Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 49 Filed 01/22/15 Page 1 of 28 PageID# 1186
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
`RICHMOND DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 3:14-cv-757-REP
`
`FILED UNDER SEAL
`
`REVISED PUBLIC VERSION
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’
`MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a),
`SEVER, AND STAY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 49 Filed 01/22/15 Page 2 of 28 PageID# 1187
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND ..........................................................................................................2
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Nature and Stage of the Proceeding .........................................................................2
`
`Parties .......................................................................................................................3
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................4
`
`I.
`
`THE LAWSUIT AGAINST NVIDIA SHOULD BE TRANSFERRED TO
`CALIFORNIA .....................................................................................................................4
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`Legal Standard .........................................................................................................4
`
`This Action Against NVIDIA Could Have Been Brought In The Northern
`District Of California ...............................................................................................5
`
`The Convenience Factors And Interests Of Justice Overwhelmingly Favor
`Transfer To The Northern District Of California ....................................................5
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Samsung’s Choice of Forum Is Not Entitled To Deference ........................5
`
`It Would Be More Convenient For The Parties To Litigate In The
`Northern District of California .....................................................................8
`
`A Transfer Would Be Most Convenient For Witnesses,
`Including Third Party Witnesses .................................................11
`
`4.
`
`The Interests of Justice Weigh in Favor of A Transfer ..............................15
`
`II.
`
`THE INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS ASSERTED AGAINST VELOCITY
`AND NVIDIA SHOULD BE SEVERED AND STAYED AS AGAINST
`VELOCITY........................................................................................................................17
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Legal Standard .......................................................................................................17
`
`Severing And Staying The Case Against Velocity Is Appropriate ........................18
`
`CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................21
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 49 Filed 01/22/15 Page 3 of 28 PageID# 1188
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`Acterna, LLC v. Adtech, Inc.,
`129 F. Supp. 2d 936 (E.D. Va. 2001) ....................................................................................... 6
`
`Affinity Labs of Texas v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`968 F. Supp. 2d 852 (E.D. Tex. 2013) .............................................................................. 10, 15
`
`Afro-Lecon, Inc. v. United States,
`820 F.2d 1198 (Fed. Cir. 1987)............................................................................................... 18
`
`Agilent Techs., Inc. v. Micromuse, Inc.,
`316 F. Supp. 2d 322 (E.D. Va. 2004) ....................................................................................... 7
`
`Augme Techs., Inc. v. Gannett Co., No. 3:11cv282,
`2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81605 (E.D. Va. July 26, 2011) .......................................................... 7
`
`Avalonbay Cmtys., Inc. v. San Jose Water Conservation Corp., No. 1:07cv306,
`2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 63773 (E.D. Va. Aug. 27, 2007) ....................................................... 18
`
`Brown Mfg. Corp. v. Alpha Lawn & Garden Equip., Inc.,
`219 F. Supp. 2d 705 (E.D. Va. 2002) ............................................................................... 19, 20
`
`Cognitronics Imaging Sys., Inc. v. Recognition Research Inc.,
`83 F. Supp. 2d 689 (E.D. Va. 2000) ................................................................................... 4, 17
`
`Corry v. CFM Majestic, Inc.,
`16 F. Supp. 2d 660 (E.D. Va. 1998) ........................................................................... 17, 19, 20
`
`Gebr. Brasseler GmbH & Co. KG v. Abrasive Tech., Inc., No. 1:08cv1246,
`2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25926 (E.D. Va. Mar. 27, 2009) ......................................................... 5
`
`Gemalto S.A. v. HTC Corp., No. 6:10cv561,
`2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133612 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 18, 2011) ................................................... 10
`
`GTE Wireless, Inc. v. Qualcomm, Inc.,
`71 F. Supp. 2d 517 (E.D. Va. 1999) ............................................................................... 6, 7, 17
`
`In re Genentech, Inc.,
`566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................. 8
`
`In re Phillips, Beckwith & Hall,
`896 F. Supp. 553 (E.D. Va. 1995) .......................................................................................... 18
`
`Jaffé v. LSI Corp.,
