EXHIBIT 31

Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 110-5 Filed 08/20/21 Page 1 of 24
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

WSOU INVESTMENTS LLC * 

 * June 1, 2021 

VS. * 

 * CIVIL ACTION NO.W-20-CV-903 

JUNIPER NETWORKS, INC. * 

BEFORE THE HONORABLE ALAN D ALBRIGHT

MOTION HEARING (via Zoom)

APPEARANCES:

For the Plaintiff: Alessandra Carcaterra Messing, Esq.

Timothy J. Rousseau, Esq.

Brown Rudnick LLP

Seven Times Square

New York, NY 10036

Sarah Gabrielle Hartman, Esq.

Brown Rudnick LLP

2211 Michelson Drive

Irvine, CA 92612

Raymond W Mort III, Esq.

The Mort Law Firm, PLLC

100 Congress Ave, Suite 2000

Austin, TX 78701

For the Defendant: Todd M. Briggs, Esq.

Joseph E. Reed, Esq.

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan

555 Twin Dolphin Drive, 5th Floor

Redwood Shores, CA 94065

B. Russell Horton, Esq.

George, Brothers, Kincaid & Horton LLP

114 West 7th Street, Suite 1100

Austin, TX 78701 

Court Reporter: Kristie M. Davis, CRR, RMR

PO Box 20994

Waco, Texas 76702-0994

(254) 340-6114

Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography, 

transcript produced by computer-aided transcription. 

Appx669

Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 110-5 Filed 08/20/21 Page 2 of 24 Case: 21-160 Document: 2-2 Page: 689 Filed: 07/02/2021 (737 of 764)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)

2

(June 1, 2021, 9:01 a.m.) 

DEPUTY CLERK: Motion hearing in Civil Action 6-20-CV-903, 

styled WSOU Investments LLC versus Juniper Networks, 

Incorporated. 

MS. HARTMAN: Good morning, Your Honor. Sarah Hartman 

from Brown Rudnick for the plaintiff WSOU Investments LLC doing 

business as Brazos Licensing and Development. 

Here with me are my colleagues, Timothy Rousseau and 

Alessandra Messing, as well as Ray Mort. And from WSOU we have 

Matt Hogan and Sheyanna Pietras. 

THE COURT: I'd like to welcome your client 

representatives. 

And for Juniper? 

MR. BRIGGS: Good morning, Your Honor. This is Todd 

Briggs. With me is Joe Reed and also Russ Horton. And from 

Juniper Networks is Dave Saunders who is the director of 

litigation. 

THE COURT: Welcome to Mr. Saunders as well. I appreciate 

everyone who is attending who is a client representative. 

I'm happy to take up the motion to transfer. 

MR. BRIGGS: Good morning, Your Honor. This is Todd 

Briggs for Juniper. 

So, yes. We're here this morning to address Juniper's 

motion to transfer the pending WSOU cases that have been filed 

against Juniper to the Northern District of California. And 

Appx670

Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 110-5 Filed 08/20/21 Page 3 of 24 Case: 21-160 Document: 2-2 Page: 690 Filed: 07/02/2021 (738 of 764)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)

3

before we get into the transfer factors and the arguments on 

the transfer factors, I thought it might be helpful, Your 

Honor, to give a little bit of background on the parties 

briefly just to provide some context for the overall motion. 

My client, Juniper Networks, is a networking company. 

They make devices such as routers and switches. They're a 

company that is based in Sunnyvale, California which is in the 

Northern District of California just outside of San Jose. 

Juniper has been doing business for over two decades and 

has been centered in the Northern District of California and in 

Sunnyvale and has grown to be a fairly large company. 

Presently there are approximately 2,800 -- 2,800 employees in 

the Sunnyvale office. Juniper also has some additional offices 

throughout the world. Two of the larger ones are in Bangalore, 

India. And also there's one in New Jersey. 

