IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

HAMMOND DEVELOPMENT 

INTERNATIONAL, INC. 

Plaintiff,

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

v.

AMAZON.COM, INC., 

AMAZON.COM LLC, 

AMAZON.COM SERVICES, INC. 

AND 

AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.

Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION No. 6:19-cv-00355-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

[LEAD CASE]

HAMMOND DEVELOPMENT 

INTERNATIONAL, INC. 

Plaintiff,

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

v.

GOOGLE LLC

Defendant.

CIVIL ACTION No. 6:19-cv-00356-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

DEFENDANT GOOGLE LLC’S OPPOSED MOTION TO TRANSFER

Case 1:20-cv-00342-ADA Document 42 Filed 10/23/19 Page 1 of 15
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

-iI. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ...................................................................................... 1

A. Google’s Relevant Documents And Witnesses Are Located In The NDCA........ 1

B. Third-Party Prior Art Witnesses And Evidence Are Located In The NDCA....... 2

C. Plaintiff HDI Has No Ties To The WDTX........................................................ 3

II. LEGAL STANDARD ................................................................................................. 3

III. THIS CASE COULD HAVE BEEN FILED IN THE NDCA........................................ 4

IV. THE NDCA IS THE MOST CONVENIENT FORUM FOR THIS CASE..................... 4

A. The Private Interest Factors Heavily Favor Transfer To The NDCA................... 4

1. Relative Ease Of Access To Sources Of Proof ....................................... 4

2. Availability Of Compulsory Process...................................................... 6

3. Cost Of Attendance For Willing Witnesses............................................ 6

4. Practical Problems For An Easy, Expeditious, And Inexpensive 

Case..................................................................................................... 8

B. The Public Interest Factors Weigh In Favor Of Transfer.................................... 8

V. IF THIS CASE REMAINS IN THE WDTX, AUSTIN IS A MORE 

CONVENIENT VENUE THAN WACO ..................................................................... 9

A. Private Interest Factors Weigh In Favor Of Transfer To Austin.......................... 9

1. Cost Of Attendance For Willing Witnesses............................................ 9

2. Practical Problems For An Easy, Expeditious, And Inexpensive 

Case..................................................................................................... 9

3. Relative Ease Of Access To Sources Of Proof And Availability Of 

Compulsory Process ............................................................................10

B. Public Interest Factors Are Neutral..................................................................10

VI. CONCLUSION..........................................................................................................10

Case 1:20-cv-00342-ADA Document 42 Filed 10/23/19 Page 2 of 15
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

-iiCases

DataQuill, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., No. A-13-CA-706-SS,

2014 WL 2722201 (W.D. Tex. June 13, 2014) ....................................................................... 4

Datascape, Ltd. v. Dell Techs., Inc.,

No. 6:19-CV-00129-ADA, 2019 WL 4254069 (W.D. Tex. June 7, 2019) .............................. 6

Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,

Case No. 6:18-cv-372-ADA, Dkt. 73 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 10, 2019).......................................... 8

In re Genentech, Inc.,

566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ....................................................................................passim

In re Google Inc.,

No. 2017-107, 2017 WL 977038 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 23, 2017).................................................... 9

In re Volkswagen of Am. Inc.,

545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) ........................................................................................passim

Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Dell, Inc.,

No. SA-16-CV-451-XR, 2016 WL 7077069 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 5, 2016).................................... 7

Wet Sounds, Inc. v. Audio Formz, LLC,

No. A-17-CV-141-LY, 2017 WL 4547916 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 11, 2017), report and 

recommendation adopted, No. 1:17-CV-141-LY, 2018 WL 1219248 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 22, 

2018)................................................................................................................................... 7

XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, LC,

No. 16-CA-00447-RP, 2017 WL 5505340 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 5, 2017)..................................... 5

Case 1:20-cv-00342-ADA Document 42 Filed 10/23/19 Page 3 of 15
GOOGLE’S MOT. FOR TRANSFER -1- 6:19-cv-00355-ADA

TO NDCA OR AUSTIN

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), Google LLC (“Google”) seeks transfer to the Northern 

District of California (“NDCA”) or, alternatively, to the Austin Division of this District. Transfer to 

the NDCA is appropriate because the most relevant Google witnesses who work on the accused 

functionality in the accused products, Google Assistant’s Actions on Google, are located in the 

NDCA where Google is headquartered. The vast majority of Google’s documents and records 

related to the accused functionality are hosted in secure servers managed from Google’s offices in 

the NDCA. And numerous third-party witnesses, including several developers of prior art products, 

reside in the NDCA—the only place they can be compelled to attend trial. By contrast, Google has 

no ties to this District that are relevant to the transfer analysis, and Plaintiff Hammond Development 

International, Inc. (“HDI”) has no ties to this District at all. 