`874 F. Supp. 2d 499 (E.D. Va. 2012) ................................................................................... 4, 8
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 49 Filed 01/22/15 Page 4 of 28 PageID# 1189
`
`Johnson v. DePuv Orthopaedics, Inc., No. 3:12cv2274,
`2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 141336 (D.S.C. 2012) ....................................................................... 18
`
`Koh v. Microtek Int’l, Inc.,
`250 F. Supp. 2d 627 (E.D. Va. 2003) .............................................................................. passim
`
`Landis v. N. Am. Co.,
`299 U.S. 248 (1936) ............................................................................................................ 2, 17
`
`LG Elecs. Inc. v. Advanced Creative Computer Corp.,
`131 F. Supp. 2d 804 (E.D. Va. 2001) ..................................................................................... 19
`
`Lugus IP v. Volvo Car Corp, No. 3:11-cv-811-HEH,
`2012 WL 1715983 (E.D. Va. May 15, 2012) ......................................................................... 18
`
`Lycos, Inc. v. TiVo, Inc.,
`499 F. Supp. 2d 685 (E.D. Va. 2007) ............................................................................... 5, 7, 8
`
`Mobil Oil Corp. v. W.R. Grace & Co.,
`334 F.Supp. 117 (S.D. Tex. 1971) .......................................................................................... 20
`
`NanoEnTek, Inc. v. Bio-Rad Labs., Inc., No. 2:11-cv-427,
`2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138535 (E.D. Va. Dec. 2, 2011) ................................................. 5, 6, 7
`
`Neil Bros. Ltd. v. World Wide Lines, Inc.,
`425 F. Supp. 2d 325 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) .................................................................................. 5, 6
`
`Rockstar Consortium US LP v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 2:13-CV-00894,
`2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89552 (E.D. Tex. July 1, 2014)......................................................... 10
`
`Samsung Elec. Co. v. Rambus, Inc.,
`386 F. Supp. 2d 708 (E.D. Va. 2005) ............................................................................... 4, 5, 8
`
`Sehler v. Prospect Mortg., LLC, No. 1:13cv473,
`2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132123 (E.D. Va. Sept. 16, 2013) ..................................................... 18
`
`Shared Memory Graphics LLC v. Apple Inc., No. 5:09CV5128,
`2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134909 (W.D. Ark. May 27, 2010)................................................... 10
`
`Steel Erectors, Inc. v. J.A. Jones Constr. Co.,
`865 F.2d 255, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 16385 (4th Cir. 1988) ................................................ 18
`
`Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp.,
`487 U.S. 22 (1988) .................................................................................................................... 4
`
`Summer Rain v. Donning Co. Publishers, Inc.,
`964 F.2d 1455 (4th Cir. 1992) ................................................................................................ 17
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 49 Filed 01/22/15 Page 5 of 28 PageID# 1190
`
`Telepharmacy Solutions, Inc. v. Pickpoint Corp.,
`238 F. Supp. 2d 741 (E.D. Va. 2003) ........................................................................... 5, 15, 16
`
`Van Dusen v. Barrack,
`376 U.S. 612 (1964) .................................................................................................................. 5
`
`Verosol B.V. v. Hunter Douglas, Inc.,
`806 F. Supp. 582 (E.D. Va. 1992) ............................................................................................ 6
`
`Williford v. Armstrong World Indus.,
`715 F.2d 124 (4th Cir. 1983) .................................................................................................. 18
`
`Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) ....................................................................................................................4
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) .....................................................................................................................1, 4
`
`Virginia Code § 18.2-216 ..............................................................................................................16
`
`Virginia Code § 59.1-68.3 .............................................................................................................16
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 49 Filed 01/22/15 Page 6 of 28 PageID# 1191
`
`Defendants submit this memorandum in support of their motion for a transfer of venue
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), to sever the case and to stay, filed on January 12, 2015.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The case between NVIDIA Corporation (“NVIDIA”) and Plaintiffs Samsung Electronics
`
`Co., Ltd. (“SEC”) and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“SEA”) (together, “Samsung”)
`
`belongs in the Northern District of California. The case has no meaningful connections with the
`
`Eastern District of Virginia. Samsung is not based in Virginia. NVIDIA is not based in
`
`Virginia. The accused products were not designed or developed here, nor are they manufactured
`
`in Virginia. And there are no known witnesses in Virginia. In contrast, NVIDIA is based in the
`
`Northern District of California, where it designs and develops the accused products (all of them).
