Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02749/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-02749-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

TJNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Norfolk Division

GLOBAL TOUCH SOLUTIONS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

TOSHIBA CORPORATION and

TOSHIBA AMERICA INFORMATION

SYSTEMS, INC.,

Defendants,

GLOBAL TOUCH SOLUTIONS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

VIZIO, INC.,

Defendant.

GLOBAL TOUCH SOLUTIONS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

APPLE, INC.,

Defendant,

GLOBAL TOUCH SOLUTIONS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

MOTOROLA MOBILITY LCC,

Defendant.

Civil No. 2:14cv346

Civil No. 2:14cv347

Civil No. 2:14cv390

Civil No. 2:14cv391

Case 3:15-cv-02749-JD Document 39 Filed 06/15/15 Page 1 of 51
GLOBAL TOUCH SOLUTIONS, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

MICROSOFT CORPORATION and

NOKIA INC.,

Defendants.

Civil No. 2:15cvl7

(formerly 3:14cv548)

OPINION AND ORDER

I. Introductory Statement

The joinder provision of the America Invents Act ("AIA") has

had an evident impact on the procedural handling of patent

infringement actions in scenarios where a plaintiff seeks to hold

multiple defendants liable based on similarly designed consumer

products. 35 U.S.C. § 299. To the extent joinder of alleged

infringers was previously permitted in a patent case under Rule 20

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the AIA eliminated a patent

holder's ability to file a single civil action against multiple

industry competitors allegedly responsible for violating the same

patent or family of patents. Moreover, once cases involving various

companies' similar accused products are separately filed, the AIA

expressly precludes consolidation "for trial." Id. ; see In re:

Maxim Integrated Products, Inc., Patent Litigation, 867 F. Supp. 2d

Case 3:15-cv-02749-JD Document 39 Filed 06/15/15 Page 2 of 51
1333, 1335 (J.P.M.L. 2012) (" [T]he AIA changed the landscape of

patent litigation—particularly the filing of actions against

multiple unrelated defendants and the right to a separate trial when

defendants are only accused of violating the same patent.") ; see also

H.R. REP. 112-98, at 54, reprinted in 2011 U.S.C.C.A.N. 67, 85 ("The

[AIA] also addresses problems occasioned by the joinder of defendants

(sometimes numbering in the dozens) who have tenuous connections to

the underlying disputes in patent infringement suits.").

While the practical effects of the AIA may still be unsettled

in light of its relative infancy, it appears that the serial filing

of separate patent infringement actions in the same court, on or about

the same date, against different corporate defendants, has become

the new normal in patent infringement litigation. See Norman IP

Holdings, LLC v. Lexmark Int' 1, Inc., No. 6:12cv508, 2012 WL 3307942,

at *4 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 10, 2012) ("In response to the AIA's joinder

provision, plaintiffs now serially file multiple single-defendant

(or defendant group) cases involving the same underlying patents.") .

Such serial filing "presents administrative challenges for the Court

and, left unchecked, wastes judicial resources by requiring common

issues to be addressed individually for each case." Id. One of the

ways in which district courts have sought to temper the waste of

judicial resources is by consolidating associated patent actions for

pretrial matters, either invoking Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

42 for cases pending within a single district, or MDL cross-district

Case 3:15-cv-02749-JD Document 39 Filed 06/15/15 Page 3 of 51
consolidation procedures in cases pending in multiple districts.

See DietGoal Innovations LLC v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc., No.

2:13cvl54, 2014 WL 2561222, at *2 (E.D. Va. June 6, 2014) (denying

a motion to sever one patent case from several others after the

district court had entered a sua sponte order consolidating the cases

under Rule 42 for all pretrial matters); Cellport Systems, Inc. v.

BMW of North America, L.L.C., No. 14-cv-1631, 2014 WL 6910293, at

*l-2 (D. Colo. Dec. 9, 2014) ("Courts have held that [the AIA joinder

provision] does not prevent the consolidation of cases against

accused infringers for pretrial matters." (emphasis added)); In re:

Bear Creek Techs, Inc., ('722) Patent Litig., 858 F. Supp. 2d 1375,

13 78 (J.P.M.L. 2012) ("We find that the America Invents Act does not

alter our authority to order pretrial centralization of this

litigation."); In re: Maxim Integrated Products, 867 F. Supp. 2d at

1335 (reiterating that while MDL consolidation remains permissible

post-AIA, "the AIA's right to separate trials should be taken into

account when making the decision to centralize a given litigation,

inasmuch as the AIA is the new reality in patent litigation and its

right to separate trials could impact the Panel's calculus regarding

whether centralization benefits 'the convenience of parties and

witnesses' and 'will promote the just and efficient conduct' of the

litigation." (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a)).

The filing of one or more motions seeking a discretionary

transfer of venue in associated patent actions raises additional

Case 3:15-cv-02749-JD Document 39 Filed 06/15/15 Page 4 of 51
concerns, as the various defendants, witnesses, and sources of proof

relevant to separately filed patent infringement actions will

invariably be found in different districts. Balancing the complex

and competing factors raised in such motions presents difficult

questions, which in the pending cases include: (1) Does it serve

justice and economy to split up five cases with similar allegations

of infringement when at least three, and as many as eight, of the

same patents are asserted against the same types of consumer products

(laptops, tablets, etc.) sold by industry competitors? (2) Does

refusal to transfer such cases in an effort to keep them together

create an incentive for plaintiffs to "manufacture venue" by filing

numerous similar actions in the same court, around the same time,

in order to increase the pressure on the Court to reject any of the

defendants' attempts to transfer an individual case? (3) Does

transferring all of the similar cases to a far "better" forum, which

necessarily cannot be the "best" forum as to each individual case,

best satisfy the convenience and justice factors, or does it allow

defendants to forum shop? (4) Does it comport with justice to

require a plaintiff who filed multiple separate actions, as required

by the AIA, to not only leave its chosen forum as to those cases with

the strongest transfer arguments, but to have to simultaneously

litigate multiple (similar) patent cases on opposite coasts of the

United States?

Case 3:15-cv-02749-JD Document 39 Filed 06/15/15 Page 5 of 51
Grappling with these competing considerations in light of the

circumstances presented in each of the five cases pending before this

Court, some of which present stronger arguments for transfer than

others, necessarily requires the Court to reach an imperfect

resolution. However, although less than perfect, this Court's

resolution of the motions before it best comports with the § 1404(a)

convenience and justice factors.

II. Factual and Procedural Background

Against such backdrop, currently before the Court are five

separate patent infringement actions filed by plaintiff Global Touch

Solutions, LLC, ("Plaintiff" or "GTS"). The defendant(s) in each

case are: (1) Toshiba Corporation ("Toshiba") and its American

subsidiary Toshiba American Information Systems, Inc. ("TAIS") ; (2)

Vizio, Inc. ("Vizio"); (3) Apple, Inc. ("Apple"); (4) Motorola

Mobility LLC ("Motorola"); and (5) Microsoft Corporation

("Microsoft") and its subsidiary Nokia Inc. ("Nokia") .x These five

separate civil cases were initially randomly assigned to four

different district judges within this district. However, because

all five cases involve similar allegations, and share common patents

and common asserted claims, the four cases assigned to other judges

of this Court were reassigned to the undersigned judge (to whom the

1 The Court will refer herein to the individual cases by the name of the

defendant(s) , for example, the case involving Toshiba and TAIS will be

referred to as the "Toshiba/TAIS Action." Additionally, the Court will

collectively refer to the seven named defendants as "Defendants."

Case 3:15-cv-02749-JD Document 39 Filed 06/15/15 Page 6 of 51
first case was assigned) for the purposes of economy, consistency,

and fairness.

Although the number and identity of the patents asserted in the

different actions varies somewhat, four of the five cases have at

least five patents in common.2 The defendant (s) in each of the five

cases filed a motion seeking transfer to the Northern District of

California, with one defendant alternatively seeking transfer to the

Central District of California. Plaintiff GTS opposes transfer in

each of the five cases, arguing in the Toshiba/TAIS Action that such

case could not have originally been filed in the Northern District

of California, and arguing in all cases that the named defendant(s)

fails to demonstrate that the relevant convenience and justice

factors justify a transfer of venue.

Each motion to transfer in each of the five separately filed

cases must be analyzed on its own merits in order to determine: (1)

whether such action could have been filed in the putative transferee

forum; and (2) whether transfer to such permissible transferee forum

would substantially advance interests of convenience and justice.

Although it is evident that each motion to transfer must stand on

its own, Plaintiff has commendably acknowledged that if the first

test, the threshold test, is met in each of the five cases pending

before this Court, the Court must necessarily consider keeping the

2 Only three patents are asserted in the Toshiba/TAIS Action, but two of

these three patents are also asserted in the Apple Action, and all three

of them are asserted in the other pending actions.

Case 3:15-cv-02749-JD Document 39 Filed 06/15/15 Page 7 of 51
cases together to promote judicial economy, convenience of the

witnesses and parties (to include Plaintiff), and to lessen the risk

of inconsistent results. 2:14cv346, Hearing Tr. 38-40, ECF No. 57.

