Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 47-8 Filed 01/12/15 Page 1 of 5 PageID# 1172
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 47-8 Filed 01/12/15 Page 1 Of 5 Page|D# 1172
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA,
`RICHMOND DIVISION
`
`Civil Action NO. 3:14-cv-757-REP
`
`
`
`)
`
`3
`)
`
`) 3
`
`) 3
`
`3
`)
`)
`)
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`-VS.-
`
`NVIDIA CORPORATION, VELOCITY
`MICRO, INC. D/B/A VELOCITY MICRO
`AND VELOCITY HOLDINGS, LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`DECLARATION OF RICHARD CALDERWOOD IN SUPPORT OF
`DEFENDANT NVIDIA CORPORATION’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
`PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 140413}, SEVER, AND STAY
`
`1, Richard Calderwood, declare:
`
`1.
`
`I am a full-time employee Of NVIDIA Corporation (“NVIDIA”), where I hold the
`
`position of Director Of Intellectual Property.
`
`I have personal knowledge of the matters stated
`
`herein, and I could and would testify competently to these matters if called upon to do so.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`I reside in Portland, Oregon.
`
`I joined NVIDIA as an employee on June 25, 2007.
`
`I have reviewed Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint against NVIDIA and the patents
`
`it has accused NVIDIA Of infringing .
`
`5.
`
`I understand that Plaintiffs have sued NVIDIA in Virginia and have accused
`
`NVIDIA of infringing US. Patent Nos. 5,860,158; 6,262,938; 6,287,902; 6,819,602; 8,252,675;
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 47-8 Filed 01/12/15 Page 1 Of 5 Page|D# 1172
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA,
`RICHMOND DIVISION
`
`Civil Action NO. 3:14-cv-757-REP
`
`
`
`)
`
`3
`)
`
`) 3
`
`) 3
`
`3
`)
`)
`)
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`-VS.-
`
`NVIDIA CORPORATION, VELOCITY
`MICRO, INC. D/B/A VELOCITY MICRO
`AND VELOCITY HOLDINGS, LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`
`DECLARATION OF RICHARD CALDERWOOD IN SUPPORT OF
`DEFENDANT NVIDIA CORPORATION’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
`PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 140413}, SEVER, AND STAY
`
`1, Richard Calderwood, declare:
`
`1.
`
`I am a full-time employee Of NVIDIA Corporation (“NVIDIA”), where I hold the
`
`position of Director Of Intellectual Property.
`
`I have personal knowledge of the matters stated
`
`herein, and I could and would testify competently to these matters if called upon to do so.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`I reside in Portland, Oregon.
`
`I joined NVIDIA as an employee on June 25, 2007.
`
`I have reviewed Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint against NVIDIA and the patents
`
`it has accused NVIDIA Of infringing .
`
`5.
`
`I understand that Plaintiffs have sued NVIDIA in Virginia and have accused
`
`NVIDIA of infringing US. Patent Nos. 5,860,158; 6,262,938; 6,287,902; 6,819,602; 8,252,675;
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 47-8 Filed 01/12/15 Page 2 of 5 PageID# 1173
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 47-8 Filed 01/12/15 Page 2 of 5 Page|D# 1173
`
`and 6,804,724 based on its mamd offer for sale, or importation of products,
`
`including without
`
`limitation Graphic Processing Units (“GPUs”),
`
`system—on-a—chip units
`
`(“SOCS”), and graphics cards that allegedly practice the inventions of the asserted patents.
`
`6.
`
`To my knowledge after a reasonable investigation, the majority of the design and
`
`manufacturing efforts by NVIDIA for the devices accused by Plaintiffs in this action have
`
`occurred or currently occur in or near Santa, Clara, California. None of it occurs in Virginia.
`
`7.
`
`Although the litigation has just begun, NVIDIA has identified the following
`
`individuals who are likely to be witnesses and may testify at
`
`trial about U.S. Patent No.
`
`5,860,158:
`
`Marc Delvaux, Principal Architect of Mobile Systems
`
`Shailander Chaudhry, Principal Engineer
`
`Darrell Boggs, Senior Director of CPU Architecture/the Senior Distinguished
`Engineer
`
`Lacky Shah, Senior Director of Architecture
`
`Jack Choquette, Senior Distinguished Engineer
`
`These likely witnesses work in Santa Clara except for Mr. Boggs who works in Oregon.
`
`Proceedings in the Northern District of California would be far more convenient for these likely
`
`witnesses than proceedings in the Eastern District of Virginia.
`
`8.
`
`NVIDIA has identified the following individuals who are likely to be witnesses
`
`and may testify at trial about U.S. Patent No. 6,819,602:
`
`0 Ashfaq Shaikh, Senior Director of Engineering
`
`0 Alok Gupta, Senior Hardware Engineer
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 47-8 Filed 01/12/15 Page 3 of 5 PageID# 1174
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 47-8 Filed 01/12/15 Page 3 of 5 Page|D# 1174
`
`These likely witnesses work in Santa Clara, California. Proceedings in the Northern
`
`District of California would be far more convenient for these likely witnesses than proceedings
`
`in the Eastern District of Virginia.
