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

JURY TRIAL REQUESTED

DEFENDANT’S OPPOSED MOTION FOR INTRA-DISTRICT TRANSFER OF VENUE 

TO THE AUSTIN DIVISION OF THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Case 6:20-cv-00203-ADA Document 30 Filed 09/08/20 Page 1 of 15
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 1

FACTUAL BACKGROUND......................................................................................................... 1

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

ARGUMENT.................................................................................................................................. 4

I. THE AUSTIN DIVISION IS A PROPER VENUE AND IS CLEARLY MORE CONVENIENT 

THAN THE WACO DIVISION...........................................................................................................4

A. This Case Could Have Been Originally Filed in the Austin Division. ............................................4

B. § 1404(a) Factors Demonstrate that Austin Is Clearly the More Convenient Venue. .....................5

1. Relative Ease of Access to Sources of Proof.............................................................................5

2. Availability of Compulsory Process to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses...........................7

3. Cost of Attendance For Willing Witnesses...............................................................................7

4. All Other Practical Problems That Make Trial of a Case Easy, Expeditious, and Inexpensive 8

5. Administrative Difficulties Flowing From Court Congestion...................................................9

6. Local Interest in Having Localized Interests Decided at Home ................................................9

7. Familiarity of the Venue With the Law That Will Govern the Case.......................................10

8. Avoidance of Unnecessary Problems of Conflict of Laws or in the Application of Foreign 

Law..........................................................................................................................................10

CONCLUSION............................................................................................................................. 10

Case 6:20-cv-00203-ADA Document 30 Filed 09/08/20 Page 2 of 15
ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

Cases

Action Indus., Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co.,

358 F.3d 337 (5th Cir. 2004).................................................................................................................. 6

Auto-Dril, Inc. v. Pason Sys. USA Corp.,

6:15-CV-00093, 2015 WL 12780779 (W.D. Tex. June 29, 2015)....................................................... 10

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

No. 19-CV-00129-ADA, 2019 WL 4254069 (W.D. Tex. June 7, 2019)..................................... 4, 7, 13

In re Genentech, Inc.,

566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009)........................................................................................................ 9, 10

Hammond Development Int’l, Inc., v. Amazon.com Inc., et al.,

No. 6:19-CV-00355-ADA, ECF No. 65 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2020)............................................ passim

Healthpoint, Ltd. v. Derma Scis., Inc.,

939 F. Supp. 2d 680 (W.D. Tex. 2013)................................................................................................ 10

Mimedx Group, Inc. v. Texas Human Biologics, Ltd.,

No. 14-CV-464, 2014 WL 12479284 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 12, 2014)............................................. 8, 11, 13

Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno,

454 U.S. 235 (1981) ............................................................................................................................... 7

In re Radmax, Ltd.,

720 F.3d 285 (5th Cir 2013)..................................................................................................... 6, 7, 8, 12

Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp.,

487 U.S. 22 (1988) ................................................................................................................................. 6

Van Dusen v. Barrack,

376 U.S. 612 (1964) ............................................................................................................................... 6

In re Volkswagen of Am. Inc.,

545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008).............................................................................................................. 6, 8

In re Volkswagen AG,

371 F.3d 201, 203 (5th Cir. 2004).......................................................................................................... 7

Statutes

28 U.S.C. §1404(a) .............................................................................................................................. passim

Case 6:20-cv-00203-ADA Document 30 Filed 09/08/20 Page 3 of 15
1

Defendant Lightspeed Solutions, Inc. (“Lightspeed”) seeks an intra-district transfer to the 

Austin Division under 28 U.S.C. §1404(a), but requests that this Court maintain the case on its 

docket.1 This case has no relevant connections to the Waco Division, and the Austin Division is 

a more convenient venue for both parties. 

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Kajeet, Inc. (“Kajeet”) filed this case in the wrong division. Although it has filed 

this case in the Waco Division, Kajeet alleges no presence or business location in the Waco 

Division. Indeed, Kajeet alleges that it is headquartered in McLean, Virginia and has regional 

offices in Austin and Dallas. 