Defendants likewise contend in their Court filings that keeping the

cases together is preferable. The motivation to keep the cases

together appears particularly acute when, as here, the cases involve

the same patents, the same patent claims, the same types of allegedly

infringing consumer products, and the identified potential forums,

the Northern/Central District of California and the Eastern District

of Virginia, are on opposite coasts of the United States,

approximately 3,000 miles apart. Although the parties are in

apparent agreement that strong consideration should be given to

keeping the cases together, they disagree as to whether the cases

belong together in Virginia, or together in California.

III. Standard for Transfer of Venue

Title 28 of the United States Code, Section 1404, establishes

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 or to

any district or division to which all parties have consented."

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).3

3 If a case is filed in an improper venue, then 28 U.S.C. § 1406 governs

a motion seeking a transfer of venue. However, here, none of the Defendants

assert that the instant venue is improper; rather, they argue that the

instant forum is inconvenient for the trial of these individual cases. As

clarified in one of Microsoft's briefs, 2:15cvl7, ECF No. 32, whether

Case 3:15-cv-02749-JD Document 39 Filed 06/15/15 Page 8 of 51
Although listed as the second clause in § 1404 (a) , the threshold

question when addressing a motion to transfer venue is "whether the

proposed transferee court is one in which the action originally may

have been brought." BHP Int'l Inv., Inc. v. OnLine Exch., Inc., 105

F. Supp. 2d 493, 498 (E.D. Va. 2000) . "In order to demonstrate that

an action might have been brought in a proposed transferee district,

a movant must establish that both venue and jurisdiction with respect

to each defendant is proper in the transferee district." Koh v.

Microtek Int'l, Inc., 250 F. Supp. 2d 627, 630 (E.D. Va. 2003)

(emphasis added) (citing LG Electronics Inc. v. Advance Creative

Computer Corp., 131 F. Supp. 2d 804, 812 (E.D. Va. 2001)). If the

claims could have been brought in the transferee court at the time

the action was filed, the subsequent decision to transfer venue is

within the discretion of the court. One Beacon Ins. Co. v. JNB

Storage Trailer Rental Corp. , 312 F. Supp. 2d 824, 828 (E.D. Va. 2004)

(citing Verosol B.V. v. Hunter Douglas, Inc., 806 F. Supp. 582, 591

(E.D. Va. 1992)) .

If a party seeking transfer makes the threshold showing that

the action could have been filed in the proposed transferee forum,

the Court then considers "whether the interest of justice and

convenience of the parties and witnesses justify transfer to that

Defendants' product sales and marketing efforts in this District constitute

sufficient contacts with this forum to confer jurisdiction on this Court

is a separate issue from determining whether this District is an

inconvenient forum for resolving the issues raised in Plaintiff's

complaints.

Case 3:15-cv-02749-JD Document 39 Filed 06/15/15 Page 9 of 51
forum." Koh, 250 F. Supp. 2d at 630; see 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a);

TechnoSteel, LLC v. Beers Const. Co., 271 F.3d 151, 160 (4th Cir.

2001) (indicating that § 1404(a) contemplates "transfer of a case

from one district court to another district court for the

conveniences of the parties and witnesses—the only difference being

locale—without substantially affecting the rights of the parties").

In conducting the convenience and justice inquiry, the Court

considers several factors to determine whether to transfer venue,

including: "'(1) ease of access to sources of proof; (2) the

convenience of the parties and witnesses; (3) the cost of obtaining

the attendance of witnesses; (4) the availability of compulsory

process; (5) the interest in having local controversies decided at

home; (6) in diversity cases, the court's familiarity with the

applicable law; and (7) the interest of justice.'" One Beacon Ins.

Co., 312 F. Supp. 2d at 828 (quoting BHP Int'1 Inv., 105 F. Supp.

at 498) . As prior decisions from this District have recognized, the

"principal factors" to consider are: (1) the plaintiff's choice of

forum; (2) witness convenience and access to sources of proof; (3)

party convenience; and (4) the interest of justice. Koh, 250 F.

Supp. 2d at 633. In weighing these factors, the Court is mindful

that "[t]he party seeking transfer bears the burden of proving that

the circumstances of the case are strongly in favor of transfer" and

that "transfer is not appropriate where it will only serve to shift

the balance of inconvenience from one party to the other." Heinz

10

Case 3:15-cv-02749-JD Document 39 Filed 06/15/15 Page 10 of 51
Kettler GMBH & Co. v. Razor USA, LLC, 750 F. Supp. 2d 660, 667-68

(E.D. Va. 2010) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

IV. Discussion - Jurisdiction and Venue Standards

A. Jurisdiction of Transferee Forum

"As an initial matter, the court must determine whether the

proposed transferee court is one in which the action originally may

have been brought." BHP Int' 1 Inv. , 105 F. Supp. 2d at 4 98.

Although application of the § 1404 (a) convenience and justice factors

is governed by the law of the regional circuits, Federal Circuit law

applies to the determination of whether a district court has personal

jurisdiction over a defendant in a patent case. Avocent Huntsville

Corp. v. Aten Int'l Co., Ltd., 552 F.3d 1324, 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .

"In order to establish personal jurisdiction in a patent infringement

case over a non-resident defendant whose products are sold in the

forum state, a plaintiff must show both that the state long arm

statute applies and that the requirements of due process are

satisfied." Commissariat a l'Energie Atomique v. Chi Mei

Optoelectronics Corp., 395 F.3d 1315, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2005)

(citations omitted).

Here, all Defendants in the five related patent cases seek

transfer to California, and "California's long-arm statute allows

courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over defendants to the

extent permitted by the Due Process Clause of the United States

Constitution." Harris Rutsky & Co. Ins. Services, Inc. v. Bell &

11

Case 3:15-cv-02749-JD Document 39 Filed 06/15/15 Page 11 of 51
Clements Ltd., 328 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Cal. Code

Civ. Pro. § 410.10). As explained by the Federal Circuit:

Because California's long-arm statute is co-extensive

with federal due process requirements, the jurisdictional

analyses under California law and federal law are the same.

Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co. , 374 F.3d 797, 801

(9th Cir. 2004) . The constitutional touchstone for

determining whether an exercise of personal jurisdiction

comports with due process "remains whether the defendant

purposefully established 'minimum contacts' in the forum

State." Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 474

(1985) (quoting Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310,

316 (1945)). . . . The Federal Circuit applies a three

prong test to determine if specific jurisdiction exists:

(1) whether the defendant purposefully directed

activities at residents of the forum; (2) whether the claim

arises out of or relates to those activities; and (3)

whether assertion of personal jurisdiction is reasonable

and fair. AkroCorp. v. Luker, 45 F.3d 1541, 1545-46 (Fed.

Cir. 1995); see also Schwarzenegger, 374 F.3d at 802.

Nuance Communications, Inc. v. Abbyy Software House, 626 F.3d 1222,

1230-31 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

B. Propriety of Venue in Transferee Forum

To determine whether venue lies in a patent case in a proposed

transferee forum, the Court must begin with the venue statute that

is specifically tailored to patent cases. See 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).

Such statute provides that venue in a patent infringement lawsuit

is proper in "the judicial district where the defendant resides, or

where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a

regular and established place of business." Id. (emphasis added).

While § 1400(b) does not define the term "resides," such term is

defined in § 1391. Because the instant cases all involve defendants

12

Case 3:15-cv-02749-JD Document 39 Filed 06/15/15 Page 12 of 51
that are corporations, and because the venue determination must be

made as to a state (California) with multiple federal judicial

districts, each defendant's residence is defined by § 1391(d), which

states as follows:

(d) Residency of corporations in States with multiple

districts.--For purposes of venue under this chapter

[chapter 87 of Title 28], in a State which has more than

one judicial district and in which a defendant that is a

corporation is subject to personal jurisdiction at the

time an action is commenced, such corporation shall be

deemed to reside in any district in that State within which

its contacts would be sufficient to subject it to personal

jurisdiction if that district were a separate State, and,

if there is no such district, the corporation shall be

deemed to reside in the district within which it has the

most significant contacts.

28 U.S.C. § 1391(d) (emphasis added) ; see LG Electronics, 131 F. Supp.

2d at 810 (highlighting, while interpreting an earlier version of

§ 1391, that "[b]ecause Chapter 87 of the Code includes § 1400(b),

the residence definition found in § 1391[d] applies to § 1400(b)");

see also VE Holding Corp. v. Johnson Gas Appliance Co., 917 F.2d 1574,

1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990).

C. State-wide vs. District-wide Contacts

In conducting the jurisdictional and venue inquiries based on

the standards set forth above, in certain circumstances, it is

important to distinguish between the contacts considered for the

jurisdictional analysis, which look to a party's contacts with the

entire state, and the contacts considered for the venue analysis,

which as stated in § 1391(d) , are limited to those contacts with the

13

Case 3:15-cv-02749-JD Document 39 Filed 06/15/15 Page 13 of 51
particular federal district within such state. Accordingly, in

conducting this two-pronged inquiry in the instant case:

First, it must be shown, . . . that [the defendant] has

"minimum contacts" with the entire state of

[California] so that "maintenance of the suit does not

offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial

justice." International Shoe v. Washington, 326 U.S.

310, 316 (1945). Second, personal jurisdiction having

been established, venue is proper in any district in which

there are also sufficient contacts to fulfill the

International Shoe standard. Finally, if a defendant's

contacts are spread throughout the state in such a manner

that there is no single district in which the requirements

of personal jurisdiction are satisfied, venue is proper

in the district with the "most significant contacts." 28

U.S.C. Section 1391[d].