If the Court finds that transfer to the NDCA is not warranted, Google alternatively seeks 

intra-district transfer to the Austin Division. Travel to Austin for Google’s California witnesses is 

more convenient than travel to Waco. Additionally, the Amazon defendants in the lead case 

Hammond Development International, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 19-cv-00355-ADA 

(“Amazon Case”) have also requested transfer to Austin. Although the NDCA is the most 

convenient venue for this case, if this case is to remain in this District, it should proceed in Austin 

with the Amazon Case for judicial efficiency reasons. See Dkt. 39.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. Google’s Relevant Documents And Witnesses Are Located In The NDCA

Google was founded in Mountain View, California over 15 years ago and has been 

headquartered there since. See Declaration of L. Khan (“Khan Decl.”), ¶ 2. The majority of 

Google’s worldwide workforce is in the NDCA. Id. 

Case 1:20-cv-00342-ADA Document 42 Filed 10/23/19 Page 4 of 15
GOOGLE’S MOT. FOR TRANSFER -2- 6:19-cv-00355-ADA

TO NDCA OR AUSTIN

In its complaint and infringement contentions, HDI accuses functionality related to 

Google Assistant’s Actions on Google. Case No. 6:19-cv-00356-ADA (“Google case”), Dkt. 1, 

¶¶ 67‒69; Ex. A.1, 2 Google researches, designs, develops, and tests the accused functionality in 

the NDCA. Khan Decl., ¶¶ 4‒5. The relevant Google engineers who work or worked on the 

accused functionality work in Google’s Mountain View offices and reside in the San Francisco 

Bay Area. Id. For instance, the Group Product Manager who works on Actions on Google and 

five of his six direct reports work in Mountain View. Khan Decl., ¶ 4. Additionally, the

Distinguished Software Engineer who leads a team that works on Actions on Google and four of 

his five reports work in Mountain View. Khan Decl., ¶ 5. Although Google has offices in 

Austin, Google has not identified any employees in Austin who work on the accused 

functionality. Khan Decl., ¶ 6.

B. Third-Party Prior Art Witnesses And Evidence Are Located In The NDCA 

Based on its prior art investigation, Google has unearthed at least eight prior art systems 

that were developed by companies founded or headquartered in the NDCA. Upon information 

and belief, at least 12 key witnesses, founders, technical leads, and engineers from those 

companies still reside in California—nearly all in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Prior Art System Company Witnesses Role Current 

Location

Cisco IOS Voice 

XML Gateway and 

Cisco Voice XML 

Solution Infrastructure

(Exs. B1‒B4)

Cisco Systems, 

Inc.

(San Jose)

Saravanan 

Shanmugham;

Jenny Yao

Technical 

Leads

Saratoga;

San Jose

Tellme Voice Portal 

and Mobile

(Exs. C1‒C3)

Tellme Networks

(Mountain View)

Mike McCue Founder San Francisco 

 1 Google does not concede that HDI’s Infringement Contentions are sufficient. Google reserves 

all rights to object to and dispute the sufficiency of HDI’s Infringement Contentions.

2 All Exhibits cited as “Ex.” are exhibits to the Declaration of Amy K. Liang.

Case 1:20-cv-00342-ADA Document 42 Filed 10/23/19 Page 5 of 15
GOOGLE’S MOT. FOR TRANSFER -3- 6:19-cv-00355-ADA

TO NDCA OR AUSTIN

BeVocal Cafe

(Exs. D1‒D4)

BeVocal Inc.

(Mountain View)

Mikael

Berner;

Steve Tran

Founders San Jose; Palo 

Alto

TuVox CVR, 

OnDemand, and 

SmartGen

(Exs. E1‒E4)

TuVox

(Cupertino)

Steven 

Pollock;

Ashok Khosla

Founders San Mateo;

Little River

Genesys Voice 

Platform and Media 

Server

(Exs. F1‒F4)

Genesys

(Daly City)

Gregory 

Shenkman;

Alec 

Miloslavsky

Founders San 

Francisco; 

San Francisco

Prody Parrot

(Exs. G1‒G3)

MindMaker

(San Jose)

Joszef Kiraly Founder Orange 

County

General Magic 

Serengeti and Portico

(Exs. H1‒H3)

General Magic

(Sunnyvale)

Danny Lange CTO San Francisco

Avaya Voice Portal

(Exs. I1‒I3)

Avaya, Inc.