`
`Its key witnesses—which would number almost twenty based on the varied nature of the asserted
`
`patents—are all located in the Northern District of California. NVIDIA’s documents are located
`
`in the Northern District of California. Two inventors are located in the Northern District of
`
`California as are inventors of relevant prior art. And two third parties, Taiwan Semiconductor
`
`Manufacturing Company, Limited and ARM, Inc., who are involved in the design and
`
`manufacture of certain of the accused integrated circuits, have offices in the Northern District of
`
`California, but none in the Eastern District of Virginia. There is no factual scenario where it
`
`would be more convenient to litigate this case in the Eastern District of Virginia over the
`
`Northern District of California.
`
`In an attempt to manufacture a connection with this District, Plaintiffs sued Velocity
`
`Micro, Inc. d/b/a Velocity Micro (which ceased operations on December 31, 2013 when its
`
`business assets were foreclosed on), and Velocity Holdings, LLC (“Velocity Holdings”)
`
`(collectively “Velocity”)—for infringement of eight patents. Velocity Holdings is a small, 11-
`
`person, company that sells certain NVIDIA products and that does have a presence in Virginia.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 49 Filed 01/22/15 Page 7 of 28 PageID# 1192
`
`Of the eight (8) patents asserted against Velocity, however, six (6) are also asserted against
`
`NVIDIA and the claims against Velocity are based on Velocity’s use or sale of the allegedly
`
`infringing NVIDIA products. But Velocity has never sold the NVIDIA products accused of
`
`infringing some of those patents. Samsung’s less than diligent rush to create some connection to
`
`Virginia does not end there. Of the remaining two (2) patents asserted solely against Velocity,
`
`Velocity has never sold the product accused of infringing the first of those patents. The second
`
`patent asserted solely against Velocity involves computer cases which Velocity neither designs
`
`nor manufactures. In the last year, the accused products related to the two patents asserted only
`
`against Velocity have generated less than $20,000 of revenue for Velocity. In short, the claims
`
`against Velocity are remarkably thin and peripheral to the claims against NVIDIA. And for the
`
`six patents asserted against both defendants, the adjudication of the claims against NVIDIA will
`
`be dispositive of the claims against Velocity.1
`
`Under these circumstances, courts in this district routinely transfer actions against the
`
`main defendant (NVIDIA) to the forum which has the relevant evidence and sources of proof
`
`(the Northern District of California), and sever and stay the claims against the secondary
`
`defendants (Velocity) until the action in the proper forum is adjudicated. This case deserves the
`
`same treatment.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`Nature and Stage of the Proceeding
`
`
`1 In this motion, NVIDIA asks that the litigation involving Velocity be severed from the
`litigation against NVIDIA, and remain in the Eastern District of Virginia but be stayed. See
`Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-5 (1936) (“The power to stay proceedings is incidental
`to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of causes on its docket with
`economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for the litigants.”).
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 49 Filed 01/22/15 Page 8 of 28 PageID# 1193
`
`On November 4, 2014, Plaintiffs Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“SEC”) and Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc. (“SEA”) filed a complaint against NVIDIA and Velocity Micro, Inc.
`
`d/b/a Velocity Micro, and Velocity. On December 19, 2014, Samsung filed its First Amended
`
`Complaint (hereinafter “Amend. Compl.”).
`
`Samsung alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,860,158 (“the ’158 Patent”);
`
`6,282,938 (“the ’938 Patent”); 6,287,902 (“the ’902 Patent”); 6,819,602 (“the ’602 Patent”);
`
`8,252,675 (“the ’675 Patent”); and 6,804,724 (“the ’724 Patent”) against both NVIDIA and
`
`Velocity. Samsung also alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,073,054 (“the ’054 Patent”)
`
`and 5,777,854 (the ’854 Patent”) against Velocity; and false advertising against NVIDIA.
`
`B.
`
`Parties
`
`SEC is a corporation organized under the laws of Korea with its principal place of
`
`business located at 416 Maetan-3dong, Yeongtong-gu, Suwon-City, Gyeonggi-do, Korea 443-
`
`742. (Amend. Compl. ¶ 1.) SEA is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the
`
`state of New York with its principal place of business in Ridgefield Park, New Jersey and is a
`
`wholly-owned subsidiary of SEC. (Amend. Compl. ¶ 2.) Neither SEC nor SEA have their
`
`headquarters or their principal place of business in Virginia.
