THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

CAMERON INTERNATIONAL § 

CORPORATION, § 

Plaintiff, 

§ 

§ 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:20-cv-00125-ADA 

 § 

vs. § 

 § 

NITRO FLUIDS LLC, § 

Defendant. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

DEFENDANT NITRO FLUIDS, L.L.C.’S 

OPPOSED MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1404(A) 

 

 

Case 6:20-cv-00125-ADA Document 17 Filed 04/24/20 Page 1 of 22
ii 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1

II. APPLICABLE LAW .............................................................................................................. 2

III. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS ................................................................................ 4

A. Nitro Fluids, L.L.C. ........................................................................................................... 4

B. Cameron International Corp. .............................................................................................. 5

C. The Houston Action .......................................................................................................... 6

D. The Waco Action .............................................................................................................. 7

IV. HOUSTON IS “CLEARLY THE MORE CONVENIENT” VENUE ..................................... 7

A. This Action could have been Brought in Houston .............................................................. 8

B. The Private Interest Factors Favor Transfer........................................................................ 9

1. As compared to Waco, Houston offers much easier access to sources of proof. ............. 9

2. Transfer to the Houston Division would significantly reduce the cost and inconvenience 

of attendance for all witnesses. .................................................................................... 10

3. Transfer to the Houston Division would reduce “other practical problems that make trial 

of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive.” .............................................................. 13

C. The Public has a Strong Interest in Transferring to Houston ............................................. 14

1. Houston has a much greater local interest in this case than Waco ................................ 14

2. The availability of compulsory process slightly favors transfer. ................................... 15

3. The administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion. .................................... 15

4. The familiarity of the forum with the law that will govern the case and avoidance of 

unnecessary conflicts of law problems. ....................................................................... 15

V. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................... 15

 

Case 6:20-cv-00125-ADA Document 17 Filed 04/24/20 Page 2 of 22
iii 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Action Indus., Inc. v. U.S. Fid & Guar. Co., 358 F.3d 337 (5th Cir. 2004) ........................................ 2 

Cadle Co. v. Keyser, No. A-14-CV-758 LY, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20909, 2015 WL 764256 (W.D. 

Tex. Feb. 23, 2015), report and recommendation adopted, No. 1:14-CV-758-LY, 2015 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 182432 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 19, 2015) .................................................................................. 8 

Carruth v. Michot, No. A-15-CA-00189-SS, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145224, 2015 WL 6506550 

(W.D. Tex. Oct. 26, 2015) .......................................................................................................... 15 

Continental Airlines, Inc. v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 805 F. Supp. 1392 (S.D. Tex. 1992) ....................... 11 

Data Scape, Ltd. v. Dell Techs., Inc., No. 6:19-cv-00129-ADA, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154170, 

2019 WL 4254069 (W.D. Tex. June 7, 2019) ...................................................................... passim 

Freshub, Inc. v. Amazon.com Inc., W-19-CV-00388-ADA, D.I. 29 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 9, 2019) ......... 9 

In re Radmax, Ltd., 720 F.3d 285 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ........................................................................ 7, 9 

In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) ......................................................... 2, 8 

McCloud v. McClinton Energy Grp., L.L.C., No. 5:14-CV-620-XR, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160080, 

2014 WL 6388417 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 14, 2014) ........................................................................... 10 

Mid-Continent Cas. Co. v. Petroleum Solutions, Inc., 629 F. Supp. 2d 759 (S.D. Tex. 2009) .......... 10 

Mimedx Grp., Inc. v. Texas Human Biologics, Ltd., No. 1:14-CV-464-LY, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

191022, 2014 WL 12479284 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 11, 2014) ....................................................... 3, 14 

Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (1988) ...................................................................... 2 

Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (1964) ..................................................................................... 2 

VLSI Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp., 6:19-CV-000254-ADA, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155287, 2019 WL 

4254065 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 6, 2019) .................................................................................... 1, 3, 13 

VLSI Tech. LLC, v. Intel Corp., No. 6:19-CV-00254-ADA (Lead Case), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

227809, 2019 WL 8013949 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 7, 2019) .................................................... 2, 3, 9, 10 

Statutes 

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) ................................................................................................................ 2, 7, 10 

 

Case 6:20-cv-00125-ADA Document 17 Filed 04/24/20 Page 3 of 22
iv 

EXHIBIT LIST

No. Description 

1 LinkedIn Profile of Cameron, available at

https://www.linkedin.com/company/cameron/people/?facetGeoRegion=us%3A42 (last 

accessed March 24, 2020) 

2 LinkedIn Profile of Kirk Guidry, available at https://www.linkedin.com/in/kirk-guidry2a845888/ (last accessed March 11, 2020) 

3 LinkedIn Profile of Greg Conrad, available at https://www.linkedin.com/in/greg-conrad4541686/ (last accessed March 11, 2020) 

4 Cameron’s Rule 26 Initial Disclosures in Cameron International Corp. v. Nitro Fluids, 

L.L.C., No. 4:18-cv-02533 (S.D. Tex. 2018) 

5 Cameron’s Original Complaint for Infringement (Dkt. 1) filed July 20, 2018 in Cameron 

International Corp. v. Nitro Fluids, L.L.C., No. 4:18-cv-02533 (S.D. Tex. 2018) 

6 Cameron’s First Amended Complaint for Infringement (Dkt. 11) filed September 7, 

2018 in Cameron International Corp. v. Nitro Fluids, L.L.C., No. 4:18-cv-02533 (S.D. 

