IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MARSHALL DIVISION

Autoscribe Corporation, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Fortis Payment Systems, LLC, 

Defendant. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

 Civil Action No. 2:23-cv-00364-JRG 

 Jury Trial Demanded 

DEFENDANT FORTIS PAYMENT SYSTEMS, LLC’S OPPOSED MOTION TO 

TRANSFER TO THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

Case 2:23-cv-00364-JRG Document 17 Filed 12/01/23 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 60
i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

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

FACTUAL BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................ 1 

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

ARGUMENT ................................................................................................................................. 5 

I. Autoscribe could have sued Fortis in the EDMI. ................................................... 5 

II. The EDMI is clearly more convenient than the EDTX. ........................................ 5 

A. The private interest factors clearly favor transfer to the EDMI. ................ 6 

(1) Sources of proof are more accessible from the EDMI. .................. 6 

(2) The availability of compulsory process favors the EDMI. ............ 7 

(3) The cost of attendance for willing witnesses favors transfer 

to the EDMI. .................................................................................. 8 

(4) Practical issues of expedient adjudication are neutral. .................. 9 

B. The public interest factors clearly favor transfer. .................................... 10 

(1) The EDMI has a greater local interest in the outcome of 

this case. ....................................................................................... 10 

(2) The remaining public interest factors are neutral. ....................... 11 

CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................ 12 

Case 2:23-cv-00364-JRG Document 17 Filed 12/01/23 Page 2 of 17 PageID #: 61
ii 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

 Page(s) 

Cases 

In re Acer Am. Corp., 

626 F.3d 1252 (Fed. Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 2447 (2011) ..................................6, 7 

In re DISH Network L.L.C., 

No. 2021-182, 2021 WL 4911981 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 21, 2021).....................................................8 

In re EMC Corp., 

677 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012)..................................................................................................3 

In re Genetech, Inc., 

566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009)........................................................................................ passim

In re Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., 

587 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..................................................................................4, 7, 10, 11 

In re Microsoft Corp., 

630 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..................................................................................................5 

In re Nintendo, 

589 F.3d 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..................................................................................................4 

Nuance Commc’ns, Inc. v. Abbyy Software House, 

626 F.3d 1222 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..................................................................................................5 

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

No. 19-cv-00432, 2020 WL 4905809 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 20, 2020)..........................................10 

In re Planned Parenthood Fed. of Am., Inc., 

52 F.4th 625 (5th Cir. 2022) ..............................................................................................3, 4, 6 

SCVNGR, Inc. v. DailyGobble, Inc., 

No. 6:15-CV-493-JRG-KNM, 2015 WL 13501487 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 30, 2015) ........................7 

In re TikTok, Inc.

(5th Cir. Oct. 31, 2023) ..........................................................................................................5, 6 

In re TS Tech USA Corp., 

551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2008)..............................................................................................3, 4 

Uniloc USA Inc. v. Box, Inc., 

No. 1:17-CV-754-LY, 2018 WL 2729202 (W.D. Tex. June 6, 2018).......................................8 

Case 2:23-cv-00364-JRG Document 17 Filed 12/01/23 Page 3 of 17 PageID #: 62
iii 

In re Volkswagen AG, 

371 F.3d 201 (5th Cir. 2004) (Volkswagen I) .................................................................. passim

In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 

545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) (Volkswagen II) ................................................................. passim

Statutes 

28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) .........................................................................................................................5 

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) .....................................................................................................................3, 9 

Case 2:23-cv-00364-JRG Document 17 Filed 12/01/23 Page 4 of 17 PageID #: 63
1 

INTRODUCTION 

Defendant, Forits Payment Systems, LLC (“Fortis”), moves to transfer this case to the 

Eastern District of Michigan (“EDMI”)—a venue with far more connections to the facts of this 

case and far more convenient than the Eastern District of Texas (“EDTX”). 

