1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

SQIP, LLC

v.

CAMBRIA COMPANY, LLC

§

§

§

§

§

CIVIL NO. 4:23-CV-202-SDJ

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Plaintiff SQIP, LLC (“SQIP”) has sued Defendant Cambria Company LLC 

(“Cambria”) for patent infringement. Cambria has filed its Motion to Transfer Venue 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), (Dkt. #21), asking the Court to transfer this case to the 

District of Minnesota. The motion is opposed and has been fully briefed. Because the 

Court concludes that Cambria has demonstrated that the District of Minnesota is 

clearly a more convenient venue for this action, the motion will be granted. 

I. BACKGROUND

SQIP is a Florida company that specializes in engineering natural quartz 

surface products used for building purposes, such as kitchen and bathroom 

countertops. It owns a portfolio of patents on those products and methods for making 

them. SQIP alleges that Cambria has infringed two of SQIP’s patents on 

manufacturing methods, specifically by importing, making, using, offering to sell, 

and/or selling products using the patents without a license or permission from SQIP, 

including in this judicial district. Cambria has asserted, and SQIP does not contest, 

that SQIP otherwise has no connection to this District. 

Cambria is a competitor of SQIP. It manufactures quartz surface products for 

homes and businesses. Cambria has presented uncontested testimony that it is 

Case 4:23-cv-00202-SDJ Document 29 Filed 03/29/24 Page 1 of 14 PageID #: 550
2

headquartered in Minnesota and that the accused products are manufactured 

entirely at its manufacturing facility in Minnesota. Cambria has also provided 

uncontested testimony that, with the exception of one employee who resides in 

Seattle, Washington, all persons with nonpublic knowledge of Cambria’s 

manufacturing processes live and work in Minnesota. Similarly, Cambria has 

confirmed, and SQIP does not contest, that all of Cambria’s documents regarding any 

nonpublic aspects of Cambria’s accused products and processes, including both paper 

and electronic materials, are located at Cambria’s manufacturing facility and 

corporate offices in Minnesota. It is also undisputed that Cambria does not 

manufacture any products in the State of Texas and none of its executive team or 

corporate leadership resides in Texas. 

Cambria does have a showroom in The Colony, Texas, and a sales and 

distribution center showroom in Lewisville, Texas. These facilities are not unique to 

Texas, as Cambria maintains such facilities throughout the country. It is undisputed 

that Cambria’s showroom and distribution center in Texas have no involvement in 

manufacturing the accused products and no employees at these facilities have any 

involvement or unique knowledge of Cambria’s manufacturing processes. Likewise, 

no documents regarding Cambria’s accused processes are kept at its Texas facilities. 

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Section 1404(a) permits the transfer of civil actions for the convenience of the 

parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice to other districts or divisions where 

the plaintiffs could have properly brought the action. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). District 

courts have broad discretion in deciding whether to transfer a case under Section 

Case 4:23-cv-00202-SDJ Document 29 Filed 03/29/24 Page 2 of 14 PageID #: 551
3

1404(a), In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc. (Volkswagen II), 545 F.3d 304, 311 (5th Cir. 

2008) (en banc), and Section 1404(a) motions are adjudicated on an “individualized, 

case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.” TravelPass Grp. v. Caesars 

Ent. Corp., No. 5:18-cv-153, 2019 WL 3806056, at *11 (E.D. Tex. May 9, 2019) 

(quoting Stewart Org. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29, 108 S.Ct. 2239,101 L.Ed.2d 22 

(1988)), report and recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 4071784 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 29, 

2019). In patent cases, Section 1404(a) motions are governed by the law of the 

regional circuit—here, the Fifth Circuit. In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315, 

1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008). 

The party seeking a transfer under Section 1404(a) must show good cause. 

Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 315. In this context, showing good cause requires the 

moving party to “clearly demonstrate that a transfer is for the convenience of parties 

and witnesses [and] in the interest of justice.” Id. (cleaned up) (quoting 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1404(a)). When the movant fails to demonstrate that the proposed transferee venue 

is “clearly more convenient” than the plaintiff’s chosen venue, “the plaintiff's choice 

should be respected.” Id. Conversely, when the movant demonstrates that the 

proposed transferee venue is clearly more convenient, the movant has shown good 

cause, and the court should transfer the case. Id. The “clearly more convenient” 

standard is not equal to a clear-and-convincing-evidence standard, but it is 

nevertheless “materially more than a mere preponderance of convenience.” Quest 

NetTech Corp. v. Apple, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-118, 2019 WL 6344267, at *7 (E.D. Tex. 