Tex. 2018) 

7 Cameron’s Second Amended Complaint for Infringement (Dkt. 50) filed March 8, 2019 

in Cameron International Corp. v. Nitro Fluids, L.L.C., No. 4:18-cv-02533 (S.D. Tex. 

2018) 

8 U.S. Patent No. 9,068,450 (“the ‘450 Patent”) 

9 U.S. Patent No. 9,518,430 (“the ‘430 Patent”) 

10 U.S. Patent No. 9,932,800 (“the ‘800 Patent”) 

11 U.S. Patent No. 10,094,195 (“the ‘195 Patent”) 

12 U.S. Patent No. 9,903,190 (“the ‘190 Patent”) 

13 Joint Stipulation of Dismissal (Dkt. 37) filed December 7, 2018 in Cameron 

International Corp. v. Nitro Fluids, L.L.C., No. 4:18-cv-02533 (S.D. Tex. 2018) 

14 Nitro’s Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions (Dkt. 78) filed May 30, 2019 in Cameron 

International Corp. v. Nitro Fluids, L.L.C., No. 4:18-cv-02533 (S.D. Tex. 2018) 

15 Transcript of August 22, 2018 Hearing in Cameron International Corp. v. Nitro Fluids, 

L.L.C., No. 4:18-cv-02533 (S.D. Tex. 2018) 

Case 6:20-cv-00125-ADA Document 17 Filed 04/24/20 Page 4 of 22
v 

16 Various Google Map Distances

17 Various Google Flight Schedules

18 Travelocity Waco Hotel Price List

19 Travelocity Houston Hotel Price List

20 Eubanks, PLLC, “Contact” page, available at www.eubanksip.com/contact.php (last 

accessed March 24, 2020) 

21 LinkedIn Profile of Eddie Ganzinotti, available at https://www.linkedin.com/in/eddieganzinotti-5a6a4b70/ (last accessed March 24, 2020) 

22 United States Courts, “Federal Court Management Statistics – Comparison within 

Circuit,” available at https://www.uscourts.gov/file/27877/download (last accessed 

March 24, 2020) 

Case 6:20-cv-00125-ADA Document 17 Filed 04/24/20 Page 5 of 22
1 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Subject to its Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 16), Nitro Fluids, L.L.C. (“Nitro”) respectfully requests 

that the Court transfer this case to the Houston Division under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)—the same venue 

that Cameron International Corp. (“Cameron”) itself determined was the best forum to litigate a copending action accusing the same Nitro system of infringement based on related patents (“Houston 

Action”). See VLSI Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp., 6:19-CV-000254-ADA, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155287, 

2019 WL 4254065, at *27 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 6, 2019) (Albright, J.) (“It would be malpractice for its 

legal counsel to have done less than to advise its client to file in the venue that was most favorable 

under what factors it is evaluating.”). Cameron’s decision to initiate the parties’ larger dispute in 

Houston made perfect sense given that: 

 Nitro “resides” in the Southern District of Texas by virtue of its headquarters in Nordheim, 

Texas, and all of Nitro’s sources of proof and relevant witnesses are at its headquarters; 

 Cameron and the key named inventor reside in Houston, meaning all Cameron witnesses and 

evidence are very easily accessible; 

 Cameron is a local company employing thousands of Houstonians (including all relevant 

Cameron witnesses), meaning Houston has a strong local interest in the alleged infringement; 

and 

 Virtually all of Nitro’s (and presumably Cameron’s) customers are based out of Houston, 

making it a convenient forum for third-party witnesses. 

Despite the indisputable and overwhelming connection to Houston, Cameron inexplicably filed this 

lawsuit in Waco (“Waco Action”), which asserts two patents by the same inventors as the Houston 

patents against the exact same accused system from the Houston Action. Cameron’s decision to file a 

near identical lawsuit in Waco is particularly baffling because, unlike Houston, Waco has no 

Case 6:20-cv-00125-ADA Document 17 Filed 04/24/20 Page 6 of 22
2 

connection whatsoever to the parties, the evidence, or any third parties.1 See VLSI Tech. LLC, v. Intel 

Corp., No. 6:19-CV-00254-ADA (Lead Case), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227809, 2019 WL 8013949, at 

*6 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 7, 2019) (transferring from Waco to Austin where “neither party has a facility or a 

relevant employee in Waco,” “[n]one of the inventors ... live in Waco,” “[n]one of the inventions at 

issue were made in Waco,” and “[n]either party identifies any relevant third parties ... in Waco.”). 

Application of the § 1404(a) factors confirms the commonsense conclusion that Houston is not 

only more convenient than Waco, it is extraordinarily more convenient. Of the eight factors 

considered, five favor transfer and three are neutral. This glaring imbalance calls into question the 

motive behind Cameron’s decision to file in Waco—a decision that is contrary to Cameron’s own 

decision to enforce virtually identical, related patents in Houston against the same accused system.2 

II. APPLICABLE LAW 

“Section 1404(a) is intended to place discretion in the district court to adjudicate motions for 

transfer according to an ‘individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.’” 

Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988) (quoting Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 

612, 622 (1964)). The moving party carries the burden of showing transfer is appropriate. In re 

Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 314 (5th Cir. 2008). 

“The preliminary question under § 1404(a) is whether a civil action ‘might have been brought’ 

in the destination venue.” Id. at 312. If this requirement is met, “[t]he determination of ‘convenience’ 

1

 While Cameron cherry-picked alleged infringing activity in Pecos and Monahans, Texas to justify venue 

in the Western District, both locations are over five hundred miles from Waco (much closer to Midland) 

and do not house relevant evidence, which is instead housed at Nitro’s headquarters Nordheim. 

2

 Cameron’s motive deserves scrutiny given that (1) the Houston court has already chastised Cameron for 

“making things difficult” by asserting frivolous patents and rejected Cameron’s proffered excuses for its 

conduct as “no defense,” and (2) Cameron’s counsel in the Houston Action later approached the 

undersigned about transferring the case for the explicit purpose of escaping the presiding judge. 

Case 6:20-cv-00125-ADA Document 17 Filed 04/24/20 Page 7 of 22
3 

turns on a number of public and private interest factors, none of which can be said to be of dispositive 

weight.” Action Indus., Inc. v. U.S. Fid & Guar. Co., 358 F.3d 337, 340 (5th Cir. 2004). 

Private Factors: “(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.” In re Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 315. 

Public Factors: “(1) the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion; (2) the 

local interest in having localized interests decided at home; (3) the familiarity of the forum 

with the law that will govern the case; and (4) the avoidance of unnecessary problems of 

conflict of laws of the application of foreign law.” Id.

“A plaintiff’s choice of venue is not an independent factor in the venue transfer analysis, and courts 

must not give inordinate weight to a plaintiff’s choice of venue.” VLSI Tech., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

155287, 2019 WL 4254065, at *12 (citing Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 315 n.10, 315). However, “when 

the transferee venue is not clearly more convenient than the venue chosen by the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s 

choice should be respected.” Id. (quoting In re Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 315). 

Ultimately, where an action could have been brought in the transferee division and the 

transferee venue is “clearly more convenient,” a motion to transfer to another division should be 

granted. Data Scape, Ltd. v. Dell Techs., Inc., No. 6:19-cv-00129-ADA, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

154170, 2019 WL 4254069, at *2 (W.D. Tex. June 7, 2019) (Albright, J.). This is true regardless of 

whether the transfer is a shorter or longer distance. See id. at *1-4 (relying on Fifth Circuit precedent 

analyzing “a transfer from Marshall to Tyler—two cities even closer to each other than Austin is to 

Waco” and transferring patent case from Waco to Austin where four factors favored transfer and four 

were neutral); Intel, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227809, 2019 WL 8013949, at *17 (transferring from 

Waco to Austin where three factors favored transfer, one factor was against, and the remaining were 

neutral); Mimedx Grp., Inc. v. Texas Human Biologics, Ltd., No. 1:14-CV-464-LY, 2014 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 191022, 2014 WL 12479284, at *7-8 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 11, 2014) (transferring patent case from 

Austin to San Antonio where four factors favored transfer and four were arguably neutral). 

Case 6:20-cv-00125-ADA Document 17 Filed 04/24/20 Page 8 of 22
4 

III. STATEMENT OF RELEVANT FACTS 

A. Nitro Fluids, L.L.C. 

Nitro is an oilfield equipment and supply company that provides the high-pressure fracturing 

piping systems accused of infringement by Cameron. 

Declaration of Wesley Clayton (“Clayton Decl.”) ¶ 5. An 

example of one such system is illustrated right, which 

involves a series of larger high-pressure fluid conduits, 

valves and connection blocks for delivering fracturing fluid 

(blue) to a wellhead. Id. For any given job, Nitro procures, 

delivers, and physically sets up the equipment at a customer’s well site. Id.

Nitro’s principal place of business and headquarters is located in Nordheim, Texas,3 where 

over 40 people are employed. Id. ¶ 6. All technical documents (e.g., engineering drawings) and 

financial documents (e.g., revenue and costs documents) relating to Nitro’s fracturing systems are 

housed at the Nordheim office. Id. ¶¶ 7-8. The Nitro employees most knowledgeable about the 

financial and technical aspects of these fracturing systems work from the Nordheim office on a daily 

basis, except to the extent they occasionally travel to meet customers or visit well sites. Id. ¶ 9. 

Virtually all of Nitro’s customers are based out of Houston, including but not limited to 

ConocoPhillips Co. and Oxy USA, Inc., which Cameron has identified by name in its complaint. Id. ¶ 

10; Dkt. 1 ¶ 15. When it comes to securing a job from a customer or supply chain procurement for a 

customer, Nitro deals almost exclusively with customer employees at the customers’ corporate offices 

in Houston, TX. Clayton Decl. ¶ 11. When technical drawings are prepared by Nitro, they are typically 

sent to customer employees or representatives in Houston for approval or modification, even if the 

3

 Nordheim is 160 miles from Houston and 213 miles from Waco. Ex. 16 at 1-2. 