Plaintiff Autoscribe Corporation (“Autoscribe”) knowingly abandoned its home states of 

Maryland and Florida to sue Fortis in Texas despite knowing that Fortis’ headquarters is in Novi, 

Michigan, which offers the most convenient access to sources of proof. Indeed, it is where the 

accused products and services were designed and developed. As a result, the EDMI is home to the 

greatest number of willing (and potentially unwilling) witnesses, and it provides the lowest cost of 

attendance for witnesses. Critically, it has a greater localized interest in the outcome of this case. 

None of the accused products and services were designed or developed in Marshall, Plano, 

or anywhere else in Texas. Ex. A, Declaration of Ashley Usher (“Usher Decl.”), ¶¶ 7-8, 11-12. 

None of the potential party or non-party witnesses for Fortis are located in Texas. Id., ¶¶ 8, 14. 

Simply put, proceeding in this District is neither convenient nor related to the events at the center 

of this action. 

For these reasons and those that follow, this case should be transferred to the EDMI. 

FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

Autoscribe filed this action against Fortis in the Marshall Division on August 13, 2023. 

See generally Dkt. No. 1. The Original Complaint alleges that Fortis’ “Elements” payment 

processing platform infringes U.S. Patent No. 11,620,621 (the “Asserted Patent”). See id., ¶¶ 12–

46; see also Ex. B, Asserted Patent. 

Fortis is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business headquartered in Novi, 

Michigan. Id., ¶ 6. Nearly all corporate and technical activities take place at its headquarters in 

Novi, Michigan. Id. Novi is the primary site for approximately 31 Fortis employees and Fortis’ 

Case 2:23-cv-00364-JRG Document 17 Filed 12/01/23 Page 5 of 17 PageID #: 64
2 

engineering, development, product design functions, and marketing operations. Id., ¶ 7. Novi is 

where Fortis’ technical development team that oversaw the engineering, development, and design 

of the accused Elements platform is located. Id. Fortis’ proprietary source code related to the 

Elements payment platform was also developed in Novi by employees with the requisite security 

clearance. Id., ¶ 8. Specifically, Fortis’ Vice President of Architecture and Development 

Operations, Jeff Jarchow, and Fortis’ Senior Vice President of Product and Innovation (who is also 

Fortis’ former Chief Technology Officer), Kevin Shamoun, would be witnesses with relevant 

information concerning the technical development of the Elements platform, and both reside in 

Novi. Id. 

Employees with decision making authority pertaining to marketing, such as Fortis’ cofounder and Executive Vice President, Timothy Nafso, also reside in Novi. Id., ¶ 9. Fortis’ sales 

operations are primarily based in Vero Beach, Florida, but Fortis’ executive with relevant 

knowledge of sales for the accused product, Fortis’ Chief Revenue Officer, Ron Dichter, regularly 

travels to Novi from Vero Beach for Fortis business. Id. Mr. Dichter does not routinely travel to 

Texas for business. Id. Additionally, the “internal sales team” Autoscribe references in its 

Complaint does not interact with anyone in Fortis’ Plano office; rather, the team of employees are 

based in either Vero Beach, Florida or in California. Id., ¶ 10. These employees report to a Vero 

Beach-based manager and, eventually, to Mr. Dichter. Id. Fortis’ Vero Beach office also includes 

tech support and premier support teams, which handle all customers inquiries relating to the 

Elements system. Id. 

Although Autoscribe filed its suit in the Marshall Division, Fortis’ only tie to the EDTX is 

an office located in Plano. Fortis opened its Plano office in January 2022 after acquiring EpicPay 

International, LLC., and it is one of Fortis’ smaller offices. The Plano office employees work in 

Case 2:23-cv-00364-JRG Document 17 Filed 12/01/23 Page 6 of 17 PageID #: 65
3 

the Risk, Customer Support, and Development departments—none of which interact with the 

Elements platform at issue in this matter. Id., ¶ 11. Put differently, no one in Fortis’ Plano office—

including the employees working in product development—has been, is, or will be involved with 

any aspect of the accused application, the Elements platform. Id., ¶12. Nor would Fortis’ Plano 

office employees have the necessary credentials to access the source code, or cause to access 

documents, pertaining to Fortis’ sales or marketing activities. Id. Autoscribe’s claim that Fortis 

“is also advertising several jobs for this location (Plano)” is a partial truth at best. Fortis is 

advertising the referenced job postings to be filled in either its Plano office, Vero Beach, Florida, 

office, or remotely, and Fortis has not yet hired anyone for this position. Id., ¶ 13. 

