Case 1:17-cv-01227-LO-JFA Document 39 Filed 01/05/18 Page 1 of 9 PageID# 474
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`ALEXANDRIA DIVISION
`
`
`SRC LABS, LLC & SAINT REGIS
`MOHAWK TRIBE,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.,
`AMAZON.COM, INC., &
`VADATA, INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Case No. 2:17-CV-1227-LO-JFA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF DEFENDANTS AMAZON WEB SER-
`VICES, INC., AMAZON.COM, INC., AND VADATA, INC. TO TRANSFER
`VENUE TO THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`
`Robert A. Angle (VSB No. 37691)
`robert.angle@troutmansanders.com
`Laura Anne Kuykendall (VSB No. 82318)
`la.kuykendall@troutmansanders.com
`
`TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
`1001 Haxall Point
`Richmond, Virginia 23219
`Telephone: (804) 697-1246
`Facsimile: (804) 697-1339
`
`
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`J. David Hadden *
`
`dhadden@fenwick.com
`Saina Shamilov *
`
`sshamilov@fenwick.com
`Todd R. Gregorian *
`
`tgregorian@fenwick.com
`Ravi R. Ranganath *
`rranganath@fenwick.com
`Dargaye Churnet *
`dchurnet@fenwick.com
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`Silicon Valley Center
`801 California Street
`Mountain View, CA 94041
`Telephone: (650) 988-8500
`Facsimile: (650) 938-5200
`
` *
`
` Admitted Pro Hac Vice
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01227-LO-JFA Document 39 Filed 01/05/18 Page 2 of 9 PageID# 475
`
`Defendants Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon Web Services, Inc., and VADATA, Inc. (collec-
`
`tively, “Amazon”) respectfully move to transfer this case to the United States District Court for
`
`the Western District of Washington.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Plaintiffs filed two patent infringement lawsuits in this district. The first is against Mi-
`
`crosoft. The second—this case—is against Amazon. In both cases plaintiffs assert the same three
`
`patents. Microsoft moved to transfer its case to the Western District of Washington under 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1404. Plaintiffs asked the Court to deny that motion because Amazon had not also re-
`
`quested transfer, and litigating the same patents in two district courts would create inefficiencies
`
`and potentially inconsistent outcomes. But Amazon does not oppose transfer of its case to the
`
`Western District of Washington.
`
`Indeed, like Microsoft, Amazon is headquartered in the Western District of Washington.
`
`Several of its witnesses, including four employees that plaintiffs specifically named in the com-
`
`plaint as allegedly relevant to the claims, are based in that district. And non-party entities—iden-
`
`tified by plaintiffs in the complaint as purportedly providing the infringing technology—are based
`
`on the West Coast. The Western District of Washington is undeniably more convenient for them
`
`than this district. Accordingly, if the Court grants Microsoft’s motion, it should also transfer this
`
`case to the Western District of Washington in the interests of justice and convenience.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`I.
`
`THE MICROSOFT CASE
`
`Plaintiffs filed their case against Microsoft on October 18, 2017. See SRC Labs, LLC et al.
`
`v. Microsoft Corporation, Civil Case No. 1:17-cv-01172. On December 1, 2017, Microsoft moved
`
`to transfer its case to the Western District of Washington pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404. (See Dkt.
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01227-LO-JFA Document 39 Filed 01/05/18 Page 3 of 9 PageID# 476
`
`Nos. 21-22, Case No. 1:17-cv-01172.) Plaintiffs opposed the motion in part by arguing that be-
`
`cause Amazon had not moved to transfer to the same district, both cases should remain here for
`
`reasons of judicial efficiency. (See Dkt. No. 25 at 13-14, Case No. 1:17-cv-01172.)
`
`II.
`
`THIS ACTION
`
`The same day plaintiffs filed their complaint against Microsoft, they also filed this case
`
`against Amazon. Plaintiffs allege that Amazon’s Elastic Compute Cloud (or “EC2” service) in-
`
`fringes five patents, three of which are the same ones at issue in the Microsoft case. (Dkt. No. 1
`
`(“Compl.”) ¶¶ 65-66.) Plaintiffs focus their infringement claims on EC2’s use of Field Program-
`
`mable Gate Arrays (“FPGAs”) provided by third party Xilinx, Inc. (See, e.g., Compl. ¶ 116.)