Lightspeed’s principal place of business and headquarters are in Austin—less than three 

(3) miles from the U.S. Courthouse there. The legacy and backup versions of the source code 

related to Lightspeed’s Accused Products, including prior art systems, are stored on servers in 

Austin. The relevant documents to this case are located in Austin and the overwhelming majority 

of the relevant Lightspeed witnesses are located in Austin (while none are in the Waco Division). 

Like Kajeet, Lightspeed has no offices or employees working in the Waco Division. Furthermore, 

Kajeet contends that it conducts business and competes with Lightspeed within the Austin 

Division. Compl. at ¶ 7 (alleging that Kajeet competes with Lightspeed via its equipping of buses 

belonging to the Austin Independent School). This Court should follow its Datascape decision 

and transfer this matter to the Austin Division, which is clearly the more convenient venue. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Kajeet alleges that Lightspeed infringes its patented technology regarding “control 

 1 On August 7, 2020, Lightspeed requested whether Kajeet would agree to an intra-district transfer 

for the reasons stated in this Motion and provided a copy of the Court’s Datascape decision. Kajeet 

rejected the request, which necessitated Lightspeed to file this opposed Motion. 

Case 6:20-cv-00203-ADA Document 30 Filed 09/08/20 Page 4 of 15
2

schemes implemented on communication devices.” Compl. at ¶¶ 12, 46. Kajeet chose to file its 

complaint in Waco, alleging proper venue based on Lightspeed’s sufficient minimum contacts to 

the Western District of Texas. Id. at ¶ 5. However, Kajeet has failed to plead that either party has 

relevant connections in the Waco Division itself. 

Indeed, neither party has any relevant connection to the Waco Division. Kajeet is 

organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, and its principal place of business is in McLean, 

Virginia. Id. at ¶ 1. Kajeet has not alleged any business in or contacts with Waco, but does claim 

to do business with the Austin Independent School District. Id. at ¶ 7. 

Lightspeed is organized under the laws of California, and its headquarters is in Austin, 

Texas. Id. at ¶ 2. Lightspeed has been located in Austin since 2014, and its headquarters have 

been in Austin since 2016. Ex. A (Chambers Decl.) at ¶ 3. Besides its headquarters, Lightspeed 

maintains an additional office in Austin—its only other office in Texas. Id. at ¶ 4. Lightspeed 

does not have any offices within the Waco Division. Lightspeed’s engineering, sales, marketing, 

and financial documents related to the research, design, development, marketing, and sales of the 

Accused Products are located in Austin, and all company-owned servers on which such documents 

are stored are also located in Austin. Id. at ¶ 9. Moreover, all legacy versions of such code and 

all back-ups of such code are stored on servers located in Austin. Id. at ¶ 10. Lightspeed has 

approximately eighty (80) employees in Austin, including employees with responsibilities related 

to the Accused Products. Id. at ¶ 4. Lightspeed’s executive officers with the most relevant 

knowledge to the accused products are all, save for one exception,2 located in Austin. Id. at ¶ 7. 

Lightspeed conducts business in Austin, but does not have any business, offices, or employees 

working in the Waco Division. Id. at ¶ 6. 

 2 The exception is one executive officer who lives and works in Portland, Oregon. Ex. A 

(Chambers Decl.) at ¶ 7. 

Case 6:20-cv-00203-ADA Document 30 Filed 09/08/20 Page 5 of 15
3

In sum, Kajeet has failed to allege facts that show that either party has relevant ties to the 

Waco Division. Instead, the facts unequivocally show that the Austin Division is clearly the more 

convenient venue for both parties. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) provides that, “for the convenience of parties and witnesses, 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.” Hammond Dev. Int’l, 

Inc., v. Amazon.com Inc., et al., No. 6:19-CV-00355-ADA, ECF No. 65, at 2 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 

2020) (Albright, J.). In Radmax, the Fifth Circuit confirmed that § 1404(a) applies to both transfers 

between districts as well as transfers between divisions within the same district. In re Radmax, 

Ltd., 720 F.3d 285, 288 (5th Cir 2013) (“The § 1404(a) factors apply as much to transfers 

between divisions of the same district as to transfers from one district to another.”) (emphasis 

added). 

