IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS, LLC D/B/A

BRAZOS LICENSING AND 

DEVELOPMENT,

Plaintiff,

v.

DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC., DELL 

INC., AND EMC CORPORATION,

Defendants.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00473-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00474-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00475-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00476-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00477-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00478-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00479-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00480-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00481-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00482-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00485-ADA

CIVIL ACTION 6:20-CV-00486-ADA

PATENT CASE

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

RESPONSE OPPOSING MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE1

1 WSOU is filing a common response opposing twelve motions to transfer filed by Defendants. To 

reduce the volume of filings, WSOU is filing its exhibits only in Case 6:20-CV-00473-ADA. Cites 

to WSOU’s declarations and exhibits within this response refer to the exhibits attached to the 

response filed in Case 6:20-CV-00473-ADA. 

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 51 Filed 11/18/20 Page 1 of 14
Dell Technologies Inc., Dell Inc., and EMC Corporation (“Defendants”) filed twelve nearly 

identical motions asking for a transfer from the Waco Division, where Plaintiff WSOU 

Investments, LLC doing business as Brazos Licensing and Development (“WSOU”) is 

headquartered, to the Austin Division. This Court has yet to determine a motion to transfer venue 

where the plaintiff not only resides and conducts business in the Western District of Texas but 

does so in the Waco Division.2 Because these twelve actions are all significantly connected to the 

Waco Division and the Austin Division is not a clearly more convenient forum, the Court should 

deny Defendants’ intra-district transfer.

INTRODUCTION

Defendants rely heavily on the fact that this Court has transferred another patent case 

between Dell and another plaintiff to the Austin Division. Mot. at 6 (citing Datascape Ltd. v. Dell 

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

the facts in Datascape are markedly different from this case: (1) the plaintiff had no presence in 

the Waco Division; (2) the declaration Dell relied on identified eleven specific Dell witnesses 

located in the Austin Division; and (3) Dell unequivocally testified that technical and financial 

documents relating to the accused products were “located in” the Austin Division (and other 

locations). See Richins Decl., Ex. 33 (“England Declaration”) ¶¶ 5-7. Here, in contrast: (1) WSOU 

is headquartered in Waco; (2) most of Defendants’ motions fail to identify even a single witness 

in the Austin Division;

4 and (3) Defendants fail to disclose where their documents are located. In 

some cases, Defendants admit they have no documents in the Austin Division. See Richins Decl., 

Ex. 1 (“Nagle Declarations”5

) ¶¶ 8-9 of -480, -481, -485, -486; Richins Decl., Ex. 2 (“Crantz 

2 The issue is raised in motions pending before this Court filed by Microsoft, but those motions 

are still pending.

3 Cites to WSOU’s declarations and exhibits within this response refer to the exhibits attached to

the response filed in Case 6:20-CV-00473-ADA. 4 In eight of their twelve motions, Defendants fail to identify a single witness in the Austin 

Division. See Richins Decl., Ex. 2 (“Crantz Declarations”) ¶¶ 6-7 of -473 through -478, -481, -

486. In three of their motions, Defendants identify only one party witness in the Austin Division. 

See Crantz Decl. (-479, -480, -481, -482, -486) ¶¶ 6-7.

5 Defendants filed a declaration of Mark Nagle in support of four of their motions. The four Nagle 

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 51 Filed 11/18/20 Page 2 of 14
2

Declarations”6) ¶¶ 6-7 (in -480, -481, -485, -486). In others, Defendants claim they “manage” 

financial documents in Austin but fail to disclose where the documents are “stored.” See Crantz 

Decl. ¶¶ 6-7 (in -473 through -479, -482).

BACKGROUND

A. WSOU is headquartered in Waco and invested in the Waco community.

WSOU is a Waco-based company that leverages its proprietary technology and 

management experience to help inventors and patent owners maximize the full potential of their 

patents. Hogan Decl. ¶ 1. Not only does WSOU operate out of downtown Waco (WSOU’s 

principal place of business), less than two blocks from the Waco Division Courthouse, WSOU has 

established deep roots within the Waco community. Id. WSOU chose Waco as its headquarters 

because it was attracted to the burgeoning tech business in Waco, with Baylor acting as the anchor. 

Id. ¶ 3. WSOU’s sources of proof are kept in Waco. Id. Notably, WSOU has no offices, no

documents, nor any employees in Austin. Id.

WSOU’s Managing Director of Business Development, Matt Hogan, resides and works in 

Waco. Id. ¶2. Before working with WSOU, Mr. Hogan spent 7 years on Wall Street and then was 

the founding CEO of a company that pioneered consumer data control. WSOU considered Mr. 