Case 6:20-cv-00125-ADA Document 17 Filed 04/24/20 Page 9 of 22
5 

well site is located hundreds of miles away in west Texas (e.g., Odessa). Id. ¶ 12. Nitro visits Houston 

so frequently that it has a permanent apartment in Houston for Nitro employees to stay. Id. ¶ 13. 

When Nitro is preparing for any given job, all equipment for the job is first procured by Nitro 

and delivered to the Nordheim Office, where it is inspected and packaged with all other equipment 

designated for a particular well site in preparation for delivery. Id. ¶ 14. If the customer well is within 

a certain geographic distance of Nordheim, the equipment is delivered directly to that well site. Id. If a 

customer well is beyond a certain geographic distance, for example hundreds of miles away in Odessa, 

then the equipment is typically sent to Nitro’s small office and equipment yard in Monahans, Texas,4

where it is received by Nitro employees prior to delivery to the customer well site. Id. ¶ 15. Once a 

job is complete, the equipment is always sent back to Nordheim for inspection, maintenance, and reuse. Id. ¶ 16. Technical and financial documents are not maintained or housed at the Monahans 

location. Id. ¶ 15. Only lower-level Nitro employees are employed at the Monahans location. Id. ¶ 17. 

Nitro has no connection to Waco or any area around Waco. Id. ¶ 19. Nitro has never performed 

oil and gas work for customers in or around Waco. Id. ¶ 20. Nitro has no accused systems or structures 

in or around Waco. Id. ¶ 21. Nitro has no offices in or around Waco. Id. ¶ 22. Nitro has no real estate 

holdings in or around Waco. Id. ¶ 23. Nitro does not pay any real estate or other municipal taxes in the 

Waco area. Id. ¶ 24. Nitro does not maintain or store any documents or information in or around Waco. 

Id. ¶ 25. Nitro has no employees in or around Waco and Nitro employees have not performed any work 

in or around Waco. Id. ¶ 26. Nitro is unaware of any customers’ well sites in or around Waco. Id. ¶ 27. 

B. Cameron International Corp. 

Cameron is a Houston based U.S. subsidiary of Schlumberger Limited, a large international 

oil and gas company. Cameron has a principal place of business at 3505 West Sam Houston Parkway 

4

 Monahans is 35 miles from Odessa and 390 miles from Waco. Ex. 16 at 3-4. 

Case 6:20-cv-00125-ADA Document 17 Filed 04/24/20 Page 10 of 22
6 

North, Houston, Texas. Dkt. 1 ¶ 1. Cameron employs over 2,500 Houstonians. Ex. 1. These 

Houstonians include (1) Kirk Guidry, Cameron’s Vice President of Engineering and the sole named 

inventor on most of the asserted patents (including the ‘132 Patent in this Action), and (2) Eddie 

Ganzinotti, the Vice President of North American Sales and Operations. Ex. 2; Ex. 21. These are the 

only employees Cameron identified as having relevant knowledge in the Houston Action. Ex. 4 at 3. 

C. The Houston Action 

In July 2018, Cameron sued Nitro in the Houston Division for alleged patent infringement 

against the same Nitro fracturing system accused of infringement in the Waco Action. Cameron 

initially asserted U.S. Patents 9,068,450 (“the ‘450 patent”) and 9,518,430 (“the ‘430 patent”). Ex. 5. 

Over time U.S. Patents 9,903,190 (“the ‘190 Patent”), 9,932,800 (“the ‘800 Patent”), and 10,094,195 

(“the ‘195 Patent”) were added via two amendments. Exs. 6, 7. Mr. Guidry is the sole named inventor 

on the ‘450 (Ex. 8), ‘430 (Ex. 9), ‘800 (Ex. 10), and ‘195 Patents (Ex. 11), while Gregory Conrad is 

named inventor on the ‘190 Patent (Ex. 12). 

Cameron voluntarily dismissed (with prejudice) its claims for infringement of the ‘450 and 

‘430 Patents after a court ordered inspection. Ex. 13. Nitro then filed a Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions 

because (i) Cameron should have known those patents could not be infringed based on photos 

relied on by Cameron in its complaint and (ii) Cameron rejected Nitro’s pre-suit offer to inspect 

the accused system and instead initiated an unfounded patent suit. Ex. 14 at 2. Though the motion 

was denied, at the sanctions hearing the judge made clear that “Cameron and its parent [Schlumberger] 

is not helping themselves by being difficult” and that the excuses offered by Cameron for its conduct 

were “not a defense.” Ex. 15 at 60:1-16. After the hearing, Cameron’s litigation counsel in the Houston 

Action approached the undersigned requesting that the case be transferred because of dissatisfaction 

with the judge. The undersigned informed Cameron’s counsel that it had no intention of agreeing to 

Case 6:20-cv-00125-ADA Document 17 Filed 04/24/20 Page 11 of 22
7 

transfer. The counts as to the ‘190, ‘800 and ‘195 Patents (collectively “Houston Asserted Patents”) 

are still pending. Ex. 7. Cameron alleges those patents cover its commercial MonolineTM system. Id.

¶¶ 2, 5-7. 

D. The Waco Action 

Cameron filed this Action accusing Nitro of infringing two additional related patents, U.S. 