`
`After Microsoft filed its motion to transfer and plaintiffs filed their opposition, Amazon
`
`filed a notice stating that it consents to transfer of this case to the Western District of Washington
`
`should the Court transfer the Microsoft case there. (Notice of Joinder at ¶¶ 4-6 (Dkt. No. 31).)
`
`Following a motion from plaintiffs, the Court struck Amazon’s notice of consent and invited Am-
`
`azon to file its own motion to transfer. (See Dkt. Nos. 32, 35.) Accordingly, in the interest of
`
`judicial efficiency and convenience, Amazon respectfully requests that the Court transfer this case
`
`to the Western District of Washington along with Microsoft’s case.
`
`Neither plaintiff has any meaningful connection with this district. SRC Labs, LLC is a
`
`Texas limited liability company whose parent is FG SRC, LLC, a Delaware limited liability com-
`
`pany. (Dkt. No. 2.) According to public records, SRC’s address is 100 Crescent Ct., Dallas, Texas.
`
`(Declaration of Laura Anne Kuykendall in Support of Amazon’s Motion to Transfer Venue (“Kuy-
`
`kendall Decl.”) Ex. A.) Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe is “a federally-recognized, sovereign American
`
`Indian tribe with reservation lands in northern New York.” (Compl. ¶ 30.) Plaintiffs’ only appar-
`
`ent connection to this district is the cases they have filed here against Amazon and Microsoft.
`
`Even the subject matter of the patents plaintiffs assert was not conceived in this district. The
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01227-LO-JFA Document 39 Filed 01/05/18 Page 4 of 9 PageID# 477
`
`inventors are all residents of Colorado. (Dkt. No. 1, Exs. A-E at 1.)
`
`The Amazon defendants are companies with headquarters in Seattle. (Declaration of Jef-
`
`frey H. Dean in Support of Amazon’s Motion to Transfer Venue (“Dean Decl.”) ¶ 2.) Amazon
`
`expects that many of the relevant witnesses for the case will be located there. Indeed, plaintiffs
`
`recite specific allegations about the following Amazon employees: Dan Grossman, Matt Wilson,
`
`Atul Deo, Cliff Platt, Andrew Caldwell, and Nafea Bshara. (Compl. ¶¶ 25, 108, 110; see also
`
`Dean Decl. ¶ 4.) Four of these employees work in Seattle; the remaining two work in Palo Alto,
`
`California.1 (Dean Decl. ¶ 4.) Other employees, with knowledge of AWS U.S. financial and
`
`marketing operations, also work in Seattle. (Id. ¶ 3.)
`
`Non-party witnesses knowledgeable about non-infringement and prior art live substantially
`
`closer to the Western District of Washington than to the Eastern District of Virginia. In the com-
`
`plaint, plaintiffs identify Xilinx, Inc. as a third-party supplier to Amazon of the accused FPGAs
`
`and Intel Corporation as a third-party supplier of processors allegedly used in the accused EC2
`
`service. (See Compl. ¶¶ 79-80.) These non-parties, not Amazon, are the best sources of infor-
`
`mation about the design and functionality of the FPGAs and processors they provide, along with
`
`related prior art. Xilinx is headquartered in the San Francisco Bay Area and its employees with
`
`knowledge of the accused technology work there. (Kuykendall Decl. Ex. B-C.) For example,
`
`Xilinx’s Senior Vice President responsible for FPGA Development and Silicon Technology, Liam
`
`Madden, works in the Bay Area. (Id. Ex. C.) Intel is headquartered in Santa Clara, California.
`
`(Id. Ex. D.)
`
`Plaintiffs allege also that Amazon induces infringement by “aiding and abetting the direct
`
`
`1 Plaintiffs list additional Amazon employees in the complaint, but fail to recite any basis for
`including them beyond the fact that their roles relate generally to the accused product. (Compl. ¶
`25.)