Juniper really hasn't had a real presence in Texas at all 

over the past two decades. In 2019 Juniper did acquire a small 

company that makes WiFi products that really have nothing to do 

with this case. And that company was based in Austin. It's a 

company called Mist Systems. And so there was a small office 

in Austin, you know, less than I think 40 employees, maybe 

around 20 employees. And they did nothing relating to this 

case or the accused products in this case. And Juniper's 

actually closed that office. So now Juniper has no offices 

whatsoever in the Western District of Texas. That happened a 

Appx671

Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 110-5 Filed 08/20/21 Page 4 of 24 Case: 21-160 Document: 2-2 Page: 691 Filed: 07/02/2021 (739 of 764)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)

4

couple of months ago. 

So, you know, if this case were brought today, it would be 

very difficult for WSOU to even establish venue over Juniper in 

the Western District of Texas. But I say that just so Your 

Honor has context as to Juniper's presence in the Western 

District of Texas. It's something that just hasn't been there 

in the past, and there was a brief period of time where Juniper 

had this other company, but now Juniper is largely out of the 

Western District of Texas. 

You know, and that's in sharp contrast to many other tech 

companies that you take, Dell, HP, you know, Apple, those kind 

of companies. They have very large presences in Austin. But 

Juniper's not one of those types of companies. So that's some 

background on Juniper. 

WSOU, I'd like to just briefly give you a little bit of 

background of what we've learned about WSOU. So WSOU is a 

relatively new company. They purchased a large number of 

patents, many of them from Alcatel Lucent. And this occurred 

over the past few years. And WSOU was incorporated in Delaware 

in May of 2019. So, again, they're a -- I guess two years old 

now. 

A few months after they were incorporated in Delaware, 

they were registered to do business -- or they registered to do 

business in Texas, and in Waco in particular is where they set 

up an office. And this is an office that's -- I think it's 

Appx672

Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 110-5 Filed 08/20/21 Page 5 of 24 Case: 21-160 Document: 2-2 Page: 692 Filed: 07/02/2021 (740 of 764)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)

5

very close to Your Honor's courthouse in Waco. It's a couple 

blocks away, I've heard. I haven't been there. 

But there's really not much activity at the office at all. 

That's what we've learned through discovery. And you might 

remember a few weeks ago we brought an issue to you relating to 

the discovery, jurisdictional discovery, and a deposition we 

took, a 30(b)(6) deposition of WSOU. 

And what we learned in that deposition is WSOU only had 

four employees at the time this lawsuit was filed back in 

September of 2020. The two primary employees are the founder 

and chairman, Craig Etchegoyen, and their president, Stuart 

Shanus. Both Mr. Etchegoyen and Mr. Shanus live in Los 

Angeles, California. They don't live in Waco. They don't work 

in Waco. In fact, they've never even been to the Waco office.

And these are the two individuals that are, I think, 

managing these lawsuits and engaged in the licensing efforts of 

the company. And so we learned all of this, you know, during 

the deposition a few weeks ago. 

There is one employee, Mr. Hogan. That's who we deposed. 

He recently moved to Waco and he does some business out of that 

office, but it's not particularly relevant or related to these 

particular patents in this case. And it's not even clear that 

he's even really engaged in licensing or anything like that. 

He's focused on other endeavors relating to the patents and 

their business. 

Appx673

Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 110-5 Filed 08/20/21 Page 6 of 24 Case: 21-160 Document: 2-2 Page: 693 Filed: 07/02/2021 (741 of 764)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)

6

So, you know, I give you this as a little bit of 

background just to show you the types of connections the two 

companies have with, you know, the Western District of Texas 

versus California. 

So with that background, I'd like to get into the actual 

factors that we need to examine to determine whether a motion 

to transfer's appropriate or not in this case. 

And Your Honor's very familiar with the eight different 

factors. There's four private factors, four public factors. 