Hester Industries Inc. v. Stein Inc., No. 96-719-A, 1996 WL 710835,

at *3 (E.D. Va. Oct. 3, 1996); see SKF Condition Monitoring, Inc.

v. SAT Corp. , No. 07cvlll6, 2008 WL 706851, at *1 n.l (S.D. Cal. Feb.

27, 2008) (explaining that "[i]n states with more than one federal

district, personal jurisdiction and venue for corporate defendants

are similar but not identical questions," with the jurisdictional

inquiry focusing on contacts "with the forum state," and the venue

inquiry focusing on contacts "with the forum district"); Avery

Dennison Corp. v. Alien Technology Corp., 632 F. Supp. 2d 700, 712

(N.D. Ohio 2008) ("The venue analysis is similar to the personal

jurisdiction analysis, but, despite [the plaintiff's] contention

otherwise, the relevant contacts [for the purposes of analyzing

venue] are limited to those in the Northern District of Ohio, as

opposed to the entire state."); Bilek v. Burris, No. 3:10-13-DCR,

14

Case 3:15-cv-02749-JD Document 39 Filed 06/15/15 Page 14 of 51
2010 WL 4629616, at *8 (E.D. Ky. Nov. 8, 2010) (explaining that, even

though the district court for the Eastern District of Kentucky "may

have personal jurisdiction over [the plaintiff's] unjust enrichment

claim" based on events occurring in the Western District of Kentucky,

venue is improper in the Eastern District because unlike

jurisdiction, venue requires a district by district analysis); see

also Autobytel, Inc. v. InswebCorp., No. 2:07cv524, 2009 WL 901482,

at *2 n.2 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2009) ("[P]ersonal jurisdiction only

requires that the necessary contacts are found within the forum

state, here the entire State of Texas." (citing International Shoe,

326 U.S. at 317)).

D. Analysis of Jurisdiction and Venue in the

Five Cases Pending before this Court

1. Apple Action, Microsoft Action, & Motorola/Nokia Action

As stated in this Court's prior Order, ECF No. 31, the parties'

briefing demonstrates that there is no dispute that the Apple,

Microsoft, and Motorola/Nokia Actions could have been filed in the

Northern District of California. As the basis for jurisdiction and

venue in the Northern District of California appears to be supported

by the respective Defendants' filings and is unchallenged by

Plaintiff in these three actions, no further analysis on this issue

is necessary. Cf. Akro Corp. v. Luker, 45 F.3d 1541, 1543 (Fed. Cir.

1995) (indicating that "where the plaintiff's factual allegations

are not directly controverted, they are taken as true for purposes

15

Case 3:15-cv-02749-JD Document 39 Filed 06/15/15 Page 15 of 51
of determining jurisdiction") (internal quotation marks and

citations omitted).

2. Vizio Action

Due to the lack of clarity in the initial record, the Court

permitted additional briefing as to whether Vizio was in fact seeking

transfer to the Northern District of California and whether Vizio

was subject to suit in that district.4 This Court subsequently

received a supplemental brief, and supporting exhibits,

demonstrating that Vizio does in fact expressly request transfer to

the Northern District of California, and that venue is proper in that

district on the basis of Vizio's contacts with the district.

Specifically, Vizio presented evidence that it sells its products,

including the allegedly infringing products, both directly to

consumers in the Northern District of California through the Vizio

website and to large nationwide retailers, including Walmart, Best

Buy, and Target. Vizio's evidence demonstrates that it is

well-aware that such retailers have physical locations in the

Northern District of California and that they sell Vizio products

to end consumers from such stores. ECF No. 32, at 4; ECF Nos. 32-4,

32-5, 32-6, and 32-12.

4 Vizio, in the first instance, requests the transfer of its case to the

Northern District of California as one of the five cases for which

Defendants collectively seek transfer. In the event that this Court denies

the motions seeking to transfer all five cases to the Northern District

of California, Vizio alternatively requests transfer of the Vizio Action

to the Central District of California, Vizio's home forum. 2:14cv347, ECF

Nos. 25, 32.

16

Case 3:15-cv-02749-JD Document 39 Filed 06/15/15 Page 16 of 51
Plaintiff's response to Vizio's supplemental filing

acknowledges that "Vizio's evidence goes toward particularized

targeting of the Northern District of California" and notes that "GTS

does not dispute those facts." ECF No. 33. The Court therefore

finds that Vizio has sufficiently demonstrated that Vizio was subject

to suit in the Northern District of California at the time the Vizio

Action was filed.5

3. Toshiba/TAIS Action

Due to the lack of clarity in the initial record as to the

asserted basis for jurisdiction and venue in the Northern District

of California as to Toshiba, a Japanese Corporation, and TAIS, an

American subsidiary of Toshiba that is responsible for distributing

Toshiba-branded electronics, the Court permitted additional

briefing and subsequently held a hearing on these matters. The

primary focus of the hearing was whether TAIS, headquartered in the

Central District of California, had sufficient contacts with the

Northern District of California such that venue was proper in that

5 It is undisputed that Vizio is headquartered in the Central District of

California, and Vizio's activities within California appear to subject

Vizio to the jurisdiction of federal courts in any district within the state

of California. However, as discussed above, federal statute provides that

venue in a state with multiple judicial districts is to be determined based

on viewing each district as if it were a different state, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1391(d), and thus, Vizio's contacts with the Northern District of

California were analyzed to determine if venue was proper there. Because

it is undisputed that Vizio's contacts with the Northern District of

California are sufficient to satisfy the International Shoe standard, those

contacts not only establish that venue is proper in that district, but also

provide an alternative basis for that court to assert jurisdiction over

Vizio irrespective of the fact that Vizio is headquartered in California.

17

Case 3:15-cv-02749-JD Document 39 Filed 06/15/15 Page 17 of 51
district at the time the Toshiba/TAIS Action was filed. Also

addressed was the relationship between Toshiba and TAIS.

Based on the testimony presented at the hearing by Masa Okumura,

TAIS's "Director of Product Development" for PCs, laptops, tablets,

and other electronics, the Court finds that TAIS has demonstrated

that, at the time the Toshiba/TAIS Action was filed, both

jurisdiction and venue were proper in the Northern District of

California as to TAIS. First, as to jurisdiction, it is undisputed

that TAIS is headquartered in the Central District of California.

Accordingly, federal courts in any district in California appear to

have jurisdiction over TAIS based on its continuous and systematic

activities in that state. Cf. J. Mclntyre Machinery, Ltd. v.

Nicastro, 131 S. Ct. 2780, 2787 (2011) (plurality) ("Citizenship or

domicile—or, by analogy, incorporation or principal place of

business for corporations—also indicates general submission to a

State's powers" (citing Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v.

Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846, 2854 (2011)).

Second, even disregarding any of TAIS's activities that are

confined to the Central District of California, TAIS's purposeful,

longstanding, and intentional contacts with the Northern District

of California independently establish that both jurisdiction and

venue are proper in that court. At the hearing before this Court,

Masa Okumura testified about TAIS's direct and purposeful targeting

of "enterprise customers" in the Northern District of California,

18

Case 3:15-cv-02749-JD Document 39 Filed 06/15/15 Page 18 of 51
such as Oracle, Intel, Google, and Applied Materials. 2:14cv34 6,

Hearing Tr. 15-20, ECF No. 57. In the first half of 2014 (the period

immediately preceding the filing of the Toshiba/TAIS Action) TAIS

made direct sales of "a few thousand units" of Toshiba-branded

products to three enterprise customers in the Northern District of

California and also had one employee "system engineer" that worked

in that district in order to directly interface with TAIS's

"enterprise customers" that are located there. Id. at 20-21.

Additionally, Mr. Okumura testified that TAIS sold more than a

hundred thousand Toshiba-branded laptops and tablets in the first

half of 2014 in the Northern District of California through sales

to national retail chains such as Best Buy, Costco, Staples, and

others. Id. at 22-23. Such evidence is sufficient to render

jurisdiction and venue proper as to TAIS in the Northern District

of California. Nuance Communications, 626 F.3d at 1230-31.

The Court likewise finds that Mr. Okumura's testimony, when

considered in conjunction with the affidavit previously provided by

Masatsugu Mukuge, Toshiba's "Chief Specialist," sufficiently

demonstrates that at the time the Toshiba/TAIS Action was filed,

jurisdiction and venue were proper in the Northern District of

California as to Toshiba, a foreign corporation. As to

jurisdiction, Toshiba has a wholly owned subsidiary (TAIS) located

in California for the purpose of distributing Toshiba's products

throughout the United States, to include within the state of

19

Case 3:15-cv-02749-JD Document 39 Filed 06/15/15 Page 19 of 51
California. In the six months preceding the filing of the

Toshiba/TAIS action, TAIS sold over 370,000 Toshiba-branded laptops

and tablets in California. 2:14cv346, Hearing Tr. 23, ECF No. 57.

Additionally, Mr. Okumura, who works for TAIS, testified that it is

his responsibility to "understand the U.S. market needs and

understand technology trends in the United States" and to pass this

information on to Toshiba's product development team. Id. at 15.