“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)). Under § 1404(a), the first step to determine whether transfer 

is appropriate is to 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, in the Fifth 

Circuit, the determination of ‘convenience’ turns on a number of public and private interest factors,

none of which can be said to be of dispositive weight.” Hammond, No. 6:19-CV-00355-ADA, 

ECF No. 65, at 2 (quoting Action Indus., Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 358 F.3d 337, 340 (5th Cir. 

2004)) (internal quotations omitted). 

Case 6:20-cv-00203-ADA Document 30 Filed 09/08/20 Page 6 of 15
4

The § 1404(a) private factors include: “(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 AG, 371 F.3d 201, 203 (5th Cir. 2004) (citing 

Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 241 n.6 (1981)). The public factors include: “(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 [or in] the application of foreign 

law.” Id. When the factors strongly weigh in favor of the transferee forum, the transferee forum 

is “clearly more convenient” than the plaintiff’s chosen forum, and the court must order transfer. 

Radmax, 720 F.3d at 290 (finding the transferee court to be “clearly more convenient” when three 

factors pointed toward transfer and five were neutral); Hammond, No. 6:19-CV-00355-ADA, ECF 

No. 65, at 11 (ordering transfer where three factors pointed toward transfer and the rest were 

neutral). 

Since the Austin Division is a proper venue, and since all factors either point toward Austin 

or are neutral, transfer is required. See, e.g., Datascape, Ltd. v. Dell Techs., Inc., No. 19-CV00129-ADA, 2019 WL 4254069 (W.D. Tex. June 7, 2019) (Albright, J.) (applying Radmax and 

granting transfer from the Waco Division to the Austin Division). 

ARGUMENT

I. THE AUSTIN DIVISION IS A PROPER VENUE AND IS CLEARLY MORE 

CONVENIENT THAN THE WACO DIVISION. 

A. This Case Could Have Been Originally Filed in the Austin Division.

Under § 1404(a), the first inquiry is whether the action could have been brought in the 

Austin Division. Lightspeed’s principal place of business and headquarters is in Austin. 

Case 6:20-cv-00203-ADA Document 30 Filed 09/08/20 Page 7 of 15
5

Lightspeed regularly conducts business in Austin. Kajeet allegedly does as well. Additionally, 

neither party denies that the Western District of Texas is a proper venue. (Ans. at ¶¶ 5-8.) Because 

venue is proper in the Western District of Texas, the action could have been brought in the Austin 

Division in the first instance. See Mimedx Group, Inc. v. Texas Human Biologics, Ltd., No. 14-

CV-464, 2014 WL 12479284, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 12, 2014). Thus, the threshold inquiry under 

§ 1404(a) is satisfied. 

B. § 1404(a) Factors Demonstrate that Austin Is Clearly the More Convenient 

Venue. 

The § 1404(a) factors demonstrate that the Austin Division is clearly a more convenient 

venue than the Waco Division. Four factors (three private interest factors and one public interest 

factor) favor transfer, and the remaining factors are neutral. Thus, transfer is warranted. Radmax, 

720 F.3d at 290 (finding that three factors favoring transfer and five remaining neutral compelled 

transfer); Hammond, No. 6:19-CV-00355-ADA, ECF No. 65, at 11 (ordering transfer where three 

factors favored transfer and the remaining factors were neutral); Mimedx, 2014 WL 12479284, at 

*3 (granting motion to transfer venue where four factors favored transfer and four were neutral). 