Based on the briefing, I think at this point only five of the 

eight transfer factors are in dispute. So those are the five 

that I would like to just briefly focus on. 

So the first factor is one of the private factors, and 

that's the ease of access to sources of proof. And, you know, 

under Federal Circuit law, the Genentech case, for example, the 

Federal Circuit has made clear that, you know, the bulk of the 

relevant evidence in a patent case usually comes from the 

accused infringer. 

And that's very true of this case. In this case, the bulk 

of the relevant evidence will come from Juniper. And the 

source of that evidence is Sunnyvale, California, where 

Juniper's been for over two decades. You'll find technical 

documents there. You'll find source code relating to the 

accused products there. That's where the vast majority of 

Juniper's relevant documentation was created and where it's 

Appx674

Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 110-5 Filed 08/20/21 Page 7 of 24 Case: 21-160 Document: 2-2 Page: 694 Filed: 07/02/2021 (742 of 764)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)

7

housed and stored. 

Juniper has no technical documents or source code in 

Texas. 

And, furthermore, the Juniper employees that were in Texas 

generally don't have access to the source code or the technical 

documents that are relevant to this infringement action. 

They're given to Juniper employees on a need-to-know basis, 

kind of a permission-type basis. Just because you're an 

employee of the company doesn't mean you have access to all the 

documentation. And that's certainly true here, where the 

employees in Texas did not have access to the relevant 

documentation in this case. 

And, again, that's because they were acquired primarily 

from a smaller company that made completely different products 

that are at issue in this case. 

Now, in sharp contrast to that, WSOU really doesn't have 

any documentation in Texas. What we learned during the 

deposition of Mr. Hogan is, in their office in Waco, they had 

four boxes of documents, like banker's boxes. 

So we asked when those documents were actually delivered 

to the Waco office, and he told us in October of 2020. He told 

us he believed that they were delivered there in October of 

2020 at the direction of Mr. Shanus, who is the -- again, the 

president of WSOU. And so apparently they now have, as of 

October 2020, four boxes of documents sitting there. 

Appx675

Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 110-5 Filed 08/20/21 Page 8 of 24 Case: 21-160 Document: 2-2 Page: 695 Filed: 07/02/2021 (743 of 764)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)

8

Now, those are not even relevant to the transfer analysis 

because these cases were filed before then. So those documents 

weren't there before then. 

And then the only other documentation WSOU has pointed to 

is some documents, which are some unspecified documents, in a 

file cabinet in the Waco office. 

So I would submit, Your Honor, that if you put on one side 

of the scale on this factor WSOU's documents, these four boxes, 

which really shouldn't even be considered, but even if we were 

going to consider those, and you put on the other side of the 

scale Juniper's documentation in Sunnyvale, there's really no 

comparison. So this factor, we would respectfully submit, 

strongly favors transfer in this case. 

The next private-interest factor that's in dispute is the 

availability of compulsory process. And I believe -- just to 

cut to the chase here, I believe that this factor actually 

favors transfer or is, at a minimum, neutral in this situation. 

And one of the key points to keep in mind in this particular 

case is that -- and I believe this comes from an opinion that 

Your Honor wrote earlier this year, and that's basically when 

no party has alleged or shown that any witnesses are unwilling 

witnesses, a Court should not attach much weight to this 

factor. 

And I think that's the case here. Neither party has 

identified any unwilling witnesses at this point. So, you 

Appx676

Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 110-5 Filed 08/20/21 Page 9 of 24 Case: 21-160 Document: 2-2 Page: 696 Filed: 07/02/2021 (744 of 764)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)

9

know, given that, it's likely that this factor should be 

neutral. 

What Juniper has identified though are four prior art 

witnesses in the Northern District of California that we 

believe would be trial witnesses in this case. And those are 

witnesses from the companies Futurewei, Newisys, IBM and 

LinkedIn. 