Mr. Okumura further testified that it was TAIS's understanding that

Toshiba's intent was for "TAIS to sell nationally, which would

include Northern California, because it is a large market." Id. at

18. Mr. Mukuge's affidavit clearly confirmed such fact, indicating

that "Toshiba Corp. is aware and intends that the Accused Products

are or have been marketed and sold to customers in the Northern

District of California." ECF No. 49 1 9 (emphasis added).

Jurisdiction over Toshiba in California for matters relating

to the sale of Toshiba products is appropriate because the record

demonstrates that the sale of Toshiba products in California "is not

simply an isolated occurrence, but arises from the efforts of the

manufacturer or distributor to serve directly or indirectly, the

market for its product[s]" as Toshiba "delivers its products into

the stream of commerce with the expectation that they will be

purchased by consumers in [California]." World-Wide Volkswagen

Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297-98 (1980) (emphasis added); cf.

AFTG-TG, LLC v. Nuvoton Tech. Corp., 689 F.3d 1358, 1365 (Fed. Cir.

20

Case 3:15-cv-02749-JD Document 39 Filed 06/15/15 Page 20 of 51
2012) (explaining that isolated and sporadic shipments into the forum

state by the defendants were insufficient to establish minimum

contacts under any stream of commerce theory) . Not only does Toshiba

have a well-established and long-standing distribution network

operated by a wholly-owned subsidiary that directly targets

customers in California, but such subsidiary is itself headquartered

within California. Nuance Communications, 626 F.3d at 1232-34.

Applying the three part jurisdiction test articulated by the Federal

Circuit: (1) Toshiba purposefully directed its activities in an

effort to sell Toshiba products to California customers; (2) the

instant allegations of patent infringement clearly arise out of and

are related to such sales; and (3) a California court's assertion

of jurisdiction over Toshiba is reasonable and fair in light of

Toshiba's working relationship with TAIS, a wholly owned subsidiary,

as both a long-standing affiliated distributor of Toshiba products

and as a research arm to gauge American consumers demand for Toshiba

products. See Corning Optical Communications Wireless, Ltd. v.

Solid, Inc., No. 3:14cv367, 2014 WL 4104058, at *3 (E.D. Va. Aug.

18, 2014) (concluding that federal courts in California had

jurisdiction over a Korean supplier that distributed its products

in the United States through a California distributor because the

Korean company "knew it was affiliating itself with a business in

California in a manner that would lead to substantial contacts with

21

Case 3:15-cv-02749-JD Document 39 Filed 06/15/15 Page 21 of 51
California") (internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

Stated differently:

[Toshiba] established a distribution system with [TAIS]

that was intended to deliver products to the U.S. market

via a [wholly] owned California entity. [Toshiba] knew

the destination of its products, and its conduct and

connections with the forum state [of California] were such

that it should have reasonably have anticipated being

brought into court there.

Nuance Communications, 626 F.3d at 1234; see Beverly Hills Fan Co.

v. Royal Sovereign Corp., 21 F.3d 1558, 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1994)

(discussing various formulations of the "stream of commerce"

jurisdictional theory, but noting that, under any version of the

test, exercising jurisdiction over a foreign defendant in a patent

infringement action is "consonant with due process" when a foreign

defendant, "acting in consort" with an American distributor, "placed

the accused [products] in the stream of commerce" knowing the "likely

destination of the products" and knowing that "their conduct and

connections with the forum state were such that they should

reasonably have anticipated being brought into court there");

Fujitsu Ltd. v. Belkin Int'l, Inc., 782 F. Supp. 2d 868, 884 (N.D.

Ca. 2011) (finding jurisdiction over a Taiwanese corporation based

on the sale of such corporation's allegedly infringing goods in

California, noting that such finding did not depend on whether the

sales were made directly by the foreign corporation or through its

American subsidiary acting as the distributor). It therefore

comports with both the California long-arm statute and the due

22

Case 3:15-cv-02749-JD Document 39 Filed 06/15/15 Page 22 of 51
process clause of the United States Constitution for any federal

court in California to exercise jurisdiction over Toshiba.

As to venue, unlike the district by district § 1391(d) analysis

performed for domestic corporations, Toshiba's status as a foreign

corporation subject to the jurisdiction of California courts

automatically renders venue proper in any federal district in

California, regardless of Toshiba's contacts specific to that

individual district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3) ("For all venue

purposes-- ... a defendant not resident in the United States may

be sued in any judicial district."); Brunette Mach. Works, Limited

v. Kockum Industries, Inc., 406 U.S. 706, 714 (1972) (indicating that

the provision in § 1391 governing venue over a foreign defendant "is

properly regarded, not as a venue restriction at all, but rather as

a declaration of the long-established rule that suits against aliens

are wholly outside the operation of all the federal venue laws,

general and special"); In re Princeton Digital Image Corp., 496 F.

App'x 73, 75 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (noting that in Brunette, the Supreme

Court "reaffirmed the long-standing rule that a patent infringement

suit could be brought against a foreign defendant in any district

court, and was not restricted to where the defendant resides, commits

acts of infringement, or has a regular and established business as

otherwise required under the patent venue statute").

Summarizing the above, the Court finds that each Defendant in

all five pending actions has demonstrated that the Northern District

23

Case 3:15-cv-02749-JD Document 39 Filed 06/15/15 Page 23 of 51
of California had jurisdiction over such party, and that venue was

proper in that district, such that each of the five pending cases

"could have been brought" in the Northern District of California at

the time each case was filed.

V. Discussion - § 1404(a) Convenience and Justice Factors

Once it is determined that an action could have been filed in

the proposed transferee district, the subsequent decision to

transfer venue "is committed to the sound discretion of the district

court." One Beacon Ins. Co. , 312 F. Supp. 2d at 828 (citing Verosol

B.V. , 806 F. Supp. at 591); see Gower v. Lehman, 799 F.2d 925, 927

(4th Cir. 1986) ("A section 1404(a) transfer merely involves a

discretionary change to another district where the action could have

been brought.") . As previously set forth herein, although there are

various ways to formulate the relevant considerations for

determining whether a discretionary transfer is appropriate, the

primary considerations are: (1) the plaintiff's choice of forum; (2)

witness convenience and access to sources of proof; (3) party

convenience; and (4) the interest of justice. Koh, 250 F. Supp. 2d

at 633; JTH Tax, Inc. v. Lee, 482 F. Supp. 2d 731, 736 (E.D. Va. 2007) .

A. Plaintiff GTS's Initial Choice of Forum

"Generally, the first factor-a plaintiff's choice of venue-is

given substantial weight as '[i] t is well settled that a court should

rarely disturb a plaintiff's choice of forum unless the balance of

hardships clearly favor transfer.'" Virginia Innovation Sciences,

24

Case 3:15-cv-02749-JD Document 39 Filed 06/15/15 Page 24 of 51
Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., 928 F. Supp. 2d 863, 868 (E.D. Va.

2013) (alteration in original) (quoting Verizon Online Services,

Inc. v. Ralsky, 203 F. Supp. 2d 601, 623-24 (E.D. Va. 2002)).

However, because "the weight accorded a plaintiff's choice 'varies

in proportion to the connection between the forum and the cause of

action[,] ... a plaintiff's choice of its home forum is given more

weight than its choice of a foreign forum.'" Acterna, L.L.C. v.

Adtech, Inc., 129 F. Supp. 2d 936, 938 (E.D. Va. 2001) (quoting GTE

Wireless, Inc. v. Qualcomm, Inc., 71 F. Supp. 2d 517, 519 (E.D. Va.

1999)). Such distinction carries significance because when a

plaintiff chooses a forum other than its home "'it is often more

difficult for the plaintiff to show why such a forum is more

convenient for the plaintiff. '" Koh, 250 F. Supp. 2d at 634 (quoting

17 James Wm. Moore, et al. , Moore's Federal Practice § 111.13[1] [c]

(3d ed. 2002)).

Although the first step in the analysis typically looks to

whether a plaintiff has filed suit in its "home forum," various

opinions from prior patent cases filed in this district have

recognized that the label of "home forum" is not itself dispositive.

See Virginia Innovation Sciences, 928 F. Supp. 2d at 868 ("'Even when

the plaintiff sues in its home forum, that fact is not by itself

controlling and the weight of that factor depends on the nexus tying

the case to the forum.'" (quoting Gebr. Brasseler GmbH & Co. KG. v.

Abrasive Tech., Inc., No. I:08cvl246, 2009 WL 874513, at *2 (E.D.

25

Case 3:15-cv-02749-JD Document 39 Filed 06/15/15 Page 25 of 51
Va. Mar. 27, 2009)). Multiple judges, including the undersigned,

have previously held in patent cases that it may be appropriate to

afford a plaintiff's choice of forum "minimal weight," when the

plaintiff has few business activities in the district and is

appropriately classified as a "non-practicing entity," that "does

not research and develop new technology," but instead merely

"acquires patents, licenses the technology, and sues alleged

infringers." Pragmatus AV, LLC v. Facebook, 769 F. Supp. 2d 991,

995 (E.D. Va. 2011); see Innovative Communications Techs., Inc. v.

