1387531

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

JENAM TECH, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v.

GOOGLE LLC,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION No. 6:20-cv-00453-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

DECLARATION OF RYLEE KERCHER OLM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT 

GOOGLE LLC’S OPPOSED MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE

Case 6:20-cv-00453-ADA Document 26-3 Filed 08/12/20 Page 1 of 6
1

1387531

I, Rylee Kercher Olm, declare as follows:

1. I am an attorney licensed to practice in the State of California and am an associate 

at the law firm of Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, counsel of record for Defendant Google LLC 

(hereinafter “Google”) in this action. I submit this declaration in support of Google’s Motion to 

Transfer Venue to the Northern District of California. I have personal knowledge of the facts set 

forth in this declaration and could and would testify competently to them under oath if called as a 

witness.

2. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of a printout of the website 

http://www.chromium.org/quic, printed on July 28, 2020. Jenam cites to this website in its 

infringement analyses. This website includes a hyperlink entitled “QUIC overview,” which links 

to the document entitled “QUIC at 10,000 feet.” Attached as Exhibit B is a true and correct 

copy of this document, available at https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gY9-YNDNAB1eipRTPbqphgySwSNSDHLq9D5Bty4FSU/edit, downloaded on August 8, 2020. The website 

http://www.chromium.org/quic also links to two different IETF informational documents. 

Attached as Exhibit C is a true and correct copy of the first IETF informational document, 

entitled QUIC: A UDP-Based Secure and Reliable Transport for HTTP/2, available at 

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tsvwg-quic-protocol-02, downloaded on July 28, 2020. Attached 

as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the second IETF informational document, QUIC Loss 

Recovery and Congestion Control, available at https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-tsvwg-quic-lossrecovery-01, downloaded on July 28, 2020. 

3. Attached as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of a printout of the IETF’s QUIC 

specification entitled QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed and Secure Transport, available at 

Case 6:20-cv-00453-ADA Document 26-3 Filed 08/12/20 Page 2 of 6
2

1387531

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-quic-transport-27, printed on July 28, 2020. Jana Iyengar is 

listed as a co-editor of this specification.

4. Attached as Exhibit F are true and correct copies of printouts of the LinkedIn 

profiles of Jana Iyengar, Ryan Hamilton, Charles ‘Buck’ Krasic, and Jim Roskind, printed from 

www.linkedin.com on July 21, 2020.

5. Attached as Exhibit G is a true and correct copy of a printout of Ryan Hamilton’s 

resume, printed from http://optimism.us/resume/ on July 24, 2020.

6. Attached as Exhibit H is a true and correct copy of a printout of the LinkedIn 

profile of Paul Morris, the inventor of the patents-in-suit, printed from www.linkedin.com on 

August 3, 2020.

7. Attached as Exhibit I is a true and correct copy of the Delaware incorporation 

record of Sitting Man, LLC.

8. Attached as Exhibit J is a true and correct copy of a printout of the homepage of 

the Oso-IP LLC Website, printed from www.oso-ip.com on July 24, 2020.

9. Attached as Exhibit K are true and correct copies of printouts of the LinkedIn 

profiles of Kevin Zilka and Andrew Gordon, printed from www.linkedin.com on July 24, 2020.

10. Attached as Exhibit L is a true and correct copy of the public records of all of the 

businesses associated with 211 W. Tyler Street, Suite C, Longview, TX 75601. According to 

Stragent, LLC’s December 31, 2018 Texas Franchise Tax Public Information Report, 

Mr. Gordon resides at 6518 Ryeworth Dr., Frisco, Texas.

11. Attached as Exhibit M are true and correct copies received from the U.S. Patent 

Office of the Patent Assignments for the following asserted patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 

10,069,945; 10,075,564; 10,075,565; 9,923,995; and 9,923,996.

Case 6:20-cv-00453-ADA Document 26-3 Filed 08/12/20 Page 3 of 6
3

1387531

12. Attached as Exhibit N is a true and correct copy of a printout of 

https://www.cisco.com/c/en/us/about/contact-cisco.html, printed on July 28, 2020. According to 

this webpage, Cisco Systems, Inc.’s corporate headquarters are in San Jose, California. 

13. Attached as Exhibit O is a true and correct copy of the United States District 

Court Federal Case Management Statistics – Profiles for the Western District of Texas and the 

Northern District of California as of March 31, 2020, downloaded from 

https://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/federal-court-management-statistics-march-2020, on 

July 22, 2020.