(Santa Clara)

Elena 

Korolyova

Lead System 

Verification 

Engineer

San Jose

C. Plaintiff HDI Has No Ties To The WDTX

HDI’s principal place of business is in Richardson, TX—not in the WDTX. Dkt. 34-1, ¶

4. Mr. Daniel Hammond, the founder, president, and director of HDI, lives in Dallas, TX—also 

not in the WDTX. HDI has not disclosed any other party witnesses. See Dkts. 34, 34-1. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

To evaluate transfer under § 1404(a), courts first consider “whether a civil action ‘might 

have been brought’ in the destination venue.” In re Volkswagen of Am. Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 312 

(5th Cir. 2008). If so, courts weigh eight private and public 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; (4) all other practical problems that 

make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive; (5) the administrative difficulties flowing 

from court congestion; (6) the local interest in having localized interests decided at home; (7) the 

familiarity of the forum with the law that will govern the case; and (8) the avoidance of 

Case 1:20-cv-00342-ADA Document 42 Filed 10/23/19 Page 6 of 15
GOOGLE’S MOT. FOR TRANSFER -4- 6:19-cv-00355-ADA

TO NDCA OR AUSTIN

unnecessary problems of conflict of laws [or in] the application of foreign law. Id. at 315.

III. THIS CASE COULD HAVE BEEN FILED IN THE NDCA 

This case could have been filed in the NDCA because Google is headquartered there. 

IV. THE NDCA IS THE MOST CONVENIENT FORUM FOR THIS CASE

The NDCA is the most convenient forum for this case because Google’s relevant witnesses 

work in the NDCA and the relevant documents for this case are managed from the NDCA. Google 

was founded in and is headquartered in the NDCA and the accused functionality was developed in 

the NDCA, so that forum has a strong local interest in resolving the claims in this case. 

Additionally, key third-party witnesses with knowledge about prior art systems are located in the 

NDCA and cannot be compelled to testify at trial in the WDTX. 

Neither Google nor HDI have any relevant ties to this District. While Google has offices in 

Austin, the relevant inquiry is whether Google has a presence that is related to the litigation. See

DataQuill, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., No. A-13-CA-706-SS, 2014 WL 2722201, at *5 (W.D. Tex. June 13, 

2014) (granting transfer from the WDTX to the NDCA because “[t]here is no dispute [defendant] 

has a presence in this district, but that presence is unrelated to this litigation”). None of Google’s 

key witnesses relevant to this litigation are located in Austin. See supra Section I.A. All of the 

private and public transfer factors weigh in favor of transfer to the NDCA or are neutral. 

A. The Private Interest Factors Heavily Favor Transfer To The NDCA

1. Relative Ease Of Access To Sources Of Proof

The Federal Circuit has held that “[i]n patent infringement cases, the bulk of the relevant 

evidence usually comes from the accused infringer.” In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1345 

(Fed. Cir. 2009). “Consequently, the place where the defendant’s documents are kept weighs in 

favor of transfer to that location.” Id. The Fifth Circuit further explained that “the sources of 

proof requirement is a meaningful factor” and the argument “[t]hat access to some sources of 

Case 1:20-cv-00342-ADA Document 42 Filed 10/23/19 Page 7 of 15
GOOGLE’S MOT. FOR TRANSFER -5- 6:19-cv-00355-ADA

TO NDCA OR AUSTIN

proof presents a lesser inconvenience now than it might have absent recent developments does 

not render this factor superfluous.” In re Volkswagen of Am., 545 F.3d at 316. To determine the 

ease of access to sources of proof, the Court should look at “the location where the allegedly 

infringing products were researched, designed, developed and tested.” XY, LLC v. Trans Ova 

Genetics, LC, No. 16-CA-00447-RP, 2017 WL 5505340, at *13 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 5, 2017).

Google researches, designs, develops, and tests the accused functionality in the NDCA. 

See supra Section I.B. Thus, sources of proof for the accused functionality are located in the 

NDCA.

Important third-party witnesses and evidence are also located in the NDCA. Specifically, 

the companies and witnesses that developed identified prior art products are located in the NDCA. 

