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’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR 

TRANSFER OF VENUE TO THE AUSTIN DIVISION 

OF THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 36 Filed 10/29/20 Page 1 of 10
i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

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

I. DIFFERENT CASES ARE BEST SERVED BY DIFFERENT VENUES .........1

A. Sable Mischaracterizes Dell’s Transfer Requests as a Defendant ..................1

B. EMC’S Prior Litigations are Irrelevant...........................................................3

II. THE AUSTIN DIVISION IS MORE CONVENIENT IN THIS CASE ..............3

A. Co-Pending Litigations, Including Consolidation for Markman, is 

Neutral.............................................................................................................3

B. Convenience for Defendants’ Witnesses and the Ties to the Subject 

Matter of the Dispute are Paramount ..............................................................4

CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 5

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 36 Filed 10/29/20 Page 2 of 10
ii 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

 Page(s) 

Cases 

Alacritech, Inc., v. CenturyLink, Inc., 

No. 2:16-cv-693-JRG (E.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2016) .........................................................2 

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

No. 6:19-CV-00129-ADA, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154170 

(W.D. Tex. June 7, 2019) ...............................................................................................5 

EMC Corp. v. Pure Storage Inc., 

No. 1:13-cv-01985-RGA (D. Del. Nov. 26, 2013) ........................................................3 

EMC Corp. v. Zerto, Inc., 

No. 1:12-cv-00956-GMS (D. Del. July 20, 2012) .........................................................3 

Koster v. (Am.) Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 

330 U.S. 518 (1947) .......................................................................................................1 

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

No. 6:19-CV-00432-ADA, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150926 

(W.D. Tex. Aug. 6, 2020) ..............................................................................................4 

Polaris Innovations Ltd. v. Dell Inc., 

No. SA-16-CV-451-XR (W.D. Tex. Dec. 5, 2016) ...................................................1, 2 

Ranger Sec. Detectors, Inc. v. Metorex, Inc., 

No. EP-05-CA-0385-FM, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7990 

(W.D. Tex. Feb. 7, 2006) ...............................................................................................5 

Round Rock Research, LLC v. Dell Inc., 

No. 11-976-RGA (D. Del. Apr. 5, 2012) .......................................................................2 

Sable Networks, Inc. et al., v. Juniper Networks, Inc., 

No. 6:20-cv-524-ADA (W.D. Tex. Sept. 10, 2020) ......................................................4 

In re Vistaprint Ltd., 

628 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2010)......................................................................................1 

Other Authorities 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 .................................................................................................................5 

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 36 Filed 10/29/20 Page 3 of 10
1 

INTRODUCTION 

On October 8, 2020, Defendants Dell Technologies Inc., Dell Inc., and EMC Corporation 

(collectively “Dell”) filed a Motion for Transfer of Venue to the Austin Division. On October 22, 

Sable Networks, Inc. and Sable IP, LLP (collectively “Sable” or “Plaintiff”) filed its Response to 

the Motion. 

In its Response, Sable fails to identify a single witness or document in this Division. 

Instead, Sable mischaracterizes Dell’s past actions in unrelated cases to distract from the clear 

convenience of the Austin Division. The Austin Division has close ties to the products at issue 

and witnesses in this case. Dell respectfully requests transfer. 

I. DIFFERENT CASES ARE BEST SERVED BY DIFFERENT VENUES 

 “Each case turns on its facts.” In re Vistaprint Ltd., 628 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2010) 

(quoting Koster v. (Am.) Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 330 U.S. 518, 528 (1947)). Different cases 

present different facts and corresponding local ties. As such, transfer is “an individualized, caseby-case consideration of the relevant factors, balancing convenience and efficiency.” Id. (internal 

quotation omitted). Dell’s consistent position, in all cases it litigates, is that cases should be 

litigated in the venue most convenient for that case. 

A. Sable Mischaracterizes Dell’s Transfer Requests as a Defendant 

Dell attempts to litigate in the most convenient forum. Often, that is the district or 

division with the closest contacts to the products at issue. Consistent with this position, Dell, in 

some instances, requests transfer outside of Texas when the weight of evidence rests with one of 

Dell’s suppliers in another district, or if the accused products were developed in another district, 

resulting in evidence and witnesses outside of Dell’s offices in Round Rock. 

Plaintiff intentionally mischaracterizes Dell’s efforts to litigate cases in the most 

convenient fora. Plaintiff cites to Polaris Innovations Limited v. Dell Inc., to support its position 

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 36 Filed 10/29/20 Page 4 of 10
2 

that Dell repeatedly seeks to litigate in Northern California. No. SA-16-CV-451-XR (W.D. Tex. 