Nov. 27, 2019).

Case 4:23-cv-00202-SDJ Document 29 Filed 03/29/24 Page 3 of 14 PageID #: 552
4

To determine whether a Section 1404(a) movant has demonstrated that the 

proposed transferee venue is “clearly more convenient,” the Fifth Circuit employs the 

four private-interest and four public-interest factors first enunciated in Gulf Oil 

Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 67 S.Ct. 839, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947). Volkswagen II, 

545 F.3d at 315. The private-interest factors are: “(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; and (4) all other practical 

problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive.” Id. (citation 

omitted). The public-interest factors are: “(1) the administrative difficulties flowing 

from court congestion; (2) the local interest in having localized interests decided at 

home; (3) the familiarity of the forum with the law that will govern the case; and (4) 

the avoidance of unnecessary problems of conflict of laws [or in] the application of 

foreign law.” Id. (alteration in original) (citation omitted).

Although these factors “are appropriate for most transfer cases, they are not 

necessarily exhaustive or exclusive,” and no single factor is dispositive. Id. (citation 

omitted). Moreover, courts are not to merely tally the factors on each side. In re 

Radmax, Ltd., 720 F.3d 285, 290 n.8 (5th Cir. 2013). Instead, courts “must make 

factual determinations to ascertain the degree of actual convenience, if any, and 

whether such rises to the level of clearly more convenient.” Quest NetTech, 2019 WL 

6344267, at *7 (cleaned up) (holding that, where five factors were neutral, two 

weighed in favor of transfer, and one weighed “solidly” in favor of transfer, the movant 

had met its burden); see also In re Radmax, 720 F.3d at 290 (holding that courts abuse 

Case 4:23-cv-00202-SDJ Document 29 Filed 03/29/24 Page 4 of 14 PageID #: 553
5

their discretion when they deny transfer solely because the plaintiff’s choice of forum 

weighs in favor of denying transfer).

III. DISCUSSION

The threshold inquiry on a Section 1404(a) motion to transfer is “whether the 

judicial district to which transfer is sought would have been a district in which the 

claim could have been filed.” In re Volkswagen AG (Volkswagen I), 371 F.3d 201, 203 

(5th Cir. 2004). “Any civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the 

judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed 

acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.” 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1400(b). The Court finds that venue would have been proper in the District of 

Minnesota. Cambria is a Minnesota company with its principal place of business in 

Minnesota, and there is no dispute that Cambria manufactured the accused products 

in Minnesota. 

Having ascertained that this threshold requirement is met, the Court will 

analyze each of the private- and public-interest factors to determine whether Cambria 

has demonstrated that the District of Minnesota is a “clearly more convenient” forum 

for the instant action than the Eastern District of Texas.

A. The Private Interest Factors

1. Access to the Sources of Proof 

When analyzing the first private-interest factor, courts interpret “sources of 

proof” to encompass “non-witness evidence, such as documents and other physical 

evidence.” In re Apple Inc., 979 F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2020); accord Volkswagen 

II, 545 F.3d at 316. Courts in this District have held that this factor weighs in favor 

Case 4:23-cv-00202-SDJ Document 29 Filed 03/29/24 Page 5 of 14 PageID #: 554
6

of transfer “when a majority of the tangible and documentary evidence is located in 

the transferee court’s district.” Arnold v. Remington Arms Co., No. 6:16-CV-0074-

RWS-KNM, 2017 WL 9285419, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 17, 2017) (collecting cases). In 

patent-infringement cases, “the bulk of the relevant evidence usually comes from the 

accused infringer.” In re Apple Inc., 979 F.3d at 1340 (quoting In re Genentech, Inc., 

566 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). “Consequently, the place where the defendant’s 

documents are kept weighs in favor of transfer to that location.” Id. 