The only thing that Brazos has identified on the other 

side are two inventors that are in Texas. They're not within 

100 miles of the courthouse, but they're in Texas. And Brazos 

has argued that under Rule 45 they could be compelled to 

testify at trial, because they're willing to pay their 

expenses. 

And, you know, even if that were the case, they haven't, 

you know, claimed that these witnesses are unwilling. And 

these are only two inventors on one of the six patents that's 

been asserted in this case, or that's currently at issue in 

this case. So, you know, if you look at those two witnesses 

versus the prior art witnesses in California, they sort of 

cancel each other out a little bit, I would submit to you. 

One point that I would want to note, though, too, is that 

the two most relevant witnesses from WSOU, Mr. Etchegoyen, the 

founder, and Mr. Shanus, the president. Those two witnesses 

are located and reside in California, not Texas. And because 

they are both officers of WSOU, they are subject under Rule 45 

Appx677

Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 110-5 Filed 08/20/21 Page 10 of 24 Case: 21-160 Document: 2-2 Page: 697 Filed: 07/02/2021 (745 of 764)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)

10

to the subpoena power of the Northern District of California, 

because they reside in California. And that's under Rule 

45(c). Those two witnesses are not subject to the subpoena 

power of Your Honor's Court in Texas. 

And I would submit to you that, you know, given that if we 

were setting aside the issue of unwilling witnesses, that would 

definitely tip this factor in favor of Juniper. Because, you 

know, it's possible that Mr. Etchegoyen or Mr. Shanus would 

decide not to come to trial. Maybe something didn't go well 

during their deposition or something like that and they decide 

not to come to trial. We could not compel them to come to 

trial if we were in the Western District of Texas. And these 

are the two most relevant witnesses at WSOU. 

So in short, on this compulsory process factor, I would 

submit, Your Honor, that this factor favors transfer or at a 

minimum is neutral. 

The next private-interest factor that's in dispute is the 

cost of attendance for willing witnesses and the convenience of 

the witnesses. And I would submit that this factor strongly 

favors transfer. And as Your Honor's aware, the Federal 

Circuit has stated in cases like Genentech that the convenience 

of the witnesses is probably the single most important factor 

in the transfer analysis. So this is a very important factor. 

And in this case we have a substantial number of witnesses 

in the Northern District of California. Again, Juniper is 

Appx678

Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 110-5 Filed 08/20/21 Page 11 of 24 Case: 21-160 Document: 2-2 Page: 698 Filed: 07/02/2021 (746 of 764)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)

11

centered there, 2,800 employees total. They've been there for 

two decades. That's where the key witnesses are -- or a 

significant number of the key witnesses are relating to the 

accused products, you know, the sales of the accused products, 

the marketing of the accused products. All the -- all the 

different aspects of a patent infringement case. They're all 

in the Northern District of California -- or a substantial 

number of them are in the Northern District of California. 

THE COURT: Could you hold on just for one second? 

MR. BRIGGS: Yes. 

THE COURT: Just give me one second. 

(Pause in proceedings.) 

THE COURT: Okay. Can you all hear me? 

You can continue. Thank you. 

MR. BRIGGS: Okay. Thank you, Your Honor. 

So again, I was talking about the convenience of the 

witness factor and explaining how Juniper's witnesses, the vast 

majority of them, are in the Northern District of California. 

And we've identified in our papers specific witnesses, 

sales and marketing witnesses, two specific witnesses, their 

licensing, and then various engineers who are in the Northern 

District of California who have the relevant knowledge relating 

to the accused aspects of the accused products for the various 

patents in this case. 

And again -- 

Appx679

Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 110-5 Filed 08/20/21 Page 12 of 24 Case: 21-160 Document: 2-2 Page: 699 Filed: 07/02/2021 (747 of 764)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)

12

THE COURT: Are you anticipating that they would testify 

at trial? 

MR. BRIGGS: Absolutely. Absolutely. 

THE COURT: I haven't had a single person in any of the 

patent trials I've had where that's happened. 