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01227-LO-JFA Document 39 Filed 01/05/18 Page 5 of 9 PageID# 478
`
`infringement of at least the following companies: Aldec, Inc., Aon Benfield, Atomic Rules, CME
`
`Group, Edico Genome, Falcon Computing Solutions, Mipsology, National Instruments, NGCodec,
`
`Reconfigure.io, Ryft, Teradeep, Maxeler Technologies, Missing Link Electronics, Titan IC Sys-
`
`tems, and Plunify.” (Compl. ¶ 173.) None is headquartered in this district. (Kuykendall Decl.
`
`Exs. E-T.) In fact, seven are located on the opposite coast, in California or in Nevada. (Id. Exs.
`
`E, I, J, M, P, Q, R.)
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), a court may transfer a civil action to any judicial district where
`
`it could have been brought originally for the “convenience of parties and witnesses” and “in the
`
`interest of justice.” This case could have been brought in the Western District of Washington and
`
`in the interest of justice and convenience should be litigated there.
`
`I.
`
`PLAINTIFFS COULD HAVE BROUGHT THIS CASE IN
`WASHINGTON.
`
`Plaintiffs could have brought their claims against Amazon in the Western District of Wash-
`
`ington because Amazon has its headquarters in that district. (Dean Decl. ¶ 2.) The Court can
`
`therefore transfer this case there. 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) (a patent infringement action may be
`
`brought in the district “where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular
`
`and established place of business”); Symbology Innovations, LLC v. Lego Sys., Inc., No. 2:17-CV-
`
`86, 2017 WL 4324841, at *13 (E.D. Va. Sept. 28, 2017) (describing threshold requirement for
`
`change of venue).
`
`II.
`
`THE COURT SHOULD TRANSFER THE CASE TO
`WASHINGTON IN THE INTEREST OF JUDICIAL
`EFFICIENCY AND FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THE
`PARTIES AND WITNESSES.
`
`If the Court transfers the Microsoft case, the Court should also transfer this case to the
`
`Western District of Washington in the interest of judicial economy.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01227-LO-JFA Document 39 Filed 01/05/18 Page 6 of 9 PageID# 479
`
`If this action remains in the Eastern District of Virginia while the Microsoft case is trans-
`
`ferred to the Western District of Washington, two different courts will be forced to hear two sep-
`
`arate cases involving three identical patents; two different courts will address overlapping claim
`
`construction and invalidity issues and similar questions of fact related to non-infringement. This
`
`would result in a waste of judicial resources and raise the possibility of inconsistent rulings. See
`
`Byerson v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 467 F. Supp. 2d 627, 635 (E.D. Va. 2006) (transferring case
`
`for similar reasons).
`
`And although Amazon has a presence in this district, in this case, the State of Washington
`
`is more convenient than this district for Amazon, its witnesses, and third-party witnesses. See 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1404(a) (“For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a dis-
`
`trict court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been
`
`brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented.”). Four Amazon em-
`
`ployees, who plaintiffs allege have knowledge of the meetings that took place between Amazon
`
`and SRC before this lawsuit, are in Seattle. (Compl. ¶¶ 25, 108, 110; see also Dean Decl. ¶ 4.)
`
`Two Amazon employees who plaintiffs allege are knowledgeable about other pre-lawsuit interac-
`
`tions between Amazon and SRC are in California, significantly closer to the Western District of
`
`Washington than to this district. (Dean Decl. ¶ 4; Kuykendall Decl. Exs. U-V.) All three Amazon
`
`defendants have their principal places of business in Seattle. (Dean Decl. ¶ 2.) Amazon employees
`
`with knowledge of AWS U.S. financial and marketing operations are in Seattle. (Id. ¶ 3.)
`
`The State of Washington would also be more convenient for many of the non-party wit-
`
`nesses plaintiffs identify in their complaint as they are located on the West Coast. (Kuykendall
`
`Decl. Exs. B-T.) For example, information from non-party Xilinx will be important in the case,
`
`since plaintiff’s infringement allegations focus on its proprietary technologies. (Compl. ¶¶ 79-80.)
