IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

KAJEET, INC.,

Plaintiff,

vs.

LIGHTSPEED SOLUTIONS, INC.,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 6:20-CV-203-ADA

DEFENDANT LIGHTSPEED SOLUTIONS, INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS 

MOTION FOR INTRA-DISTRICT TRANSFER OF VENUE 

TO THE AUSTIN DIVISION OF THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

In its response, Kajeet does not dispute that the private convenience factors, including 

relative ease of access to sources of proof and cost of attendance of willing witnesses, weigh in 

favor of transfer to Austin. D.I. 32, 1 (explaining that “[b]ased on the facts presented in 

Lightspeed’s Motion, Kajeet would not otherwise oppose the intra-district transfer.”). Kajeet does 

not dispute that this case lacks any connection to the Waco Division. And Kajeet does not dispute 

that the Austin Division has the stronger interest in deciding this local dispute. 

Nevertheless, Kajeet opposes Lightspeed’s motion and seeks to keep this case in Waco 

until the time of a trial in Austin1 solely because two other matters, filed by Kajeet against other 

defendants, are presently pending before this Court in the Waco Division. Kajeet’s argument 

suggests that the presence of these co-pending litigations somehow outweighs all the other factors 

favoring transfer and is thus dispositive of the transfer analysis. Id. at pp. 1-2 (arguing that this 

 1 Kajeet does not oppose holding the trial in the Austin Division. D.I. 32, 2. 

Case 6:20-cv-00203-ADA Document 34 Filed 09/29/20 Page 1 of 4
2

case should remain in Waco because “[d]oing so would avoid inefficiencies such as additional or 

separate hearings on common matters including claim construction and discovery issues.”). 

Kajeet’s opposition to intra-district transfer on this basis is incorrect as a matter of law, and 

thus should be rejected. The Federal Circuit has firmly rejected the idea that “the mere co-pendency 

of related suits in a particular district would automatically tip the balance in non-movant’s favor 

regardless of the existence of co-pending transfer motions and their underlying merits.” In re Google 

Inc., No. 2017-107, 2017 WL 977038, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 23, 2017). Likewise, this Court has pointed 

out that “considerations of judicial economy and the existence of co-pending litigation are not 

dispositive in the transfer analysis.” Voxer, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., 6:20-CV-00011-ADA, 2020 WL 

3416012, at *5 (W.D. Tex. June 22, 2020) (Albright, J.). Since the co-pendency of these other actions 

is Kajeet’s sole reason to oppose transfer, its argument should be rejected and the Court should transfer 

this case to Austin, which is the clearly more convenient venue. D.I. 30. 

Kajeet’s contention that there are efficiencies in keeping the co-pending cases it has filed in 

Waco is, at best, speculative. There is no guarantee that judicial economy will be afforded by keeping 

this matter in the Waco Division. Keeping all matters venued in the Waco Division while in their 

respective infancies does little to guarantee judicial efficiency when it remains unclear whether these 

co-pending suits will actually proceed in the Waco Division due to transfer, settlement, or any other 

number of intervening events that may occur during the pendency of the matters. Parus Holdings Inc. 

v. LG Elecs. Inc., 6:19-CV-00432-ADA, 2020 WL 4905809, at *7 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 20, 2020) 

(“Further, this case is in its early stages, meaning any increase in judicial economy from the Court's 

experience in these early stages of litigation is likely to be limited.”) (Albright, J.). 

Consequently, this matter should be transferred to the Austin Division. 

Case 6:20-cv-00203-ADA Document 34 Filed 09/29/20 Page 2 of 4
3

Dated: September 29, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ M. Brett Johnson

Thomas M. Melsheimer 

State Bar No. 13922550 

tmelsheimer@winston.com

M. Brett Johnson

State Bar No. 00790975 

mbjohnson@winston.com

Michael A. Bittner, Pro Hac Vice 

State Bar No. 24064905 

mbittner@winston.com

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP

2121 N. Pearl Street, Suite 900

Dallas, TX 75201

Telephone: (214) 453-6500

Facsimile: (214) 453-6400

William M. Logan 

State Bar No. 24106214

wlogan@winston.com

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP

800 Capitol Street, Suite 2400

Houston, TX 77002

Telephone: (713) 651-2766

Facsimile: (713) 651-2700

Vivek V. Krishnan, Pro Hac Vice 

VKrishnan@winston.com

WINSTON & STRAWN LLP

35 W. Wacker Drive 

Chicago, IL 60601

Telephone: (312) 558-5600

Facsimile: (312) 558-5700

Manish Mehta, Pro Hac Vice 

State Bar No. 6290204 

mmheta@beneschlaw.com

Suzanne Alton de Eraso, Pro Hac Vice 

State Bar No. 6317254 

saltondeeraso@beneschlaw.com

Samuel Ruggio, Pro Hac Vice

State Bar No. 6321419 

sruggio@beneschlaw.com

BENESCH FRIEDLANDER COPLAN & 

ARONOFF LLP

Case 6:20-cv-00203-ADA Document 34 Filed 09/29/20 Page 3 of 4
4

71 South Wacker Drive, Suite 1600

Chicago, IL 60606

Telephone: (312) 212-4953

Facsimile: (312) 767-9192

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT 

LIGHTSPEED SOLUTIONS, INC.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that, on September 29, 2020, the foregoing document was 

electronically filed with the Clerk of Court using the Court’s CM/ECF system, which will 

send notification of such filing to all counsel of record, including counsel of record for Plaintiff 

Kajeet, Inc.

/s/ M. Brett Johnson

M. Brett Johnson

Case 6:20-cv-00203-ADA Document 34 Filed 09/29/20 Page 4 of 4