Vivox, Inc., No. 2:12cv7, 2012 WL 4738979, at *4 (E.D. Va. Oct. 3,

2012) (giving "little or no weight" in favor of the plaintiff s chosen

forum based on plaintiff's "negligible" presence in the district,

noting that although the plaintiff asserted that its home office was

in Arlington, Virginia, the plaintiff did not appear to have any

permanent employees that worked there); CIVIX-DDI, LLC v. Loopnet,

Inc., No. 2:12cv2, 2012 WL 3776688, at *3-4 (E.D. Va. Aug. 30, 2012)

(declining to give "great weight" to the plaintiff's choice of forum

because even assuming that Virginia was technically plaintiff's

"principal place of business," the plaintiff did not challenge its

status as a "non-practicing" patent holding entity that lacked any

significant operations in this district, further noting that while

plaintiff's principle lived in the district, he did not even work

full-time for the plaintiff); see also Bluestone Innovations, LLC

v. LG Electronics, Inc., 940 F. Supp. 2d 310, 314-15 (E.D. Va. 2013)

26

Case 3:15-cv-02749-JD Document 39 Filed 06/15/15 Page 26 of 51
(applying "a form of hybrid deference" to the plaintiff's choice of

forum because although the record demonstrated that the plaintiff

had been "continuously in Virginia since its incorporation in 2009"

and had "five employees in its office," the plaintiff had acquired

the patent at issue from a related entity located in Texas only one

week before filing suit in Virginia).

Here, the Court has substantial reservations as to whether the

Eastern District of Virginia is properly deemed GTS's home forum,

and even if such finding is appropriate in the technical sense, the

Court has little difficulty concluding that Plaintiff's ties to this

forum are tenuous at best. Moreover, this forum appears to have no

special status vis-a-vis the nationwide infringement alleged in the

five cases pending before this Court.

First, from Plaintiff's own submissions, it appears that GTS

is a "non-practicing entity" with (at best) a single-person office

in Virginia. Plaintiff fails to advance any evidence, or even

argument, suggesting that GTS has "manufacturing facilities,

operations, ... or employees that are located in this district

besides its [president]." CIVIX-DDI, LLC, 2012 WL 3776688, at *3.

Second, although the above facts are already generally

unfavorable to GTS, such facts are called into question in light of

the evidence advanced by Defendants regarding GTS's status as a

properly licensed corporation. Notably, Defendants' evidence

reveals that during the course of this litigation, Defendants

27

Case 3:15-cv-02749-JD Document 39 Filed 06/15/15 Page 27 of 51
attempted to verify GTS's status as a valid business entity by

performing online searches of the Virginia State Corporation

Commission's website and the Westlaw Delaware Business Registration

Records database. Such electronic records revealed that, in late

2014 around the time these five cases were filed in this Court,

Plaintiff was not registered to do business in Virginia and lacked

"good standing" in Delaware, its state of incorporation.6 See, e.g. ,

2:14cv391, ECF No. 23-6; 2:15cvl7, ECF No. 15-2.

Third, Defendants advance evidence that appears to demonstrate

that Plaintiff does not even maintain a dedicated office of one

full-time employee in the Eastern District of Virginia.

Specifically, Defendants' photographic evidence and sworn

affidavits demonstrate that a site visit was performed at GTS's

claimed Virginia address, but rather than finding GTS's name in the

building directory or on the business suite that Plaintiff claims

as its physical address, Defendants located signs for two different

business entities that are operating from such same suite.7 See,

e.g., 2:14cv391, ECF No. 20; 2:15cvl7, ECF No. 15-6. In response

6 Microsoft/Nokia acknowledge in their briefing that GTS regained its "good

standing" in Delaware in late 2014, but note that such development occurred

after GTS's lack of good standing was highlighted in a brief filed in the

Toshiba/TAIS action. 2:15cvl7, ECF No. 19. Microsoft/Nokia and other

Defendants further highlight that GTS is a subsidiary of an active

California company, and Defendants thus argue that GTS exists in Virginia

for the sole purpose of filing suit in this district. Id.

7 Defendants assert that the two entities found at the physical address are

operated by the same individual that acts as Plaintiff's president.

28

Case 3:15-cv-02749-JD Document 39 Filed 06/15/15 Page 28 of 51
to such evidence, GTS has largely stood mute, as Plaintiff has not

advanced an affidavit from GTS's president, or any other employee

or owner of GTS. Rather, litigation counsel for GTS has advanced

a sworn affidavit asserting, without providing any factual details,

that "Seok Chan Baek is employed as the President of Global Touch

Solutions, LLC ("GTS") , which was incorporated in September of 2012,

and whose principal place of business has been in Vienna, Virginia

since GTS's incorporation." 2:14cv391, ECF No. 21. The affidavit

further states that "Mr. Baek has resided in this District since 2006

. . . [and] is familiar with the business operations of GTS." Id.

Nowhere in such affidavit does GTS explain what "operations" GTS

purportedly performs, nor does it assert that GTS has any business

documents located in Virginia.8

In this Court's view, failing to have a dedicated office in this

district, allowing corporate registrations and/or business licenses

to lapse, and advancing as the strongest argument for a legitimate

presence that the corporate president lives in the district and is

"familiar" with the corporation's undisclosed "operations," is

inadequate to demonstrate that GTS has sued in its "home forum."

Moreover, even if this district is assumed to be GTS's home forum

in the technical sense, as a non-practicing entity that does not even

8 As noted by Vizio, 2:14cv347, ECF No. 29, the Eastern District of Virginia

is purportedly the home forum of GTS and the home of its president, Mr.

Baek, and it would presumably have been a simple procedure to obtain an

affidavit from Mr. Baek. It is therefore curious that Mr. Baek did not

himself submit an affidavit in support of GTS's filings.

29

Case 3:15-cv-02749-JD Document 39 Filed 06/15/15 Page 29 of 51
maintain an office in this district with a single full-time employee,

GTS's choice of forum is afforded minimal weight by the Court. See

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. v. Rambus, Inc., 386 F. Supp. 2d 708,

716 (E.D. Va. 2005) ("When the plaintiff's choice of forum is neither

the nucleus of operative facts, nor the plaintiff's home forum, the

plaintiff's choice is accorded less weight.").

Turning to the connection between the instant forum and the

facts of the five pending patent infringement actions, although the

Court does not question that the instant forum was a "permissible"

forum for the filing of these five suits, the fact that "Virginia's

residents purchase and use allegedly infringing products" and the

fact that some Defendants have stores or dedicated salespeople in

this district to market and sell such products is not unique to

Virginia even by Plaintiff's own allegations, and it appears that

Defendants "likely have this same contact with every other state in

this nation." Lycos, Inc. v. TiVo, Inc., 499 F. Supp.2d 685, 692

(E.D. Va. 2007) . Accordingly, in light of GTS's tenuous ties to this

forum, the lack of any allegedly infringing activity occurring in

Virginia that is not also occurring in any other state with a large

customer base for electronics, and the fact that "[t]he design and

manufacture of the allegedly infringing products" as to each of the

five cases "occurred outside of Virginia," GTS's "choice of the

Eastern District of Virginia as the forum for th[ese] action [s] will

. . . not impede transfer, if the other convenience and justice

30

Case 3:15-cv-02749-JD Document 39 Filed 06/15/15 Page 30 of 51
factors point to the [Northern District of California]." Id. at

6 92-93; see NanoEntek, Inc. v. Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc., No.

2:llcv427, 2011 WL 6023189, at *3 (E.D. Va. Dec. 2, 2011) ("Mere sales

and marketing activity does not entitle [the plaintiff's] choice of

forum to substantial weight when none of the infringing products were

developed or produced in this District." (citing Agilent Techs., Inc.

v. Micromuse, Inc., 316 F. Supp. 2d 322, 327 (E.D. Va. 2004) ); Bascom

Research, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., No. l:12cvllll, 2012 U.S. Dist.

LEXIS 186712, at *2-4 (E.D. Va. Dec. 11, 2012) (giving Plaintiff's

choice of forum "minimal weight due to the plaintiff's weak

connection to the Eastern District of Virginia" in a case where the

plaintiff had "no facilities, operations, offices, or employees that

are located in this district besides its principal," and while the

companies' principle was a long-term resident of Virginia, he did

"not appear to work full-time for the plaintiff").

B. Witness Convenience & Access to Sources of Proof

"The convenience of the witnesses is of considerable importance

in determining whether a transfer of venue is appropriate under

Section 1404(a)," and if "reasonably possible, live testimony is

preferred to other means of presenting evidence." Samsung

Electronics Co., 386 F. Supp. 2d at 718. Assessment of this factor

generally requires a court to consider, among other things, the

"'ease of access to sources of proof, the costs of obtaining

witnesses, and the availability of compulsory process.'" Lycos,

31

Case 3:15-cv-02749-JD Document 39 Filed 06/15/15 Page 31 of 51
Inc. , 499 F. Supp. 2d at 693 (quoting Samsung Electronics Co., 386

F. Supp. 2d at 717 n.13). "Naturally, in contrast to witness

testimony that is merely cumulative, 'greater weight should be

accorded inconvenience to witnesses whose testimony is central to

a claim and whose credibility is also likely to be an important

issue.'" Samsung Electronics Co., 386 F. Supp. 2d at 718 (quoting

Koh, 250 F. Supp. 2d at 636). Additionally, "the convenience of

non-party witnesses should be afforded greater weight [than the

convenience of party witnesses] in deciding a motion to transfer."

Id. at 719 (citing Koh, 250 F. Supp. 2d at 637).