`
`NVIDIA is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters located at 2701 San Tomas
`
`Expressway, Santa Clara, California 95050. (Amend. Compl. ¶ 3.) NVIDIA has been
`
`continuously operating in the Santa Clara area since 1993, when the Company was founded
`
`there. (Declaration of Stephanie Luck, ¶ 2 [hereinafter Luck Decl.].)
`
`Velocity Micro, Inc. is a Virginia corporation. It ceased operations when its assets were
`
`foreclosed on and seized by creditors on December 31, 2013. (Declaration of Randall Copeland,
`
`¶ 2 [hereinafter Copeland Decl.].) Velocity Micro, Inc.’s principal office is listed as 9030 Stony
`
`Point Parkway, Suite 400, Richmond, Virginia, 23235, which is the law office of the creditors’
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 49 Filed 01/22/15 Page 9 of 28 PageID# 1194
`
`attorney. (Id.) Velocity Holdings is a limited liability corporation organized and existing under
`
`the laws of Virginia with its principal place of business located at 835 Grove Rd. Midlothian,
`
`Virginia 23114. (Amend. Compl. ¶ 5.) Velocity Holdings has 11 employees and less than $5M
`
`of annual revenue. (Copeland Decl. at ¶ 5.)
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`I.
`
`THE LAWSUIT AGAINST NVIDIA SHOULD BE TRANSFERRED TO
`CALIFORNIA
`
`A.
`
`Legal Standard
`
`“For the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court
`
`may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought
`
`….” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Section 1404(a) imbues the district court with discretion to
`
`“adjudicate motions for transfer according to an ‘individualized, case-by-case consideration of
`
`convenience and fairness.’” Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988) (quoting
`
`Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 622 (1964)). The moving party bears the burden of
`
`proving that the facts warrant a transfer of venue. Samsung Elec. Co. v. Rambus, Inc., 386 F.
`
`Supp. 2d 708, 715 (E.D. Va. 2005) (granting transfer); see Cognitronics Imaging Sys., Inc. v.
`
`Recognition Research Inc., 83 F. Supp. 2d 689, 696 (E.D. Va. 2000) (same). When determining
`
`whether to grant a motion to transfer venue, district courts follow a two-step inquiry. First,
`
`section 1404(a) directs the court to determine whether the civil action could have been brought in
`
`the proposed forum. Jaffé v. LSI Corp., 874 F. Supp. 2d 499, 502 (E.D. Va. 2012). Second, the
`
`court considers: (1) the plaintiff’s choice of forum; (2) the convenience of the parties; (3) access
`
`to evidence; (4) the convenience of the witnesses, including third-party witnesses; and (5) the
`
`interest of justice. Rambus, 386 F. Supp. 2d at 716 (referring to the aforementioned factors as
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 49 Filed 01/22/15 Page 10 of 28 PageID# 1195
`
`the “principal factors”) (citing Koh v. Microtek Int’l, Inc., 250 F. Supp. 2d 627, 633 (E.D. Va.
`
`2003)).
`
`
`
`B.
`
`This Action Against NVIDIA Could Have Been Brought In The
`Northern District Of California
`
`Samsung could have brought its claims against NVIDIA in the Northern District of
`
`California because NVIDIA is a resident of California. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1). A
`
`corporation resides, for purposes of venue, “‘in any judicial district in which it is subject to
`
`personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced.’” NanoEnTek, Inc. v. Bio-Rad Labs.,
`
`Inc., No. 2:11-cv-427, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138535, at *4 (E.D. Va. Dec. 2, 2011) (citation
`
`omitted). NVIDIA has its principal place of business in Santa Clara, California and is subject to
`
`personal jurisdiction, and resides, in California. See id. (finding that a corporate defendant is
`
`subject to personal jurisdiction where it has its principal place of business and that venue is
`
`proper in that state). Thus, the case against NVIDIA could have (and should have) been brought
`
`in the Northern District of California at the outset.
`
`C.
`
`The Convenience Factors And Interests Of Justice Overwhelmingly
`Favor Transfer To The Northern District Of California
`
`1.