MR. BRIGGS: Oh, that's interesting, Your Honor. The very 

last trial I had, we had the actual engineer that -- well, it 

was on the other side but the actual engineer that created the 

accused functionality testified at trial. 

THE COURT: Well, we had that in Roku, except that he'd 

moved to Arkansas. And he was -- 

MR. BRIGGS: Oh.

THE COURT: -- actually closer -- 

MR. BRIGGS: Oh. I mean, that can depend on time 

constraints. Because if you're subject to, you know, critical 

time constraints, you may only have time to put your expert on; 

but sometimes in defense, you want to have the jury see the 

individuals who created the accused product and explain how it 

works rather than the expert. The testimony can be short, but 

it can be powerful. 

THE COURT: Okay. 

MR. BRIGGS: So again, Juniper has lots of witnesses that 

could potentially testify at trial in the Northern District of 

California. They have nobody in the Western District of Texas. 

Now, WSOU, the best -- as best as we can tell, there's 

Appx680

Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 110-5 Filed 08/20/21 Page 13 of 24 Case: 21-160 Document: 2-2 Page: 700 Filed: 07/02/2021 (748 of 764)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)

13

really nobody in Texas from WSOU that would testify at trial. 

The only person that's a possibility is Mr. Hogan, and we took 

his deposition. And again, he really didn't have any relevant 

knowledge about the patents. He doesn't deal in licensing. I 

think it's highly, highly unlikely that he would testify at 

trial. 

The two individuals that are much more likely that are 

involved in licensing of the patents and the ones that were 

involved in purchasing the patents and so on and so forth are 

Mr. Etchegoyen and Mr. Shanus who, again, they live in Los 

Angeles, California. So they'd still have to travel to the 

Northern District, of course, but it's closer. 

So at the end of the day on this factor, you really -- on 

one end of the scale you really have nobody in Texas except 

Mr. Hogan. And, again, I don't really see how Mr. Hogan would 

be a potential trial witness. 

And on the other end of the scale you have many different 

Juniper employees and potentially Mr. Etchegoyen and 

Mr. Shanus. So I would say that this cost of attending -- 

attendance for willing witnesses strongly favors transfer. 

Okay. So those are the three private interest factors 

that are disputed. And I'd like to move on now to the two 

public-interest factors that are disputed. 

And the first one is the Court congestion factor. And as 

Your Honor's very aware, this is the factor that looks at the 

Appx681

Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 110-5 Filed 08/20/21 Page 14 of 24 Case: 21-160 Document: 2-2 Page: 701 Filed: 07/02/2021 (749 of 764)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)

14

Court congestion in the Northern District versus the Court 

congestion in Your Honor's Court and compares the two. 

And I think what's helpful here is to look at Your Honor's 

recent order from the TikTok case. This order came out on 

May 21st, 2021. And in that order Your Honor found that this 

factor was neutral. And I think that that is, you know -- I 

think Your Honor should follow your analysis in TikTok. That 

was also a case that was being transferred from the Western 

District of Texas to the Northern District of California. And 

it is -- I guess that's less than two weeks ago. So, you know, 

based on that, I think that in this case the same exact 

analysis would apply. I don't know why it wouldn't apply. 

I also think that, you know, the Federal Circuit gave some 

guidance on this factor late last year in the in re Apple case 

where they reached a similar conclusion. They found that 

looking at, you know, the congestion in the Northern District 

and the Western District of Texas, that this was a neutral 

factor. 

And it's also important to remember that this is a -- and 

the Federal Circuit has said this, I think in the Apple case, 

that this is one of those factors that's definitely on the 

speculative side because many things can happen between now, 

the early stages of a case, and trial. And I know Your Honor 

does your very best job to keep the trial date, but sometimes 

that's difficult. And so this is -- this is a factor that 

Appx682

Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 110-5 Filed 08/20/21 Page 15 of 24 Case: 21-160 Document: 2-2 Page: 702 Filed: 07/02/2021 (750 of 764)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)

15

tends to be on the very speculative side. 