Autoscribe states it is a Maryland corporation with its principal place of business located 

in Jacksonville, Florida. See Dkt 1, at ¶ 1. As of August 2023, the named inventors appear to 

reside in Florida, Virginia, and Maryland. See Ex. C, Named Inventors LinkedIn Profiles; see also

’621 Patent. None of the named inventors reside in Texas. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

A case may be transferred “to any other district or division” where the action could have 

been brought as the interests of convenience and justice so clearly require. 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a); 

see also In re Planned Parenthood Fed. of Am., Inc., 52 F.4th 625, 629 (5th Cir. 2022). Fifth 

Circuit law governs this Court’s determination of whether to transfer, as the Federal Circuit applies 

the law of the appropriate regional circuit to venue issues in patent cases. See In re EMC Corp., 

677 F.3d 1351, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2012); see also In re Genetech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1341–42 (Fed. 

Cir. 2009); see also In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008). 

The threshold inquiry for § 1404(a) eligibility 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 

Case 2:23-cv-00364-JRG Document 17 Filed 12/01/23 Page 7 of 17 PageID #: 66
4 

Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201, 203 (5th Cir. 2004) (Volkswagen I). Once that threshold is met, the 

court determines whether transfer would promote the interest of justice and/or the convenience of 

the parties and witnesses. See In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 315 (5th Cir. 2008) 

(Volkswagen II); see also In re Planned Parenthood, 52 F.4th at 629; see also In re Nintendo, 589 

F.3d 1194, 1200 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (applying Fifth Circuit law); see also In re TS Tech, 551 F.3d 1315, 

1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (applying Fifth Circuit law). Under Fifth Circuit precedent, courts analyze 

public and private factors relating to the convenience of the parties and witnesses—as well as the 

interests of particular venues in hearing the case after first asking “whether the case ‘might have been 

brought’ in the destination venue.” Planned Parenthood, 52 F.4th at 630. 

The four private factors include: (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 easy, expeditious, and 

inexpensive. Nintendo, 589 F.3d at 1198; TS Tech, 551 F.3d at 1319; Volkswagen I, 371 F.3d at 203; 

Planned Parenthood, 52 F.4th at 630. The four public factors include: (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 governing law; and (4) the avoidance of 

unnecessary problems of conflict of laws. Nintendo, 589 F.3d at 1198; TS Tech, 551 F.3d at 1319; 

Volkswagen I, 371 F.3d at 203; Planned Parenthood, 52 F.4th at 630. While generally applicable, 

the private and public factors “are not necessarily exhaustive or exclusive,” and no single factor is 

dispositive. Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 314–15. “[I]n a case featuring most witnesses and evidence 

closer to the transferee venue with few or no convenience factors favoring the venue chosen by 

the plaintiff, the trial court should grant a motion to transfer.” Nintendo, 589 F.3d at 1198; TS Tech, 

551 F.3d at 1319; In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Hoffmann-La Roche 

Case 2:23-cv-00364-JRG Document 17 Filed 12/01/23 Page 8 of 17 PageID #: 67
5 

Inc., 587 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “No factor is of dispositive weight, and [the Fifth Circuit] 

has cautioned against a ‘raw counting of the factors’ that ‘weigh[s] each the same.’” In re TikTok, 

Inc., at *3 (5th Cir. Oct. 31, 2023) (quoting In re Radmax, Ltd., 720 F.3d 285, 290 n.8 (5th Cir. 