Dec. 5, 2016). In that case, Dell sought transfer because its supplier, NVIDIA, designed, 

developed, and marketed the products at issue in NVIDIA’s Santa Clara Office. Polaris, No. SA16-CV-451-XR (W.D. Tex. Dec. 5, 2016), D.I. 25 at 8 (“NVIDIA’s Santa Clara office is where 

the bulk of the design, development, marketing, and sales activities occur. It is home to 2,630 

employees knowledgeable about all aspects of the accused products and both electronic and 

physical documents and evidence.”). Plaintiff also cites to Round Rock Research, LLC v. Dell 

Inc., in which Dell similarly sought transfer to California. No. 11-976-RGA (D. Del. Apr. 5, 

2012), D.I. 35 at 8-9. There, Dell identified ten (10) suppliers located in California with ties to 

the accused products. Id. Similarly, in Alacritech, Inc., v. CenturyLink, Inc., Dell sought transfer 

to the Northern District of California because “critical sources of proof are located primarily in 

NDCAL” and “[n]o pertinent third-party suppliers are located in this District.” No. 2:16-cv-693-

JRG (E.D. Tex. Sept. 29, 2016), D.I. 59 at 9. In each of these cases, the accused products were 

largely developed by third parties in California, thus transfer was reasonable and convenient. 

Each of these requests support Dell’s consistent position, that cases should be tried in the most 

convenient venue based on the facts of each case. 

Here, Dell seeks transfer to the Austin division, a jurisdiction that Dell has consistently 

maintained is convenient for litigation regarding Dell-designed and manufactured products. For 

example, in Polaris, Dell sought transfer to the Austin Division as an alternative to litigation in 

California. No. SA-16-CV-451-XR (W.D. Tex. Dec. 5, 2016), D.I. 25 at 13 (“Thus, in the event 

the Court does not transfer the case to the Northern District of California, the public and private 

interest factors favor transferring the case to the Austin Division.”). Dell seeks to litigate cases 

where evidence is most easily accessed. In this case, that venue is the Austin Division. 

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 36 Filed 10/29/20 Page 5 of 10
3 

B. EMC’S Prior Litigations are Irrelevant 

Sable cites cases where EMC Corporation was a plaintiff to support its false claim that 

Dell engages in forum shopping and can easily litigate anywhere. D.I. 35 at 4-5. However, Sable 

fails to recognize a key piece of information – at the time of the cited EMC actions, 2012-2013, 

Dell and EMC Corporation were completely separate entities. See EMC Corp. v. Zerto, Inc., No. 

1:12-cv-00956-GMS (D. Del. July 20, 2012); EMC Corp. v. Pure Storage Inc., No. 1:13-cv01985-RGA (D. Del. Nov. 26, 2013). EMC Corporation was an independent Massachusetts 

corporation, so it is not surprising that it did not file in the Austin Division as it had no ties to this 

District whatsoever. Dell Inc. did not acquire EMC Corporation until September 2016, several 

years later. Griffin Dec. Exh. 1. EMC Corporation’s actions eight years ago, years before its 

merger with Dell, have no bearing on the most convenient venue for this case. The present 

litigation, filed against a company headquartered in Round Rock, implicates products and 

evidence most conveniently accessed in the Austin Division. 

II. The Austin Division is More Convenient in this Case 

Sable fails to identify a single source of proof, a single witness or document, in the Waco 

Division - because none exist. Further, other co-pending litigations do not warrant retention in 

the Waco Division, as the actions are not consolidated, and the accused products and sources of 

evidence are different. The consolidated Markman hearing does not weigh against transfer as the 

other party to the Markman hearing also seeks transfer. All relevant ties in this District, lie in 

Austin. As such, the Austin Division is the most convenient venue for this case. 

