UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

WACO DIVISION 

SABLE NETWORKS, INC. AND 

SABLE IP, LLC, 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

DELL TECHNOLOGIES INC., 

DELL INC., AND 

EMC CORPORATION, 

Defendants. 

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-00569-ADA 

DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSED MOTION FOR TRANSFER OF VENUE TO 

THE AUSTIN DIVISION OF THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 32 Filed 10/08/20 Page 1 of 16
i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .............................................................................................. ii

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

STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................. 2

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

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

I. THE COURT SHOULD TRANSFER THIS CASE TO THE AUSTIN 

DIVISION .............................................................................................................4

A. Sable could have filed this Case in Austin......................................................4

B. The Austin Division is clearly more convenient than the Waco 

Division ...........................................................................................................5

1. Access to sources of proof is easier in the Austin Division ......................6

2. The cost of attendance for willing witnesses is less in the Austin 

Division .....................................................................................................6

3. Practical factors that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and 

inexpensive favor transfer to Austin .........................................................8

4. Local interests favor transfer to Austin .....................................................9

5. The remaining factors are neutral. ............................................................9

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

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 32 Filed 10/08/20 Page 2 of 16
ii 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

 Page(s) 

Cases 

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

No. 6:15- CV-00093, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183479 

(W.D. Tex. June 29, 2015) ...........................................................................................10 

Cadle Co. v. Keyser, 

No. 14-CV-00758, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20909 

(W.D. Tex. Feb. 23, 2015) .............................................................................................2 

Data Scape Ltd. v. Dell Techs., Inc., 

No. 19-CV-00129-ADA, ECF No. 44 (W.D. Tex. June 7, 2019) .....................2, 4, 5, 9 

DataQuill, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 

No. A-13-CA-706-SS, 2014 WL 2722201 (W.D. Tex. June 13, 2014) ........................5 

Eastep v. City of Odessa, 

No. 17-CV-00059, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89823 

(W.D. Tex. June 12, 2017) .............................................................................................2 

Frac Shack Inc. v. Alaska Fuel Distribs. Inc., 

No. 18-CV-00660, ECF No. 28 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 29, 2019) ..........................................2 

Hammond Dev. Int’l, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 

No. 1:20-CV-000342-ADA (W.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2020), ECF No. 65 ..............1, 4, 5, 9 

McCloud v. McLinton Energy Grp., L.L.C., 

No. 14-CV-00620, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160080 

(W.D. Tex. Nov. 14, 2014) ............................................................................................2 

MiMedx Grp., Inc. v. Tex. Human Biologics, Ltd., 

No. 14-CV-00464, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191022 

(W.D. Tex. Aug. 12, 2014) .................................................................................. passim

Neodron Ltd. v. Dell Techs. Inc., 

No. 6:19-CV-00396-ADA, ECF No. 16 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2019) ............................2 

In re Radmax, Ltd., 

720 F.3d 285 (5th Cir. 2013) .............................................................................2, 3, 4, 5 

In re Volkswagen of Am. Inc., 

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

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 32 Filed 10/08/20 Page 3 of 16
iii 

In re Zimmer Holdings, Inc., 

609 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2010)......................................................................................9 

Statutes 

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) .........................................................................................................1, 3 

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 32 Filed 10/08/20 Page 4 of 16
1

INTRODUCTION 

This Case has no relevant connections to the Waco Division. Dell Technologies 

Inc., Dell Inc., and EMC Corporation (“Dell”) therefore seek an intra-district transfer to 

the Austin Division under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Counsel for the parties have conferred in 

good faith on the substance of this motion, and Plaintiffs Sable Networks, Inc. and Sable 

IP, LLC (“Sable”) have indicated that they oppose this motion. 

The relevant witnesses and documents in this case have no ties to the Waco 

Division of the Western District of Texas. Sable Networks, Inc.’s and Sable IP, LLC’s 

principal places of business are California and Minnesota respectively. (See, Dkt. 1; ¶ 13, 

16). Sable does not allege that it has a presence or that it does any business in the Waco 

Division. (See, Dkt. 1). Nor does Sable allege any relevant contacts in the Waco Division. 

