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., EMC CORPORATION, AND 

VMWARE, INC., 

 Defendants. 

Case No. 6:20-cv-00485-ADA 

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSED MOTION FOR INTRA-DISTRICT TRANSFER OF VENUE 

TO THE AUSTIN DIVISION OF THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Case 6:20-cv-00485-ADA Document 43 Filed 11/04/20 Page 1 of 17
i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

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

II. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 1

III. LEGAL STANDARDS ...................................................................................................... 3

IV. ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 5

A. WSOU Could Have Filed This Case in the Austin Division .................................. 5

B. The Austin Division Is Clearly More Convenient than the Waco Division ........... 5

1. Factors Clearly Favoring Transfer .............................................................. 6

2. Neutral Factors .......................................................................................... 10

V. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................. 10

Case 6:20-cv-00485-ADA Document 43 Filed 11/04/20 Page 2 of 17
ii 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

Page(s) 

Cases 

Auto-Dril, Inc. v. Nat’l Oilwell Varco, L.P., 

No. 6:15-CV-00091, 2016 WL 6909479 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 28, 2016) ........................................4 

Bascom v. Maxim Integrated Prod., Inc., 

534 F. Supp. 2d 700 (W.D. Tex. 2008)......................................................................................4 

Chase v. Andeavor Logistics, L.P., 

No. 5:18-CV-1050-DAE, 2019 WL 5847879 (W.D. Tex. July 9, 2019) ..................................4 

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

No. 6:19-CV-00129-ADA, 2019 WL 4254069 (W.D. Tex. June 7, 2019) .............4, 5, 6, 9, 10 

Gen. Elec. Capital Corp. v. Sweet Ventures, LLC, 

No. EP-09-CV-253-DB, 2009 WL 10669384 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 4, 2009) .................................4 

In re Genentech, Inc., 

566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..................................................................................................6 

In re Horseshoe Entm’t, 

337 F.3d 429 (5th Cir. 2003) .....................................................................................................4 

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

No. 1:14-CV-464-LY, 2014 WL 12479284 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 12, 2014) ..................................9 

Moskowitz Family LLC. v. Globus Med., Inc., 

No. 6:19-CV-00672-ADA, 2020 WL 4577710 (W.D. Tex. July 2, 2020) ........................6, 7, 9 

Parus Holdings Inc. v. LG Elecs. Inc., 

No. 6:19-CV-00432-ADA, 2020 WL 4905809 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 20, 2020) .............................7 

In re Volkswagen AG, 

371 F.3d 201 (5th Cir. 2004) .................................................................................................4, 9 

In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 

545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) .....................................................................................................4 

XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, LC, 

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

Statutes 

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) .....................................................................................................................3, 4 

Case 6:20-cv-00485-ADA Document 43 Filed 11/04/20 Page 3 of 17
iii 

TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS 

Abbreviation Term/Document(s) 

’309 patent U.S. Patent No. 7,636,309 

Amended 

Complaint or 

Am. Compl. 

Amended Complaint (D.I. 35) 

Dell or 

Defendants Dell Technologies Inc., Dell Inc., EMC Corporation, and VMware, Inc. 

WSOU or 

Plaintiff WSOU Investments, LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development 

 

Case 6:20-cv-00485-ADA Document 43 Filed 11/04/20 Page 4 of 17
iv 

TABLE OF EXHIBITS1

Exhibit Description 

Ex. 1 

WSOU Entity Details at Delaware Department of State, 

https://icis.corp.delaware.gov/ecorp/entitysearch/NameSearch.aspx (last accessed 

Nov. 3, 2020) 

Ex. 2 ’309 Patent Assignment Agreement, http://legacy-assignments.uspto.gov/ 

assignments/assignment-pat-44000-53.pdf (last accessed Nov. 3, 2020) 

Ex. 3 LinkedIn Profile of Stuart A. Shanus, https://www.linkedin.com/in/stuart-a-s60a7695/ (last accessed Nov. 3, 2020) 

Ex. 4 LinkedIn Profile of Craig Etchegoyen, https://www.linkedin.com/in/craigetchegoyen-aa8a07199/ (last accessed Nov. 3, 2020) 

Ex. 5 Wade and Company Contact Information, http://www.wadeandcompany.com/ 

#contact (last accessed Nov. 3, 2020) 

Ex. 6 

Aqua Licensing Press Release, https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/ 