Patent 10,385,645 (“the ‘645 Patent”) and 9,915,132 (“the ‘132 Patent”) (collectively “Waco Patents”), 

based on the same accused system in the Houston Action. Dkt. 1 ¶ 14.5 While the same system has 

been accused, the allegations in the complaint cherry-pick activity in Pecos, Texas (430 miles from 

Waco) and a small Nitro staging yard in Monahans, Texas (400 miles from Waco). Id. ¶¶ 5, 14-15. 

The ‘645 Patent issued in August 2019 and, as with the ‘195 and ‘800 Patents, names Mr. 

Guidry as the sole inventor. Dkt. 1-2. In fact, the ‘645 Patent is an indirect continuation of the ‘195 

Patent asserted in the Houston action. Id. (“Related U.S. Application Data” listing ‘195 Patent). This 

means the ‘645 Patent contains the exact same subject matter and figures as the ‘195 Patent. 

Compare generally id. with Ex. 11. While the ‘132 Patent is in a different family than the Houston 

Asserted Patents, it has the same inventor (Mr. Conrad) as the ‘190 Patent and is directed towards the 

same technology and accused system, i.e., fracturing systems with manifolds and trees connected via 

connection blocks and flanged piping. Compare Dkt. 1-1 (abstract) and Ex. 12 (abstract). 

IV. HOUSTON IS “CLEARLY THE MORE CONVENIENT” VENUE 

Courts consider eight factors under § 1404(a). Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 315. At least five 

factors favor transferring this action to the Houston Division, and the other three are neutral. No factor 

favors maintaining the case in the Waco Division. The large imbalance should not be surprising 

because, unlike Houston, Waco has no connection whatsoever to the facts or evidence underlying this 

5

 The photo in the Waco Complaint is an aerial view of the same Nitro system depicted and accused of 

infringement in the various Houston Complaints. See e.g., Ex. 7 ¶¶ 15, 20, 25. 

Case 6:20-cv-00125-ADA Document 17 Filed 04/24/20 Page 12 of 22
8 

Action. As such, transfer to Houston is appropriate. See In re Radmax, Ltd., 720 F.3d 285, 290 (Fed. 

Cir. 2013) (finding “extraordinary error” by district court in denying transfer where three of eight 

factors favored transfer, others were neutral, and no factor favored plaintiff’s chosen division, which 

the “case has no connection to”); see also Cadle Co. v. Keyser, No. A-14-CV-758 LY, 2015 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 20909, 2015 WL 764256, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 23, 2015), report and recommendation 

adopted, No. 1:14-CV-758-LY, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 182432 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 19, 2015) 

(transferring from Austin to San Antonio “because this case bears absolutely no connection to the 

Austin Division” and there was not “anything about trying the case in Austin that would make it easy, 

expeditious or inexpensive”); Datascape, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154170, 2019 WL 4254069, at *4 

(transferring where “Plaintiff proffers neither facts nor arguments sufficient to demonstrate why this 

case should remain in Waco. Most—if not all—of the relevant connections in this case are to Austin 

rather than to Waco”). 

A. This Action could have been Brought in Houston 

The first question is whether a civil action “might have been brought” in the destination venue, 

which in this case is Houston. In re Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 312. Cameron clearly could have brought 

this action in Houston by expediently amending its current complaint in Houston6 or filing a new 

complaint. Cameron has already sued Nitro in Houston, accusing the exact same fracturing system and 

activity of infringement based on related patents. Further, Nitro maintains its principal place of 

business in Nordheim, Texas, a fact that Cameron relied on as the basis for venue in the Houston 

Action against the same fracturing system. Ex. 5 ¶ 11; Ex. 6 ¶ 13; Ex. 7 ¶ 12. The next question is 

whether Houston is “clearly more convenient” than Waco. 

6

 Cameron has already amended its complaint in the Houston Action twice—first to add the ‘800 and ‘190 

Patents and then again to add the ‘195 Patent. Had Cameron asked, Nitro would have readily agreed to a 

further amendment if for no other reason than to avoid the cost of litigating on two fronts and wasting two 

separate courts’ finite resources. 

Case 6:20-cv-00125-ADA Document 17 Filed 04/24/20 Page 13 of 22
9 

B. The Private Interest Factors Favor Transfer 

1. As compared to Waco, Houston offers much easier access to sources of proof. 

A court looks to where physical evidence, such as documents, is stored when considering the 

first private interest factor. Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 316. Under this factor, “the question is relative

ease of access, not absolute ease of access.” Datascape, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154170, 2019 WL 

4254069, at *5 (quoting Radmax, 720 F.3d at 288) (emphasis added). Given that all relevant documents 

and physical evidence are located much closer to Houston, this factor heavily favors transfer. 

First, all relevant technical, financial and marketing evidence for the accused systems are 

maintained and housed at Nitro’s headquarters in Nordheim. Clayton Decl. ¶¶ 7-8. Nordheim is in the 

Southern District of Texas and is 53 miles closer to Houston than Waco. Ex. 16 at 1, 2; see Data Scape, 

2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154170, 2019 WL 4254069, at *5 (granting motion to transfer to Austin after 

finding “access to sources of proof is relatively easier in Austin than it is in Waco”) (emphasis in 

original); see also Intel, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227809, 2019 WL 8013949, at *9 (finding relative 

ease of access favored transfer to Austin from Waco where accused infringer’s evidence was closer to 

Austin); Freshub, Inc. v. Amazon.com Inc., W-19-CV-00388-ADA, D.I. 29 at 3 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 9, 

2019) (Albright, J.) (explaining that “even 80 or 90 miles is inconvenient.”). Further, Nitro will already 

have produced the same evidence in the Houston Action given that the same accused system is at issue. 