(See, id.) To Dell’s knowledge, there are none. Indeed, Sable filed its Complaint in Waco 

despite alleging that Dell maintains a physical presence in Austin and without pleading 

that Dell has any presence in Waco. (See, Dkt. 1; ¶¶ 17-19). Nor could it plead any 

presence in Waco, because none of the Dell entities have any relevant operations or 

employees in the Waco Division. Dell is headquartered in Round Rock, Texas—a city 

squarely within the Austin Division. Indeed, every single fact Plaintiff cites in its 

Complaint in support of venue in the Western District, refers to places of business in the 

Austin Division. (See, Dkt. 1; ¶ 22). 

Courts in this district have often transferred cases within the Western District of 

Texas when a case has little or no connection to the initial forum and most events and 

witnesses are located elsewhere in the district. See, e.g., Hammond Dev. Int’l, Inc. v. 

Amazon.com, Inc., No. 1:20-CV-000342-ADA, (W.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2020), ECF No. 65; 

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 32 Filed 10/08/20 Page 5 of 16
2 

Data Scape Ltd. v. Dell Techs., Inc., No. 19-CV-00129-ADA, ECF No. 44 (W.D. Tex. 

June 7, 2019) ((citing In re Radmax, Ltd., 720 F.3d 285, 288–90 (5th Cir. 2013)); see also

Neodron Ltd. v. Dell Techs. Inc., No. 6:19-CV-00396-ADA, ECF No. 16 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 

19, 2019); MiMedx Grp., Inc. v. Tex. Human Biologics, Ltd., No. 14-CV-00464, 2014 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 191022 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 12, 2014); Frac Shack Inc. v. Alaska Fuel Distribs. 

Inc., No. 18-CV-00660, ECF No. 28 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 29, 2019); McCloud v. McLinton 

Energy Grp., L.L.C., No. 14-CV-00620, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 160080 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 

14, 2014); Eastep v. City of Odessa, No. 17-CV-00059, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89823 

(W.D. Tex. June 12, 2017); Cadle Co. v. Keyser, No. 14-CV-00758, 2015 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 20909 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 23, 2015). 

The Austin Division—home of Dell’s headquarters and principal place of 

business—is a more convenient forum for this case than Waco, to which neither Dell nor 

Sable have any relevant connection. Therefore, Dell respectfully asks this Court to 

transfer this Case to Austin for the convenience of the parties and witnesses. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS 

Sable filed its complaint on June 26, 2020, alleging that Dell infringes four of its 

patents, including United States Patent Nos. 6,977,932; 7,428,209; 7,630,358; and 

8,243,593 (the “Asserted Patents”). (Dkt. 1). Sable filed its complaint in Waco, alleging 

that venue is proper in the Western District of Texas because Dell has its principal place 

of business in the Austin Division. (See, Dkt. 1; ¶ 22). 

Dell has no relevant facilities in Waco and is unaware of any relevant employees 

in the Waco area. (Crantz Dec. ¶ 8). Rather, Dell employs more than 14,000 employees in 

Round Rock and Austin. (Crantz Dec. ¶ 5). These employees work on different teams, 

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 32 Filed 10/08/20 Page 6 of 16
3 

including several related to the accused products. (Crantz Dec. ¶¶ 6–7). Aside from 

employees located in the Austin Division, Dell identified additional employees with 

knowledge of the accused products who are located in California and outside the United 

States including Chennai, India. (Crantz Dec. ¶ 7). 

Like Dell, Sable also has no relevant connection to the Waco Division. (See, Dkt. 

1). Sable alleges that its principal place of business for the two entities listed on the 

Complaint are California and Minnesota. (See Dkt. 1; ¶¶ 13, 16). The complaint does not 

allege that Sable conducts any business or has any connections to the Waco Division or 

that any relevant acts occurred there. (See Dkt. 1). 

LEGAL STANDARD 

“For 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 where it might have 

been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). As the Fifth Circuit held in Radmax, the § 1404(a) 

analysis applies not only when a defendant seeks transfer to another judicial district, but 

also when a defendant seeks transfer to another division within the same district. 720 

F.3d at 288. 