Hogan a good fit for its Headquarters in Waco in part because of his close ties to the Waco 

community, including family members who are Baylor alumni.

WSOU has already engaged in hiring students from Baylor University to support its 

business and currently utilizes a local business to maintain its servers. Hogan Decl. ¶¶ 4-5. Before 

COVID-19 delayed its efforts, WSOU was working to start a local tech meetup in Waco. With 

Startup Waco7 recently re-opening on a limited basis, WSOU has already resumed its collaborative 

Declarations are combined in this response as Richins Decl., Ex. 1. They are cited in this response 

as “Nagle Decl.” 6 Defendants filed a declaration of Kellie Crantz in each of their twelve motions. The twelve Crantz 

Declarations are combined in this response as Richins Decl., Ex. 2. They are cited within this 

response as “Crantz Decl.”

7 Startup Waco is in downtown Waco and is a place for designers, developers, entrepreneurs, and 

others interested in the Waco startup community to connect. See 

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 51 Filed 11/18/20 Page 3 of 14
3

efforts in the community. Id. WSOU is also working with the Baylor Law IP clinic to offer a 

quarterly webinarseriesfor Baylor law students. Id. WSOU has had ongoing email correspondence 

with Waco Ventures, a group that manages outside-facing dealings for the Baylor Transfer 

Technology Office. Id. ¶ 6. WSOU has job postings in Waco LPA, Startup Waco, and Waco 

TXjobs and is in the search process to hire several Baylor students. Id. In establishing its Waco 

headquarters, WSOU has purchased servicesfrom several local Waco companies.Id. Thisincludes, 

for example, an approximately $80,000 renovation project by a local construction company. Id.

WSOU will disclose Mr. Hogan as a person with knowledge relevant to these cases and, 

as necessary, will designate him as a deposition or trial witness for WSOU. In addition to Mr. 

Hogan, WSOU has hired a full-time in-house attorney with case management responsibilities. She 

works at WSOU’s office in Waco.

Defendants’ motion falsely claims that “WSOU hired Aqua Licensing, A San Francisco, 

California company, to sell” its patents. Mot. at 3. The press release Defendants cite in support of 

this false assertion clearly shows that Nokia, not WSOU, hired Aqua Licensing to manage the sale 

of a portfolio of Nokia patents. See -474 Mot., Ex. 7 (including statements from the “head of Patent 

Business at Nokia” and the “Managing Director of AQUA Licensing” that they were pleased to be 

working together). 

B. Summary of Defendants’ declarations.

In each of the Crantz Declarations, Defendants’ identify alleged party witnesses in 

paragraphs 6 or 7. See Richins Decl., Ex. 2. The tables below summarize the testimony in 

Defendants’ Declarations.

Case Location of Defendants party witnesses Alleged 

Witnesses in 

Austin Division

Alleged 

Documents in 

Austin Division

480 “[T]he majority of the VMware 

employees identified thus far having 

technical responsibilities relating to the 

Accused Products are located in Palo 

Alto.” Nagle Decl. ¶ 8.

0 0

https://members.startupwaco.com/.

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 51 Filed 11/18/20 Page 4 of 14
4

481 Same. See Nagle Decl. ¶ 8. 0 0

485 Same. See Nagle Decl. ¶ 8. 0 0

486 Same. See Nagle Decl. ¶ 8. 0 0

See Richins Decl., Ex. 1.

Summary of Crantz Declarations

Case Number of 

Alleged 

Witnesses in 

Austin Division

Alleged Financial Documents

“stored” or “located” in Austin

Division

Alleged 

Technical

Documents in 

Austin Division

473 0 None. Paragraph 6 alleges financial 

documents “managed in” Austin. None

474 0 None. Paragraph 6 alleges financial 

documents “managed in” Austin. None

475 0 None. Paragraph 6 alleges financial 

documents “managed in” Austin. None

476 0 None. Paragraph 6 alleges financial 

documents “managed in” Austin. None

477 0 None. Paragraph 6 alleges financial 

documents “managed in” Austin. None

478 0 None. Paragraph 6 alleges financial 

documents “managed in” Austin. None

479 1 None. Paragraph 6 alleges financial 

documents “managed in” Austin. None

480 1 None None

481 0 None None

482 2 None. Paragraph 6 alleges financial 

documents “managed in” Austin. None

485 1 None None

486 0 None None

See Richins Decl., Ex. 2.