Notwithstanding well-known advances in technology and the digitization of 

data, courts nonetheless continue to consider the relevance and importance of the 

physical location of these sources. See Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 316. Parties must 

specifically identify and locate sources of proof and explain their relevance. See 

Utterback v. Trustmark Nat’l Bank, 716 F.App’x 241, 245 n.10 (5th Cir. 2017); AGIS 

Software Dev. LLC v. Huawei Device USA Inc., No. 2:17-CV-513, 2018 WL 2329752, 

at *5 (E.D. Tex. May 22, 2018). The Fifth Circuit has explained that a decreased 

inconvenience in access to proof due to technological advances “does not render this 

factor superfluous.” Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 316. “Thus, the physical location of 

evidence—even if stored electronically—remains a relevant consideration for the 

convenience analysis. However, the realities of electronic retrieval and delivery is an 

established reality that must bear some weight even while not making this factor 

superfluous.” Japan Display Inc. v. Tianma Microelectronics Co. Ltd., No. 2:20-CV283, 2021 WL 3772425 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 25, 2021) (cleaned up). 

Case 4:23-cv-00202-SDJ Document 29 Filed 03/29/24 Page 6 of 14 PageID #: 555
7

Cambria argues that this factor favors transfer because “all evidence and 

nonpublic documents regarding Cambria’s accused manufacturing processes are in 

Minnesota.” (Dkt. #21 at 6). To this end, Cambria submitted the sworn declaration of 

its Executive Vice President of R&D and Process Operations, Jon Grzeskowiak. He 

affirmed, and SQIP does not dispute, that all of Cambria’s products, including the 

accused products, are manufactured exclusively in Minnesota; all research, design, 

and development for these products and the processes for manufacturing them also 

took place in Minnesota; third-party vendor testing occurred exclusively in 

Minnesota; and Cambria’s documents concerning the research, development, 

implementation, marketing, and financial records related to the accused products are 

in Minnesota. (Dkt. #21–1 ¶¶ 4, 5, 7, 9). Cambria further maintains that it has no 

relevant documents in the Eastern District of Texas and that its distribution center 

and showroom in this District are uninvolved in Cambria’s accused processes. 

(Dkt. #21 at 7). This is also undisputed. 

SQIP disputes that the District of Minnesota provides better access to sources 

of proof because it understands, through the experience of its counsel in ongoing 

litigation with Cambria in another matter, that most of Cambria’s records will likely 

be stored and/or produced electronically. (Dkt. #24 at 6). Even assuming this is 

correct, however, as the Court previously noted, the physical location of sources of 

proof remains relevant to deciding this factor.1 See Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 315. 

1 SQIP cites In re Planned Parenthood for the proposition that “[w]hen a majority of 

evidence is electronic, the evidence is equally accessible in any forum.” In re Planned 

Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc., 52 F.4th 625, 630 (5th Cir. 2022). To be precise, the quoted 

finding was made by the district court in that case. The Fifth Circuit merely concluded that 

Case 4:23-cv-00202-SDJ Document 29 Filed 03/29/24 Page 7 of 14 PageID #: 556
8

Given that all the sources of proof in this case are located in the District of 

Minnesota, and with the understanding that some or all of the documents may be 

stored electronically, the Court concludes that this factor favors transfer.

2. Availability of Compulsory Process to Secure the Attendance of 

Witnesses

The second private factor is the availability of compulsory process to secure the 

attendance of witnesses. Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 316. Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 45 allows courts to subpoena a nonparty witness to ensure attendance at 

trial “within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly 

transacts business in person.” FED. R. CIV. P. 45(c)(1). As for party witnesses, a court 

may issue subpoenas “within the state where the person resides, is employed or 

regularly transacts business in person.” Id. Because party witnesses almost 

invariably attend trial willingly, “[t]his factor is directed towards unwilling thirdparty witnesses.” C&J Spec Rent Servs., Inc. v. LEAM Drilling Sys., LLC, No. 2:19-

CV-79, 2019 WL 3017379, at *3 (E.D. Tex. July 10, 2019) (citing Volkswagen II, 545 

F.3d at 316) (emphasis added). 

“when ‘the vast majority of the evidence [is] electronic, and therefore equally accessible in 

either forum[,]’ this factor bears less strongly on the transfer analysis.” In Re TikTok, Inc., 

85 F.4th 352, 358 (5th Cir. 2024) (quoting In re Planned Parenthood, 52 F.4th at 630); see 

also In re Juniper Networks, Inc., 14 F.4th 1313, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (explaining that, “while 

electronic storage of documents makes them more widely accessible than in the past, that 

does not make the sources-of proof factor irrelevant”). In short, this factor is not rendered 

irrelevant when a majority of evidence is electronic rather than physical. 