In determining whether transfer is appropriate under § 1404(a), courts first 

consider “whether a civil action ‘might have been brought’ in the destination venue.” In re 

Volkswagen of Am. Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 312 (5th Cir. 2008). If so, courts weigh the 

relative convenience of the venue based on: “(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 

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 32 Filed 10/08/20 Page 7 of 16
4 

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.” Radmax, 720 F.3d at 288 (citing Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 315). 

In Radmax, the Fifth Circuit ordered an intra-district transfer because the “facts 

and circumstances of [the] case [were] wholly grounded in the transferee forum” and the 

“case [had] no connection to the [transferor forum]” after it found that three factors 

supported the transfer and the remaining five factors were neutral. Id. at 290. Similarly, in 

Amazon and Data Scape, this Court ordered intra-district transfer from Waco to Austin 

when access to sources of proof was easier in Austin, no employees of the defendant were 

in the Waco division, and other factors either favored transfer or were neutral. No. 1:20-

CV-000342-ADA, (W.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2020), ECF No. 65, slip op. at 10-11; No. 19-CV00129-ADA, (W.D. Tex. June 7, 2019), ECF No. 44, slip op. at 3-6. 

ARGUMENT 

I. The Court Should Transfer this Case to the Austin Division 

The Court should transfer this case to the Austin Division because Sable could 

have originally filed its Complaint in Austin, and Austin is the only proper and most 

convenient division in the Western District of Texas. 

A. Sable could have filed this Case in Austin 

As an initial consideration, Courts look to whether the case could have been filed 

in the division a party seeks transfer to. Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 312. Indeed, it is 

indisputable that Sable could have filed this action in the Austin Division. This is 

indisputable because Dell has its principal place of business in the Austin Division and 

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 32 Filed 10/08/20 Page 8 of 16
5 

nearly every fact in the Complaint supports venue in the Austin Division. See MiMedx, 

2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191022, at *1. 

B. The Austin Division is clearly more convenient than the Waco 

Division 

Because Sable could have brought its Complaint in the Austin Division, the 

analysis proceeds to the relevant convenience of the Austin Division. Of the eight factors, 

four favor transfer and four are neutral. No factors support remaining in Waco. Austin is 

“clearly” the more convenient venue. “[T]he movant need not show the [factors] 

substantially outweigh the plaintiff’s choice of venue—it is enough to show the new 

venue is clearly more convenient than the original one.” DataQuill, Ltd. v. Apple Inc., 

No. A-13-CA-706-SS, 2014 WL 2722201, at *2 (W.D. Tex. June 13, 2014) (emphasis in 

original, citing In re Volkswagen of America, Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 314 (5th Cir. 2008)). 

Neither Dell nor Sable has any connection to the Waco Division. Any of the 

relevant sources or proof that lie in the Western District of Texas, lie in the Austin 

Division. (Crantz Dec. ¶¶ 5–8). Accordingly, the relative ease of access to sources of 

proof, the cost of attendance for willing witnesses, other practical problems, and Austin’s 

local interest in the case all strongly favor transfer. The remaining four factors are 

neutral. Thus, the Court should transfer. See Radmax, 720 F.3d at 290 (compelling intradistrict transfer where three factors supported transfer and five were neutral); Amazon, 

No. 1:20-CV-000342-ADA, (W.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2020), ECF No. 65, slip op. 10-11 

(same); Data Scape, No. 19-CV-000129-ADA, (W.D. Tex. June 7, 2019), ECF No. 44, 

slip op. 3-6 (same). 

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 32 Filed 10/08/20 Page 9 of 16
6 

1. Access to sources of proof is easier in the Austin 

Division 

The first factor, access to sources of proof, favors transfer to the Austin Division. 

Neither Dell nor Sable have relevant operations in the Waco Division. As such, there are 

no relevant sources of proof in the Waco Division. 

Relevant evidence and witnesses from Dell can be found in the Austin Division 

with additional relevant employees in San Jose, California and Chennai, India. (Crantz 

Dec. ¶¶ 6–7). Dell has identified at least four employees located in the Austin Division 

who have responsibilities relating to the accused products, and relevant technical 

documents from those employees are located with them, in the Austin Division. (Crantz 

Dec. ¶ 6). Courts have recognized that in “patent infringement cases, ‘the bulk of the 

relevant evidence usually comes from the accused infringer. Consequently, the place 

where the defendant’s documents are kept weigh[s] in favor of transfer to that location.” 