20180207005651/en/AQUA-Licensing-to-Manage-Sale-of-Second-LargePortfolio-of-Former-Nokia-and-Alcatel-Lucent-Telecommunications-Patents (last 

accessed Nov. 3, 2020) 

Ex. 7 Brazos Licensing About, https://www.brazoslicensing.com/about (last accessed 

Nov. 3, 2020) 

Ex. 8 Excerpt from File History of ’309 Patent 

Ex. 9 Google Flights (from Newark, New Jersey) 

Ex. 10 ’309 Patent Assignment Record, https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html#/ 

patent/search/resultAbstract?id=7636309&type=patNum (last accessed Nov. 3, 

2020) 

Ex. 11 Google Flights (from San Francisco) 

Ex. 12 Google Flights (from San Jose) 

Ex. 13 Google Flights (from Los Angeles) 

Ex. 14 Google Flights (from Hawaii) 

1

 Exhibits are attached to the Declaration of Brian A. Rosenthal in Support of Defendants’ 

Opposed Motion for Intra-District Transfer of Venue to the Austin Division of the Western District 

of Texas. 

Case 6:20-cv-00485-ADA Document 43 Filed 11/04/20 Page 5 of 17
1 

Defendants seek an intra-district transfer to the Austin Division under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) 

because this case has no relevant meaningful connection to the Waco Division, the case could have 

been brought in the Austin Division and the Austin Division is clearly more convenient. 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Dell embodies the Austin / Round Rock area and is proud of its Austin roots and ties to the 

Austin / Round Rock community. Since its origins over thirty-five years ago, in a dorm room at 

the University of Texas in Austin, Dell has been headquartered in the Austin Division of the 

Western District of Texas.2

 WSOU, meanwhile, is a relatively new limited liability company, with 

only a marginal connection to Texas—Waco is listed as the principal place of business for 

WSOU’s recently created trade name “Brazos Licensing and Development.” Indeed, before this 

lawsuit, WSOU’s actions relevant to the Asserted Patent, such as its acquisition, valuation, and 

monetization attempts, occurred before WSOU established any presence in Waco, and by WSOU 

individuals who did not, and still do not, appear to live or work in Texas, much less in Waco. 

Because Austin is clearly a more convenient venue than Waco, Dell seeks an intra-district transfer 

of venue to the Austin Division. 

II. BACKGROUND 

Dell’s roots and ties to the Austin community are long-standing. Dell’s headquarters are 

in Round Rock, and Dell employs over 14,000 people in the Austin / Round Rock area. See Crantz 

Decl. ¶ 5. Dell, however, does not have any facilities in the Waco division of the Western District 

of Texas. Id. ¶ 7. Moreover, VMware has over 900 employees spread between two different 

2 Similarly, since Dell acquired Defendant EMC Corporation in 2016, its principal place of 

business has been in the Austin Division. See Am. Compl. ¶ 5. Defendant Dell Technologies Inc. 

was formed in 2016 as a result of that acquisition, and its principal place of business is also in the 

Austin Division. Id. ¶ 3. VMware was acquired by EMC Corporation in 2004. Am. Compl. ¶ 7. 

Case 6:20-cv-00485-ADA Document 43 Filed 11/04/20 Page 6 of 17
2 

locations in Austin, Texas. Nagle Decl. ¶ 6. VMware does not have any offices or employees in 

the Waco division of the Western District of Texas. Id. ¶ 7. 

 In contrast to Defendants’ deep Austin roots, WSOU’s ties to Waco are fleeting and 

unrelated to this action.

3

 As it pertains to the Asserted Patent, WSOU did not employ the named 

inventors at the time of the purported invention and did not research or develop the claimed 

technology. Indeed, WSOU did not exist as a company when the Asserted Patent was filed and 

prosecuted before the Patent and Trademark Office. Rather, WSOU is a company primarily 

focused on licensing and monetization of old patents acquired from other companies and none of 

the named inventors are based, nor was research related to the Asserted Patent performed, in Waco. 

 WSOU was created in 2017, see Ex. 1 (WSOU Entity Details),4

 and during its infancy, 

WSOU engaged primarily in one activity: the acquisition of old Alcatel-Lucent patents. When 

WSOU purchased patents, including the Asserted Patent, from Alcatel-Lucent over the course of 

2017, it was still more than two years away from any activity in Texas, let alone the Western 

District of Texas. WSOU’s principal address was listed as 11150 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 

1400, Los Angeles, CA 90025. See Ex. 2 (’309 Patent Assignment Agreement) at 1. 