But at the end of the day, I think, you know, given Your 

Honor's recent opinion in TikTok, this is a neutral factor. 

And then, finally, the last of the disputed factors is the 

local interest factor. And what this factor analyzes is the 

local interest in the two different venues we're comparing. So 

we have to look at the local interest in Texas and compare 

those to the local interest in the Northern District of 

California. And I would submit, Your Honor, that when you do 

that, this factor also strongly favors transfer. 

The key on this factor is you have to look at the 

connections between a venue and the events that give rise to 

the suit. That's the key language, the events that give rise 

to the suit. And that comes out of Federal Circuit cases such 

as Hoffman-La Roche. 

And so if you take a step back and you look at what events 

gave rise to this suit, it's really the creation of the accused 

products and the sale of the accused products. And that 

primarily happens out of Sunnyvale, California. It does not 

happen at all in Texas. 

There are, of course, Juniper products sold in the Western 

District of Texas. But there's also Juniper products sold in 

every district in the United States. So that doesn't really 

have a significant impact on this. And I think there's also 

Federal Circuit case law on that. 

Appx683

Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 110-5 Filed 08/20/21 Page 16 of 24 Case: 21-160 Document: 2-2 Page: 703 Filed: 07/02/2021 (751 of 764)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)

16

And, you know, the fact that WSOU chose to create an 

office in Waco, Texas, that just does not submit -- or that 

does not create a local interest. The local interest is really 

created by the alleged infringer and where they created the 

accused products. 

And I think that's especially true when the plaintiff sets 

up an office and it's done simply to try and establish some 

type of presence, you know, prior to filing suits against 

multiple companies. And I think the Federal Circuit recognized 

this sort of issue in the in re Zimmer Holdings case at 609 

F.3d 1378, when the Federal Circuit found that transfer was 

warranted where the plaintiff's presence in Texas appeared to 

be recent, ephemeral and an artifact of litigation.

And I think that -- I think if you look at the facts in 

this case, especially after we took Mr. Hogan's deposition that 

we submitted a lot of that testimony to Your Honor with our 

papers, I think you'll see that this is a situation just like 

that. 

So in sum, of the five disputed transfer factors, I think 

the relative ease of access of sources of proof strongly favors 

transfer. The availability of compulsory process favors 

transfer or is neutral at a minimum. The cost of attending -- 

attendance for willing witnesses strongly favors transfer. The 

Court congestion factor is neutral. And the local interest 

factor -- or the local interest factor strongly favors 

Appx684

Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 110-5 Filed 08/20/21 Page 17 of 24 Case: 21-160 Document: 2-2 Page: 704 Filed: 07/02/2021 (752 of 764)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)

17

transfer. 

And so that is all I wanted to cover, Your Honor. If you 

have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. But, you 

know, given that analysis, I believe this case is a very clear 

candidate for transfer. 

THE COURT: Now I'll hear a response from WSOU. 

MS. HARTMAN: Thank you, Your Honor. 

Your Honor, Juniper has not met its burden to show that 

transfer is clearly more convenient. I'm first going to 

discuss Brazos' ties and then Juniper's, and I'll correct the 

record or respond to what counsel said along the way. 

Brazos is a Waco-based company, and it does have strong 

local ties. And it has those ties since before these cases 

were filed. 

It has witnesses in Waco, including Mr. Hogan, who will be 

called as a witness as to Brazos' business operations, and 

Brazos does have sources of proof in Waco and managed from 

Waco. 

Mr. Hogan did testify that documents relating to Brazos' 

business are stored in a filing cabinet in Waco, which is 

different than what counsel was referring to. 

You know, given that Brazos is a Waco-based company with 

witnesses in Waco, this case is very different from the Federal 

Circuit decisions that are so heavily relied on by Juniper, 

including in re Apple and in re Adobe and in re Tracfone. 

