The public factors include: “(1) the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion; (2) the local interest in having localized interests decided at home; (3) the familiarity of the forum with the law that will govern the case; and (4) the avoidance of unnecessary problems of conflict of laws of the application of foreign law.” Id. Courts evaluate these factors based on the situation which existed at the time of filing, rather than relying on hindsight knowledge of the defendant’s forum preference.
The size of Apple’s Austin campus, job openings, and “chip” development are not factors which, by themselves, demonstrate that potentially relevant employee witnesses, or physical documents for that matter, are located in the WDTX.
As has been explained repeatedly, it is improper for movants to seek transfer but fail to provide sufficient discovery or conduct thorough investigations as to sources of proof and witnesses within the transferor forum.
“[W]here there is a co-pending litigation ... involving the same patent-in-suit, … pertaining to the same underlying technology and accusing similar services, ... the Federal Circuit cannot say the trial court clearly abuses its discretion in denying transfer.” In re Vistaprint Ltd., 628 F.3d at 1346 n.3.
Apple maintains that this factor strongly favors transfer for three reasons: “(1) Apple’s work on the research, design, development, and operation of the accused features primarily takes place there; (2) Apple’s headquarters are located there; and, (3) all of Apple’s likely witnesses are based there.