1. Relative Ease of Access to Sources of Proof

“In considering the relative ease of access to proof, a court looks to where documentary

evidence, such as documents and physical evidence, is stored.” Hammond, No. 6:19-CV-00355-

ADA, ECF No. 65, at 4 (citing In re Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 316). Kajeet accuses “all versions 

of the Relay Platform and all versions of the Mobile Manager products and services” of infringing 

its patent. Compl. at ¶ 22. The legacy source code and backups of the source code for the software 

and products comprising the Relay Platform and Mobile Manager products and services, some of 

which qualify as relevant prior art, are stored in servers located in Austin, Texas. Ex. A (Chambers 

Decl.) at ¶ 10. The executive officers with the most knowledge related to the Accused Products 

Case 6:20-cv-00203-ADA Document 30 Filed 09/08/20 Page 8 of 15
6

are located in Austin, with the exception of one officer residing in Portland, Oregon. Id. at ¶ 7. 

Other employees with responsibilities related to the software and products comprising the Relay 

Platform and Mobile Manager products and services work at Lightspeed’s Austin offices (or are 

otherwise located outside of Texas in Portland, Oregon). Id. at ¶¶ 4 and 7-8. The engineering, 

sales, marketing, and financial documents for the Relay Platform and Mobile Manager products 

and services are all located in Austin, Texas. Id. at ¶ 9. Lightspeed is unaware of any witnesses 

or documents relevant to this case that are present in the Waco Division. Id. at ¶¶ 6, 8. In sum, 

the vast bulk, if not all, of the relevant witnesses and documents in this case for Lightspeed are 

located at Lightspeed’s headquarters or additional office in the Austin Division (or are otherwise 

located in Portland, Oregon). 

Kajeet has no operations in the Waco Division. It has regional offices in Dallas and 

Austin.3

 The six inventors on the ‘559 Patent appear to be from Maryland, New Jersey, and 

Virginia. Compl., Ex. A, p. 2. The patent was prosecuted by Woodcock Washburn LLP (id.), 

which has offices in Atlanta, Philadelphia, and Seattle.4

 Thus, it would appear that all of the 

relevant proof on Kajeet’s side resides outside of the Waco Division. 

Since the relevant sources of proof are located at Lightspeed’s Austin offices, this factor 

favors transfer. In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“In patent 

infringement cases, the bulk of the relevant evidence usually comes from the accused infringer. 

Consequently, the place where the defendant’s documents are kept weighs in favor of transfer to 

that location.” (citation omitted)) (applying Fifth Circuit law). 

 3 Kajeet “Contact,” https://www.kajeet.net/contact-us (last visited on Sept. 1, 2020). 

4 Woodcock Washburn LLP was acquired by BakerHostetler in 2014. BakerHostetler does not 

have an office in Waco. BakerHostetler, BakerHostetler and Woodcock Washburn Complete 

Strategic Combination (Jan. 2, 2014), https://www.bakerlaw.com/press/bakerhostetler-andwoodcock-washburn-completes-strategic-combination.

Case 6:20-cv-00203-ADA Document 30 Filed 09/08/20 Page 9 of 15
7

2. Availability of Compulsory Process to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses

Courts in the Western District of Texas have found this factor to be neutral “where the 

parties have not alleged that non-party witnesses are unwilling to testify.” Auto-Dril, Inc. v. Pason 

Sys. USA Corp., 6:15-CV-00093, 2015 WL 12780779, at *3 (W.D. Tex. June 29, 2015) (quoting 

Healthpoint, Ltd. v. Derma Scis., Inc., 939 F. Supp. 2d 680, 689 (W.D. Tex. 2013)). At this time, 

Lightspeed is not aware of, and Kajeet has not identified, any third party witnesses who are 

unwilling to attend trial. Thus, since there are no identified unwilling witnesses, and any such 

witness could be compelled to attend trial, this factor is at best neutral. 

3. Cost of Attendance For Willing Witnesses 

“The convenience of witnesses is the single most important factor in the transfer analysis.” 

Hammond, No. 6:19-CV-00355-ADA, ECF No. 65, at 5 (citing Genentech, 566 F.3d at 1342). As 

mentioned previously, the bulk of the evidence in a patent infringement case comes from the 

alleged infringer. Genentech, 566 F.3d at 1345. Lightspeed’s headquarters are located in Austin, 

approximately three (3) miles from the courthouse there, and the majority of relevant witnesses in 

this case work at Lightspeed’s Austin headquarters or the additional Austin office. Lightspeed is 

unaware of any witnesses located in the Waco Division. 