WSOU’s patent acquisition spree, including its purchase of the Asserted Patent, also 

primarily involved two individuals: Stuart Shanus, the President of WSOU, and Craig Etchegoyen. 

3

 To be sure, Defendants acknowledge that WSOU leases office space in Waco and is now trying 

to involve itself (though without yet any tangible results) in the Waco community. As explained 

in this motion, however, those actions are irrelevant to the Asserted Patent, which was acquired 

from another company, and the value paid for that patent—activities that took place before WSOU 

ever established a presence in Texas and conducted by individuals who did not, and still do not, 

appear to have a presence in Texas. 

4

 WSOU also has ties to Wade & Company, a venture capital firm with a listed address in Newport 

Beach, California. See Ex. 5 (Wade & Company Contact Information). Some of the patents in 

WSOU’s portfolio were initially acquired by Wade & Company, and then assigned to WSOU. See

Ex. 2 (’309 Patent Assignment Agreement) at 88. 

Case 6:20-cv-00485-ADA Document 43 Filed 11/04/20 Page 7 of 17
3 

See id. at 87, 89. Neither of these individuals appears to live in Texas. Mr. Shanus lists his 

residence as Los Angeles, California, see Ex. 3 (LinkedIn page of Mr. Shanus), and Mr. 

Etchegoyen lists his as Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, see Ex. 4 (LinkedIn page of Mr. Etchegoyen). And 

none of the assignment records filed with the Patent and Trademark Office stated that the 

assignments would be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas. 

See, e.g., Ex. 2 (’309 Patent Assignment Agreement). 

After acquiring the patent portfolio, in 2018, WSOU appears to have pivoted to attempting 

to monetize the patents—but even at that point, WSOU did not appear to have a presence in Texas. 

Rather, WSOU hired Aqua Licensing, a San Francisco, California company, to sell the patents. 

See Ex. 6 (Press Release Discussing Attempts to Sell Patents). 

Suddenly in 2020, WSOU decided to chart a different path. In January 2020, Mr. Shanus 

registered WSOU to do business in Texas, and a few weeks later registered WSOU’s alias “Brazos 

Development and Licensing.” Brazos Licensing appears to have only four employees: Mr. 

Etchegoyen (Chairman and Founder), Mr. Shanus (President), Aaron Garvey (Head of Finance), 

and Matt Hogan (Business Development). See Ex. 7 (Brazos Licensing About Webpage). 

Importantly, Mr. Etchegoyen, the individual who seemingly deals with WSOU’s licensing of its 

patent portfolio, does not live in Texas. In fact, the only individual who appears to have a Waco 

presence is Mr. Hogan, and his duties appear to be unrelated to WSOU’s licensing activities of its 

patents acquired from Alcatel-Lucent. See id.

Thus, WSOU’s presence in Waco—to the extent it has one—appears unrelated to issues 

relevant to this lawsuit, namely non-infringement, invalidity, and value of the Asserted Patent. 

III. LEGAL STANDARDS 

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) provides that “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in 

the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division 

Case 6:20-cv-00485-ADA Document 43 Filed 11/04/20 Page 8 of 17
4 

where it might have been brought.” The purpose of section 1404(a) “is to prevent the waste of 

time, energy and money and to protect litigants, witnesses and the public against unnecessary 

inconvenience and expense.” Gen. Elec. Capital Corp. v. Sweet Ventures, LLC, No. EP-09-CV253-DB, 2009 WL 10669384, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 4, 2009). 

In deciding whether to transfer a case, the Court conducts a two-step analysis. See AutoDril, Inc. v. Nat’l Oilwell Varco, L.P., No. 6:15-CV-00091, 2016 WL 6909479, at *3 (W.D. Tex. 

Jan. 28, 2016). First, the Court decides whether the civil action could have been brought in the 

destination forum. See Chase v. Andeavor Logistics, L.P., No. 5:18-CV-1050-DAE, 2019 WL 

5847879, at *3 (W.D. Tex. July 9, 2019). Second, the Court considers the convenience of the 

parties and witnesses and the interests of justice. See In re Horseshoe Entm’t, 337 F.3d 429, 433 

(5th Cir. 2003). This consideration “turns on a number of private and public interest factors, none 

of which are given dispositive weight.” In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201, 203 (5th Cir. 2004). 

These 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; (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 unnecessary problems of conflict of laws [or in] the application of foreign law. 

