral
`
`Does not favor transfer
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-iii-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 73 Filed 04/26/24 Page 5 of 16
`
`
`
`
`NDCA—not WDTX—is the clearly more convenient forum for this case. The key
`
`witnesses responsible for the Accused Features (noise suppression and voice activity detection)
`
`generally reside in NDCA and WA. Critically, not a single Meta employee residing in WDTX has
`
`worked on the Accused Features. To manipulate venue, Jawbone constructs a list of purported
`
`witnesses plainly based on the fact that they reside in or near WDTX. But Jawbone has no
`
`evidence to counter the record and sworn testimony that confirms these witnesses are not relevant.
`
`I.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`Jawbone’s Purported Sources of Proof and Witnesses are Irrelevant
`
`During venue discovery, Meta identified all teams and individuals responsible for the
`
`Accused Features, identified all its vendors related to the Accused Features, identified locations of
`
`all Meta data centers that could house documents related to the Accused Features, produced job
`
`descriptions of the key individuals responsible for the Accused Features, produced job descriptions
`
`of all individuals residing in Texas that are on teams responsible for the Accused Features,
`
`produced bills of materials confirming the third parties related to the Accused Features, produced
`
`source code for all Accused Products (including logs showing who edited the code), and much
`
`more. See, e.g., Evans Decl. ¶¶ 8-23; Exs. A1-A12, B, C; Pltf. Exs. E, K, O (Dkts. 64-4, -10, -13).
`
`And after more than 16 weeks of venue discovery, seven depositions, and numerous interrogatories
`
`and requests for production, Jawbone merely confirmed the truth—no Meta employee residing in
`
`WDTX worked on the Accused Features.
`
`Rather than address this detailed evidence, Jawbone ignores it and presents its own
`
`“evidence.” Specifically, Jawbone (i) supposes that Immersion witnesses relevant to haptics are
`
`somehow relevant to the audio capture technology here; (ii) imputes knowledge to Meta employees
`
`based on vague LinkedIn and Workplace profiles and a misunderstanding of Meta source code;
`
`and (iii) assumes that third parties based outside of Texas will only produce witnesses and sources
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 73 Filed 04/26/24 Page 6 of 16
`
`
`
`
`of proof from their Texas offices. These suppositions are contrary to fact, and entitled to no weight.
`
`1.
`
`The Immersion Witnesses Relate to Haptics, Not Audio
`
`With no meaningful connection to WDTX, on the last day of venue discovery, Jawbone
`
`made a last-ditch effort to identify witnesses in Texas by demanding that Meta produce unredacted
`
`transfer papers from the Immersion case. Relying on Immersion paper descriptions, Jawbone now
`
`argues that 12 Meta personnel identified in the Immersion order are relevant here, stating as
`
`purported fact that these “Texas witnesses . . . have experience in the relevant audio functionality.”
`
`Opp. 6. Wrong. These witnesses are familiar with the haptics at issue in Immersion—not the
`
`audio functionality (nor specifically, audio capture functionality) at issue here. See, e.g., Pltf. Ex.
`
`G (Dkt. 64-6) at 10 (“
`
` has potentially relevant information” because he focuses on
`
`“design and user experience of VR products [that] is important to the Accused Products at issue,
`
`specifically haptics”).
`
`None of the 12 identified Meta personnel have worked on the Accused Features at issue in
`
`this case. See Exs. A1-A12. Indeed, Jawbone wholly disregards Meta’s supplemental
`
`interrogatory responses expressly confirming this. Pltf. Ex. O (Dkt. 64-13) at 16-21. Jawbone
`
`argues that the supplement1 “essentially repeats the same arguments this Court rejected in
`
`Immersion.” Opp. 8. But the Immersion order generally found these witnesses relevant (to haptics)
`
`because “Meta [did] not specifically dispute the[ir] relevance.” Pltf. Ex. G (Dkt. 64-6) at 10, 11;
`
`see also id. at 12-17. Thus, contrary to Jawbone’s statement, the Court in Immersion did not have
`
`the benefit of the job descriptions that Meta provided here in order to evaluate these employees’
`
`relevance to the case.
`
`
`1 Jawbone refers to Meta’s supplement as “belated.” Opp. 8. This mischaracterization ignores
`that the Court expressly allowed the supplement in response to Jawbone’s untimely demand for
`the Immersion papers, and that Meta served the supplement mere days after the order. Dkt. 69.
