`
`July 30, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Re: In re Apple Inc., No. 20-135
`
`Via CM/ECF
`
`Peter R. Marksteiner
`Circuit Executive & Clerk of the Court
`United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
`717 Madison Place, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20439
`
`
`
`
`Dear Colonel Marksteiner:
`
`Uniloc responds to Apple’s letter regarding In re Adobe Inc., No. 20-126 (Fed.
`Cir. July 28, 2020). Adobe does not require issuing a writ in this case.
`
`The two private-interest-factor errors in Adobe did not happen here. Adobe
`had no meaningful connection to Texas—the defendant, the inventor, and the
`inventor’s company all were in the Northern District of California (“NDCA”).
`Adobe, at 5–6. In contrast, the Court here credited significant proof located in the
`Western District of Texas (“WDTX”)—including Apple’s proof:
`
`
`• Infringement: Apple engineers work on the content delivery network,
`which provides
`the accused downloading functionality (e.g.,
`downloading apps), SAppx20;1
`
`• Infringement: Flextronics manufacturers an accused product
`(including loading the accused software) for Apple, SAppx21–22;
`SAppx24; and
`
`• Damages: Apple handles all revenue reporting, including royalties to
`third-party app developers for downloaded apps. SAppx20.2
`
`
`Apple’s later-produced source code identified a former Apple engineer
`1
`that appears located in Austin.
`2
`Additional proof is within the Court’s subpoena power. Huawei has its
`U.S. headquarters in Plano, Texas. SAppx24. Uniloc identified proof in Northeast
`
`
`
`Case: 20-135 Document: 46-1 Page: 2 Filed: 07/30/2020
`
`July 30, 2020
`Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`And, unlike Adobe, the inventors are not located in the NDCA. They (and
`prosecution counsel) are located over 1,200 miles closer to the WDTX, which carries
`weight under the Fifth Circuit’s 100-mile rule. SAppx37. This case is not Adobe.
`
`The Court also did not give the trial date dispositive weight under the court-
`congestion factor, the third error in Adobe. The Court cited district-wide case
`statistics to find that “WDTX is simply a less congested venue than NDCA.”
`SAppx29–30. The transfer decision also did not hinge on congestion or the Court’s
`trial date. The Texas and New York evidence weighed in favor of retention, and the
`California evidence pushed the other way. SAppx15–27. On that predominantly
`neutral record (congestion aside), the Court was within its broad discretion to find
`that Apple did not show that the NDCA was a clearly more convenient forum.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`cc: Counsel of record (via CM/ECF)
`
`/s/Christian J. Hurt
`Christian J. Hurt
`Counsel for Respondent
`Uniloc 2017 LLC
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Texas. SAppx19; SAppx26. Apple recently identified two third-party prior art
`witnesses with a Plano presence (and there is at least one other prior art witness in
`the Austin area, SAppx26).
`
`
`
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