A. Co-Pending Litigations, Including Consolidation for Markman, is 

Neutral 

Plaintiff alleges that the consolidated Markman proceedings, and other co-pending cases, 

warrant retaining this case in Waco. However, Juniper Networks, Inc. also seeks transfer out of 

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 36 Filed 10/29/20 Page 6 of 10
4 

this Division, to the Northern District of California. Sable Networks, Inc. v. Juniper Networks, 

Inc., No. 6:20-cv-524-ADA (W.D. Tex. Sept. 10, 2020), D.I. 20. “In considering the presence of 

co-pending litigation, the Court must also consider the presence of co-pending motions to 

transfer.” Parus Holdings Inc. v. LG Elecs. Inc., No. 6:19-CV-00432-ADA, 2020 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 150926, at *21 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 6, 2020). As found in Parus Holdings, when other 

defendants are also seeking transfer, the presence of co-pending litigation is neutral. Id. at *21-

22 (when multiple defendants had filed motions to transfer “the presence of co-pending litigation 

is neutral with respect to transfer.”). It is possible that Juniper will not participate in the pending 

consolidated Markman. Further, as Plaintiff acknowledges, transfer to Austin need not impact 

the Markman proceedings, which could go forward as scheduled. D.I. 35 at 11. 

With respect to the other pending litigations, Plaintiff filed cases in Waco over a fourand-a-half month span, asserting a differing set of patents against each defendant. The cases, 

which are all still in their infancy, do not involve the same products, schedules, or identical 

patents. D.I. 35-1 at ¶23. Plaintiff made clear at the September 24th hearing that it was reluctant 

to delay trials in its earlier cases, making consolidation unlikely. Griffin Dec. Exh. 2 at 12:2-19. 

The co-pending litigations and the consolidated Markman are neutral with respect to transfer to 

the Austin Division. 

B. Convenience for Defendants’ Witnesses and the Ties to the Subject 

Matter of the Dispute are Paramount 

As Plaintiff is unable to identify a single source of proof in this Division, maximizing the 

convenience of trial by moving closer to Dell’s offices and sources of proof, which will not 

prejudice Plaintiff, is the most relevant concern. 

In an attempt to distract from relevant ties to this case, Sable cites to a LinkedIn search 

where it identified more than 120 Dell employees residing in the Dallas/Fort Worth Area. D.I. 35 

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 36 Filed 10/29/20 Page 7 of 10
5 

at 7. This misses the point. There is no evidence that these Dallas witnesses are relevant to the 

case. Dell is a multinational corporation with over 150,000 employees that have diverse 

responsibilities and product knowledge. Griffin Dec. Exh. 3. Contrary to Plaintiff’s claims 

regarding compulsory service of process, should these Dallas employees prove knowledgeable 

(which Dell doubts), Rule 45 compulsory process is equally available in the Austin Division. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(1)(B) (“A subpoena may command a person to attend a trial, hearing, or 

deposition only as follows: within the state where the person resides, is employed, or regularly 

transacts business in person, if the person (i) is a party or a party’s officer.”) 

Plaintiff also inaccurately alleges that Waco will be more convenient for their expert, Dr. 

Eugene Ng of Houston. D.I. 35 at 6. Like Dell, Dr. Ng is closer to Austin than to Waco. Griffin 

Dec. Exhs. 4 and 5. Even if Waco was more convenient for Dr. Ng, “[t]he convenience of expert 

witnesses weighs little in the [transfer] analysis.” Ranger Sec. Detectors, Inc. v. Metorex, Inc., 

No. EP-05-CA-0385-FM, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7990, at *9 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 7, 2006). 

The subject matter of this case – whether Dell’s products infringe Plaintiff’s patents – 

centers around Dell, which is located in the Austin Division. Similar to Data Scape Limited v. 

Dell Technologies Inc., a case where Dell similarly identified relevant operations in Austin, 

California, and outside the United States, “the outcome of the instant action likely affects local 

Austin interest more acutely than local Waco interests.” No. 6:19-CV-00129-ADA, 2019 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 154170, at *8 (W.D. Tex. June 7, 2019). Thus, the “local interest factor [] strongly 

favors transfer.” Id. This case has no ties to Waco. The nexus of this case resides in Austin. 

CONCLUSION 

Defendant Dell respectfully requests this court transfer this case to Austin, as the case has 

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

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 36 Filed 10/29/20 Page 8 of 10
6 

Dated: October 29, 2020 Respectfully submitted 

 By: /s/ Michael J. Newton

Michael J. Newton (TX. Bar No. 24003844) 

Brady Cox (TX. Bar No. 24074084) 

ALSTON & BIRD LLP 

2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2300 

Dallas, Texas 75201 

Phone: (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 Defendant Dell Technologies Inc., 

Dell Inc., and EMC Corporation 

.

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 36 Filed 10/29/20 Page 9 of 10
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 29, 2020. 

/s/ Michael J. Newton

Dated: October 29, 2020 Michael J. Newton 

Case 6:20-cv-00569-ADA Document 36 Filed 10/29/20 Page 10 of 10