Appx685

Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 110-5 Filed 08/20/21 Page 18 of 24 Case: 21-160 Document: 2-2 Page: 705 Filed: 07/02/2021 (753 of 764)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)

18

Brazos chose Waco for its headquarters because Waco was a 

burgeoning tech center with Baylor University as the anchor. 

Brazos' founders wanted to intrench themselves in a place where 

there was technology being developed that could potentially be 

patented. Brazos is operating its business there and has been 

since before these cases were filed. 

Simply because COVID-19 threw a wrench in travel over the 

past year and a half to anywhere, including to Waco, does not 

make that otherwise. 

In addition to showing that it has witnesses and sources 

of proof in Waco, Brazos has also identified at least two 

inventors who live in Texas and would be subject to the Court's 

compulsory process, as they would not incur substantial expense 

to come testify. 

Brazos has also identified other third-party inventors and 

prosecuting attorneys who are located across the globe but 

closer to Waco. 

In addition, according to the most recent U.S. Federal 

Court statistics, not relying solely on the Court's schedule, 

the time to trial in this district is faster than in Northern 

California. Juniper has not shown that any of the transfer 

factors favor transfer, much less that it's clearly more 

convenient. 

Juniper actually concedes that its sources of proof are 

stored on servers located across the globe. This does not 

Appx686

Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 110-5 Filed 08/20/21 Page 19 of 24 Case: 21-160 Document: 2-2 Page: 706 Filed: 07/02/2021 (754 of 764)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)

19

favor transfer. 

Juniper also does not show that any witnesses are 

unwilling to testify, much less that any unwilling witnesses 

are subject to the -- only the compulsory process of Northern 

California. 

It is Juniper's burden to show unwillingness. Juniper's 

prior art witnesses are unpersuasive for several reasons, 

including because Juniper does not show that any are unwilling. 

Three or four of them are also subject to compulsory process in 

this Court. 

Juniper does not identify -- or I'm sorry. As to the 

recent argument that counsel just made as to Mr. Shanus and 

Mr. Etchegoyen, those are party witnesses not located in 

Northern California and not considered under the unwilling 

witness factor. 

As to convenience of willing witnesses, Juniper does not 

identify any third-party willing witnesses, and it identifies 

employees with relevant knowledge but who are located across 

the globe. 

And finally, as to the local interest factor, to respond 

to what counsel said, contrary to what counsel said, Juniper 

actually has multiple offices in Texas. I believe in Plano, 

Houston, and its witness testified that it does still pay the 

lease for the Austin office, and it definitely did and 

maintained that office at the time this action was filed, which 

Appx687

Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 110-5 Filed 08/20/21 Page 20 of 24 Case: 21-160 Document: 2-2 Page: 707 Filed: 07/02/2021 (755 of 764)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)

20

is not in dispute. 

Juniper also admits that it has at least 40 employees, 

numerous resellers and distributors and a significant amount of 

sales of accused products in this district and did so at the 

time these actions were filed. 

It also admits that at least some of the accused products 

and functionality were designed and developed outside of 

California. 

In sum, Your Honor, many of the factors weigh against 

transfer and none favor it. Juniper has not satisfied its 

burden to show that transfer is clearly more convenient. So 

Brazos respectfully requests that Your Honor deny Juniper's 

motion to transfer. 

Thank you. 

THE COURT: Any rebuttal to that? 

MR. BRIGGS: Your Honor, very brief -- this is Todd 

Briggs, again -- very briefly. 

Much of what counsel just argued, much of the facts and 

the arguments that were made have been found time and again to 

be irrelevant to the transfer analysis. 

For example, the fact that Juniper's documents can be 

accessed, you know, from different locations around the globe, 

you know, the Federal Circuit has looked at that issue and 

said, well, that might be true, but you still need to look at 

where the primary source of the documents are for that factor. 