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 73 Filed 04/26/24 Page 7 of 16
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Jawbone’s Purported Evidence Is Wrong (Again)
`
`Jawbone has repeatedly questioned the veracity of Meta’s evidence and witnesses, even
`
`though they have been consistently tested and proven true. Despite Meta’s representation that it
`
`identified all employees responsible for the Accused Features, Jawbone argued that the LinkedIn
`
`profiles of
`
` and
`
` establish otherwise. Dkt. 52 at 1-2. But at
`
`deposition, both
`
` and
`
` confirmed neither worked on the Accused Features. Exs. D
`
`at 14:7-20, E at 10:2-11:12. Similarly, Meta confirmed
`
` did not work on
`
`the Accused Features.2 Dkt. 69 at 1-4. Dissatisfied, Jawbone moved to compel their identification
`
`anyway, which the Court denied. Id. at 7. Jawbone now repeats the same flawed approach,
`
`insisting 10 Meta personnel worked on the Accused Features based solely on vague descriptions
`
`from LinkedIn, Workplace, and source code check-ins. Opp. 10. But once again, Jawbone’s
`
`arguments are wrong.
`
`First and foremost, sworn declarations and interrogatory responses refute that any of these
`
`10 Meta personnel worked on the Accused Features. See Exs. A1-A12; Ex. B; Pltf. Ex. O (Dkt.
`
`64-13) at 16-21. Jawbone deposed two witnesses—
`
`
`
`—who both confirmed that
`
` did not work on the
`
`Accused Features. Exs. F at 9:7-10:21, G at 19:16-20:5. Meta’s declarant and 30(b)(6) witness,
`
`Chris Evans, also explained his steps to confirm the same. Ex. H at 11:11-12:17, 44:7-13.
`
`Second, LinkedIn and Workplace descriptions alone cannot establish relevance, let alone
`
`establish that these witnesses have specific knowledge that requires their testimony at trial. In fact,
`
`the Federal Circuit has admonished reliance on LinkedIn without specific testimony as “highly
`
`
`2 Indeed, during deposition, Meta’s declarant and 30(b)(6) witness, Chris Evans, confirmed that
`he had spoken to
`. Ex. H at 11:11-12:17. Jawbone’s counsel
`chose not to examine Mr. Evans about this conversation. See id.
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 73 Filed 04/26/24 Page 8 of 16
`
`
`
`
`speculative.” In re Google, No. 2021-170, 2021 WL 4427899, at *7 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 27, 2021).
`
`This Court has also rejected similar reliance on LinkedIn as too vague and speculative to establish
`
`relevant knowledge. See, e.g., Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 6:21-CV-00570-ADA,
`
`2022 WL 17420391, at *5 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 4, 2022); LoganTree LP v. Apple Inc., No. 6:21-CV-
`
`00397-ADA, 2022 WL 1491097, at *6-7 (W.D. Tex. May 11, 2022).
`
`Third, Jawbone misleadingly argues that engineers located in the UK, New York, and New
`
`Jersey have checked in code for the Accused Features. Opp. 8, 10. Not true. As confirmed at
`
`deposition and by declaration by
`
`
`
`, none of these engineers worked on or contributed to the noise suppression
`
`or voice activity detection code that shipped in an Accused Product. Ex. A12; Ex. I at 16:6-17:3,
`
`20:1-13, 40:1-18; Exs. A2, A7, A8. The files that Jawbone cites do not even show which files
`
`were worked on or checked in. See Opp. 8 (citing to META_JWBN_SC_0072, 0121-123, 0128).
`
`3.
`
`Jawbone’s Reliance on Texas Offices of Third Parties Has No Basis in
`Fact or Law
`
`In venue discovery, Meta specifically identified all its third-party vendors for the accused
`
`Portal, Quest, and Smart Glasses products, and provided points of contact for each. Pltf. Ex. K
`
`(Dkt. 64-10) at 5-6. Jawbone ignores this, cherry-picks Meta’s vendors, and argues that only those
`
`with Texas offices are relevant. Notably, Jawbone argues that their Texas offices must house
`
`relevant evidence, relying only on websites listing the vendor’s offices. Opp. 3-4. Jawbone even
`
`cherry-picks certain employees at these third parties claiming that they are somehow relevant,
`
`without any evidence other than a vague LinkedIn description. Id. at 11-12. As this Court has
`
`found, “general citations [to third-party] employees are unavailing” when “there is no evidence
`
`that the identified employees have knowledge [of the Accused Features] or Meta.” Pltf. Ex. G
`
`(Dkt. 64-6) at 27. These third-party employees should be disregarded.