MiMedx, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191022, at *5 (quoting In re Nintendo Co., 589 F.3d 

1194, 1199 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). 

In sum, the Austin Division is the place where Dell has a predominant presence in 

this District. The parties know of no evidence or witnesses within Waco. 

2. The cost of attendance for willing witnesses is less in the 

Austin Division 

The third convenience factor considers “the cost of attendance for willing 

witnesses.” MiMedx, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191022, at *2. It likewise favors transfer. 

Dell is a Round Rock based company and is aware of no relevant witnesses in 

Waco. (Crantz Dec. ¶ 8). Requiring Austin-based witnesses to travel over ninety (90) 

miles each way to Waco for hearings or trials would place an unnecessary burden on the 

witnesses that can be avoided if the case were in Austin. For example, the witness order 

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 32 Filed 10/08/20 Page 10 of 16
7 

and testimony schedule at trial can be unpredictable, because of this, witnesses may need 

to be on-call while waiting to testify. If the Court holds trial in Austin, these on-call 

witnesses can keep working at their regular office or homes while they wait. They would 

not have the same opportunity in Waco. 

Relevant Dell witnesses also reside outside of the Western District of Texas, 

including San Jose, California and Chennai, India. (Crantz Dec. ¶ 7). For the witnesses 

residing both in San Jose and Chennai, travel to Austin would impose less costs and be 

less disruptive than Waco for at least three reasons. First, direct flights from San Jose are 

available to Austin, but not Waco. (Griffin Dec. Exs. 1, 2). Second, flights are cheaper 

from both San Jose and Chennai to Austin than flights from San Jose and Chennai to 

Waco. (Griffin Dec. Exs. 1–4). Third, witnesses could work in Dell’s Austin or Round 

Rock offices while waiting to testify if trial were in Austin. 

To the extent trial in Austin would inconvenience Sable witnesses more than trial 

in Waco, the Court should discount that inconvenience for three reasons. First, as this 

Court has observed, in “patent infringement cases, the bulk of the relevant evidence 

usually comes from the accused infringer.” MiMedx, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191022, at *5 

(quoting Nintendo, 589 F.3d at 1199). Thus, although the parties cannot determine the 

identity and exact number of witnesses likely to testify at trial at this early stage of the 

case, it is reasonable to assume that the number of witnesses will be greater for Dell than 

for Sable. In sum, a transfer to Austin will decrease the collective overall cost and 

inconvenience to the parties. 

Second, Sable caused its own inconvenience by filing in Texas, rather than 

California or Minnesota. If convenience to its witnesses were paramount, Sable could 

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 32 Filed 10/08/20 Page 11 of 16
8 

have filed this suit close to home. By filing in Waco, Sable has shown that access to the 

judicial resources in this Division outweighed any resulting inconvenience to its 

witnesses. With this choice made, Sable cannot complain that an intra-district transfer to 

Austin would increase inconvenience, particularly where the requested transfer would 

curtail the inconvenience for Dell. Furthermore, travel to Austin is likely easier and 

cheaper for Sable’s witnesses as well, given the greater number of flights available from 

major airports across the United States. 

Lastly, and as briefly mentioned above, flights from both San Jose and Chennai 

are of less total travel time and cost to Austin. (Exs. 1–4). Indeed, flights from San Jose 

to Austin are nearly one-hundred dollars ($100) cheaper and reduce total travel time by at 

least an hour each way. (Exs. 1, 2). Flights are similarly cheaper and shorter from 

Chennai to Austin. (Exs. 3, 4). The savings of time and expense for both parties strongly 

favor transfer to Austin. 

In sum, the third factor favors transfer to the Austin Division. 

3. Practical factors that make trial of a case easy, 

expeditious and inexpensive favor transfer to Austin 

The fourth factor—practical factors that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and 

inexpensive—favors transfer to Austin. This factor particularly favors transfer when the 

case is in its earliest stages. MiMedx, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191022, at *2. Here, this 

case is still at its earliest stages. Fact discovery will not open until January. 