Thus, the ease of access in Houston regarding Nitro evidence is considerably greater. 

Second, most if not all of Cameron’s relevant evidence is in Houston. Cameron has a principal 

place of business in Houston, mere miles from the federal courthouse. Dkt. 1 ¶ 1. Cameron purportedly 

“engineers, designs and manufactures flow and pressure control technologies” in Houston. Id. The 

invention disclosure forms produced in the Houston Action were sent to Cameron’s offices in Houston, 

and the sole named inventor on most of the asserted patents in both Actions, Mr. Guidry, lives in 

Cypress, Texas, a suburb on the outskirts of Houston. Ex. 2; Ex. 4 at 3. The only employees Cameron 

Case 6:20-cv-00125-ADA Document 17 Filed 04/24/20 Page 14 of 22
10 

identified in its initial disclosures reside in the Houston area and Cameron admits they have 

information on the design, sales and marketing of the allegedly patented MonolineTM systems, as well 

as competition with Nitro. Ex. 4 at 3. Thus, Cameron’s relevant documents are all a few miles from 

the federal courthouse in Houston. This same evidence is almost 200 miles from Waco. Ex. 16 at 5. 

Third, most third-party evidence is housed in Houston, because virtually all Nitro customers 

for the accused products are based in Houston. Clayton Decl. ¶ 10. This includes the customers that 

Cameron has identified in the various complaints filed in both Actions, such as Occidental Petroleum 

Corporation and ConocoPhillips. Dkt. 1 ¶ 15; Ex. 7 ¶¶ 16-17, 21-22, 25-26. Nitro deals directly with 

customer representatives in Houston regarding the design of the accused fracturing systems and 

purchasing. Clayton Decl. ¶¶ 11-12. Thus, evidence maintained by these customers is in Houston. 

Fourth, there is no connection between any source of proof and the Waco Division or area. 

Nitro does not maintain an office in or around the Waco area, and Nitro is unaware of Cameron or any 

relevant non-party having any connection to the Waco area. See McCloud v. McClinton Energy Grp., 

L.L.C., No. 5:14-CV-620-XR, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160080, 2014 WL 6388417, at *9 (W.D. Tex. 

Nov. 14, 2014) (finding this factor favored transfer where plaintiffs could “point to no evidence” 

located within transferor division); Data Scape, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154170, 2019 WL 4254069, 

at *4 (granting transfer motion as “Plaintiff failed to proffer or identify any such sources in Waco.”). 

2. Transfer to the Houston Division would significantly reduce the cost and 

inconvenience of attendance for all witnesses. 

“The relative convenience to the witnesses is often recognized as the most important factor 

under § 1404(a).” Mid-Continent Cas. Co. v. Petroleum Solutions, Inc., 629 F. Supp. 2d 759, 762 (S.D. 

Tex. 2009) (Atlas, J.). This factor weighs heavily in favor of transfer, as it is much more convenient 

for all witnesses (both key and non-key witnesses) to attend trial in Houston. 

First, Houston is much more convenient for the named inventors of the Waco Patents, both of 

Case 6:20-cv-00125-ADA Document 17 Filed 04/24/20 Page 15 of 22
11 

whom are key witnesses. See Intel, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 227809, 2019 WL 8013949, at *13 

(“Because inventors’ testimony is extremely important, inventors are key witnesses and the Court gives 

greater weight to their convenience.”) (citing Mid-Continent, 629 F. Supp. 2d at 762). Mr. Guidry, a 

Cameron witness, lives in Cypress, Texas, which is about 28 miles from Houston and 160 miles from 

Waco. Ex. 16 at 7-8. Thus, Mr. Guidry would not incur hotel or travel expenses if trial is held in 

Houston. In stark contrast, he would incur considerable expenses to travel 320 miles round-trip to 

Waco and stay in a hotel, as well as any additional lost-work time due to the required travel. Mr. Conrad 

(a non-party witness)7 lives in Calgary, Canada. Ex. 3; Ex. 4 at 3. While Calgary is closer to Waco 

than Houston, it is more inconvenient and costly to travel between Calgary and Waco. For one, there 

are no direct flights between Calgary and Waco, while there are several direct flights a day between 

Calgary and Houston. Ex. 17. Moreover, the duration of flights between Calgary and Waco are much 

longer than flights between Calgary and Houston, there are far fewer flight times to choose for Waco, 

and the Waco flights are more expensive than even the non-stop Houston flights. Id. Hotel price 

differences are negligible. Compare Ex. 18 with Ex. 19. Thus, trial in Houston would be more 

convenient and inexpensive for both inventors. Continental Airlines, Inc. v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 805 F. 

Supp. 1392, 1396 (S.D. Tex. 1992) (explaining that “the convenience of one key witness may outweigh 

the convenience of numerous less important witnesses”). 