As the parties seeking transfer, Defendants bear the burden of

demonstrating that the § 1404(a) factors strongly favor transfer,

which is typically a high bar. Bluestone Innovations, LLC, 940 F.

Supp. 2d at 316 n.9 (citing Koh, 250 F. Supp. 2d at 633) . However,

here, because Plaintiff s choice of forum is afforded limited weight,

the metaphorical "bar" has been lowered. Id. Moreover, "[i]n a

patent infringement action, as a general rule 'the preferred forum

is that which is the center of the accused activity, '" and the "'trier

of fact ought to be as close as possible to the milieu of the

infringing device and the hub of activity centered around its

production.'" GTE Wireless, Inc., 71 F. Supp. 2d at 519 (quoting

Santrade Ltd. v. Berndorf ICB International Conveyor Belts, Inc.,

No. 6:92-2032-3, 1992 WL 470482, at *2 (D.S.C. Oct. 29, 1992)); see

DietGoal Innovations LLC v. Wegmans Food Markets, Inc. , 993 F. Supp.

32

Case 3:15-cv-02749-JD Document 39 Filed 06/15/15 Page 32 of 51
2d 594, 602 (E.D. Va. 2013) ("The location of the defendants is

particularly relevant . . . because in a patent infringement case,

the preferred forum is frequently the center of the accused

activity." (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).9

To carry its burden in this district, the party seeking transfer

is generally required to "proffer, by affidavit or otherwise,

sufficient details respecting the witnesses and their potential

testimony to enable the court to assess the materiality of evidence

and the degree of inconvenience." Koh, 250 F. Supp. 2d at 636 (citing

Corry v. CFM Majestic, Inc., 16 F. Supp. 2d 660, 667 n.16 (E.D. Va.

1998)). However, in patent cases, 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 products are material." Koh, 250 F. Supp. 2d at 636-37

(emphasis added) (citing Corry, 16 F. Supp. 2d at 667 n.16).

Although Federal Circuit law does not control the § 1404 (a) analysis,

the Federal Circuit has recognized the general proposition that,

because "'the bulk of the relevant evidence usually comes from the

accused infringer, . . . the place where the defendant's documents

9 As previously recognized by the undersigned judge, "the general rule

recommending the 'center of the accused activity' as the preferred forum

in patent infringement cases applies only when the plaintiff did not file

suit in its home forum." Virginia Innovation Sciences, 928 F. Supp. 2d

at 869 n.2 (citing comScore, Inc. v. Integral Ad Science, Inc., 924 F. Supp.

2d 677, 684 (E.D. Va. 2013)). However, here, as discussed above,

Plaintiff's ties to the instant forum are so tenuous that such preference

is applicable in this case.

33

Case 3:15-cv-02749-JD Document 39 Filed 06/15/15 Page 33 of 51
are kept weighs in favor of transfer to that location.'" In re

Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Neil

Bros. Ltd. v. World Wide Lines, Inc., 425 F. Supp. 2d 325, 330

(E.D.N.Y. 2006)); see GTE Wireless, Inc., 71 F. Supp. 2d at 519

(transferring the case to California as "the central issues

concerning the accused activity revolve around the cellular phones

which are designed and manufactured in San Diego") (emphasis added) .

Here, it should go without saying that the existence of five

separate cases necessarily means that there are varying "centers of

accused activities" where the allegedly infringing products are

designed, and thus, there are varying locations where the most

material documents, and the persons identified by Defendants as the

most likely trial witnesses, can be found.10 However, although the

specific location of the documents and witnesses varies somewhat from

case to case, all cases involve specifically identified witnesses

and sources of proof on the west coast of the United States in relative

close proximity to the Northern District of California. It appears

undisputed that Apple has the strongest argument for transfer to the

Northern District of California, as Apple has its company management,

research and development, and marketing offices primarily in or near

Apple's headquarters in Cupertino, California, which is in the

Northern District. 2:14cv390, ECF No. 17-1; see Macronix Int'l Co.

10 Moreover, within the Microsoft/Nokia Action, there appears to be one

primary "hub of activity" for the Microsoft-branded products, and a

different "hub of activity" for the Nokia-branded products.

34

Case 3:15-cv-02749-JD Document 39 Filed 06/15/15 Page 34 of 51
v. Spansion Inc. , No. 3:13cv679, 2014 WL 934521, at *5 (E.D. Va. Mar.

10, 2014) ("The record shows that design, research, importation,

marketing, and sales activity was centered in the Northern District

of California, which 'permit[s] the inference that material

witnesses and documents are located in the [Northern] District of

California and will be more readily accessible' in that district than

this one." (alterations in original) (quoting Koh, 250 F. Supp. 2d

at 638)). Defendant Motorola has also provided evidence

demonstrating that likely witnesses and sources of proof, to include

documents related to "the research design, sales and marketing of

the Accused Products and the Accused Functionality" are located in

the Northern District of California, where Motorola has a large

physical facility. 2:14cv3 91, ECF No. 19. Motorola has further

provided evidence that three third-party suppliers that provide

parts integrated into the accused devices: (1) are located in

California, with two of these suppliers located within the Northern

District; and (2) likely have information relevant to the Motorola

Action. 2:14cv3 91, ECF No. 19. As to Nokia, its "principle place

of business" is in the Northern District of California where it makes

decisions regarding the sales and marketing of Nokia's products.

2:15cvl7, ECF No. 19-5. Nokia's "research and development

activities" that occur within the United States all occur in a

facility in the Southern District of California, and certain accused

devices were "developed wholly" at such facility. 2:15cvl7, ECF No.

35

Case 3:15-cv-02749-JD Document 39 Filed 06/15/15 Page 35 of 51
19-4. Similar to Motorola, Nokia has provided evidence

demonstrating that a third-party hardware supplier who provides

components associated with the display, touch screen, and/or power

management capabilities (which appear relevant to Plaintiff's

infringement claims) is located in Southern California. Id.

Staying in the state of California, but leaving the Northern

District, Vizio has advanced evidence demonstrating that witnesses

and physical evidence are located at Vizio's "principle place of

business and headquarters" in the Central District of California,

which is several hundred miles from the courts of the Northern

District of California, rather than several thousand miles from this

Court. 2:14cv347, ECF No. 26-5. Similarly, TAIS is a "California

corporation headquartered in and having its principle place of

business in [the Central District of] California," 2:14cv346, ECF

No. 20, although the record indicates that TAIS only advises parent

company Toshiba on the U.S. demand for electronics, with the hub of

design and development activity for Toshiba-branded products being

located in Japan. 2:14cv346, ECFNo. 20. TAIS' s business documents

related to the sales and marketing of the allegedly infringing

products are located in its California headquarters, with some

engineers responsible for testing accused tablets and laptops

located in the Central District of California, and others located

in Tennessee. Id.

36

Case 3:15-cv-02749-JD Document 39 Filed 06/15/15 Page 36 of 51
Leaving the state of California, but staying on the west coast,

Microsoft's headquarters and center of accused activity is located

in Redmond, Washington, where Microsoft is headquartered. 1X

2:15cvl7, ECF No. 19-1. Microsoft has also provided evidence

indicating that a third-party hardware component supplier that has

worked with Microsoft to design and develop power-management

capabilities of some of Microsoft's accused products is

headquartered in the Northern District of California, and has another

location in Redmond, Washington. 2:15cvl7, ECF No. 19-1. Other

than retail stores operated by some of the named Defendants, it does

not appear that any of the Defendants maintain physical offices in

Virginia that contain admissible evidence relevant to the

allegations in the respective complaints.12

Although some Defendants clearly have stronger ties to the

Northern District of California than others, Defendants all assert

that witnesses and documents associated with Apple and believed to

be located in the Northern District of California would be necessary

in all pending actions as such materials and persons are relevant

11 Microsoft also indicates that some of the research and design activities

for accused Microsoft products occurs in Fort Collins, Colorado.

2:15cvl7, ECF No. 19. However, Microsoft asserts that all of the Fort

Collins documents are also accessible from its worldwide headquarters in

Redmond, Washington.

12 Plaintiff initially asserted in the Toshiba/TAIS Action that TAIS may

have a physical office in Virginia, but TAIS provided responsive evidence

indicating that while TAIS previously had two offices in Virginia, one

closed in 2005 and the other closed in 2006. 2:14cv346, ECF No. 34.

37

Case 3:15-cv-02749-JD Document 39 Filed 06/15/15 Page 37 of 51
to an anticipated invalidity defense associated with Apple's prior

art.13 See In re Microsoft Corp. , 630 F.3d 1361, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

(granting a petition for a writ of mandamus and directing the transfer

of a patent case from Texas to the Western District of Washington,

where Microsoft is headquartered, based on the plaintiff's tenuous

ties to Texas and the fact that the transferee district contained:

(1) all of defendant's "witnesses relating to sales, marketing and

product direction and prior art"; and (2) all of the defendant's

"relevant documents and evidence relating to the marketing,

development, and design of the accused products" (emphasis added)).

Defendants further advance evidence indicating that several other

specifically identified "non-party" individuals appear to reside in

the Northern District of California, and are likely sources of

testimony and documentary evidence in support of Defendants' cases.