`
`Samsung’s Choice of Forum Is Not Entitled To
`Deference
`
`Samsung’s choice of forum is entitled to no deference because the Eastern District of
`
`Virginia is neither Samsung’s home forum nor does the cause of action have a substantial
`
`connection to this District. It is well-settled that “‘if a plaintiff chooses a foreign forum and the
`
`cause of action bears little or no relation to that forum, the plaintiff’s chosen venue is not entitled
`
`to such substantial weight.’” Rambus, 386 F. Supp. 2d at 716 (quoting Telepharmacy Solutions,
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 49 Filed 01/22/15 Page 11 of 28 PageID# 1196
`
`Inc. v. Pickpoint Corp., 238 F. Supp. 2d 741, 743 (E.D. Va. 2003)).2 And “if there is little
`
`connection between the claims and this judicial district, that would militate against a plaintiff’s
`
`chosen forum and weigh in favor of transfer to a venue with more substantial contacts.” Koh,
`
`250 F. Supp. 2d at 635.
`
`The Eastern District of Virginia is not Samsung’s home forum. SEC is a Korean
`
`company with no known facilities, personnel, or other relevant contacts with the Eastern District
`
`of Virginia. Its principal place of business is located at 416 Maetan-3dong, Yeongtong-gu,
`
`Suwon-City, Gyeonggi-do, Korea 443-742. SEC has its only United States office in
`
`Washington, D.C. (staffed for governmental relations functions), which is not located in the
`
`Eastern District of Virginia. SEA is a New York corporation with its principal place of business
`
`in New Jersey. SEA is registered to conduct business in Virginia but it is “hardly … necessary
`
`to detail that product sales to a forum far from entitle a party to substantial deference in its choice
`
`of venue.” NanoEnTek, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138535, at *7. Indeed, this appears to be the full
`
`
`2 See, e.g., Gebr. Brasseler GmbH & Co. KG v. Abrasive Tech., Inc., No. 1:08cv1246, 2009 U.S.
`Dist. LEXIS 25926, at *6 (E.D. Va. Mar. 27, 2009) (“GBL brought this suit in Virginia, not its
`home forum, and therefore its choice of venue is entitled to minimal deference.”); Lycos, Inc. v.
`TiVo, Inc., 499 F. Supp. 2d 685, 692 (E.D. Va. 2007) (“Virginia is not the home forum of Lycos,
`which has its principal place of business in Massachusetts.”); Neil Bros. Ltd. v. World Wide
`Lines, Inc., 425 F. Supp. 2d 325, 333-34 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) (holding that “plaintiff’s choice of
`forum will not be afforded the significant weight that this factor is typically assigned” because
`Plaintiff did not reside in New York, its chosen forum); Koh, 250 F. Supp. 2d at 638 (holding
`that “close geographic proximity and minimal ties to Virginia [were] not alone sufficient to
`render the Eastern District of Virginia [the plaintiffs’] home forum because they [were]
`domiciled in Maryland”); Acterna, LLC v. Adtech, Inc., 129 F. Supp. 2d 936, 939 (E.D. Va.
`2001) (“Plaintiff’s choice of forum is not entitled to substantial weight because the Eastern
`District of Virginia is not Plaintiff’s home forum but a foreign forum.”); GTE Wireless, Inc. v.
`Qualcomm, Inc., 71 F. Supp. 2d 517, 519 (E.D. Va. 1999) (“[T]he Eastern District of Virginia is
`not Plaintiff’s home forum and thus Plaintiff’s choice of forum will not be given dispositive
`deference”); Verosol B.V. v. Hunter Douglas, Inc., 806 F. Supp. 582, 593 (E.D. Va. 1992)
`(noting that neither plaintiff was suing in its home forum).
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 49 Filed 01/22/15 Page 12 of 28 PageID# 1197
`
`extent of SEA’s connection to this District. The Eastern District of Virginia is not the home
`
`forum for either SEC or SEA.