Case 4:23-cv-00202-SDJ Document 29 Filed 03/29/24 Page 8 of 14 PageID #: 557
Here, neither party identifies any unwilling non-party witnesses that reside, 

are employed, or regularly transact business within 100 miles of the Eastern District 

of Texas. Therefore, this factor is neutral. 

3. Cost for Willing Witnesses

Private-interest factor three, which focuses on the “cost of attendance for

willing witnesses,” Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 315, “is probably the single most 

important factor in transfer analysis,” In re Genentech, 566 F.3d at 1343 (quoting Neil 

Bros. v. World Wide Lines, Inc., 425 F.Supp.2d 325, 329 (E.D.N.Y. 2006)). It is 

obviously more convenient for witnesses to testify closer to home, and additional 

distance means additional travel, meal, and lodging costs, as well as additional time 

away from the witnesses’ regular employment. Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 317. 

“When the distance between an existing venue for trial of a matter and a proposed 

venue under § 1404(a) is more than 100 miles, the factor of inconvenience to 

witnesses increases in direct relationship to the additional distance to be traveled.” 

Id. (citation omitted).

The District of Minnesota is clearly more convenient for the majority of 

expected witnesses, including Cambria’s corporate officers or designated 

representative witnesses. Except for a single employee who resides Seattle, 

Washington, all of Cambria’s employees who were involved in developing and 

manufacturing the accused processes work in Cambria’s manufacturing facility or its

corporate offices located in Minnesota. SQIP’s employees, based in Florida, must

travel a similar distance regardless of whether the case is in Minnesota or Texas. 

Thus, because the Court “recogni[zes] that the bulk of relevant witnesses [are in 

9 

Case 4:23-cv-00202-SDJ Document 29 Filed 03/29/24 Page 9 of 14 PageID #: 558
10

Minnesota], . . . [u]nder Volkswagen’s 100-mile threshold, the [District of Minnesota] 

is a clearly more convenient venue for most relevant witnesses in this case.” In Re 

TikTok, Inc., 85 F.4th at 362 (cleaned up). The cost of attendance for willing witnesses 

weighs in favor of transfer. 

4. All Other Practical Problems that Make Trial Easy, Expeditious, and

Inexpensive

When considering the private-interest factors, courts must also consider “all

other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive.” 

Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 315. In particular, “the existence of duplicative suits 

involving the same or similar issues may create practical difficulties that will weigh 

heavily in favor or against transfer.” PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. NEC Corp. of Am., 

Inc., No. 6:11-CV-655, 2013 WL 9600333, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 21, 2013). 

SQIP argues that, because Cambria has previously brought five cases alleging 

patent infringement in the Western District of Texas, this factor weighs against 

transfer. This argument fails. None of the cases referenced by SQIP is before this 

Court, nor has Cambria previously filed suit or consented to venue in this District. 

Further, as Cambria notes, the lawsuits referenced by SQIP have all ended and none 

of them involved SQIP or the patents at issue in this case. 

In regard to other considerations of judicial economy, nothing suggests that a 

transfer would be inefficient. This case is at an early stage, a scheduling order has 

not been issued, and this Court has not gained substantial familiarity with the case. 

In sum, the parties have not raised, and the Court has not identified, any 

reason why judicial economy would be served—or, alternatively, frustrated—by 

Case 4:23-cv-00202-SDJ Document 29 Filed 03/29/24 Page 10 of 14 PageID #: 559
11

transferring this matter to the District of Minnesota. Private-interest factor four is 

therefore neutral. 

B. The Public-Interest Factors

The parties submit that the public-interest factors considering (1) familiarity 

of the forum with the law that will govern, and (2) conflicts of law, are neutral in the 

transfer analysis. The Court agrees. Both the Eastern District of Texas and the 

District of Minnesota are competent to resolve patent-infringement disputes. See, 

e.g., Odom v. Microsoft Corp., 596 F.Supp.2d 995, 1003–04 (E.D. Tex. 2009) (“[B]oth 

this Court and the District of Oregon are equally capable of applying patent law.”).

And no conflict of laws issues have been presented in this matter. 

The Court now addresses the remaining public-interest factors concerning 

court congestion and local interests. 