Sable’s co-pending actions against Cisco Systems, Inc., Juniper Networks, Inc., 

and Nokia Corporation in the Waco Division (see Case Nos. 6:20-cv-00288; 6:20-cv00524; and 6:20-cv-00808) cannot justify denying transfer. That Sable sued another 

defendant in the same forum does not “negate[] the significance of having trial close to 

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 32 Filed 10/08/20 Page 12 of 16
9 

where most of the identified witnesses reside and where the other convenience factors 

clearly favor.” In re Zimmer Holdings, Inc., 609 F.3d 1378, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2010). This 

Court has found “little if any risk of judicial waste or inefficiency” associated with 

transferring a case with three other actions in the same court that shared some of the same 

asserted patents. Data Scape, No. 19-CV-00129-ADA, (W.D. Tex. June 7, 2019), ECF 

No. 44, slip op. at 5. Accordingly, the Court should find this factor also favors transfer to 

Austin. 

4. Local interests favor transfer to Austin 

The sixth factor, local interest in having localized interests decided at home, also 

favors transfer to Austin. Austin has a considerable interest in deciding this case, while 

Waco has none. Dell operates facilities, and employs more than 14,000 people, in the 

Austin Division. (Crantz Dec. ¶ 5). Austin has more interest and connection to the 

outcome of this litigation than Waco, where no party has a presence. MiMedx, 2014 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 191022, at *7 (“Defendants and their employees are local to the San 

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

more acutely than local Austin interests.”); Amazon, No. 1:20-CV-000342-ADA, (W.D. 

Tex. Mar. 30, 2020), ECF No. 65, slip op. at 9-10; Data Scape, No. 19-CV-00129-ADA, 

(W.D. Tex. June 7, 2019), ECF No. 44, slip op. at 5-6. 

In sum, the Court should determine this factor also favors transfer to Austin. 

5. The remaining factors are neutral. 

The remaining factors are neutral. Dell is unaware of any third-party witnesses 

unwilling to attend trial. “However, courts, including courts within this district, have 

found this factor to be neutral ‘where the parties have not alleged that non-party 

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 32 Filed 10/08/20 Page 13 of 16
10 

witnesses are unwilling to testify.’” Auto-Dril, Inc. v. Pason Sys. USA Corp., No. 6:15- 

CV-00093, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183479, at *7 (W.D. Tex. June 29, 2015). 

Because the parties do not seek reassignment to another judge, there is no dispute 

that both divisions equally are familiar with the patent laws, are subject to the same local 

rules, and apply Fifth Circuit law. Therefore, these factors are also neutral. 

CONCLUSION 

Defendant Dell respectfully requests this Court transfer this case to Austin as it 

has no ties to Waco and all private and public factors either favor transfer or are neutral. 

Dated: October 8, 2020 Respectfully submitted 

 By: /s/ Michael J. Newton

Michael John Newton (TX Bar No. 24003844) 

Brady Cox (TX Bar No. 24074084) 

ALSTON & BIRD LLP 

2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2300 

Dallas, Texas 75201 

Telephone: (214) 922-3400 

Fax: (214) 922-3899 

mike.newton@alston.com 

brady.cox@alston.com 

Emily Chambers Welch (GA Bar No. 606071) 

(pro hac vice) 

ALSTON & BIRD LLP 

One Atlantic Center 

1201 W. Peachtree Street NE, Suite 4900 

Atlanta, Georgia 30309 

Telephone: (404) 881-7000 

emily.welch@alston.com 

Lauren N. Griffin (NC Bar No. 54766) 

(pro hac vice) 

ALSTON & BIRD LLP 

101 S. Tryon Street, Suite 4000 

Charlotte, North Carolina 28280 

Telephone: (704) 444-1000 

lauren.griffin@alston.com 

Attorneys for Defendants Dell Technologies

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 32 Filed 10/08/20 Page 14 of 16
11 

Inc., Dell Inc., and EMC Corporation.

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 32 Filed 10/08/20 Page 15 of 16
12 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that all counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to 

electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s CM/ECF 

system on October 8, 2020. 

/s/ Michael J. Newton

Dated: October 8, 2020 Michael J. Newton 

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 32 Filed 10/08/20 Page 16 of 16