2013)). 

As for a plaintiff’s choice of forum, a court should not “honor connections to a preferred 

forum made in anticipation of litigation and for the likely purpose to make that forum appear 

convenient.” In re Microsoft Corp., 630 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2011). 

ARGUMENT 

I. Autoscribe could have sued Fortis in the EDMI. 

Autoscribe could have brought this action in the EDMI because jurisdiction and venue are 

both proper in the EDMI. Fortis’ primary operations occur at its headquarters in the EDMI. See

Ex. A, Usher Decl., ¶ 6; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). Fortis’ prominent presence in the EDMI 

means that it has the necessary contacts with Michigan such that exercising personal jurisdiction 

over it would be fair and reasonable. See e.g., Nuance Commc’ns, Inc. v. Abbyy Software House, 

626 F.3d 1222, 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010). 

With Fortis’ headquarters being in Novi, Michigan, venue is also proper in the EDMI. See 

28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) (venue is proper in the district “where the defendant resides” or “has a regular 

and established place of business”). Thus, this action could have—and should have—been brought 

in the EDMI. See 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). 

II. The EDMI is clearly more convenient than the EDTX. 

This case has no connection to Marshall. Tellingly, the Complaint only mentions Marshall 

once—in the caption. See Dkt. No. 1. Any perceived connection to Marshall was manufactured 

solely by Autoscribe’s choice of venue, which is not a factor in the transfer analysis. See 

Case 2:23-cv-00364-JRG Document 17 Filed 12/01/23 Page 9 of 17 PageID #: 68
6 

Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 314 n.10. Fortis does not maintain an office in Marshall, and no 

relevant operations take place at the Plano office. Ex. A, Usher Decl., ¶ 11. Similarly, there is no 

indication that any of Autoscribe’s evidence will come from anywhere within Texas—let alone 

from the EDTX. See e.g., Dkt. No. 1 at ¶¶ 4, 12–33. The EDMI, on the other hand, is where Fortis 

maintains its headquarters and is the location for virtually all of Fortis’ relevant information and 

likely witnesses. See Ex. A, Usher Decl., ¶¶ 6-8. In short, there is no factual basis to keep this 

case in the EDTX. 

A. The private interest factors clearly favor transfer to the EDMI. 

(1) Sources of proof are more accessible from the EDMI. 

“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 weighs in 

favor of transfer to that location.” In re Genetech, Inc., 566 F.3d at 1345 (quoting Neil Bros. Ltd. 

v. World Wide Lines, Inc., 425 F. Supp. 2d 325, 330 (E.D.N.Y. 2006)) (applying Fifth Circuit law)); 

see also In re Acer Am. Corp., 626 F.3d 1252, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (applying Fifth Circuit law), 

cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 2447 (2011). This factor favors transfer where key electronic evidence is 

“not equally accessible” in the transferor forum. In re TikTok, No. 23-50575, 2023 WL 7147263, 

at *3-4 (5th Cir. Oct. 31, 2023). 

In this case, that location is in the EDMI. The accused Fortis technology was developed 

in Novi, Michigan. See Ex. A, Usher Decl., ¶ 7; see also Planned Parenthood, 52 F.4th at 630–

31 (stating that “[t]he location of evidence bears much more strongly on the transfer analysis when, 

as in Volkswagen, the evidence is physical in nature”). Most of the materials related to the 

development of Fortis’ products and services were created—and are maintained—in Novi. See 

id., ¶ 7-8. Any relevant source code was developed by those with access in Novi. Id., ¶ 8. No one 

Case 2:23-cv-00364-JRG Document 17 Filed 12/01/23 Page 10 of 17 PageID #: 69
7 

with security clearance to access the source code resides in Texas. Id. Because Fortis’ decisionmaking witnesses, equipment, or documents relevant to the claims and defenses are in or nearest 

to Novi, access to sources of proof with respect to the accused products are more conveniently 

located in the EDMI. See id., ¶¶ 8-9, 14; see also In re Acer, 626 F.3d at 1256 (“sources of proof 

factor also weighs significantly in favor of transfer” where no likely sources of proof are located 

in the Marshall Division). 