Datascape, Ltd. v. Dell Techs., Inc., No. 6:19-CV-00129-ADA, 2019 WL 4254069, at *1 (W.D. 

Tex. June 7, 2019) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Not all factors matter in all 

cases. See, e.g., In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 316–18 (5th Cir. 2008) (considering 

only four factors). When these factors show that the destination forum is “clearly more 

convenient,” the action must be transferred. See, e.g., Bascom v. Maxim Integrated Prod., Inc., 

534 F. Supp. 2d 700, 704 (W.D. Tex. 2008) (“[The analysis] does not require the level of 

Case 6:20-cv-00485-ADA Document 43 Filed 11/04/20 Page 9 of 17
5 

convenience in the desired venue to be substantially greater than in the original venue, just clearly 

more convenient.”). 

IV. ARGUMENT 

A. WSOU Could Have Filed This Case in the Austin Division 

WSOU’s Complaint alleges that Defendants’ principal place of business is at One Dell 

Way, Round Rock, Texas 78682, see Am. Compl. ¶¶ 3–5, and thus WSOU could have filed this 

case in the Austin Division, see XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, LC, No. W-16-CA-00447-RP, 

2017 WL 5505340, at *10 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 5, 2017). 

B. The Austin Division Is Clearly More Convenient than the Waco Division 

The Fifth Circuit’s test for intra-district transfers shows that this case should be litigated in 

the Austin Division. As explained below, four factors clearly favor transfer, the remaining four 

factors are neutral, and not a single factor supports keeping this lawsuit in the Waco Division. 

Factor Venue Favored 

Relative ease of access to sources of proof Austin 

Availability of compulsory process to secure the 

attendance of witnesses Neutral 

Cost of attendance for willing witnesses Austin 

All other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, 

expeditious, and inexpensive Austin 

Administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion Neutral 

Local interest in having localized interests decided at 

home Austin 

Avoidance of unnecessary problems of conflict of laws or 

in the application of foreign law Neutral 

Thus, when considering the totality of the factors, Austin is clearly more convenient than 

Waco, and this case should be transferred to the Austin Division. See Datascape, 2019 WL 

4254069, at *1–3. 

Case 6:20-cv-00485-ADA Document 43 Filed 11/04/20 Page 10 of 17
6 

1. Factors Clearly Favoring Transfer 

a. Relative Ease of Access to Sources of Proof 

The first factor—access to relevant evidence—clearly favors transfer to the Austin 

Division. In analyzing this factor, the Court “consider[s] the location of the relevant documents 

and witnesses.” Moskowitz Family LLC. v. Globus Med., Inc., No. 6:19-CV-00672-ADA, 2020 

WL 4577710, at *3 (W.D. Tex. July 2, 2020). Moreover, in a patent case, “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.” Id. (Quoting In re Genentech, 

Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2009).) 

Defendants have not identified any relevant documents or employees in Waco because 

Defendants do not have any offices or employees located in Waco. See Nagle Decl. ¶ 7. 

Defendants’ relevant evidence and witnesses are most likely located in Palo Alto, California, 

where VMware is headquartered. See id. ¶¶ 8, 9. Indeed, this Court previously found for defendant 

Dell that “access to sources of proof is relatively easier in Austin than it is in Waco.” Datascape, 

2019 WL 4254069, at *2.

Defendants are also not aware of any relevant third-party documents in Waco.5

 Nor has 

Plaintiff ever suggested—in its deficient Complaint, Amended Complaint, and preliminary 

infringement contentions—that any third party information is relevant to this litigation. 

Although WSOU’s alias has a nominal physical presence in Waco, Texas, WSOU did not 

develop, create, or employ the named inventors of the Asserted Patent. The Asserted Patent was 

not even prosecuted from Texas. See Ex. 8 (Transmittal of New Application from Locust Valley, 

5 Defendants’ ability to identify relevant third-party companies, documents, and witnesses is 

hampered by Plaintiff’s deficient Complaint, Amended Complaint, and Preliminary Infringement 

Contentions. Defendants are separately seeking clarity from Plaintiff. 

Case 6:20-cv-00485-ADA Document 43 Filed 11/04/20 Page 11 of 17
7 

NY). The only possible relevant documents in WSOU’s possession are ownership and valuation 

documents related to the acquisition and subsequent monetization attempts of the Asserted Patent. 

But these documents were created before WSOU had any presence in Waco, by individuals (Mr. 