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01227-LO-JFA Document 39 Filed 01/05/18 Page 7 of 9 PageID# 480
`
`And none of the purported direct infringers (whose alleged infringement Amazon supposedly in-
`
`duces) are headquartered in this district. (Compl. ¶ 173; Kuykendall Decl. Exs. D-T.) These non-
`
`party witnesses, nearly half of whom are located on the West Coast, will need to provide infor-
`
`mation about how they use Amazon’s EC2 service in connection with their proprietary technolo-
`
`gies. Indeed, plaintiffs have already issued subpoenas to these non-parties. (Kuykendall Decl. Ex.
`
`W.)
`
`Thus, if the Court transfers Microsoft’s case, Amazon requests that the Court also transfer
`
`this related case to the Western District of Washington. Because plaintiffs have no meaningful
`
`connections to this district, they would suffer no prejudice if this case proceed in Washington.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`Should the Court grant Microsoft’s motion and transfer the Microsoft case to the State of
`
`Washington, Amazon consents to and requests transfer of this related case to that district. Allow-
`
`ing this case to proceed here while the Microsoft case proceeds in a different forum would be
`
`inefficient and risk inconsistent judgments. The Western District of Washington is a convenient
`
`forum for Amazon, its witnesses, and third-party witnesses identified by plaintiffs in their com-
`
`plaint. And because plaintiffs have no meaningful connections to this district, transfer will pro-
`
`mote judicial economy without causing plaintiffs any undue or substantial prejudice.
`
`/ / / /
`
`/ / / /
`
`/ / / /
`
`/ / / /
`
`/ / / /
`
`/ / / /
`
`/ / / /
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01227-LO-JFA Document 39 Filed 01/05/18 Page 8 of 9 PageID# 481
`
`Dated: January 5, 2018
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`AMAZON.COM, INC.
`
`
`
`/s/ Laura Anne Kuykendall
`Robert A. Angle (VSB No. 37691)
`robert.angle@troutmansanders.com
`Laura Anne Kuykendall (VSB No. 82318)
`la.kuykendall@troutmansanders.com
`TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
`1001 Haxall Point
`Richmond, Virginia 23219
`Telephone: (804) 697-1468
`Facsimile: (804) 697-1339
`
`
`Counsel for Defendants
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.,
`AMAZON.COM, INC., & VADATA, INC.
`
`Of Counsel:
`
`J. David Hadden *
`
`dhadden@fenwick.com
`Saina Shamilov *
`
`sshamilov@fenwick.com
`Todd R. Gregorian *
`
`tgregorian@fenwick.com
`Ravi R. Ranganath *
`rranganath@fenwick.com
`Dargaye Churnet *
`dchurnet@fenwick.com
`
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`Silicon Valley Center
`801 California Street
`Mountain View, CA 94041
`Telephone: (650) 988-8500
`Facsimile: (650) 938-5200
`
` *
`
`
`
` Admitted Pro Hac Vice
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-01227-LO-JFA Document 39 Filed 01/05/18 Page 9 of 9 PageID# 482
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on the 5th day of January, 2018, I electronically filed the foregoing
`
`pleading with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF System, which will then send a notification
`
`of such filing (NEF) to the following:
`
`L. Lee Byrd
`lbyrd@sandsanderson.com
`Madelaine A. Kramer
`mkramer@sandsanderson.com
`
`SANDS ANDERSON PC
`1497 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 202
`McLean, Virginia 22101
`Telephone: (703) 893-3600
`Facsimile: (703) 893-8484
`
`Counsel for Plaintiffs
`SRC LABS, LLC AND
`SAINT REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE
`
`Michael W. Shore
`mshore@shorechan.com
`Alfonso Garcia Chan
`achan@shorechan.com
`Christopher L. Evans
`cevans@shorechan.com
`Andrew M. Howard
`ahoward@shorechan.com
`
`SHORE CHAN DePUMPO LLP
`901 Main Street, Suite 3300
`Dallas, Texas 75202
`Telephone: 214-593-9110
`Facsimile: 214-593-9111
`
`/s/ Laura Anne Kuykendall
`Laura Anne Kuykendall (VSB No. 82318)
`la.kuykendall@troutmansanders.com
`TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
`1001 Haxall Point
`Richmond, Virginia 23219
`Telephone: (804) 697-1468
`Facsimile: (804) 697-1339
`
`COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANTS
`AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.,
`AMAZON.COM, INC., & VADATA, INC.
`
`8
`
`