To the extent that Autoscribe possesses relevant documents or information, such 

documents or information is likely located at Autoscribe’s principal place of business in 

Jacksonville, Florida, making the EDMI at least as convenient as the EDTX for Autoscribe. See

Dkt. No. 1, ¶ 1. 

This factor strongly favors transfer to the EDMI because the EDMI is clearly more 

convenient for the production of relevant sources of proof. See SCVNGR, Inc. v. DailyGobble, 

Inc., No. 6:15-CV-493-JRG-KNM, 2015 WL 13501487, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 30, 2015) (“Because 

Relevant alleges sources of proof more accessible to the Southern District of New York and 

LevelUp fails to allege sources of proof more accessible to the Eastern District of Texas, this factor 

favors transfer.”).

(2) The availability of compulsory process favors the EDMI. 

The availability of the compulsory process weighs in favor of transfer where there are more 

third-party witnesses residing in the transferee district. See In re Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 316. 

This factor weighs most heavily in favor of transfer when a transferee venue is said to have 

“absolute subpoena power.” Id. “Absolute subpoena power” is subpoena power for both 

depositions and trial. In re Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., 587 F.3d 1333, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009). 

The only anticipated potential third-party witnesses associated with the accused Elements 

Case 2:23-cv-00364-JRG Document 17 Filed 12/01/23 Page 11 of 17 PageID #: 70
8 

system would be former Fortis employees who assisted in the design and development of the 

software features. See Ex. A, Usher Decl., ¶ 8. Any such former employees would have worked 

in, or were known to reside near Novi. See id. None of the Asserted Patent’s inventors are based 

in Texas, making the compulsory process unavailable to the EDTX. See Ex. C, Named Inventor 

LinkedIn Profiles; see also Ex. B, Asserted Patent. 

Whether these witnesses will ultimately require the use of the Court’s subpoena power is 

irrelevant. “The focus of this factor is not whether a witness may become an unwilling witness, or 

whether a court may need to invoke its subpoena power; rather, the focus is on the availability of 

process to secure attendance of a witness if need be.” Uniloc USA Inc. v. Box, Inc., No. 1:17-CV754-LY, 2018 WL 2729202, at *3 (W.D. Tex. June 6, 2018) (emphasis in original) (citing 

Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 316). “[W]hen there is no indication that a non-party witness is willing, 

the witness is presumed to be unwilling and considered under the compulsory process factor.” In 

re DISH Network L.L.C., No. 2021-182, 2021 WL 4911981, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 21, 2021) 

(citation omitted). 

With the EDMI likely possessing absolute subpoena power over most of the anticipated 

potential third-party witnesses, this factor favors the EDMI. 

(3) The cost of attendance for willing witnesses favors transfer to 

the EDMI. 

Given the case’s significant ties to the EDMI, the cost of attendance for willing witnesses 

will be lower for these witnesses upon transfer making this factor weigh in favor of transfer. It is 

an “obvious conclusion that it is more convenient for witnesses to testify at home and that 

additional travel time increases the probability for meal and lodging expenses; and additional travel 

time with overnight stays increases the time which these fact witnesses must be away from their 

regular employment, family, and community.” Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 317 (internal citation 

Case 2:23-cv-00364-JRG Document 17 Filed 12/01/23 Page 12 of 17 PageID #: 71
9 

and punctuation omitted). “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. (quoting Volkswagen 

I, 371 F.3d at 204–05 (finding “the task of scheduling fact witnesses so as to minimize the time 

when they are removed from their regular work or home responsibilities gets increasingly difficult 

and complicated when the travel time from their home or work site to the court facility is five or 

six hours one-way as opposed to 30 minutes or an hour”)). 