`
`
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 73 Filed 04/26/24 Page 9 of 16
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Jawbone’s Attempt to Discredit Mr. Evans’ Investigation Fails
`
`Meta’s declarant and 30(b)(6) witness, Chris Evans, carefully investigated the relevant
`
`witnesses by logically starting with the engineers who worked on audio capture. See, e.g., Ex. H
`
`at 35:18-37:16, 95:8-96:7. Mr. Evans further confirmed that
`
` did not
`
`work on the Accused Features. Id. at 11:11-12:17, 44:7-13.
`
`Jawbone claims that Mr. Evans did not “conduct a legitimate investigation regarding
`
`relevant Texas-domiciled employees in this action.” Opp. 9. Incorrect. Indeed, it is clear from
`
`Mr. Evans’ notes that he asked each witness he interviewed whether they worked with anyone in
`
`Texas. Pltf. Ex. Q (Dkt. 64-15) at 1-3. And in fact, Mr. Evans identified two potential witnesses
`
`in Texas that he later confirmed did not have relevant information (Evans Decl., ¶¶ 26-27),
`
`including
`
` whom Jawbone falsely claims Mr. Evans did not investigate. Opp. 8.
`
`C.
`
`It Is Undisputed That This Action Could Have Been Brought in NDCA
`
`Jawbone does not dispute that this action could have been brought in NDCA.
`
`D.
`
`Jawbone Speculates as to Facts and Contradicts Law on Private Interest
`
`1.
`
`Jawbone’s Purported Sources of Proof Are Not Based On Fact or Law
`
`“[T]his factor weighs in favor of transfer where the current district lacks any evidence
`
`relating to the case.” In re TikTok, Inc., 85 F.4th 352, 358 (5th Cir. 2023) (citation omitted). The
`
`sources of proof (Meta documents and source code) are located in NDCA, not WDTX. Br. 9-11.
`
`This factor strongly favors transfer.
`
`Jawbone counters that Meta’s documents are
`
`
`
` Opp. 4. Jawbone further complains that
`
`Corp. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00755, 2022 WL 2654986, at *4 (W.D. Tex. July 8,
`
`2022) to argue
`
`. Opp. 5. These arguments are wrong in both fact
`
` pointing to Gentex
`
`
`
`
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 73 Filed 04/26/24 Page 10 of 16
`
`
`
`
`and law. As to fact, Jawbone ignores that
`
` Br. 9-11. Furthermore,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`. Evans Decl. ¶ 25.
`
` See id. As to law, Gentex
`
`issued before the Fifth Circuit held that the location of the employees with necessary security
`
`clearance matters. TikTok, 85 F.4th at 359. Indeed, the Fifth Circuit emphasized that “if [an] out-
`
`of-district individual[] [must] travel into the district, ‘bringing’ the electronic evidence with them,”
`
`it is an abuse of discretion to find that such proof is easily accessible in both forums. Id.
`
`Trying to press the scale, Jawbone argues that its own sources of proof are in Waco. But
`
`the Federal Circuit has already expressly found that “Jawbone has no meaningful presence in the
`
`Western District of Texas,” noting that “little or no weight should be accorded to a party’s recent
`
`and ephemeral presence in the transferor forum.” In re Google LLC, 58 F.4th 1379, 1384-85 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2023) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
`
`Finally, Jawbone also claims (without any support) that third-party vendors
`
`
`
`Opp. 3-4.
`
` in their Austin offices.
`
` See
`
`Ex. I at 53:18-25. Regardless, there is no evidence whatsoever that these third parties keep any
`
`relevant, unique documents in their Texas offices. See Section A.3. And even if they did, Jawbone
`
`provides no evidence that they would be more easily accessible in Texas than their NDCA offices
`
`. Dkts. 65-1, 65-2; see TikTok, 85 F.4th at 358.
`
`2.
`
`Jawbone Fails To Identify Any Legitimate Willing Witness in WDTX
`
`Meta’s diligent investigation confirms NDCA is the clearly more convenient forum for 16
`-6-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 73 Filed 04/26/24 Page 11 of 16
`
`
`
`
`Meta witnesses: 10 in NDCA
`
`whom NDCA is more convenient for travel
`
`
`
`. Evans Decl. ¶¶ 8-23.