These prior art products include: Cisco IOS Voice XML Gateway and Cisco Voice XML 

Solution Infrastructure (San Jose), Tellme Voice Portal and Mobile (Mountain View), BeVocal 

Café (Mountain View), TuVox CVR, OnDemand, and SmartGen (Cupertino), Genesys Voice 

Platform and Media Server (Daly City), Prody Parrot (San Jose/Orange County), General Magic 

Serengeti and Portico (Sunnyvale), and Avaya Voice Portal (Santa Clara). See supra Section I.B. 

The NDCA is not just the most convenient location to obtain this relevant evidence about the

prior art systems—it is the only venue where a court can compel these witnesses to testify at trial. 

HDI, meanwhile, is based in Richardson and has not identified any presence in or ties to 

the WDTX. See Google case Dkt. 1 at ¶ 2; Dkt. 34 (HDI’s Response to Amazon’s Motion to 

Transfer Venue) at 1‒2. While HDI may argue that its one party witness Mr. Hammond prefers 

Waco, it is improper for a Court to use “its central location as a consideration in the absence of 

witnesses within the plaintiff's choice of venue.” In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d at 1344. In any 

event, HDI’s one witness and any documents that he might still have cannot outweigh the “bulk of 

Case 1:20-cv-00342-ADA Document 42 Filed 10/23/19 Page 8 of 15
GOOGLE’S MOT. FOR TRANSFER -6- 6:19-cv-00355-ADA

TO NDCA OR AUSTIN

the relevant evidence” from Google in the NDCA in addition to the third-party prior art authors. 

See id. at 1345. Thus, this factor weighs heavily in favor of transfer to the NDCA.

2. Availability Of Compulsory Process

The compulsory process factor focuses on unwilling, non-party witnesses. Datascape, 

Ltd. v. Dell Techs., Inc., No. 6:19-CV-00129-ADA, 2019 WL 4254069, at *2 (W.D. Tex. June 7, 

2019). The NDCA in the early 2000s was a center of development of Interactive Voice 

Response (IVR) and voice portal products and systems, which is the field of the Asserted 

Patents. For example, there are eight prior art system products made by companies founded and 

headquartered in the NDCA, and Google has identified at least 12 witnesses with relevant 

knowledge about the prior art products. See supra Section I.B. All of these third parties are 

within the subpoena power of the NDCA, but outside of this Court’s trial subpoena power, and 

thus could not be compelled to testify if this case remained in the WDTX. 

By comparison, Google has not found any third-party prior art systems that were 

developed by companies or witnesses in the WDTX. And HDI has not identified any third-party 

witnesses in the WDTX. This factor therefore weighs heavily in favor of transfer to the NDCA.

3. Cost Of Attendance For Willing Witnesses

“When the distance between an existing venue for trial of a matter and a proposed venue 

under § 1404(a) is more than 100 miles, the factor of inconvenience to witnesses increases in direct 

relationship to the additional distance to be traveled.” In re Volkswagen of Am., 545 F.3d at 317

(citation omitted).

The key witnesses with knowledge about the research, design, development, and testing of 

the accused functionality are Google employees who work in the NDCA. See supra Section I.B. 

If this case is not transferred, those witnesses will have to fly or fly and drive to Waco for trial and 

Case 1:20-cv-00342-ADA Document 42 Filed 10/23/19 Page 9 of 15
GOOGLE’S MOT. FOR TRANSFER -7- 6:19-cv-00355-ADA

TO NDCA OR AUSTIN

any hearings that require their testimony. Flying numerous Google employees from the Bay Area 

to Waco and providing lodging for them in Waco will be expensive. More significant than the 

travel expenses will be the lost productivity and the interruption to the witnesses’ daily and 

personal lives due to the amount of time these witnesses will need to spend traveling. See In re 

Volkswagen of Am., 545 F.3d at 317 (“Witnesses not only suffer monetary costs, but also the 

personal costs associated with being away from work, family, and community.”). There is no 

direct flight from the Bay Area to Waco. The shortest commercial flights to Waco from the Bay 

Area require around 5 hours and 15 minutes of travel (including a one hour layover in Dallas), not 

to mention time spent getting to and from, and waiting at the airport. Liang Decl., ¶ 2. As this 

Court has recognized, “the task of scheduling fact witnesses so as to minimize the time when they 

are removed from their regular work or home responsibilities gets increasingly difficult and 

complicated when the travel time from their home or work site to the court facility is five or six 

hours one-way as opposed to 30 minutes or an hour.” Wet Sounds, Inc. v. Audio Formz, LLC, No. 