Etchegoyen and Mr. Shanus) who do not appear to live in Texas, and potentially by a company 

that is located in California (Aqua Licensing). WSOU’s presence in Waco cannot obscure the fact 

that its relevant documents are minimal, are negated by the presence of Aqua Licensing in 

California, and are significantly outweighed by the fact that the bulk of relevant evidence will 

come from the Defendants. Thus, when considering the “totality of the circumstances,” the first 

factor “weighs heavily towards transfer.” Moskowitz, 2020 WL 4577710, at *4. 

b. Cost of Attendance for Willing Witnesses 

The third factor—the cost for party and non-party witnesses to attend proceedings—also 

favors transfer. This factor “is the single most important factor in the transfer analysis” and 

“consider[s] all potential material and relevant witnesses.” Parus Holdings Inc. v. LG Elecs. Inc., 

No. 6:19-CV-00432-ADA, 2020 WL 4905809, at *5 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 20, 2020). 

 Among the potential witnesses at trial, the convenience of non-party witnesses is given the 

greatest weight. Id. at *6. In this lawsuit, non-party witnesses include: (1) named inventors; (2) 

prior owners of the Asserted Patent; (3) former sellers of the Asserted Patent; and (4) other third 

parties. In this case, not a single non-party is located in the Waco Division. 

First, the named inventors, Mansoor Ali Khan Alicherry, Jin Cao, Harsha S. Nagesh, Chitra 

A. Phadke, and Viswanath Poosala, do not appear to be located in the Western District of Texas. 

Based on the face of the patent, they are located in the New Jersey area. See ’309 Patent. There 

are direct flights from Newark, New Jersey to Austin; but no direct flights from Newark, New 

Jersey to Waco. See Ex. 9 (Google Flights from Newark). 

Case 6:20-cv-00485-ADA Document 43 Filed 11/04/20 Page 12 of 17
8 

Second, the ’309 patent’s prior owner, Lucent Technologies, does not appear to be located 

in Texas. See Ex. 10 (Assignment Record indicating Lucent Technologies is located in Murray 

Hill, New Jersey) There are direct flights from Newark, New Jersey to Austin; but no direct flights 

from Newark, New Jersey to Waco. See Ex. 9 (Google Flights from Newark). 

Third, Aqua Licensing is located in San Francisco, and there are direct flights to Austin, 

but no direct flights to Waco. See Ex. 11 (Google Flights from San Francisco). 

Although the case is in its early stages, and Defendants have only just received WSOU’s 

preliminary infringement contentions, Defendants are not currently aware of any companies in the 

Waco Division that have relevant information about prior art systems involving the Accused 

Products. 

Next, Defendants’ witnesses are not located in the Waco Division. See Nagle Decl. ¶ 7 

(noting that VMware does not have any employees or offices in Waco). The relevant VMware 

technical and financial personnel identified thus far are located in Palo Alto. See id. ¶ 8. It is 

relatively more burdensome for a Palo Alto-based witness to travel to Waco for trial. For example, 

there are direct flights from San Jose to Austin, but there are no direct flights to Waco. See Ex. 12 

(Google Flights from San Jose). Moreover, if this case is transferred to the Austin Division, 

potential on-call trial witnesses can still work out of Defendants’ Austin offices. 

Meanwhile, WSOU’s witnesses appear to reside in Los Angeles and Hawaii. There is a 

direct flight from Los Angeles to Austin, but there are no direct flights to Waco. Ex. 13 (Google 

Flights). And for WSOU’s potential witness in Hawaii, there are flights with only one stop to 

Austin, while flights to Waco require two stops. See Ex. 14 (Google Flights). As for WSOU’s 

apparently sole employee in Texas, Mr. Hogan, it does not appear that he has relevant information 

Case 6:20-cv-00485-ADA Document 43 Filed 11/04/20 Page 13 of 17
9 

regarding the acquisition or valuation of the Asserted Patent, which occurred before he was hired 

by WSOU. 

Accordingly, given the significant number of third-party witnesses outside of the Waco 

Division, and because travel will be more convenient and less burdensome to Austin, this factor 

strongly weighs in favor of transfer to the Austin Division. See Moskowitz, 2020 WL 4577710, 

at *5. 

c. All Other Practical Problems That Make Trial of a Case Easy, 

Expeditious and Inexpensive 

The fourth factor—practical difficulties of a lawsuit—also favors transfer to the Austin 

Division. This factor favors transfer when a case is in its early stages and the transfer will have a 

minimal impact on the trial schedule. See Mimedx Grp., Inc. v. Texas Human Biologics, Ltd., No. 