Importantly, a court should “adjudicate motions for transfer according to an individualized, 

case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.” See Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 51 Filed 11/18/20 Page 5 of 14
5

487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988) (emphasis added). Considering the tables above on a case-by-case basis, it 

is readily apparent that each of Defendants’ motions fails to show the Austin Division is 

significantly more convenient than the Waco Division.

C. Defendants’ twelve motions fall into four categories.

Based on the evidence presented in Defendants’ declarations, Defendants’ twelve motions 

fall into four categories: (1) motions that identify zero potential witnesses (party or otherwise) in 

the Austin Division and zero relevant documents in the Austin Division (-481 and -486)8; (2)

motions that identify only one potential party witnessfor Defendants alleged in the Austin Division 

and zero documents in the Austin Division (-480 and -485 cases)9; (3) motions that identify zero

potential witnesses in the Austin Division and zero technical documents in the Austin Division, 

but claim financial documents are “managed” in the Austin Division (-473, -474, -475, -476, -477, 

and -478)10; and (4) motions that identify one or two potential party witnesses of Defendants 

allegedly in the Austin Division, identify zero technical documents in the Austin Division, but 

claim financial documents are “managed” in the Austin Division (-479 and -482).

In the category three and category four motions (-473 through -479 and -482), Defendants’ 

testimony that financial documents are “managed” in Austin is based “where needed” on hearsay. 

See Crantz Decl. ¶ 6 (basing her purported knowledge that documents are managed in Austin on 

“review of records available to me, and (where needed) after conferring with colleagues with 

access to additional records”). 

In all twelve motions, Defendants: (a) admit WSOU has a party witness in the Waco 

Division and none in the Austin Division; and (b) identify zero willing non-party witnesses and 

zero non-party witnesses in the Austin Division. See (Respective) Mot. at 7-8. The only potential 

8 See -481 and -486 Mot. at 7-8 (admitting Defendants’ witnesses are not in Texas); -481 Nagle 

Decl. ¶¶ 8-9 (admitting Defendants’ witnesses and documents are not in Texas); -486 Nagle Decl. 

¶¶ 8-9 (same); -481 Crantz Decl. ¶¶ 5-6 (identifying no documents or witnesses in Texas); -486 

Crantz Decl. ¶¶ 5-6 (same). 

9 See -480 and -485 Mot. at 7-8; -480 and -485 Crantz Decl. ¶¶ 5-6; -480 and -485 Nagle Decl. 

¶¶8-9.

10 See Respective Motions at 7-8; Respective Crantz Declarations ¶¶ 6-7.

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 51 Filed 11/18/20 Page 6 of 14
6

non-party witness identified by Defendants who is in Texas is allegedly in Fort Worth. See -476 

Mot. at 8. Every other potential non-party witness identified by Defendants is allegedly outside of 

Texas. See Mot. at 7-8.

LEGAL STANDARD

The party seeking transfer must show good cause, demonstrating that the transferee venue 

is “clearly more convenient.” In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 315 (5th Cir. 2008) 

(en banc) (emphasis added). A plaintiff’s choice of venue is not a distinct factor in the venue 

transfer analysis but is “taken into account as it places a significant burden on the movant to show 

good cause for the transfer.” Id. at 314 n.10 (emphasis added). When deciding whether to transfer 

venue, a district court balances the private interests of the parties and the public interests in the fair 

and efficient administration of justice. Id. A court should “adjudicate motions for transfer 

according to an individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.” See 

Stewart Org., 487 U.S. at 29 (emphasis added). 

ARGUMENT

Defendants fail to satisfy their significant burden of proving the Austin Division is clearly 

more convenient than the Waco Division. 

A. The private interest factors do not favor transfer.

1. Ease of access to sources of proof weighs against transfer.

a. Ease of Access: Category One Motions (-481 and -486)

Ease of access to sources of proof weighs heavily against Defendants’ Category One 

motions because WSOU’s documents are in the Waco Division (Hogan Decl. ¶ 7) and Defendants 

documents are in California, not the Austin Division. See Nagle Decl. ¶¶ 8-9; -481 Mot. at 6 

(“Defendants’ relevant evidence and witnesses are most likely located in Palo Alto, California[.]”); 

-486 Mot. at 6 (same). There is no merit to Defendants’ contention that WSOU’s documents should 

be ignored if they were not created in Waco and/or were not always stored in Waco. Noticeably, 

Defendants cite no authority for this proposition. As this Court is aware, what matters is “the 

location of documents.” WSOU’s documents are stored in Waco and have been since before this 

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 51 Filed 11/18/20 Page 7 of 14
7

litigation began. Hogan Decl. ¶ 7. 