Second, trial in Houston for the prosecuting attorney of both asserted patents, Lee Eubanks (a 

non-party witness), is much more convenient. Mr. Eubanks lives in the Houston area and works in 

Houston, and so attending trial there would be more convenient for the same reasons as for Mr. Guidry. 

Ex. 4 at 3; Ex. 20. He is a key witness given that he drafted and prosecuted all of the patents at issue, 

and he has knowledge of the prior art, conception, reduction to practice and potential inequitable 

7

 Mr. Conrad’s LinkedIn page reflects that he is retired. Ex. 3. 

Case 6:20-cv-00125-ADA Document 17 Filed 04/24/20 Page 16 of 22
12 

conduct. Dkt. 1-1 (listing Eubanks PLLC as firm of record on face of patent); Dkt. 1-2 (same). 

Third, nearly all Nitro customers reside in or around Houston. The customers are key witnesses 

because they can provide testimony relating to alleged lost profits and damages generally, including 

whether they would have used Cameron’s allegedly patented system had Nitro’s system not existed. 

It would be much more inconvenient for Nitro’s customers to travel to Waco for trial when most—if 

not all—of their relevant witnesses and documents reside in or around Houston. These non-parties 

would incur the same inconvenience and additional costs as Messrs. Guidry and Eubanks above. 

Fourth, all of Cameron’s identified witnesses are in Houston, including Mr. Guidry and Mr. 

Ganzinotti. Ex. 4 at 3. Messrs. Guidry and Ganzinotti are undoubtedly key witnesses for Cameron, 

because they are the only Cameron employees identified in Cameron’s initial disclosures in the 

Houston Action and they have knowledge of “design, operation, sales and marketing of relevant 

Cameron products” and “competition with Nitro Fluids.” Id.

Fifth, attendance in Houston would be much more convenient for all Nitro witnesses. Messrs. 

Koricanek, Harper, Simpson Jr., Medellin, and Clayton are the most knowledgeable employees 

regarding the technical, sales and marketing aspects of the accused systems. Clayton Decl. ¶ 9. These 

employees live near, and work from, Nordheim on a daily basis. Id. Given that there is no airport near 

Nordheim, they would be required to drive to Waco or Houston. However, Houston is more convenient 

because the roundtrip between Nordheim and Houston is 100-miles less than the round trip between 

Nordheim and Waco. Ex. 16 at 1-2. Moreover, Nitro would not incur hotel expenses because Nitro has 

a permanent apartment in Houston for business visits to Houston customers. Clayton Decl. ¶ 13. Thus, 

it is both more convenient and less expensive for Nitro to travel and stay in Houston for trial. 

In view of the above, trial in Waco as opposed to Houston would impose an unnecessary and 

considerable travel burden for all relevant witnesses. Thus, this factor heavily favors transfer. See

Case 6:20-cv-00125-ADA Document 17 Filed 04/24/20 Page 17 of 22
13 

Datascape, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154170, 2019 WL 4254069, at *5 (finding this factor supported 

transfer from Waco to Austin where plaintiff “identified no such witnesses” that reside in Waco). 

3. Transfer to the Houston Division would reduce “other practical problems that 

make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive.” 

Trying this case in Houston would be more efficient, easier, and more inexpensive because of 

the co-pending Houston Action. Both lawsuits accuse the same Nitro piping system of infringement 

and involve identical parties, identical inventors, identical third-parties (e.g., customers and 

prosecution counsel) and identical patent technologies, as well as related patents with substantially 

similar specifications and claims. The court in the Houston Action is already familiar with the patented 

technology and accused products, and in fact has already held a Markman hearing on the ‘195 Patent, 

which the ‘645 Patent (asserted in this Action) is an indirect continuation of. There would be 

considerable efficiency for both the judicial system and all parties if this case were transferred. 

Moreover, trying the case in Waco would create other practical difficulties that support 

transfer. For one, there is the obvious risk of inconsistent rulings (particularly as to claim construction 

given the substantial overlap in claim terminology), which is eliminated if the case is transferred. 

Second, as discussed above, trying the case in Waco wastes this Court’s resources because overlapping 

issues in both cases will be, or already have been, addressed in the Houston Action. 

Finally, transferring this case to Houston will deter future plaintiffs and Cameron from doing 

what Cameron has done here—i.e., filing a second lawsuit in a venue that has no connection 

whatsoever to the parties, the evidence or the facts, despite a virtually identical substantive suit existing 

in an infinitely more convenient venue that the plaintiff itself selected. See VLSI Tech., 2019 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 155287, 2019 WL 4254065, at *27 (“It would be malpractice for its legal counsel to have done 

less than to advise its client to file in the venue that was most favorable under what factors it is 

evaluating.”). While Nitro cannot read minds, it is difficult to conclude that Cameron filed suit in Waco 

Case 6:20-cv-00125-ADA Document 17 Filed 04/24/20 Page 18 of 22
14 

for any reason other than to escape the presiding judge in Houston, particularly given that Waco has 

no connection to the facts or evidence underlying this Action and that Cameron’s counsel reached out 

to the undersigned to inquire about his interest in transferring the Houston case to another judge. 