1:14-CV-464-LY, 2014 WL 12479284, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 12, 2014). Here, the Court just 

held the initial case management conference on October 21, 2020. Moreover, if this case is 

transferred to the Austin Division, the Court can maintain the same case schedule. See, e.g.,

Datascape, 2019 WL 4254069, at *3. Thus, because “there is little if any risk of judicial waste or 

inefficiency associated with transfer,” the fourth factor favors transfer. Id.

d. Local Interest in Having Localized Interests Decided at Home 

The sixth factor—local interest in deciding a case—also favors transfer to Austin. Dell has 

been located in the Austin Division for decades and employs more than 14,000 people in and 

around Austin. Austin therefore has more interest and connection to the outcome of this litigation 

than Waco. See id. (finding in another case involving Dell that the “outcome of the instant action 

likely affects local Austin interests more acutely than local Waco interests”); see also In re 

Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d at 205-06. While WSOU has a nominal presence in Waco, its activities 

related to patent acquisitions and licensing occurred while it was headquartered in California and 

Case 6:20-cv-00485-ADA Document 43 Filed 11/04/20 Page 14 of 17
10 

before it relocated its headquarters prior to filing lawsuits in Waco. Thus, this factor “strongly 

weighs in favor of transfer.” Datascape, 2019 WL 4254069, at *3.

2. Neutral Factors 

The remaining factors are neutral. See, e.g., Datascape, 2019 WL 4254069, at *1. The 

second factor (availability of compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses) is neutral 

because both the Austin and Waco Divisions have the same ability to secure the attendance of 

third-party witnesses. The fifth factor (administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion) 

is neutral because Defendants have no objection to the Court’s retaining control of this case 

following transfer to the Austin Division. The seventh factor (familiarity of the forum with the 

law that will govern) is neutral because Your Honor can sit in either division and patent law does 

not vary based on the particular forum. Finally, the eighth factor (conflict of laws or the application 

of foreign law) is neutral because a transfer to Austin will not involve a conflict of laws or foreign 

law issues. 

V. CONCLUSION 

Because four factors favor transfer, and the remaining four factors are neutral, this case 

should be transferred to the Austin Division, which is a clearly more convenient forum. 

Accordingly, Defendants respectfully ask that the Court grant this Motion. 

Case 6:20-cv-00485-ADA Document 43 Filed 11/04/20 Page 15 of 17
11 

Dated: November 4, 2020 By: /s/ Barry K. Shelton 

 Barry K. Shelton 

Texas State Bar No. 24055029 

bshelton@sheltoncoburn.com 

SHELTON COBURN LLP 

311 RR 620, Suite 205 

Austin, TX 78734-4775 

Telephone: 512.263.2165 

Facsimile: 512.263.2166 

Benjamin Hershkowitz 

bhershkowitz@gibsondunn.com 

Brian A. Rosenthal 

brosenthal@gibsondunn.com 

Allen Kathir 

akathir@gibsondunn.com 

Kyanna Sabanoglu 

ksabanoglu@gibsondunn.com 

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 

200 Park Avenue 

New York, NY 10166-0193 

Telephone: 212.351.4000 

Facsimile: 212.351.4035 

Y. Ernest Hsin 

ehsin@gibsondunn.com 

Jaysen S. Chung 

jschung@gibsondunn.com 

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP 

555 Mission Street, Suite 3000 

San Francisco, CA 94105-0921 

Telephone: 415.393.8200 

Facsimile: 415.393.8306 

Ryan K. Iwahashi 

riwahashi@gibsondunn.com 

GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP

1881 Page Mill Road 

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1211 

Telephone: 650.849.5300 

Facsimile: 650.849.5333 

Attorneys for Defendants 

 

Case 6:20-cv-00485-ADA Document 43 Filed 11/04/20 Page 16 of 17
12 

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

Pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(h), counsel for the parties have conferred and plaintiff is 

opposed to this motion. 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned certifies that on this 4th day of November 2020, all counsel of record who 

are deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document 

through the Court’s CM/ECF system under Local Rule CV-5(b)(1). 

/s/ Barry K. Shelton

Barry K. Shelton 

Case 6:20-cv-00485-ADA Document 43 Filed 11/04/20 Page 17 of 17