For Fortis’ employees working in the Novi area, it is unquestionable that trial in the EDMI 

would be more convenient to them than traveling to Marshall. See Ex. A, Usher Decl., ¶ 14. If 

Fortis witnesses were required to travel to Marshall, flights to Dallas from Detroit Metro Airport 

would cost approximately $300, and witnesses would then have to rent cars and drive over two 

hours to Marshall. See Ex. D, Flight details from Novi to DFW Airport; see also Ex. E, Car rental 

details from DFW Airport; see also Ex. F, Map from DFW Airport to Marshall. Hotels for these 

willing witnesses would cost between approximately $100 and $150 per night. See Ex. G, Hotel 

cost information. All of this travel would be time away from Fortis witnesses’ families. See 

Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 317. Fortis is also not aware of any Autoscribe witnesses who work 

or reside in or around EDTX—let alone in Marshall—and any Autoscribe witnesses would have 

to also fly to Dallas, rent cars, drive to Marshall, and stay in hotels. 

Under these circumstances, this factor weighs in favor of the EDMI as it clearly offers a 

significant reduction in costs for willing witnesses over the EDTX. 

(4) Practical issues of expedient adjudication are neutral. 

When examining practical problems, courts consider judicial economy. Volkswagen, 566 

F.3d at 1351. Fortis filed this Motion very early in the litigation, before entry of a case schedule 

and before discovery opened. See Dkt. No. 15. The parties have not exchanged infringement or 

Case 2:23-cv-00364-JRG Document 17 Filed 12/01/23 Page 13 of 17 PageID #: 72
10 

invalidity contentions, or engaged in any significant proceedings such claim construction, 

discovery, or litigation on the merits. See id.; see also Parus Holdings Inc. v. LG Elecs. Inc., No. 

19-cv-00432, 2020 WL 4905809, at *6-*7 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 20, 2020) (“[T]his case is in its early 

stages, meaning any increase in judicial economy from the Court’s experience in these early stages 

of litigation is likely to be limited.”). 

B. The public interest factors clearly favor transfer. 

(1) The EDMI has a greater local interest in the outcome of this 

case. 

The EDMI’s interest in this matter is self-evident. See In re Hoffmann-La Roche, 587 F.3d 

at 1338. “[I]f there are significant connections between a particular venue and the events that gave 

rise to a suit, this factor should be weighed in that venue’s favor.” Id. As stated above, Fortis was 

founded in Novi, and Novi remains the location of Fortis’ headquarters. See supra II.A.1. The 

primary design and development operations for the accused products and services (and the 

employees responsible for these operations) occurred—and still occur—in Novi. Ex. A, Usher 

Decl., ¶ 7. In addition, several potential, relevant technical witnesses—Jeff Jarchow and Kevin 

Shamoun—work and reside in or around Novi. Id., ¶ 8. These witnesses are part of Fortis’ 

Information Technology department, which was responsible for developing the Elements system, 

and each reside in and work in EDMI. Id. 

Fortis has 25 total employees working in sales for the Elements platform. Id. ¶ 10. Every 

one of these salespeople reside in Florida or California. Id. Fortis’ Chief Operating Officer and 

Chief Financial Officer, Ron Dichter, resides in Vero Beach, Florida and regularly travels to Novi. 

Id., ¶ 9. Moreover, all Fortis employees involved in customer service for the Elements system 

reside in and work in Florida. Id., ¶ 10. Fortis’ marketing team is entirely remote outside of its 

key decision maker, the head of marketing, Timothy Nafso, who offices in Novi. Id., ¶ 9. As such, 

Case 2:23-cv-00364-JRG Document 17 Filed 12/01/23 Page 14 of 17 PageID #: 73
11 

“the cause of action calls into question the work and reputation of several individuals residing in 

or near that district who presumably conduct business in that community,” and a localized interest 

in the EDMI exists. In re Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., 587 F.3d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2009). 