14. Attached as Exhibit P is a true and correct copy of the MDL Statistics Report –

Distribution of Pending MDL Dockets by District, as of April 15, 2020, downloaded from 

https://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/Pending_MDL_Dockets_By_District-April-15-

2020.pdf, on August 5, 2020. This report shows that 6,184 cases are aggregated in 20 MDLs

before the Northern District of California (obtained by adding together all of the “Actions Now 

Pending” for MDLs in the “CAN” district), and no MDLs are pending before the Western 

District of Texas. 

15. A review of data published by Lex Machina—which compiles information from 

various district courts—indicates that the median time to trial over the last two years in civil 

cases, from August 1, 2018 to July 27, 2020, is approximately 692 days for the Western District 

of Texas and approximately 717 days for the Northern District of California. Attached as 

Exhibit Q is a true and correct copy of that Lex Machina data. 

16. A review of data published by Lex Machina indicates that the median time to trial 

over the last ten years in patent cases, from August 1, 2010 to July 30, 2020, is approximately 

854 days in the Northern District of California. Lex Machina does not directly provide a median 

Case 6:20-cv-00453-ADA Document 26-3 Filed 08/12/20 Page 4 of 6
4

1387531

value for the time to trial when there are 10 or fewer cases that have reached trial in the relevant 

time frame, and only 10 patent cases have reached trial in the Western District of Texas in the 

last ten years. I used the online Lex Machina tool to determine that the fifth fastest time to trial 

out of the ten cases in this time frame was 769 days and the sixth fastest time to trial was 858 

days. The median value is thus the average of those two middle values, or 813.5 days. Attached 

as Exhibit R is a true and correct copy of the Lex Machina data.

17. A review of data published by Lex Machina indicates that 508 patent cases are 

currently pending before the Western District of Texas and 309 patent cases are currently 

pending before the Northern District of California as of August 6, 2020. Attached as Exhibit S

is a true and correct copy of that data.

18. Attached as Exhibit T are true and correct copies of the complaints filed by 

Jenam Tech, LLC in Jenam Tech, LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc., et al., No. 4:19-cv-00249-ALMKPJ, and Jenam Tech, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., No. 4:19-cv-00250-ALMKPJ. In these complaints, Jenam cites to the article The QUIC Transport Protocol: Design and 

Internet-Scale Deployment. A true and correct copy of a printout of this article is included as 

Exhibit U, downloaded from 

https://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.com/en//pubs/archive/46403.pdf on 

July 24, 2020. Former Google employees Jana Iyengar, Ryan Hamilton, Charles Krasic, and Jim 

Roskind are listed as authors on this article. 

19. Attached as Exhibit V are true and correct copies of Jenam Tech, LLC’s SurReply to Defendants’ Reply in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Transfer, filed by Jenam 

Tech in Jenam Tech, LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc., et al., No. 4:19-cv-00249-ALM-KPJ, and 

Jenam Tech, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., No. 4:19-cv-00250-ALM-KPJ. On 

Case 6:20-cv-00453-ADA Document 26-3 Filed 08/12/20 Page 5 of 6
5

1387531

pages 5 and 15 of Exhibit V, Jenam Tech states that Mr. Gordon is located Eastern District of 

Texas. Attached as Exhibit W are true and correct copies of LG Electronics and Samsung’s 

Notice of Supplemental Evidence in Support of Their Motion to Transfer Venue to the Northern 

District of California, filed by LG Electronics and Samsung in Jenam Tech, LLC v. LG 

Electronics, Inc., et al., No. 4:19-cv-00249-ALM-KPJ, and Jenam Tech, LLC v. Samsung 

Electronics Co., Ltd. et al., No. 4:19-cv-00250-ALM-KPJ. Exhibit 1 to these filings are Jenam 

Tech, LLC’s Responses and Objections to Defendants’ First Set of Interrogatories. On pages 22

and 52 of Exhibit W, Kevin Zilka is identified by Jenam Tech as a “person[] knowledgeable 

regarding prosecution of the patents in suit.”

20. Attached as Exhibit X is a true and correct copy of Exhibit C-2 to Defendant LG 

Electronics’ Invalidity Contentions Pursuant to Patent Local Rules 3-3 and 3-4, served by LG 

Electronics in Jenam Tech, LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc., et al., No. 4:19-cv-00249-ALM-KPJ. 

Exhibit C-2 is entitled “Invalidity of U.S. Pat. No. 9,923,996 by Cisco 7200 Series Router.”

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the 

foregoing is true and correct. Executed in San Francisco, California on this 12th day of August 

2020.

RYLEE KERCHER OLM

Case 6:20-cv-00453-ADA Document 26-3 Filed 08/12/20 Page 6 of 6