See, e.g., 2:14cv3 91, ECF No. 20. As explained by the Federal

Circuit while performing the § 1404(a) analysis under the law of the

Fifth Circuit: "Our prior orders in [patent] venue transfer cases

make clear that the combination of multiple parties being

headquartered in or near the transferee venue and no party or witness

in the plaintiff[']s chosen forum is an important consideration."

In re Acer America Corp., 626 F.3d 1252, 1254-55 (Fed. Cir. 2010)

(emphasis added).

13 In all but the Apple Action, any individuals employed by Apple would be

"non-party" witnesses.

38

Case 3:15-cv-02749-JD Document 39 Filed 06/15/15 Page 38 of 51
In addition to identifying where witnesses and sources of proof

are located, Vizio's briefing included evidence outlining the

frequency and low-cost of flights for travel between the Central

District of California and the Northern District of California as

contrasted with flights between the Central District of California

and the Eastern District of Virginia. 2:14cv347, ECF Nos. 32-2,

32-3. Unsurprisingly to anyone who has ever taken a cross-country

flight, such evidence further demonstrates that litigating these

cases in the Northern District of California would be far more

convenient, saving both time and money, for certain party and

non-party witnesses.

On the other side of the ledger, GTS has not identified any

witnesses, other than its president, that are located within the

Eastern District of Virginia. Plaintiff does represent that one of

the prosecuting attorneys for the patents in suit resides in

Maryland, and proceeding in this district would clearly be more

convenient for such individual if he is ultimately necessary as a

trial witness. See Telepharmacy Solutions, Inc. v. Pickpoint Corp.,

238 F. Supp. 2d 741, 744 (E.D. Va. 2003) (indicating in an order

granting a § 1404 (a) motion to transfer that even though the plaintiff

identified some witness in Virginia that may be necessary at trial,

it was "clear that the majority of documentary and testimonial

evidence is available and most easily accessible in the Northern

District of California"). Plaintiff's failure to identify any

39

Case 3:15-cv-02749-JD Document 39 Filed 06/15/15 Page 39 of 51
witnesses or evidence located in the state of Virginia other than

Plaintiff's president appears consistent with: (1) the fact that

Plaintiff itself does not appear to engage in any relevant activities

in this state; and (2) Plaintiff's allegations as to Defendants'

alleged activities within the Eastern District of Virginia appears

limited to broad allegations that Defendants "transacted business"

and committed "direct acts of patent infringement, " in this district,

see, e.g., 2:14cv391, ECF No. 1 U 4, allegations that appear to be

equally applicable in every other judicial district within the United

States.14

On balance, considering the above, the Court finds that this

factor favors transfer of each of the pending cases to the Northern

District of California. While evidence may be lacking as to whether

some of the specifically identified witnesses would be willing to

travel from the west coast to Virginia, there is generalized

evidence, including affidavits, establishing the unremarkable fact

that cross-county travel will be more burdensome than travel within

the state of California (or alternatively, on the west coast).

Notably, even in the absence of individualized proof regarding the

ability/willingness of potential witness to travel, "making

14 The inventor of the eight patents at issue across these five pending cases

resides in South Africa, and absent case-specific evidence (which has not

been presented by Plaintiff), such foreign individual's convenience, or

rather inconvenience, should he need to travel internationally to testify

at trial, is deemed to be neutral as between this forum and the Northern

District of California. Jaffe v. LSI Corp. , 874 F. Supp. 2d 499, 504 (E.D.

Va. 2012).

40

Case 3:15-cv-02749-JD Document 39 Filed 06/15/15 Page 40 of 51
attendance more convenient or affordable for a willing witness still

weighs in favor of transfer, just not as heavily." Bluestone

Innovations, LLC, 940 F. Supp. 2d at 317 (citations omitted); cf.

Marsh v. United States, No. I:06cv93, 2007 WL 2021932, at *3 (W.D.

Va. July 10, 2007) (finding that, even in the absence of the

identification of "specific witnesses," the record was sufficient

to demonstrate "that all relevant witnesses would be located in

California" and that if the case were to remain in Virginia, "the

costs of obtaining each witness would be much greater because the

necessary witnesses would be required to travel across the

country") .15

In contrast to the comparatively centralized evidence on the

west coast, there no evidence suggesting that a single witness, other

than Plaintiff's president, is located in this district. Similarly,

Plaintiff fails to assert that it possesses any relevant business

documents in this district. As not a single non-party witness from

this forum has been identified, and multiple potential third-party

15 This Court recognizes the reality that, based on the allegations in

Plaintiff's complaints, and the early stage in the proceedings, it is

difficult for any Defendant to provide an accurate trial witness list or

to identify precisely what each witness will testify about. See In re

Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d at 1343 ("A district court should assess the

relevance and materiality of the information the witness may provide."

(emphasis added)). It is similarly difficult for any individuals

identified as being a "likely" witness to predict months, or even a year

or more, in advance whether he or she will be available for cross-country

travel at the time of the trial. However, what is resoundingly clear from

the current record is that the vast majority of the witnesses and sources

of proof identified by the parties in these pending cases are located on

the west coast, geographically centered in the Northern District of

California.

41

Case 3:15-cv-02749-JD Document 39 Filed 06/15/15 Page 41 of 51
witnesses are located in the Northern District of California, the

proposed transferee venue "is a venue with usable subpoena power,"

and such fact "weighs in favor of transfer, and not only slightly."

In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d at 1345.

C. Party Convenience

Tracking the analysis in the preceding section, the convenience

of the parties favors transfer to the Northern District of

California. Of the six Defendants selling brands of products that

allegedly infringe on the patents in suit, three are headquartered

in California (Apple, Vizio, Nokia) and another on the west coast

in far closer proximity to the Northern District of California than

this district (Microsoft). See In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d

1315, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (holding that the district court "clearly

abused its discretion" in denying a § 1404 (a) motion to transfer venue

from Texas to Ohio, explaining that "the vast majority of identified

witnesses, evidence, and events leading to this case involve Ohio

or its neighboring state of Michigan" (emphasis added)).

As Toshiba is headquartered in Japan, it can be argued that its

convenience is arguably neutral between the two potential forums as

the transport of witnesses and physical evidence will require

international travel regardless of the location. See Jaffe v. LSI

Corp. , 874 F. Supp. 2d 499, 504 (E.D. Va. 2012) (suggesting that

international travel is always burdensome). However, the fact that

Toshiba's subsidiary and American distributor TAIS is headquartered

42

Case 3:15-cv-02749-JD Document 39 Filed 06/15/15 Page 42 of 51
in California and will presumably be presenting a unified defense

with Toshiba in the Toshiba/TAIS action likely makes the Northern

District of California slightly more convenient for Toshiba.

Similarly, while Motorola appears to have primary operations in

Chicago, Illinois, it also has a large facility in Northern

California with hundreds of employees, which makes the Northern

District of California more convenient for Motorola.

Plaintiff's president, who lives in the Northern District of

Virginia, of course finds the instant forum more convenient.

However, Plaintiff does not appear to dispute the fact that GTS is

a non-practicing entity or that, at the time suit was filed, GTS

lacked a license to do business in Virginia, lacked "good standing"

in its state of incorporation, and was wholly owned by an "active"

California company. Moreover, in light of the fact that GTS does

not appear to have any full-time employees, may not even have an

actual office, and has failed to articulate any corporate activities

tied to this district, the record fails to reveal that GTS possesses

any relevant evidence in this district. The fact that Plaintiff has

failed to identify any employees, relevant documents, or even

relevant classes of documents that it possesses in this forum reduces

the degree of inconvenience that GTS would suffer from a change of

venue.

On balance, the Court finds that this factor favors transfer

because although some degree of inconvenience is almost always

43

Case 3:15-cv-02749-JD Document 39 Filed 06/15/15 Page 43 of 51
shifted from a defendant to a plaintiff when that defendant's motion

to transfer venue is granted, the degree of inconvenience shifted

to Plaintiff in this case is far outweighed by the degree of

inconvenience avoided when the location of the sources of proof is

considered.

D. Interests of Justice

As recently explained by another Judge of this Court:

The interests of justice factor "encompasses public

interest factors aimed at 'systemic integrity and

fairness,'" Byerson v. Equifax Info. Servs., LLC, 467 F.

Supp. 2d 627, 635 (E.D. Va. 2006) (quoting Samsung Elecs.

Co. v. Rambus, Inc., 386 F. Supp. 2d 708, 721 (E.D. Va.

2005) ), the most prominent elements of which are "judicial

economy and the avoidance of inconsistent judgments."

Id. "Fairness is assessed by considering docket

congestion, interest in having local controversies

decided at home, knowledge of applicable law, unfairness

in burdening forum citizens with jury duty, and interest

in avoiding unnecessary conflicts of law." Id. (citing

Samsung, 386 F. Supp. 2d at 721 n.16).

Jaffe, 874 F. Supp. at 505. "Systemic integrity also accounts for

a party's 'attempt to game the federal courts through forum

manipulation.'" Macronix Int'1, 2014 WL 934521, at *7 (quoting

Samsung Electronics Co., 386 F. Supp. 2d at 721).