Conversely, the Plano office only opened in 2022 and is one of Fortis’ smaller locations. 

Ex. A, Usher Decl., ¶ 11. None of the Plano office’s employees interact with the Fortis product 

accused in this case. Id., ¶ 11. None of the accused features were developed in Plano, Plano office 

employees do not sell the Elements system, the Plano office does not resolve customer inquiries 

regarding the Elements system, and none of Fortis’ executives reside in Texas. Id., ¶ 12. Meaning, 

no one from the Plano office would be a custodian for documents or information pertaining to 

source code, design or development, finance, or marketing. Id. Indeed, Autoscribe’s alleged sole 

connection between the Elements system and Plano is a Fortis job posting for an “ERP Experience 

Director,” however, this position is not specific to Plano and can be filled in Florida or remotely. 

Id., ¶ 13. 

Given the EDMI’s close connection to Fortis and that Plano—much less Marshall—has no 

cognizable interest in this matter, the EDMI has a far greater interest in the outcome of this case 

than the EDTX. This factor weighs in favor of transfer. 

(2) The remaining public interest factors are neutral. 

The remaining public interest factors—court congestion (or time to trial), the familiarity of 

the forum with the governing law, and the avoidance of unnecessary problems of conflict of laws—

are neutral. Court congestion, or the time to trial, is the most speculative factor and is routinely 

considered to be neutral. See Genentech, 566 F.3d at 1347. Moreover, there should be no problems 

associated with the EDMI’s familiarity with the governing law or any conflict of laws given 

Autoscribe’s dispute arises entirely under patent law. See Volkswagen I, 371 F.3d at 204. 

Case 2:23-cv-00364-JRG Document 17 Filed 12/01/23 Page 15 of 17 PageID #: 74
12 

CONCLUSION 

The EDMI is a far more convenient venue for this dispute than the EDTX because: (i) the 

sources of proof are located in the EDMI; (ii) the majority of likely fact witnesses reside or work 

in the EDMI; and (iii) it would be inconvenient and more expensive for the parties’ and any willing 

witnesses to travel to Marshall compared to the EDMI. Accordingly, all of the public and private 

factors either strongly favor transfer or are neutral, and not one factor comes close to supporting 

Autoscribe’s choice of venue. Therefore, for the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and to 

promote the interests of justice, Fortis respectfully requests that the Court grant this Motion and 

order that this case be transferred to the Detroit Division of the Eastern District of Michigan. 

Dated: December 1, 2023 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ C. Erik Hawes 

C. Erik Hawes 

Texas Bar No. 24042543 

erik.hawes@morganlewis.com 

Cullen G. Pick 

Texas Bar No. 24098260 

cullen.pick@morganlewis.com 

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP 

1000 Louisiana Street, Suite 4000 

Houston, Texas 77002 

Telephone: (713) 890-5000 

Facsimile: (713) 890-5001 

Elizabeth M. Chiaviello 

Texas Bar No. 24088913 

elizabeth.chiaviello@morganlewis.com 

MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP 

1717 Main Street, Suite 3200 

Dallas, Texas 75201 

(214) 466-4000 Telephone 

(713) 466-4001 Facsimile 

Attorneys for Defendant Fortis Payment 

Systems, LLC 

Case 2:23-cv-00364-JRG Document 17 Filed 12/01/23 Page 16 of 17 PageID #: 75
13 

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

I certify that I discussed the relief requested herein with Autoscribe’s counsel and that 

Autoscribe is opposed to this Motion. 

/s/ Elizabeth M. Chiaviello 

Elizabeth M. Chiaviello 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned counsel hereby certifies that on December 1, 2023, a true and correct 

copy of the foregoing response was served on all counsel of record who have appeared in this 

case via the Court’s CM/ECF system. 

/s/ C. Erik Hawes 

C. Erik Hawes 

Case 2:23-cv-00364-JRG Document 17 Filed 12/01/23 Page 17 of 17 PageID #: 76