A-17-CV-141-LY, 2017 WL 4547916, at *3 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 11, 2017), report and 

recommendation adopted, No. 1:17-CV-141-LY, 2018 WL 1219248 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 22, 2018). 

HDI’s only party witness Mr. Hammond lives in Dallas, outside of the WDTX. While 

Waco may be more convenient than the NDCA for Mr. Hammond, it is improper for a court to 

use “its central location as a consideration in the absence of witnesses within the plaintiff's 

choice of venue.” In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d at 1344. 

Finally, the convenience of non-party witnesses also strongly favors transfer. As this Court 

has stated: “[I]t is the convenience of non-party witnesses, rather than of party witnesses, that is 

more important and accorded greater weight in a transfer of venue analysis.” Polaris Innovations 

Ltd. v. Dell, Inc., No. SA-16-CV-451-XR, 2016 WL 7077069, at *6 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 5, 2016) 

Case 1:20-cv-00342-ADA Document 42 Filed 10/23/19 Page 10 of 15
GOOGLE’S MOT. FOR TRANSFER -8- 6:19-cv-00355-ADA

TO NDCA OR AUSTIN

(citing cases; alteration in original). As discussed, eight of the prior art companies and 12 of their 

former or current employees who developed the prior art products currently reside in the NDCA. 

While not all of these witnesses will likely testify at trial, it is common for one or more prior art 

witnesses to testify. The NDCA is a significantly more convenient forum for these witnesses than 

the WDTX for the same reasons set forth above with respect to Google’s employees.

The cost and inconvenience of travel to Waco for numerous Google and third-party 

witnesses far outweighs the cost and inconvenience of travel to the NDCA for Mr. Hammond. 

This factor thus weighs heavily in favor of transfer to the NDCA.

4. Practical Problems For An Easy, Expeditious, And Inexpensive Case

This case is in its early stages: the initial case management conference took place only 

two weeks ago (on October 9th) and a complete pre-trial schedule has not yet been entered. The 

Markman hearing will not occur for seven months, on May 15, 2020. Thus, transfer at this point 

would not cause delays. This factor is neutral.

B. The Public Interest Factors Weigh In Favor Of Transfer

On balance, the public interest factors weigh in favor of transfer. The NDCA has a 

strong local interest in this dispute: Google was founded in the NDCA where it still maintains its 

headquarters and largest offices and where Google developed the accused features and products 

in this case. See supra Section I.A. By contrast, neither Google nor HDI have any local ties to 

Waco. The familiarity with governing law and conflicts of law factors are neutral as both the 

NDCA and this District are familiar with, and will apply, federal patent law. As for the 

administrative difficulties factor, while this Court’s time-to-trial may currently be 25% faster 

than the NDCA, this factor should be given the least weight as the Federal Circuit has held that 

time to trial “appears to be the most speculative” of the factors in the transfer analysis. Fintiv, 

Case 1:20-cv-00342-ADA Document 42 Filed 10/23/19 Page 11 of 15
GOOGLE’S MOT. FOR TRANSFER -9- 6:19-cv-00355-ADA

TO NDCA OR AUSTIN

Inc. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:18-cv-372-ADA, Dkt. 73, at 14‒15 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 10, 2019); 

Genentech, 566 F.3d at 1347.

V. IF THIS CASE REMAINS IN THE WDTX, AUSTIN IS A MORE CONVENIENT 

VENUE THAN WACO

While the NDCA is the most convenient forum for this case, if the Court decides this case 

should remain in the WDTX, Google respectfully requests transfer to Austin. As detailed below, 

Austin is more convenient than Waco for Google’s witnesses, and judicial resources would be 

conserved by transferring this case to Austin given the Court’s consolidation of this case with the 

Amazon Case and the Amazon defendants’ motion to transfer to Austin. 

A. Private Interest Factors Weigh In Favor Of Transfer To Austin

1. Cost Of Attendance For Willing Witnesses

As explained in Section IV.A.3 above, Google’s witnesses and any willing third-party 

witnesses would need to fly to the WDTX from California. Austin is more convenient than 

Waco for these witnesses because there are direct flights to Austin, but no direct flights to Waco. 

Liang Decl., ¶¶ 2, 3. Thus, travel from the NDCA to Austin would also be less costly and less 

disruptive for these witnesses than travel to Waco due to the cost of flights and time for travel. 