Defendants’ speculation that Aqua Licensing might have relevant documents in California 

is irrelevant to the transfer analysis. See In re Toyota Motor Corp., 747 F.3d 1338, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 

2014) (“the comparison between the transferor and transferee forums is not altered by the presence 

of other witnesses and documents in places outside both forums.”). WSOU’s documents are in this 

Division. This fact weighs heavily against transfer given Defendants’ admission that their 

documents are not in the Austin Division.

b. Ease of Access: Category Two Motions (-480 and -485)

Ease of access to sources of proof weighs heavily against Defendants’ Category Two 

motions for the same reason it weighs against granting the Category One motions. Defendants’ 

Category Two motions admit Defendants’ documents are not in the Austin Division. See -480 Mot. 

at 6; -485 Mot. at 6. 

c. Ease of Access: Category Three Motions (-473 through -478)

Ease of access to sources of proof weighs against Defendants’ Category Three motions. 

First, WSOU’s documents are in Waco. Defendants’ arguments attempting to ignore WSOU’s 

documents fail for the same reasons they fail in Defendants’ Category One motions.

Second, Defendants offer no evidence in their Category Three motions concerning the 

location of Defendants’ technical documents. See (Respective) Crantz Dec. ¶¶ 6-7 (remaining 

silent concerning technical documents).

Third, no weight should be given to Defendants’ declaration statement, based on hearsay, 

that financial documents are “managed in” the Austin Division. See id. Courts look to where 

documentary evidence “is stored.” See Moskowitz Family LLC. v. Globus Med., Inc., 6:19-CV00672-ADA, 2020 WL 4577710, at *2 (W.D. Tex. July 2, 2020) (“a court looks to where 

documentary evidence, such as documents and physical evidence, is stored.”). They do not look 

to where it is “accessed” or “managed” through modern technology.11 Defendants’ carefully 

11 See In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d at 316. In Volkswagen, the Fifth Circuit rejected the 

notion that advances in “information storage” made the location of documents superfluous. Id.

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 51 Filed 11/18/20 Page 8 of 14
8

worded testimony that documents are “managed in” the Austin Division suggests Defendants are 

only disclosing where relevant documents are “accessed” to avoid disclosing where they are 

“stored.” Notably, Dell did not use such carefully crafted and obscure language in Datascape.

12

Dell’s declaration in Datascape not only shows that Defendants’ know how to use more 

straightforward language but suggests there is a strong possibility Defendants’ documents are 

stored outside the Austin Division.13 Regardless, Defendants’ declaration openly admits its claim 

that documents are “managed” in Austin may be based on hearsay. Crantz Decl. ¶ 6 (“after 

conferring with colleagues with access to additional records . . . I also understand that financial, 

sales, and marketing relating to the Accused Products are managed in Austin / Round Rock, 

Texas.”). WSOU requests that this Court strike these portions of the Crantz Declarations based on 

hearsay. See Richins Decl., Ex. 2 (highlighting, inter alia, where testimony is based on out of court 

statements of unidentified “colleagues” the declarant “confer[ed]” with). 

Fourth, even if this Court gives weight to Defendants’ claim that financial documents are 

“managed” in Austin, this factor cannot support the Category Three motions (where Defendants 

fail to identify a single witness in the Austin Division). WSOU has both documents and a witness 

in Waco. Transferring because Defendants claim to “manage” documents in Austin would merely 

shift conveniences. X Techs., Inc. v. Marvin Test Sys., Inc., CIV.A.SA-10-CV-319-X, 2010 WL 

2303371, at *6 (W.D. Tex. June 7, 2010) (“The party moving to transfer must persuade the Court 

that transfer would signify more than shifting inconvenience from one party to another”).

Finally, Defendants’ Category Three motions attempt to conflate “access to sources of 

proof” with factors that weigh witness location. See e.g., -473 Mot. at 6. These factors should not 

Instead, it gave weight to where documents were “located” (not where they were accessible 

through “information storage” technology). Id.

12 There, Dell’s declarant testified: “Dell’s business records confirm that Dell’s engineering, sales, 

and financial documents relating to its Data Domain and RecoverPoint products are primarily 

located in Round Rock and Austin, Texas [and other locations].” See Richins Decl., Ex. 3 ¶ 7 

(copy of declaration considered in Datascape) (emphasis added).