C. The Public has a Strong Interest in Transferring to Houston 

1. Houston has a much greater local interest in this case than Waco 

The “local interest factor, like all § 1404 factors, is concerned with the relative interests 

between the transferee and transferor forums.” Datascape, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154170, 2019 WL 

4254069, at *8 (emphasis in original). Waco has no “local interest” in the underlying dispute. Neither 

Nitro nor Cameron resides in or around Waco. The accused systems are not designed, sold or used in 

or around Waco. Nitro is unaware of any relevant third-parties, including customers, that are in or 

around Waco. Nitro is not even aware of a well around Waco. Simply put, Waco has about as much 

interest in this lawsuit as the District of Alaska. 

 In stark contrast, the Houston division has an enormous interest in this case. A key inventor, 

Mr. Guidry, lives in the Houston area and is the sole named inventor on one of the two patents asserted 

in this lawsuit and two of the three patents asserted in the Houston Action, and he allegedly conceived 

of the inventions in the Houston area. Moreover, Cameron is a large Houston company with over 2,500 

employees that work in the Houston area. Most of the relevant customers in this dispute are based in 

Houston. There is no question that Houston has a great local interest in resolving an infringement 

dispute involving patents that were (i) invented in Houston, (ii) owned by one of the largest employers 

in the Houston area, and (iii) allegedly infringed by activities at Houston customer’s offices (sales, 

offers for sale) and at customer’s well sites (use). Thus, this factor weighs heavily in favor of transfer. 

See Mimedx, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191022, 2014 WL 12479284, at *7 (“The ultimate outcome of 

this suit likely affects local San Antonio interests more acutely than local Austin interests.”). 

Case 6:20-cv-00125-ADA Document 17 Filed 04/24/20 Page 19 of 22
15 

2. The availability of compulsory process slightly favors transfer. 

This factor focuses on non-party witnesses. See Carruth v. Michot, No. A-15-CA-00189-SS, 

2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 145224, 2015 WL 6506550, at *30 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 26, 2015) (“Because party 

witnesses do not typically require compulsory process, the Court focuses on non-party witnesses.”). A 

vast majority of the non-party customers, as well as Mr. Eubanks, are not subject to this Court’s 

compulsory process because they reside in the Houston area. First, because Houston is nearly 200 

miles from Waco they cannot be compelled to appear at trial under Rule 45(c)(1)(A). Second, while 

they all are “employed, or regularly transacts business in person” in Texas under Rule 45(c)(1)(B)(ii), 

for the reasons discussed they would incur “substantial expense” as non-parties if they were forced to 

attend a trial nearly 200 miles away. Even if there was not a substantial expense, for these non-parties 

the expenses associated with a trial in Houston are considerably less than for a trial in Waco.8 

3. The administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion. 

Federal Judicial Caseload Statistics show that, for the 12-month period preceding December 

31, 2019, the Southern District of Texas median time-to-trial from filing for civil cases is 22.9 months 

versus 27.9 for this division. Ex. 22. However, under this Court’s default schedule, it appears trial 

would occur sometime between 18 and 21 months after filing. Thus, this factor is essentially neutral. 

4. The familiarity of the forum with the law that will govern the case and 

avoidance of unnecessary conflicts of law problems. 

Both this Court and the Houston Division are familiar with U.S. patent law, and there are no 

conflicts of law issues. Therefore, these factors are neutral. 

V. CONCLUSION 

For the reasons above, Nitro respectfully requests that the Court transfer this case to Houston. 

8

 Compulsory attendance for Mr. Conrad, the non-party inventor of the ‘645 patent, may be unavailable 

because he lives in Calgary. However, he may be more willing to voluntarily testify at trial in Houston 

given that it is easier and less expensive to travel from Calgary to Houston. 

Case 6:20-cv-00125-ADA Document 17 Filed 04/24/20 Page 20 of 22
16 

April 24, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

 /s/ J. David Cabello

J. David Cabello 

Attorney-in-Charge 

J. David Cabello 

Texas Bar No. 03574500 

James H. Hall 

Texas Bar No. 24041040 

Stephen D. Zinda 

Texas Bar No. 24084147 

CABELLO HALL ZINDA, PLLC 

801 Travis Street, Suite 1610 

Houston, TX 77002 

Tel: 832-631-9990 

Fax: 832-631-9991 

Email: david@chzfirm.com 

Email: james@chzfirm.com 

Email: stephen@chzfirm.com 

Attorneys for Defendant Nitro Fluids, LLC

 

Case 6:20-cv-00125-ADA Document 17 Filed 04/24/20 Page 21 of 22
17 

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE 

Pursuant to Rule CV-7(i) of the Local Court Rules, the undersigned certifies that it has conferred with 

opposing counsel in good-faith to resolve the matter above, including by providing the basis for the 

above-motion to opposing counsel in writing on April 22, 2020 and requesting a response as to whether 

opposing counsel would oppose the motion. Opposing counsel indicated that it opposed this motion, 

but did not provide a reason for the opposition. 

 /s/ David Cabello

J. David Cabello 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned hereby certifies that on this 24th day of April 2020 a true and correct copy of the 

above motion was electronically filed with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system, which 

sends notifications of such filing to all counsel of record who have consented to accept service by 

electronic means. 

 /s/ Stephen D. Zinda

Stephen D. Zinda 

Case 6:20-cv-00125-ADA Document 17 Filed 04/24/20 Page 22 of 22