`
`Putting aside Samsung’s minimal ties to the Eastern District of Virginia, the cause of
`
`action lacks a substantial connection to this District. Samsung alleges that NVIDIA conducts
`
`business in Virginia through online sales and advertisements directly to consumers and through
`
`product sales by NVIDIA’s distributors and resellers. (Amend. Compl. ¶ 20.) But the majority
`
`of NVIDIA’s design and manufacturing of the allegedly infringing products occurs in the
`
`Northern District of California; none of it occurs in Virginia. (Declaration of Richard
`
`Calderwood, ¶ 6 [hereinafter Calderwood Decl.].) This Court has expressly held that “[m]ere
`
`sales and marketing activity does not entitle [a plaintiff’s] choice of forum to substantial weight
`
`when none of the infringing products were developed or produced in this District.” NanoEnTek,
`
`2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138535, at *9. Instead, it is well-settled that sales do not constitute a
`
`“substantial connection” to the forum, as a defendant manufacturer would “likely have this same
`
`contact with every other state in this nation.” Lycos, Inc., 499 F. Supp. 2d at 692-93
`
`(emphasizing that because sales were not unique to Virginia, then it did not constitute a
`
`substantial connection to the forum state and granting motion to transfer); Agilent Techs., Inc. v.
`
`Micromuse, Inc., 316 F. Supp. 2d 322, 327 n.3 (E.D. Va. 2004) (same); NanoEnTek, 2011 U.S.
`
`Dist. LEXIS 138535, at *8-10 (same).
`
`This Court recently held that “[w]hether the Defendants sold or offered for sale their
`
`allegedly infringing products or services in this district is of little import: sales activity alone
`
`does not establish a substantial connection to the forum.” Augme Techs., Inc. v. Gannett Co.,
`
`No. 3:11cv282, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81605, at *7-8 (E.D. Va. July 26, 2011) (rejecting
`
`plaintiff’s argument that defendants had a “strong connection” to the Eastern District of Virginia
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 49 Filed 01/22/15 Page 13 of 28 PageID# 1198
`
`simply because their allegedly infringing products were sold or offered for sale, and granting
`
`motion to transfer patent infringement case). In fact, this Court has held that the locus of an
`
`infringement case is where the accused products are designed, developed, or manufactured. See,
`
`e.g., GTE Wireless, 71 F. Supp. 2d at 519 (transferring the case to California where “the central
`
`issues concerning the accused activity revolve around the cellular phones which are designed and
`
`manufactured in San Diego”).
`
`The locus of this case is California. Samsung’s choice of forum is entitled to no
`
`deference.
`
`2.
`
`It Would Be More Convenient For The Parties To
`Litigate In The Northern District of California
`
`It would be more convenient for the parties to litigate this case in the Northern District of
`
`California. Courts consider the convenience of the parties, including “the ‘ease of access to
`
`sources of proof, the cost of obtaining the attendance of witnesses, and the availability of
`
`compulsory process.’” Lycos, Inc., 499 F. Supp. 2d at 693 (quoting Rambus, 386 F. Supp. 2d at
`
`717 n.13). These factors demonstrate that the Northern District of California is the more
`
`convenient venue to litigate this dispute.
`
`“‘In patent infringement cases, the bulk of the relevant evidence usually comes from the
`
`accused infringer.’” Jaffé, 874 F. Supp. 2d at 504-05 (quoting In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d
`
`1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). Accordingly, this Court recognizes that, “it is permissible to infer,
`
`absent any contrary evidence from the non-movant, that witnesses are located at or near the
`
`center of the allegedly infringing activities and that witnesses involved in the design and
`
`manufacture of the accused [technology] are material.” Koh, 250 F. Supp. 2d at 636-37.
`
`NVIDIA is headquartered in the Northern District of California and has been operating
`
`continuously in the Santa Clara area since the Company was founded in 1993; Santa Clara is the
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 49 Filed 01/22/15 Page 14 of 28 PageID# 1199
`
`only home NVIDIA has ever had. (Luck Decl. at ¶ 2.) Consequently, the design, development,
`
`and manufacture of the accused products occurs primarily in the Northern District of California.
`
`(Id. at ¶¶ 8-10.) The majority of NVIDIA’s employees are involved with some aspect of
`
`engineering, sale, or marketing of NVIDIA’s graphics processing units (“GPUs”), systems on a
`
`chip (“SOCs”), and graphic cards. (Id. at ¶ 6.) As of November, 2014, NVIDIA had
`
`approximately 9,100 U.S. employees. (Id. at ¶ 7.) More than half—over 4,580—work at
`
`NVIDIA’s Santa Clara headquarters. (Id.) NVIDIA also has several groups that are involved
`
`with the engineering of its graphics processing and related technology. (Id. at ¶ 8.) The vast
`
`majority—over 80% of the employees in these groups—work at NVIDIA’s Santa Clara
`
`headquarters. (Id. at ¶ 10.)