1. Court Congestion

The first public-interest factor concerns “the administrative difficulties flowing 

from court congestion.” Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 315. In the transfer analysis, court 

congestion is considered “the most speculative” factor, and when “relevant factors 

weigh in favor of transfer and others are neutral, then the speed of the transferee 

district court should not alone outweigh all those other factors.” In re Genentech, Inc., 

566 F.3d at 1347. 

Citing the same federal administrative records, the parties take differing views 

on whether the court congestion factor supports transfer. Cambria argues that this 

factor favors transfer or, at worst, is neutral because the median time from filing to 

disposition of civil cases in the District of Minnesota, as of March 2023, is 6.2 months, 

Case 4:23-cv-00202-SDJ Document 29 Filed 03/29/24 Page 11 of 14 PageID #: 560
12

compared to 8.7 months in the Eastern District of Texas. SQIP, on the other hand, 

notes that the average time to trial is faster in the Eastern District of Texas than in 

the District of Minnesota. Specifically, SQIP notes that, as of March 2023, the median 

time from filing to trial is 19.0 months in the Eastern District of Texas and 40.5 

months in the District of Minnesota.

Given that the data on the relative speed of case-resolution as between this 

District and the District of Minnesota is currently mixed, and recognizing that this is 

the most speculative factor in the transfer analysis, the Court concludes that this 

factor is neutral. 

2. Local Interests

The second public-interest factor, which focuses on the local interest in having 

localized interests decided at home, “most notably regards not merely the parties’ 

significant connections to each forum writ large, but rather the significant 

connections between a particular venue and the events that gave rise to a suit.” Def. 

Distributed v. Bruck, 30 F.4th 414, 435 (5th Cir. 2022) (cleaned up). Important 

considerations include the location of the injury, witnesses, and the plaintiff’s 

residence. Id. (citing Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 317–18). As the Fifth Circuit has 

made clear, “the place of the alleged wrong is one of the most important factors in 

venue determinations.” Id. (cleaned up).

The District of Minnesota has a greater localized interest in this case than the 

Eastern District of Texas. Cambria is headquartered in Minnesota, the events giving 

rise to the suit occurred in the District of Minnesota, and all of Cambria’s likely 

witnesses are there. Further, the accused processes were designed, developed, and 

Case 4:23-cv-00202-SDJ Document 29 Filed 03/29/24 Page 12 of 14 PageID #: 561
13

manufactured in the District of Minnesota, and Cambria’s distribution center and 

showrooms in this District––which are just two of forty-one total showrooms––are not 

involved with the accused infringement, and therefore do not create a local interest.2

Few, if any, of the events giving rise to the infringement claim occurred in the Eastern 

District of Texas. See In re Juniper Networks, Inc., 14 F.4th at 1320 (finding that 

plaintiff’s status as a Texas-based entity was not entitled to much weight, as its 

presence was recent and relatively insubstantial). 

Aside from Cambria’s limited presence, there is nothing connecting the case to 

this District. On the other hand, the place of the alleged wrongs, namely the 

development and manufacturing of the accused processes, all occurred in the District 

of Minnesota, which “shifts the center of gravity” of this action to the District of 

Minnesota. HD Silicon Sols., 2021 WL 4953884, at *6. For all these reasons, the local 

interest factor weighs in favor of transfer.

* * * *

Three of the eight private- and public-interest factors weigh in favor of 

transfer, and none of the factors weighs against transfer. A motion to transfer venue 

should be granted if the moving party shows that one venue is “clearly more 

convenient” than the other. Genentech, 566 F.3d at 1342. The Court, having 

considered the facts and law, concludes that the District of Minnesota is clearly the 

more convenient venue to resolve this action than the Eastern District of Texas.

2 SQIP claims that the two showrooms located in this District “likely account for a 

significant portion of Defendant’s total sales.” (Dkt. #24 at 9). But this is purely speculative 

and may not even be correct.

Case 4:23-cv-00202-SDJ Document 29 Filed 03/29/24 Page 13 of 14 PageID #: 562
14

IV. CONCLUSION

It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant Cambria Company, LLC’s Motion 

to Transfer Venue Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), (Dkt. #21), is GRANTED. It is further 

ORDERED that the instant action is hereby TRANSFERRED to the United States 

District Court for the District of Minnesota. 

It is further ORDERED that Defendant Cambria Company, LLC’s Motion to 

Stay Pending Resolution of Motion to Transfer, (Dkt. #22), is DENIED as moot.

Case 4:23-cv-00202-SDJ Document 29 Filed 03/29/24 Page 14 of 14 PageID #: 563