Transferring this action to the Austin Division would allow the witnesses to continue to 

work from the Lightspeed Austin offices and to stay at their own homes during the trial. In 

contrast, if the trial is held in the Waco Division, witnesses would be forced to work remotely, 

would be required to make the 1.5- to 2-hour drive from Austin to Waco, and would potentially be 

subject to hotel and meal expenses. By transferring this action to the Austin Division, the Court 

can avoid subjecting Lightspeed’s witnesses to these unnecessary costs.5

 5 Even for the one Lightspeed executive with potentially relevant knowledge of the Accused 

Case 6:20-cv-00203-ADA Document 30 Filed 09/08/20 Page 10 of 15
8

As for Kajeet’s witnesses and the inventors, which are likely located near its principal place 

of business in McLean, Virginia, Austin would still be a less expensive and more convenient venue 

than Waco because of the availability of direct flights to Austin. A search on Expedia reveals no 

direct flights from McLean to Waco but does reveal direct flights from McLean to Austin.6 As 

such, even Kajeet’s own witnesses, including the inventors, would be inconvenienced by the 

additional travel time required to fly or drive to Waco, compared to the option of a quicker direct

flight to Austin. As a result, for any witness requiring air travel (either Lightspeed witnesses from 

Portland, or Kajeet’s witnesses and inventors from McLean), Austin represents a clearly more 

convenient venue. 

Since the majority of witnesses are located near Lightspeed’s headquarters in Austin, and 

since flying to Austin is a less expensive and more convenient than flying to Waco, this factor 

points towards transfer. 

4. All Other Practical Problems That Make Trial of a Case Easy, Expeditious, and 

Inexpensive 

Transfer is favored under this factor when cases are at their earliest stages. Mimedx, 2014 

WL 12479284, at *2. Having been filed in late March 2020, this case is still at the earliest stages. 

Indeed, the Court has not yet entered a scheduling order. Thus, transferring to Austin would not 

 

Products outside of Austin, traveling to Austin would be significantly more convenient than 

traveling to Waco because of the availability of direct flights to Austin, but not to Waco, as 

discussed in Note 5, infra.

6 The closest airport to McLean, Virginia is Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport in 

Washington, DC. A search of various date ranges on Expedia shows the availability of nonstop 

flights to Austin. Roundtrip Flights from Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, Expedia, 

https://www.expedia.com/?pwaLob=wizard-flight-pwa (enter “McLean” in the “Leaving From” 

field and enter “Austin” in the “Going To” field). A similar Expedia search revealed no non-stop 

flights from Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport to Waco, TX. Id. (enter “McLean” in 

the “Leaving From” field and enter “Waco” in the “Going To” field). The results were similar for 

flights from Portland, Oregon (for the Lightspeed executive who lives there) to Austin and Waco. 

Id. 

Case 6:20-cv-00203-ADA Document 30 Filed 09/08/20 Page 11 of 15
9

cause any meaningful delay. Radmax, 720 F.3d at 289 (“[G]arden-variety delay associated with 

transfer is not to be taken into consideration when ruling on a § 1404(a) motion to transfer.”). As 

mentioned above, transferring to Austin would save witnesses time and expense. As such, this 

factor weighs in favor of transfer. 

5. Administrative Difficulties Flowing From Court Congestion 

Lightspeed is not aware of any administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion in 

either the Waco or Austin districts, and Kajeet has not identified any thus far. In such instances, 

this Court has routinely found this factor neutral. See, e.g., Hammond, No. 6:19-CV-00355-ADA, 

ECF No. 65, at 8. As such, this factor is neutral. 