`
`NVIDIA has a very small regional office located in Charlottesville, Virginia, in the
`
`Western District of Virginia. (Declaration of David Luebke, ¶ 3 [hereinafter Luebke Decl.].)
`
`Three (3) NVIDIA employees work there. (Id. at ¶ 4.) NVIDIA also has nine (9) employees
`
`who work from home and reside in Virginia. (Id. at ¶ 6.) None of the twelve (12) NVIDIA
`
`employees located in Virginia do any substantive work related to the design, development,
`
`manufacture, marketing, or financial reporting for the accused products related to Samsung’s
`
`allegations. (Id. at ¶¶ 5, 7.) None of the NVIDIA employees in Virginia has ever sold any of the
`
`accused devices. (Id.) Indeed, as discussed below, it appears that all of NVIDIA’s relevant
`
`witnesses are located in Santa Clara, California.
`
`Moreover, most—if not all—relevant documentation is stored and maintained in the
`
`Santa Clara headquarters, as are the resources for obtaining such documentation. (Declaration of
`
`Philip Decker, ¶ 8 [hereinafter Decker Decl.].) No relevant evidence or documents are stored or
`
`maintained in Virginia. (Id.) As of November 2014, NVIDIA’s U.S. IT department comprised
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 49 Filed 01/22/15 Page 15 of 28 PageID# 1200
`
`approximately 178 employees; over 92% of those employees work at NVIDIA’s Santa Clara
`
`headquarters in the Northern District of California. (Luck Decl. at ¶ 11.) Pre-trial proceedings
`
`and trial in Northern California would be far more convenient and less disruptive to the NVIDIA
`
`IT organization than litigation in Virginia. (Decker Decl. at ¶ 10.)
`
`Finally, it will likely be easier for Plaintiff SEC to litigate this case in the Northern
`
`District of California than in the Eastern District of Virginia given the difference in travel
`
`distance from Korea to California (5,964 miles) and Korea to Virginia (7,129 miles). In fact,
`
`SEC has moved to transfer cases to the Northern District of California in recent years arguing
`
`that the venue would be more convenient for it.3 In granting SEC’s motion to transfer to the
`
`Northern District of California, the court in Affinity Labs of Texas v. Samsung Electronics Co.,
`
`held that although SEC’s place of incorporation and principle place of business are outside of the
`
`Northern District of California, “they have facilities there that employ a large number of
`
`individuals.” 968 F. Supp. 2d 852, 855 (E.D. Tex. 2013). Indeed, Samsung Research
`
`America—a wholly owned subsidiary of SEC—has its headquarters in the Northern District of
`
`California in San Jose, California. And Samsung Semiconductor Incorporated—also a wholly
`
`owned subsidiary of SEC and allegedly the world’s largest designer and manufacturer of
`
`memory and logic semiconductors—has built a 1.1 million square foot research and development
`
`headquarters in San Jose, California. Because some of the patents in this case relate to
`
`semiconductors, it is possible/probable that relevant Samsung witnesses are located in the
`
`Northern District of California.
`
`
`3 See, e.g., Rockstar Consortium US LP v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 2:13-CV-00894, 2014 U.S.
`Dist. LEXIS 89552 (E.D. Tex. July 1, 2014); Gemalto S.A. v. HTC Corp., No. 6:10cv561, 2011
`U.S. Dist. LEXIS 133612 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 18, 2011); Shared Memory Graphics LLC v. Apple
`Inc., No. 5:09CV5128, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134909, at *7-10 (W.D. Ark. May 27, 2010).
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 3:14-cv-00757-REP-DJN Document 49 Filed 01/22/15 Page 16 of 28 PageID# 1201
`
`In sum, the vast majority (if not all) of the likely sources of proof, including testifying
`
`witnesses (discussed further below) and documentation for the accused products, are located in
`
`NVIDIA’s offices in the Northern District of California. None of the likely sources of proof are
`
`in the Eastern District of Virginia. The Northern District of California would be much more
`
`convenient than the Eastern District of Virginia for the parties to obtain the testimony and
`
`documentary evidence important to this cas