IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

WACO DIVISION

INFOGATION CORPORATION,

Plaintiff,

v.

GOOGLE LLC,

Defendant.

Civil Action No. 6:20-cv-0366-ADA

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

DEFENDANT GOOGLE LLC’S MOTION TO STAY PENDING TRANSFER

Case 6:20-cv-00366-ADA Document 48 Filed 12/04/20 Page 1 of 5
- 1 -

Defendant Google LLC (“Google”) respectfully requests a brief stay of all proceedings, 

including the Markman hearing scheduled for March 12, 2021. As explained in Google’s transfer

motion, this case involves a compelling set of facts demonstrating that the Southern District of 

California (“SDCA”) is much more convenient for both Plaintiff and Google. See Dkt. 30. The 

briefing seeking transfer to the SDCA was completed by September 11, 2020. See Dkts. 30, 34, 

38, 39. And since then, Google has filed two notices of supplemental authority in support of its 

motion to transfer. See Dkts. 41, 42.

“In determining whether a stay is proper, a district court should consider, among other

factors, (1) the potential prejudice to the non-moving party; (2) the hardship and inequity to the

moving party if the action is not stayed; and (3) judicial resources.” Neodron Ltd. v. Dell Techs.,

2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23309, *10 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 16, 2019) (Albright, J.) (citing Yeti Coolers,

LLC v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 1:17-cv-342, 2018 WL 2122868, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 8, 2018)

(Pitman, J.)). Here, all relevant legal factors favor the stay.

First, Plaintiff cannot argue any prejudice because it previously chose to litigate similar 

cases in the SDCA where it sued three of Google’s original equipment manufacturers, asserted the 

same U.S. Patent No. 6,292,743, and accused Google technology. InfoGation Corp. v. ZTE (USA), 

Inc., No. 3:16-cv-1901 (S.D. Cal.); InfoGation Corp. v. HTC Corp., No. 3:16-cv-1902 (S.D. Cal.);

InfoGation Corp. v. Huawei Device USA, Inc., No. 3:16-cv-1903 (S.D. Cal.). There, Plaintiff 

repeatedly relied on its connections to the SDCA to defeat those defendants’ jurisdictional 

motions. See Dkt. 30 at 4-5. Further, Plaintiff is headquartered in the SDCA, which is also where

its CEO founder and co-inventor of the ’743 Patent, Dr. Qing Kent Pu, is located. Google’s

witnesses, Google’s relevant sources of proof, and other relevant third-party witnesses are also all

located in California, not in Texas. The inconvenience of travel for witnesses and transporting 

Case 6:20-cv-00366-ADA Document 48 Filed 12/04/20 Page 2 of 5
- 2 -

evidence is only heightened in light of the pandemic. Further, a stay would not prejudice Plaintiff 

because this case is in its infancy, discovery has not yet opened, and trials in this District have 

been postponed due to the pandemic.

Second, Google will suffer unnecessary hardship from spending resources on a Markman

hearing and fact discovery, which will begin in the near future, and which would likely differ under 

the rules of another district and judge.

And third, a stay will certainly conserve judicial resources by avoiding the time-intensive 

tasks of a Markman hearing and claim construction order. Indeed, conducting such proceedings 

in this District would be duplicative because the SDCA Court previously conducted claim 

construction proceedings and issued an order on the same. InfoGation Corp. v. Huawei Device 

USA, Inc., No. 3:16-cv-1903, Dkt. 74 (S.D. Cal. May 5, 2017). Google and Plaintiff recently 

exchanged proposed terms for construction, and many of the proposed terms overlap with those 

already construed in the SDCA Court’s order, including “optimal route,” “non-proprietary,” and

“natural language.” There is no reason for this Court to duplicate that effort if the case will be 

transferred to the SDCA.

Accordingly, all relevant factors favor a stay. For at least these reasons, Google’s pending 

transfer motion should take priority, and Google respectfully requests a short stay pending a 

decision on it.

Case 6:20-cv-00366-ADA Document 48 Filed 12/04/20 Page 3 of 5
- 3 -

Dated: December 4, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ J. Mark Mann

J. Mark Mann

State Bar No. 12926150

mark@themannfirm.com

G. Blake Thompson

State Bar No. 24042033

blake@themannfirm.com

MANN | TINDEL | THOMPSON

300 West Main Street

Henderson, Texas 75652

Telephone: 903/657-8540

Facsimile: 903/657-6003

Darin W. Snyder (pro hac vice)

dsnyder@omm.com

David S. Almeling (pro hac vice)

dalmeling@omm.com

Mark Liang (pro hac vice)

mliang@omm.com

Bess Ibtisam Hanish (pro hac vice)

bhanish@omm.com

Daniel Silverman (pro hac vice)

dsilverman@omm.com

O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP

Two Embarcadero Center, 28th Floor

San Francisco, California 94111

Telephone: (415) 984-8700

Facsimile: (415) 984-8701

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT

GOOGLE LLC

Case 6:20-cv-00366-ADA Document 48 Filed 12/04/20 Page 4 of 5
- 4 -

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

On November 30, 2020, pursuant to Local Rule CV-7, counsel Daniel Silverman for 

Defendant met and conferred with counsel Patricia Y. Ho for Plaintiff, and counsel for Plaintiff 

indicated on November 30, 2020, that Plaintiff is opposed to the relief sought by this Motion.

December 4, 2020 /s/ Daniel Silverman

Daniel Silverman

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

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

service are being served this December 4, 2020, with a copy of this document via electronic 

mail.

Dated: December 4, 2020 /s/ J. Mark Mann

J. Mark Mann

Case 6:20-cv-00366-ADA Document 48 Filed 12/04/20 Page 5 of 5