`
`
`
` and 6 for
`
`
`
`
`
`In response, Jawbone submits a list of 22 purported Meta witnesses (12 from Immersion
`
`papers and 10 from speculation based on vague descriptions) with no principled relevance to the
`
`case other than their residence in or near WDTX. Jawbone audaciously states that Meta’s
`
`witnesses with experience in audio capture functionality and physical microphones are “similar if
`
`not identical to the knowledgeable Texans identified.” Opp. 5. But Jawbone never explains,
`
`presumably because it cannot, how knowledge about the accused audio capture and microphone
`
`functionality is “similar if not identical” to knowledge about the OS, gaming content, visual
`
`rendering, or non-technical information. Id.; see also Sections A.1 and A.2.
`
`Indeed, Jawbone’s only criterion for branding these individuals as “relevant” appears to be
`
`any level of involvement with the Accused Products, no matter how tangential. But under this
`
`reasoning, anyone on the
`
` teams would presumably be relevant,
`
`
`
`resulting in scores of supposedly “relevant” witnesses, the majority of which reside in NDCA or
`
`WA. Ex. B at 3-11.
`
`. Opp. 9. But in fact, NDCA is
`
`.
`
`
`3 Jawbone states that
` is no longer relevant to the case because physical VADs “are
`no longer accused in this case.” Opp. 9. But Jawbone has not amended its contentions, nor
`dismissed any patents from the case.
`4 Jawbone argues that Waco is more convenient for
`more convenient because
`. Nguyen Decl. ¶ 14; Ex. M; see also Ex. B at 6-9
`-7-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 73 Filed 04/26/24 Page 12 of 16
`
`
`
`
`At bottom, the 12 Immersion witnesses and 10 speculative witnesses identified by Jawbone
`
`are irrelevant to this case, and entitled to no weight. See Sections A.1 and A.2. Thus, WDTX is
`
`more convenient for only the two Jawbone witnesses, at most.5
`
`3.
`
`Jawbone Cannot Contrive Relevance To Establish Compulsory Process
`
`Jawbone again points to another 24 purported witnesses subject to compulsory process in
`
`WDTX. Opp. 11. Only one is legitimate—prosecution counsel in Austin. Id. at 13. The
`
`remaining are, again, unprincipled.
`
`First, Jawbone ignores the 12 primary points of contact for Meta vendors in California.
`
`Pltf. Exs. K (Dkt. 64-10) at 5-6. Instead, Jawbone identifies 14 random employees from
`
` that purportedly possess “relevant” information. Opp. 11-
`
`12. But LinkedIn profiles alone cannot establish that these employees are relevant. See Section
`
`A.2 and A.3. And even if they could, then dozens of other third-party employees in California
`
`would be equally relevant. See Ex. J (selected LinkedIn profiles of third-party employees).
`
`Second, Jawbone identifies six former Meta employees. Opp. 11. Again, the record is
`
`devoid of any evidence that these individuals have unique, relevant knowledge. Further reliance
`
`on Immersion is unavailing. There, the Court had no “specific reason to discount [the] relevance”
`
`of
`
` and
`
`. Pltf. Ex. G (Dkt. 64-6) at 15. But here, Meta’s supporting
`
`declarations confirm that they are irrelevant. Exs. A1-A12. And though the Court found John
`
`Carmack “has relevant knowledge of the conception, design, and development” of the accused
`
`haptics technology in Immersion, here, there is no evidence that Mr. Carmack is even familiar with
`
`the relevant audio capture and microphone functionality.
`
`4.
`
`Jawbone Undermines Any Judicial Economy
`
`
`5 Jawbone alleges 25 witnesses for which WDTX is more convenient—the 22 purported Meta
`witnesses,
` (see n.4), and two Jawbone witnesses. Opp. 5.
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 73 Filed 04/26/24 Page 13 of 16
`
`
`
`
`Jawbone argues that judicial economy weighs against transfer. Not so. Although this
`
`Court previously conducted claim construction in Jawbone Innovations, LLC v. Google LLC,
`
`No. 6:21-cv-00985-ADA (W.D. Tex.), Jawbone vitiates any efficiencies by re-litigating all claims.
`
`Indeed, Jawbone has insisted on asserting 206 claims from the patents-in-suit, even though this
`
`Court has already found nearly half of those claims indefinite.6 See Ex. L.
`
`E.
`
`Jawbone Ignores Fifth Circuit and Federal Circuit Law on Public Interest
`
`1.