6. Local Interest in Having Localized Interests Decided at Home 

As mentioned previously, Lightspeed is headquartered in Austin and the legacy and backup 

source code is maintained there. Lightspeed employs approximately eighty (80) people in Austin, 

and also conducts business there. Ex. A (Chambers Decl.) at ¶ 4. Kajeet claims to conduct 

business in Austin as well, and even alleges that it competes with Lightspeed for the business of 

the Austin Independent School District. (Compl. ¶ 7). Clearly, there is a substantial interest in the 

Austin Division in having this dispute resolved locally. 

Lightspeed is not aware of, and indeed Kajeet has failed to identify, any connection with 

the Waco Division such that there are localized interests in having the case decided there. Since 

both parties conduct business in Austin, and since Austin is home to Lightspeed’s headquarters, 

this factor strongly favors transfer. Hammond, No. 6:19-CV-00355-ADA, ECF No. 65, at 10 

(finding that this factor weighs in favor of transfer where defendant had offices and employees in 

Austin, and where components of the accused products were designed and developed in Austin); 

Datascape, 2019 WL 4254069, at *3 (finding the localized interest factor to strongly weigh in 

Case 6:20-cv-00203-ADA Document 30 Filed 09/08/20 Page 12 of 15
10

favor of transfer to Austin where the defendant “has relevant operations in Austin” and where 

“[t]he outcome of the instant action likely affects local Austin interests more acutely than local 

Waco interests”); Mimedx, 2014 WL 12479284, at *3 (“Defendants and their employees are local 

to the San Antonio area. The ultimate outcome of this suit likely affects local San Antonio interests 

more acutely than local Austin interests.”). 

7. Familiarity of the Venue With the Law That Will Govern the Case 

Both the Austin Division and the Waco Division are equally familiar with patent laws. 

This is particularly true where, as here, Lightspeed is requesting that this Court continue to 

administer this case on its docket after transfer to Austin. This factor is neutral. Hammond, No. 

6:19-CV-00355-ADA, ECF No. 65, at 10 (finding this factor to be neutral between Austin and 

Waco in terms of familiarity with patent law); Datascape, 2019 WL 4254069, at *1 (finding this 

factor to be neutral between the Austin and Waco divisions). 

8. Avoidance of Unnecessary Problems of Conflict of Laws or in the Application of 

Foreign Law

Both the Austin and Waco divisions of the Western District of Texas apply the same local 

rules and Fifth Circuit law. Neither division would present a conflict of law or require the 

application of foreign law. This factor is neutral. Hammond, No. 6:19-CV-00355-ADA, ECF 

No. 65, at 10 (finding this factor to be neutral between the Austin and Waco divisions); Datascape, 

2019 WL 4254069, at *1 (finding this factor to be neutral). 

CONCLUSION

This action has no connection to the Waco Division, and the Austin Division is clearly 

more convenient. The § 1404(a) factor analysis confirms this conclusion, with four factors 

favoring transfer, four factors being neutral, and no factors weighing against transfer. Thus, 

Lightspeed respectfully asks this Court to maintain the case on its docket, but transfer the action 

Case 6:20-cv-00203-ADA Document 30 Filed 09/08/20 Page 13 of 15
11

to the Austin Division, where Lightspeed is headquartered, where the relevant documents and the 

majority of witnesses are located, and where Lightspeed conducts business. 

Dated: September 8, 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 

Case 6:20-cv-00203-ADA Document 30 Filed 09/08/20 Page 14 of 15
12

State Bar No. 6317254 

saltondeeraso@beneschlaw.com

Samuel Ruggio, Pro Hac Vice

State Bar No. 6321419 

sruggio@beneschlaw.com

BENESCH FRIEDLANDER COPLAN & 

ARONOFF LLP

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 CONFERENCE

In accordance with Local Rule CV-7(i), counsel for the parties conferred on August 7 

and 10, 2020 regarding the subject matter of this motion and counsel for Plaintiff indicated 

that Plaintiff is opposed to the motion.

/s/ M. Brett Johnson

M. Brett Johnson

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that, on September 8, 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 30 Filed 09/08/20 Page 15 of 15