`
`9.
`
`NVIDIA has identified the following individual who is likely to be a witness and
`
`may testify at trial about US. Patent No. 6,262,938:
`
`0 Barry Wagner, Director of Technical Marketing
`
`Mr. Wagner works in Santa Clara. Proceedings in the Northern District of California
`
`would be far more convenient for him than proceedings in the Eastern District of Virginia.
`
`10.
`
`NVIDIA has identified the following individual who is likely be a witness and
`
`may testify at trial about US. Patent No. 6,287,902 and US. Patent No. 8,252,675:
`
`0
`
`John Hu, Director of Advanced Technology
`
`Mr. Hu works in Santa Clara. Proceedings in the Northern District of California would
`
`be far more convenient for him than proceedings in the Eastern District of Virginia.
`
`11.
`
`NVIDIA has identified the following individuals who are likely to be witnesses
`
`and may testify at trial about US. Patent No. 6,804,724:
`
`0 Tyvis Cheung, Senior Manager of Display ASIC and Architecture
`
`0
`
`Frans Sij stermans, Senior Director of Multimedia ASIC and Architecture
`
`0 Yuan Cao, Director, GPU Software
`
`-
`
`Subhash Gutti, Senior System Software Engineer
`
`0 David Stears, Senior ASIC Engineer
`
`All of these individuals work in Santa Clara. Proceedings in the Northern District of
`
`California would be far more convenient for these likely witnesses than proceedings in the
`
`Eastern District of Virginia.
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 47-8 Filed 01/12/15 Page 4 of 5 PageID# 1175
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 47-8 Filed 01/12/15 Page 4 of 5 Page|D# 1175
`
`12.
`
`NVIDIA has identified two employees, Jeff Fisher, Senior Vice President of the
`
`Gaming Business Unit, and Jay Puri, Executive Vice President of the Worldwide Field
`
`Operations, who are likely to be witnesses and may testify at trial about Sales and Marketing of
`
`NVIDIA’S GPUs. Both of these individuals work in Santa Clara, California. Proceedings in the
`
`Northern District of California would be far more convenient for these likely witnesses than
`
`proceedings in the Eastern District of Virginia.
`
`13.
`
`NVIDIA has also identified Deepu Talla, Vice President and General Manager of
`
`the Tegra Group, who is a likely witness and may testify at trial about sales and marketing for
`
`the Tegra business unit. Mr. Talla works in Santa Clara, California. Proceedings in the Northern
`
`District of California would be far more convenient for him than proceedings in the Eastern
`
`District of Virginia.
`
`14.
`
`It would be far more convenient and less expensive for all of the witnesses named
`
`above to travel from NVIDIA’s Santa Clara headquarters to the San Jose Courthouse than to the
`
`Richmond Courthouse. No anticipated witnesses are in Virginia.
`
`15.
`
`Employees of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Limited
`
`(“TSMC”) are likely to be third party witnesses in this litigation.
`
`16.
`
`To my knowledge after a reasonable investigation, TSMC has its headquarters
`
`and main operations located in the Hsinchu Science and Industrial Park in Hsinchu, Taiwan.
`
`17.
`
`To my knowledge after a reasonable investigation, TSMC has a corporate office
`
`located at 2585 Junction Avenue, San Jose, CA 95134.
`
`18.
`
`To my knowledge after a reasonable investigation,
`
`it would likely be more
`
`convenient for TSMC’s personnel
`
`to be involved in litigation in the Northern District of
`
`
`
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 47-8 Filed 01/12/15 Page 5 of 5 PageID# 1176
`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 47-8 Filed 01/12/15 Page 5 of 5 Page|D# 1176
`
`California, where TSMC’S corporate office in San Jose is located, than in the Eastern District of
`
`Virginia.
`
`19.
`
`Employees of third party ARM, Inc. are also likely to be witnesses in this
`
`litigation.
`
`20.
`
`To my knowledge after a reasonable investigation, ARM’s main regional office is
`
`located at 150 Rose Orchard Way San Jose, California 95134.
`
`21.
`
`To my knowledge after a reasonable investigation, most of ARM’s technical
`
`employees are located in Austin, Texas.
`
`It would likely be more convenient for ARM’S
`
`personnel to be involved in litigation in the Northern District of California, where ARMS’ Main
`
`Regional Office is located, than in the Eastern District of Virginia.
`
`I declare under the penalty of perjury that the forgoing is true and correct. Executed this
`
`12th day of January, 2015 in Portland, Oregon.
`
`Richard Calderwood
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