13 In Datascape, Dell admitted many of its relevant documents were located out of state. Richins 

Dec., Ex. 3 ¶ 7 (admitting relevant engineering, sales, and financial documents were “located” not 

only in Austin but in California, Massachusetts, North Carolina, India, China and Israel).

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 51 Filed 11/18/20 Page 9 of 14
9

be conflated. In re Apple, --- F.3d --- (Fed. Cir. 2020), 2020 WL 6554063, at *4 (“The district 

court legally erred in considering witnesses as “sources of proof” for purposes of the first private 

interest factor.”). Even if they are, conflating them does not help Defendants because WSOU 

identifies a party witness in Waco whereas Defendants’ Category Three motions fail to identify 

any party witness in Austin. See (Respective) Mot. at 7-8; (Respective) Crantz Decl. ¶¶ 6-7. 

d. Ease of Access: Category Four Motions (-479 and -482)

Ease of access weighs against the Category Four motions for the same reasons it weighs 

against the Category Three motions. The only difference is that Defendants’ Category Four

motions identify one or two potential party witnesses in the Austin Division. No weight should be 

given to these potential witnesses as “sources of proof.” See In re Apple, 2020 WL 6554063, at *4.

2. Defendants fail to prove the availability of compulsory process favors transfer.

Defendants admit the availability of compulsory process does not weigh in favor of 

transfer. See (Respective) Mot. at 5.

3. The cost of attendance for willing witnesses does not favor transfer.

a. Willing Witnesses: Category One (-481 and -486) and Category Three (-473

through -478)

The convenience of willing witnesses weighs heavily against granting the Category One 

and Category Three motions. The Category One and Category Three motions do not claim any 

witnesses are in the Austin Division. Defendants’ Category One motions admit their party

witnesses and potential non-party witnesses are outside Texas. See Nagle Decl. ¶¶ 8-9; -481 and -

486 Mot. at 7-9. Likewise, Defendants’ Category Three motions identify only out-of-state party 

and non-party witnesses. See -473 through -478 Crantz Decl. ¶¶ 6-7.

The potential out-of-state witnesses (both party and non-party) identified by Defendants 

should be given no weight because this Court has found “the Austin and Waco Divisions are 

equally convenient for out-of-state witnesses.” VLSI Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp., 6:19-CV-00254-

ADA, 2019 WL 8013949, at *5 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 7, 2019); see also In re Apple, 2020 WL 6554063 

*6 (reasoning travel from New York to California is only “slightly more” inconvenient than travel 

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 51 Filed 11/18/20 Page 10 of 14
10

from New York to Texas).The non-party out-of-state witnesses Defendants identify should also be 

given no weight under the “willing witnesses” factor because Defendants offer no evidence that 

they are willing witnesses. See Peteski Prods., Inc. v. Rothman, No. 5:17-CV-00122-JRG, 2017

WL 8943154, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 13, 2017) (refusing to consider a consultant, non-party witness 

a willing witness absent indication he was willing or otherwise a party witnesses, such as an 

employee). Defendants’ allegations about the location of inventors should be given little weight 

because Defendants’ simply assume the inventors have not moved since the patents issued. And 

Defendants’ Google Flight printouts should be given no weight because, in addition to the fact that 

this Court has already recognized Austin and Waco are equally convenient for out-of-state 

witnesses, Defendants forgot to look at flights to Dallas.

b. Willing Witnesses: Category Two (-480 and -485) and Category Four (-479 

and -482)

This factor weighs against Defendants’ Category Two and Category Four motions for the 

same reasons it weighs against Defendants’ Category One motions. The only difference is that the

-480, -485, and -479 motions each identify one potential party witness allegedly in Austin and the 

-482 motion identifies two. But this Court gives little weight to party witnesses. VLSI Tech., 2019 

WL 8013949, at *5. And transferring a case because Defendants have one or two potential party 

witness would merely shift convenience. X Techs., 2010 WL 2303371, at *6 (“The party moving 

to transfer must persuade the Court that transfer would signify more than shifting inconvenience 

from one party to another”). Moreover, Defendants’ convenience argument should carry little, if 

any, weight because Defendants’ headquarters in Round Rock is less than 100 miles from this 

Court. See In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

4. Other practical problems weigh against transfer. 

This factor weighs against transfer because the Waco Division is simply a less congested

venue than the Austin Division.

