Case 2:15-cv-01381-JRG-RSP Document 160 Filed 05/13/16 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 2159
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`RYUJIN FUJINOMAKI,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-1381-JRG-RSP
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE INC., ET AL.
`
`Defendants.
`
`MEMORANDUM ORDER
`
`Pending before the Court is a Motion to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404
`
`filed by Defendant Google Inc. (Dkt. No. 47). All other Defendants filed Notices of Joinder in
`
`Google’s Motion to Transfer. (Dkt. Nos. 62, 69, 80). The Court held an evidentiary hearing on
`
`the Motion to Transfer1 May 3, 2016.
`
`Defendants assert that this case should be transferred to the Northern District of
`
`California. Plaintiff opposes transfer. The Court, having considered the facts and arguments,
`
`finds that transfer is warranted in this case.
`
`Section 1404(a) provides that “[f]or the convenience of 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). The first step in a Court’s transfer
`
`analysis is deciding “whether the judicial district to which transfer is sought would have been a
`
`1 “Motion to Transfer” as used herein refers collectively to Google’s Motion and Defendants’
`Notices of Joinder in Google’s Motion.
`
`SAMSUNG, ET AL. V. FUJINOMAKI
`FUJINOMAKI EX2005 - 1
`Memorandum Order Granting M.T.V.
`IPR2017-01017
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01381-JRG-RSP Document 160 Filed 05/13/16 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 2160
`
`district in which the claim could have been filed.” In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201, 203 (5th
`
`Cir. 2004) (“Volkswagen I”).
`
`If that threshold is met, the Court then analyzes public and private factors relating to the
`
`convenience of parties and witnesses and the interests of particular venues in hearing the case.
`
`See Humble Oil & Ref. Co. v. Bell Marine Serv., Inc., 321 F.2d 53, 56 (5th Cir. 1963); In re
`
`Nintendo Co., Ltd., 589 F.3d 1194, 1198 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d
`
`1315, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The private factors are: 1) the relative ease of access to sources of
`
`proof; 2) the availability of compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses; 3) the cost
`
`of attendance for willing witnesses; and 4) all other practical problems that make trial of a case
`
`easy, expeditious, and inexpensive. Volkswagen I, 371 F.3d at 203; Nintendo, 589 F.3d at 1198;
`
`TS Tech, 551 F.3d at 1319. The public factors are: 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 or in the application of foreign law. Volkswagen I, 371
`
`F.3d at 203; Nintendo, 589 F.3d at 1198; TS Tech, 551 F.3d at 1319.
`
`The plaintiff’s choice of venue is not a factor in this analysis. In re Volkswagen of Am.,
`
`Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 314–15 (5th Cir. 2008) (“Volkswagen II”). Rather, the plaintiff’s choice of
`
`venue contributes to the defendant’s burden of proving that the transferee venue is “clearly more
`
`convenient” than the transferor venue. Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 315; Nintendo, 589 F.3d at
`
`1200; TS Tech, 551 F.3d at 1319. Although the private and public factors apply to most transfer
`
`cases, “they are not necessarily exhaustive or exclusive,” and no single factor is dispositive.
`
`Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 314–15.
`
`
`
`2
`
`SAMSUNG, ET AL. V. FUJINOMAKI
`FUJINOMAKI EX2005 - 2
`Memorandum Order Granting M.T.V.
`IPR2017-01017
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01381-JRG-RSP Document 160 Filed 05/13/16 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 2161
`
`Timely motions to transfer venue should be “should [be given] a top priority in the
`
`handling of [a case]” and “are to be decided based on ‘the situation which existed when suit was
`
`instituted.’” In re Horseshoe Entm’t, 337 F.3d 429, 433 (5th Cir. 2003); In re EMC Corp., Doc.
`
`No. 2013-M142, 2013 WL 324154 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 29, 2013) (quoting Hoffman v. Blaski, 363
`
`U.S. 335, 443 (1960)).
`
`Defendants presented evidence at the hearing that the majority of party and third-party
`
`witnesses who have knowledge of the accused features are located in the Northern District of
`
`California. Plaintiff did not present meaningful countervailing or rebuttal evidence. In particular,
`
`no party identified any specific witness or piece of evidence located in the Eastern District of
`
`Texas.
`
`The Court finds that four factors strongly favor transfer. First, “the place where the
`
`defendant’s documents are kept weighs in favor of transfer to that location.” See Genentech, 566
`
`F.3d at 1345. The majority of relevant documents in this case are located in California, and it is
`
`not clear that any documents are located in the Eastern District of Texas. Second, because “[t]he
`
`convenience of the witnesses is probably the single most important factor in a transfer analysis”
`
`the location of the witnesses in this case strongly favors transfer. See Genentech, 566 F.3d at
`
`1342. Third, the Northern District of California has the power to compel several identified third-
`
`parties to appear at trial, and this Court does not. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45. Fourth, “the existence of
`
`multiple lawsuits involving the same issues is a paramount consideration when determining
`
`whether a transfer is in the interest of justice,” and the Court therefore concludes that judicial
`
`economy favors adjudicating Plaintiff’s claims against all Defendants in the same forum. See In
`
`re Vicor Corp., 493 Fed. Appx. 59, 61 (Fed. Cir. 2012). The Court finds that the remaining
`
`factors are neutral as to transfer.
`
`
`
`3
`
`SAMSUNG, ET AL. V. FUJINOMAKI
`FUJINOMAKI EX2005 - 3
`Memorandum Order Granting M.T.V.
`IPR2017-01017
`
`

`

`Case 2:15-cv-01381-JRG-RSP Document 160 Filed 05/13/16 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 2162
`
`A motion to transfer venue should be granted when the moving party shows the proposed
`
`transferee venue is “clearly more convenient.” Nintendo, 589 F.3d at 1197; Genentech, 566 F.3d
`
`at 1342. The Court has weighed the evidence and finds that the Northern District of California is
`
`clearly more convenient. Google’s Motion to Transfer Venue (Dkt. No. 47) together with
`
`Defendants’ Notices of Joinder in Google’s Motion to Transfer (Dkt. Nos. 62, 69, 80) are
`
`GRANTED. The clerk is directed to transfer this case to the Northern District of California.
`
`
`
`4
`
`SAMSUNG, ET AL. V. FUJINOMAKI
`FUJINOMAKI EX2005 - 4
`Memorandum Order Granting M.T.V.
`IPR2017-01017
`
`