Appx688

Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 110-5 Filed 08/20/21 Page 21 of 24 Case: 21-160 Document: 2-2 Page: 708 Filed: 07/02/2021 (756 of 764)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)

21

And that's undeniably in Sunnyvale, California. 

And counsel, again, is attempting to argue that Brazos has 

a very strong connection to Texas. And I think Ms. Hartman 

actually said that they have witnesses, plural, you know, 

potential witnesses, plural. I'm not aware of the -- anybody, 

other than Mr. Hogan; and again, Mr. Hogan is not involved 

in -- I think Ms. Hartman said he would testify about business 

operations. I'm not sure what that is. 

The real heart and soul of WSOU with respect to this case 

and any relevant testimony comes from Mr. Etchegoyen and 

Mr. Shanus. And they are in California, they're not in Texas. 

Again, they've never even set foot in the office in Waco since 

it opened. And that's not because of COVID, as counsel 

suggested. They've been traveling. Mr. Etchegoyen travels 

back and forth to Hawaii all the time. He could easily fly to 

Texas. 

So, you know, their business is not really conducted out 

of that office. It's done by Mr. Etchegoyen and Mr. Shanus in 

Los Angeles. And by the way, WSOU also has an office in Los 

Angeles, in Santa Monica, California. So it's not like their 

only office in the United States is in Waco, Texas. 

So, again, I'm very mindful of your time, Your Honor, and 

I think we've addressed all the points today in my initial 

argument and in our papers. And if there are any specific 

issues you would like me to address, I'd be happy to do so. 

Appx689

Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 110-5 Filed 08/20/21 Page 22 of 24 Case: 21-160 Document: 2-2 Page: 709 Filed: 07/02/2021 (757 of 764)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)

22

THE COURT: I'm good. 

Anything else, Ms. Hartman? 

MS. HARTMAN: Thank you, Your Honor. 

Just to clarify, I did not actually discuss the access of 

Juniper's documents. I discussed that Juniper admitted that 

its documents were stored on servers that are located across 

the globe. 

And I will also note that the fact that Brazos subleases a 

small office space for Mr. Shanus to go to occasionally does 

not -- outside of both districts, does not change Brazos' 

connections to Waco. And I will say that Mr. Etchegoyen and 

Mr. Shanus have been to the office. It's just that during the 

last year and a half, during COVID, travel was difficult during 

COVID. 

So hopefully I addressed all of those points, and thank 

you, Your Honor. 

THE COURT: Okay. Well, we're working on this and we'll 

get something out hopefully in the very near future. 

Thank you, everyone, for your arguments this morning. 

(Off-the-record discussion.)

THE COURT: Those of you who are here for this motion to 

transfer hearing, thank you. You all can drop off and we'll 

take up the Markman now. 

(Hearing adjourned at 9:40 a.m.) 

Appx690

Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 110-5 Filed 08/20/21 Page 23 of 24 Case: 21-160 Document: 2-2 Page: 710 Filed: 07/02/2021 (758 of 764)
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

KRISTIE M. DAVIS, OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (WACO)

23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT )

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS )

I, Kristie M. Davis, Official Court Reporter for the 

United States District Court, Western District of Texas, do 

certify that the foregoing is a correct transcript from the 

record of proceedings in the above-entitled matter. 

I certify that the transcript fees and format comply with 

those prescribed by the Court and Judicial Conference of the 

United States.

Certified to by me this 6th day of June 2021. 

 /s/ Kristie M. Davis

 KRISTIE M. DAVIS

Official Court Reporter

 800 Franklin Avenue

Waco, Texas 76701

 (254) 340-6114

kmdaviscsr@yahoo.com 

Appx691

Case 6:20-cv-00475-ADA Document 110-5 Filed 08/20/21 Page 24 of 24 Case: 21-160 Document: 2-2 Page: 711 Filed: 07/02/2021 (759 of 764)