Here, in these five patent infringement actions alleging

nationwide infringement by large national and/or international

corporations, many of the above noted considerations do not apply,

as: (1) there is arguably no "locality" to these controversies; (2)

the case will be governed by federal law that any federal court is

equally capable of applying; and (3) it would arguably be no more

44

Case 3:15-cv-02749-JD Document 39 Filed 06/15/15 Page 44 of 51
fair to burden jurors of one district than another. That said, the

fact that the majority of the Defendants across these five cases have

strong ties to California, and neither Plaintiff nor Defendants have

any strong ties to this forum, appears to slightly favor transfer

to California.

As to judicial economy and the avoidance of inconsistent

judgments, this Court firmly believes that such factor significantly

favors keeping these cases together, whether it be in this Court,

or in the Northern District of California. See In re Vistaprint

Ltd., 628 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ("[I]t is entirely within

the district court's discretion to conclude that in a given case the

§ 1404(a) factors of public interest or judicial economy can be of

paramount consideration' and as long as there is plausible support

of record for that conclusion we will not second guess such a

determination, even if the convenience factors call for a different

result.") (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Notwithstanding the AIA's recent impact on the joinder rules in

patent cases, Plaintiff does not dispute the benefit in keeping the

cases together, and acknowledged at a recent hearing conducted in

the Toshiba Action that keeping the cases together, from an economy

and resources perspective, makes sense for the Court and the parties.

Notably, if this Court considered each case in a vacuum, giving no

weight to concerns of economy and consistency, Plaintiff could be

in the undesirable position of being required to litigate the Apple

45

Case 3:15-cv-02749-JD Document 39 Filed 06/15/15 Page 45 of 51
Action in the Northern District of California, the Vizio Action in

the Central District of California,16 at least one action in this

Court, with the remaining two actions either retained in this Court

or transferred to the Northern District of California alongside the

Apple Action.

Accordingly, in light of the fact that none of the five cases

have any notable ties to this District, the Apple and Motorola Actions

clearly have strong ties to the Northern District of California where

Apple and Motorola maintain large physical facilities with hundreds

of employees and physical evidence that is material to the

infringement allegations, and all of the other related cases not only

could have been filed in the Northern District of California, but

the other convenience and justice considerations make such forum far

more convenient than the Eastern District of Virginia, the Court

finds that "judicial economy" strongly favors transfer of all five

cases to the Northern District of California. 17 Although the

16 Vizio is the only Defendant that alternatively moved for transfer to a

different district in the event that the cases were not kept together.

17 This Court recognizes that Multidistrict Litigation procedures may be

available to reclaim some degree of economy if some of the cases were

retained by this Court while others were transferred to the Northern

District of California and the Central District of California. That said,

because the parties in this case appear to agree that the economies of

keeping these cases together benefit both Plaintiff and the Defendants,

and surely also will consume the least amount of judicial resources, in

the context of this case the Court finds that there is a strong basis for

keeping the cases together. Cf. Continental Grain Co. v. The FBL-585, 364

U.S. 19, 26 (1960) (noting in a case decided before the establishment of

the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation that "[t]o permit a

situation in which two cases involving precisely the same issues are

46

Case 3:15-cv-02749-JD Document 39 Filed 06/15/15 Page 46 of 51
decisions regarding pre-trial consolidation procedures are plainly

in the purview of the transferee court, this Court notes that the

Northern District of California has Local Rules specific to patent

cases stating that "[w]hen actions concerning the same patent are

filed within two years of each other by the same plaintiff, they will

be deemed related," and that "the Clerk will reassign the related

higher-numbered cases to the Judge assigned to the lowest-numbered

case." N.D. Cal. Loc. Patent R. 2-1.

This Court acknowledges that, in light of historical "time to

trial" data of the various federal districts, denying the motions

to transfer may result in a faster resolution of the instant cases.

However, while "relative docket conditions are considered in

weighing the interest of justice," such factors are "not given great

force," particularly when the other convenience and justice factors

favor transfer. Samsung Electronics Co., 38 6 F. Supp. 2d at 723

(citing GTE Wireless, Inc. , 71 F. Supp. 2d at 520) . Moreover, here,

" [n] either party has indicated that one court has a disproportionate

case burden compared to the other." Bluestone Innovations, LLC, 940

F. Supp. 2d at 320; see comScore, Inc. v. Integral Ad Science, Inc.,

924 F. Supp. 2d 677, 691 n.16 (E.D. Va. 2013) ("Raw numbers as to

docket speed and congestion do not necessarily tell the whole

story."). While speed to resolution/speed to trial is one of many

simultaneously pending in different District Courts leads to the

wastefulness of time, energy and money that § 1404(a) was designed to

prevent.").

47

Case 3:15-cv-02749-JD Document 39 Filed 06/15/15 Page 47 of 51
factors appropriately considered in the § 1404(a) analysis, the

weight to be afforded this factor is further reduced when a plaintiff

both lacks legitimate ties to this district and the facts have no

special connection to this district, because the interests of justice

are not served by forum-shopping intended to take advantage of this

Court's "so-called 'rocket docket.'" Samsung Electronics Co., 386

F. Supp. 2d at 723-24.18

E. Summary

For the reasons set forth above, beginning with Plaintiff's

tenuous ties to this district, as well as the fact that these

nationwide infringement cases appear to have little, if any, special

connections to this forum, the Court finds that the application of

the relevant § 1404(a) convenience and justice factors warrant the

transfer of all five pending cases to the Northern District of

California. Not only does the record indicate that nearly all of

the relevant documentary evidence is located within California or

nearby to California on the west coast, but the vast majority of the

identified witnesses, both party and non-party, appear to be located

in California or on the west coast. The evidence before the Court

therefore does more than merely demonstrate that the Northern

District of California would be more convenient, Defendants have

18 This Court does not suggest that a non-practicing entity deserves a less

timely resolution of its civil action based on its status as non-practicing.

However, here, Plaintiff has not presented evidence or argument suggesting

that any of the pending cases involve exigencies sometimes found in patent

litigation between active market competitors, such as when a competitor's

new product launch threatens to critically impact the shape of the market.

48

Case 3:15-cv-02749-JD Document 39 Filed 06/15/15 Page 48 of 51
demonstrated that such forum "is comparatively the only convenient

and fair venue in which to try" these five related cases. In re

Microsoft Corp., 630 F.3d at 1365 (emphasis added).

Although this Court's analysis of the § 1404(a) factors is

guided by Fourth Circuit precedent, rather than Federal Circuit

precedent, this Court finds instructive the position consistently

taken by the Federal Circuit on this issue. In In re Nintendo Co. ,

Ltd. , 589 F.3d 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the Federal Circuit concluded

that the district court committed such a "clear abuse of discretion"

in declining to transfer the case pursuant to § 14 04 (a) that mandamus

relief was warranted. The Federal Circuit summarized its position

as follows: "This court has held and holds again in this instance

that in a case featuring most witnesses and evidence closer to the

transferee venue with few or no convenience factors favoring the

venue chosen by the plaintiff, the trial court should grant a motion

to transfer." Id. at 1198 (emphasis added) ; see In re Apple, Inc.,

581 F. App'x886, 889 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (indicating, in another opinion

concluding that the district court committed a "clear abuse of

discretion" by denying a § 1404(a) motion to transfer, that the fact

that "Apple identified at least eight prospective party witnesses

in the transferee venue with relevant material information, while

[the defendant] failed to identify a single prospective witness in

the Eastern District of Texas," is a "strong showing of convenience

[that] weighs heavily in favor of transfer") (citing In re Nintendo

49

Case 3:15-cv-02749-JD Document 39 Filed 06/15/15 Page 49 of 51
Co. , 589 F.3d at 1199-1200) ; see also In re Genentech, Inc. , 566 F.3d

at 1345 (noting, in a discussion specifically tailored to patent

cases, that because "the bulk of the relevant evidence usually comes

from the accused infringer," the "place where the defendant's

documents are kept weighs in favor of transfer to that location"

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

As long-acknowledged by the United States Supreme Court, "the

purpose of [§ 1404(a)] is to prevent the waste of time, energy and

money and to protect litigants, witnesses and the public against

unnecessary inconvenience and expense." Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376

U.S. 612, 616 (1964) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) .

On this record, Defendants have sufficiently demonstrated that

transferring these cases will prevent the waste of time, energy, and

money, while advancing the interests of justice. Each of the pending

motions to transfer is therefore GRANTED.

VI. Conclusion

As set forth in detail above, the Court finds that each Defendant

in the five pending actions has demonstrated that, at the time the

relevant suit was filed, the United States District Court for the

Northern District of California had jurisdiction over the named

Defendant (s) and that venue was proper in that Court. After

considering the § 1404(a) convenience and justice factors, the Court

hereby GRANTS each of the Defendants' motions to transfer venue to

the Northern District of California in each of the associated cases

50

Case 3:15-cv-02749-JD Document 39 Filed 06/15/15 Page 50 of 51
pending in this Court. 2:14cv346, ECF No. 18; 2:14cv347, ECF No.

25; 2:14cv390, ECF No. 16; 2:14cv391, ECF No. 16; 2:15cvl7, ECF No.

14. Defendant Vizio's alternative request to transfer venue of the

Vizio Action to the Central District of California is DENIED as moot.

The Clerk is REQUESTED to send a copy of this Opinion and Order

to all counsel of record.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/TOnj&y

Mark S. Davis

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Norfolk, Virginia

June IS , 2015

51

Case 3:15-cv-02749-JD Document 39 Filed 06/15/15 Page 51 of 51