`
`NDCA’s Interests Strongly Favor Transfer
`
`As the Federal Circuit has already found, NDCA has local interests in the events that gave
`
`rise to the suit, whereas WDTX has none. “Jawbone has no meaningful presence in the Western
`
`District of Texas that should be given significant, let alone, comparable weight to the facts tying
`
`the litigation to the California forum, where both the patented and accused technology were
`
`developed.” Google, 58 F.4th at 1384. Jawbone argues that “the development of the Accused
`
`Products occurred at least partially in Washington” and “Meta has employees working on the
`
`accused technology throughout the country.” Opp. 14. But “[t]he transfer analysis is relative.”
`
`In re Clarke, 94 F.4th 502, 512 (5th Cir. 2024). Regardless of the local interest in other judicial
`
`districts, NDCA has local interests and WDTX does not.7 Thus, this factor strongly favors transfer.
`
`2.
`
`Court Congestion Slightly Favors Transfer
`
`Jawbone’s court congestion arguments fail under Fifth Circuit and Federal Circuit law.
`
`First, Jawbone argues that “time to trial” statistics weighs against transfer. Opp. 14-15. But the
`
`Fifth Circuit recently rejected such statistics as not “particularly relevant.” Clarke, 94 F.4th at
`
`
`6 Jawbone states that Meta’s citation to Correct Transmission LLC v. ADTRAN, Inc., No. 6:20-
`CV-00669-ADA, 2021 WL 1967985, at *5 (W.D. Tex. May 17, 2021) is an “incorrect argument,”
`but provides no analysis or case citation. Thus, Jawbone’s criticism fails.
`7 Jawbone also argues it “maintains an office in WDTX” and Meta “ignores its employees in
`WDTX.” Opp. 14. But this factor “focus[es] on the events—not the parties.” Clarke, 94 F.4th at
`511. And neither the patents nor the Accused Products were developed in WDTX.
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 73 Filed 04/26/24 Page 14 of 16
`
`
`
`
`509-10. Indeed, the trial date here already exceeds the WDTX median time to trial (27 versus 25.8
`
`months). Second, Jawbone argues that it “is a competitor in the marketplace and a faster time to
`
`trial is particularly relevant.” Opp. 15. Nonsense. The Federal Circuit already rejected that
`
`argument, finding that Jawbone “is not engaged in product competition in the marketplace.”
`
`Google, 58 F.4th at 1383; see also Ex. K at 14.
`
`Properly considering court congestion by evaluating “the progress the case had made,”
`
`TikTok, 85 F.4th at 363-64, confirms this factor slightly favors transfer. Although Meta diligently
`
`filed its transfer motion soon after Jawbone served its preliminary infringement contentions
`
`(identifying smart glasses as an accused product for the first time), Jawbone has repeatedly asked
`
`for extensions such that the transfer briefing will complete a month before Markman. See Dkt. 39.
`
`It is likely that this case will be further delayed. See Pltf. Ex. AB (Dkt. 64-18) at 15:14-16:4.
`
`3.
`
`Familiarity of the Forum with the Law Favors Transfer
`
`“[W]here a case involves interpretation of a particular state’s laws, this factor may weigh
`
`in favor of transfer.” Odom v. Microsoft Corp., 596 F.Supp.2d 995, 1004 (E.D. Tex. 2009).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` This factor favors transfer.
`
`4.
`
`Conflicts of Law or Foreign Law Is Neutral
`
`It is undisputed that this factor is neutral. See Opp. 14-15.
`
`II.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Accordingly, Meta respectfully requests the Court transfer this action to NDCA.
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 73 Filed 04/26/24 Page 15 of 16
`
`Date: April 19, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Paige Arnette Amstutz
`Paige Arnette Amstutz
`Texas State Bar No. 00796136
`SCOTT DOUGLASS & MCCONNICO LLP
`303 Colorado Street, Suite 2400
`Austin, TX 78701
`Tel: (512) 495-6300
`Fax: (512) 495-6399
`pamstutz@scottdoug.com
`
`Lisa K. Nguyen (admitted)
`Eric E. Lancaster (admitted)
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`1117 S. California Avenue
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`Telephone: (650) 320-1800
`lisanguyen@paulhastings.com
`ericlancaster@paulhastings.com
`
`Alan M. Billharz (admitted)
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`2050 M Street NW
`Washington, DC 20036
`Telephone: (202) 551-1700
`alanbillharz@paulhastings.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Meta Platforms, Inc.
`
`
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00158-ADA Document 73 Filed 04/26/24 Page 16 of 16
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule CV-5, I hereby certify
`
`that, on April 19, 2024, all counsel of record who have appeared in this case are being served with
`
`a copy of the foregoing via email.
`
`/s/ Paige Arnette Amstutz
`Paige Arnette Amstutz
`
`-12-
`
`