14 Additionally, the Austin Division has a higher number of 

14 See https://www.txwd.uscourts.gov/wpcontent/uploads/District%20Statistics/2019/Fiscal%20Year%20Statistics%20-

%202019.pdf

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 51 Filed 11/18/20 Page 11 of 14
11

criminal cases, which impacts civil trial settings. Id. Thus, a transfer in this case to a forum with a 

higher level of case congestion is an act against judicial economy.

B. The public interest factors do not favor transfer.

1. Difficulties flowing from court congestion weigh heavily against transfer.

The administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion in Austin, which has one of 

the highest caseloads per judge in the country, weighs heavily against transfer. The relevant inquiry 

under this factor is “[t]he speed with which a case can come to trial and be resolved[.]” In re 

Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d at 1347. This Court recently pointed out that court congestion in the 

Austin Division is so high that it distorts the overall WDTX time-to-trial, which “is not 

representative of the time-to-trial in the Waco Division.” Solas OLED Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 6:19-CV00537-ADA, 2020 WL 3440956, at *7 (W.D. Tex. June 23, 2020) (“Since the Austin Division has 

one of the highest caseloads per judge in the country, the overall WDTX time-to-trial is not 

representative of the time-to-trial in the Waco Division which has a patent-specific Order 

Governing Proceedings (‘OGP’).”) (emphasis added). The Austin Division not only has one of the 

highest caseloads per judge in the country, but it does not have an OGP or the familiarity with 

patent procedures that this Court has. Id. (acknowledging the Austin Division has “one of the 

highest caseloads per judge in the country”).

These cases differ from several cases where this Court transferred cases to Austin because: 

(1) WSOU’s principal place of business is Waco and WSOU has no offices in Austin; and (2) 

given recent changes in the District, a transfer to Austin will deprive the parties of this Court’s 

experience with patent cases and its OGP. See, e.g., Voxer, Inc., 2020 WL 3416012, at *7 (stating 

Voxer has no significant presence in the Waco Division). 

2. The local interest in having localized interests decided weighs against transfer. 

This factor regards not merely the parties’ significant connections to each forum writ large, 

but rather the “significant connections between a particular venue and the events that gave rise to 

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 51 Filed 11/18/20 Page 12 of 14
12

a suit.” See In re Acer, 626 F.3d at 1256. Defendants claim Dell has “more than 14,000 people” in 

and around Austin but do not claim a significant connection between the Austin Division and the 

events that gave rise to these suits. In eight of these twelve cases (the Category One and Category 

Four cases), Defendants do not allege these cases involve the work done by any Dell employees 

in the Austin Division. Defendants do not claim they designed or created any of the accused 

products in Austin.

Dell’s contention that Waco has no local interest in these cases is false. WSOU is a 

company headquartered in downtown Waco and has strong ties to Waco. Hogan Decl. ¶¶ 1-6. 

Further, these cases involve the work and reputation of WSOU’s employees in Waco. Therefore, 

Waco has a significant localized interest in the deciding this case, and this factor weighs against 

transfer. 

3. Familiarity with the forum.

Familiarity with the forum weighs against transfer because this Court has familiarity with 

patent laws and patent specific rules. Unlike the Waco Division, Austin Division does not have 

standing orders specific to patent law nor specialized patent procedures. 

CONCLUSION

Because Defendants have not met their “substantial burden” in showing that a transfer to 

the Austin Division is “clearly more convenient,” their Motions should be denied.

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 51 Filed 11/18/20 Page 13 of 14
13

Dated: November 18, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Travis Lee Richins

James L. Etheridge

Texas State Bar No. 24059147

Ryan S. Loveless

Texas State Bar No. 24036997

Brett A. Mangrum

Texas State Bar No. 24065671

Travis Lee Richins

Texas State Bar No. 24061296

ETHERIDGE LAW GROUP, PLLC

2600 E. Southlake Blvd., Suite 120 / 324

Southlake, Texas 76092

Telephone: (817) 470-7249

Facsimile: (817) 887-5950

Jim@EtheridgeLaw.com

Ryan@EtheridgeLaw.com

Brett@EtheridgeLaw.com

Travis@EtheridgeLaw.com

Mark D. Siegmund

State Bar No. 24117055

mark@waltfairpllc.com

Law Firm of Walt, Fair PLLC.

1508 North Valley Mills Drive

Waco, Texas 76710

Telephone: (254) 772-6400

Facsimile: (254) 772-6432

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on November 18, 2020 the foregoing document was served upon all counsel 

of record via the court’s electronic filing system in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure.

/s/ Travis Lee Richins

Tavis Richins

Case 6:20-cv-00476-ADA Document 51 Filed 11/18/20 Page 14 of 14