Liang Decl., ¶¶ 4, 5. Austin is also a less disruptive location for Google and Google’s witnesses 

because of the availability of workspace in Google’s Austin offices while those witnesses await 

their turn to testify. This factor favors transfer to Austin.

2. Practical Problems For An Easy, Expeditious, And Inexpensive Case

This case was consolidated with the Amazon Case, and the Amazon defendants have 

moved for intra-district transfer to Austin. Dkt. 30. Thus, if this case proceeds in this District 

rather than the NDCA, having both of these cases proceed in Austin will conserve judicial and 

party resources. Dkts. 38, 39; see In re Google Inc., No. 2017-107, 2017 WL 977038, at *2 

Case 1:20-cv-00342-ADA Document 42 Filed 10/23/19 Page 12 of 15
GOOGLE’S MOT. FOR TRANSFER -10- 6:19-cv-00355-ADA

TO NDCA OR AUSTIN

(Fed. Cir. Feb. 23, 2017) (recognizing that judicial economy “can play a significant role” in 

transfer analysis). This factor weighs in favor of transfer to Austin. 

3. Relative Ease Of Access To Sources Of Proof And Availability Of 

Compulsory Process

The remaining two private factors are neutral. As explained in Section IV.A.1, HDI does 

not have any ties to Waco or the WDTX, and Google does not have an office or any employees at a 

Google office in Waco. Khan Decl., ¶ 7. This Court’s subpoena power does not differ materially 

between Waco and Austin.

B. Public Interest Factors Are Neutral

All four public interest factors for this case are neutral between Austin and Waco.

VI. CONCLUSION

Google respectfully requests the Court transfer this case to the NDCA. Transfer to the 

NDCA is appropriate because the key Google witnesses who work on the accused functionality are 

located in the NDCA where Google is headquartered, and numerous third-party witnesses reside in 

the NDCA and can only be compelled to testify at trial in NDCA. Google’s documents relating to 

the accused functionality are also managed from the NDCA. By contrast, Google has no relevant 

ties to this District, HDI has no ties to this District, and neither party has identified third-party 

witnesses in this District. Alternatively, if the Court finds that transfer to the NDCA is not 

warranted, Google respectfully requests that the Court transfer this case to the Austin Division. 

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

Pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(i), the undersigned counsel for Google conferred with 

counsel for HDI in a good-faith effort to resolve the matter presented herein and counsel for HDI 

stated that it opposes the motion.

/s/ Paige A. Amstutz

Paige A. Amstutz

Case 1:20-cv-00342-ADA Document 42 Filed 10/23/19 Page 13 of 15
GOOGLE’S MOT. FOR TRANSFER -11- 6:19-cv-00355-ADA

TO NDCA OR AUSTIN

Dated: October 23, 2019 /s/ Paige Arnette Amstutz

Steve McConnico

Texas State Bar No. 13450300

smcconnico@scottdoug.com

Paige Arnette Amstutz

Texas State Bar No. 00796136

SCOTT, DOUGLASS & MCCONNICO, LLP

303 Colorado Street, Suite 2400

Austin, TX 78701

Telephone: (512) 495-6300

Facsimile: (512) 495-6399

Darin W. Snyder (Pro Hac Vice)

dsnyder@omm.com

Luann L Simmons (Pro Hac Vice)

lsimmons@omm.com

David S. Almeling (Pro Hac Vice)

dalmeling@omm.com

Mark Liang (Pro Hac Vice)

mliang@omm.com

Amy K. Liang (Pro Hac Vice)

aliang@omm.com

Daniel Silverman (Pro Hac Vice)

dsilverman@omm.com

O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP

Two Embarcadero Center

28th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94111-3823

Telephone: 415-984-8700

Facsimile: 415-984-8701

Attorneys for Defendant Google LLC

Case 1:20-cv-00342-ADA Document 42 Filed 10/23/19 Page 14 of 15
GOOGLE’S MOT. FOR TRANSFER -12- 6:19-cv-00355-ADA

TO NDCA OR AUSTIN

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule CV-5, I hereby certify 

that, on October 23, 2019, all counsel of record who have appeared in this case are being served 

with a copy of the foregoing via the Court’s CM/ECF system.

/s/ Paige Arnette Amstuz

Paige Arnette Amstutz

Case 1:20-cv-00342-ADA Document 42 Filed 10/23/19 Page 15 of 15