IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

BESANG, INC.,

Plaintiff

v.

MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., 

MICRON SEMICONDUCTOR 

PRODUCTS, INC., and

MICRON TECHNOLOGY TEXAS, LLC, 

Defendants.

Case No. 2:23-cv-00028

Jury Trial Demanded

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO 

UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)

Case 2:23-cv-00028-JRG-RSP Document 30 Filed 05/31/23 Page 1 of 22 PageID #: 172
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

i

I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1

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

III. LEGAL STANDARD............................................................................................. 4

IV. THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO IS CLEARLY MORE CONVENIENT .................. 4

A. This Case Could Have Been Brought in the District of Idaho................................ 4

B. The Private Interest Factors Favor Transfer to the District of Idaho...................... 5

1. Cost of Attendance For Willing Witnesses Favors Transfer................ 5

2. Relative Ease of Access to Sources of Proof Favors Transfer ............. 8

3. Availability of Compulsory Process Favors Transfer ........................ 11

4. All Other Practical Problems Associated With Trial are Neutral....... 11

C. The Public Interest Factors Favor Transfer to the District of Idaho ..................... 12

1. The District of Idaho has a Strong Local Interest............................... 12

2. The Court Congestion Factor is Neutral............................................. 14

3. Familiarity with Governing Law and Conflicts of Law are Neutral .. 15

D. The Balance of Factors Demonstrates that the District of Idaho is the Clearly More 

Convenient Forum ................................................................................................ 15

V. CONCLUSION..................................................................................................... 15

Case 2:23-cv-00028-JRG-RSP Document 30 Filed 05/31/23 Page 2 of 22 PageID #: 173
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

ii

Cases

Action Indus., Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co.,

358 F.3d 337 (5th Cir. 2004) .................................................................................................... 4

Cooktek Induction Sys., LLC v. I/O Controls Corp.,

2016 WL 4095547 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 2, 2016) ......................................................................... 12

Farmobile LLC v. Farmers Edge Inc.,

2022 WL 2653893 (E.D. Tex. July 2, 2022) .......................................................................... 12

In re Acer Am. Corp.,

626 F.3d 1252 (Fed. Cir. 2010)............................................................................................... 12

In re Amazon.com, Inc.,

2022 WL 17688072 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 15, 2022)......................................................................... 8

In re Apple Inc.,

2021 WL 5291804 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2021)......................................................................... 12

In re Apple Inc.,

2022 WL 1196768 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 22, 2022) ........................................................................... 9

In re Apple Inc.,

2022 WL 1676400 (Fed. Cir. May 26, 2022) ......................................................................... 14

In re Apple,

979 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2020)............................................................................................... 12

In re Apple, Inc.,

581 F. App’x 886 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ......................................................................................... 11

In re DISH Network LLC,

2021 WL 4911981 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 21, 2021).......................................................................... 13

In re Genentech, Inc.,

566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009)............................................................................................. 5, 8

In re Google LLC,

58 F.4th 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ............................................................................................... 14

In re Google,

2021 WL 4592280 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 6, 2021).............................................................................. 8

Case 2:23-cv-00028-JRG-RSP Document 30 Filed 05/31/23 Page 3 of 22 PageID #: 174
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

iii

In re Hoffman-La Roche Inc.,

587 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2008)............................................................................................... 13

In re Hulu, LLC,

2021 WL 3278194 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 2, 2021)............................................................................. 5

In re Juniper Networks, Inc.,

14 F.4th 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ....................................................................................... 5, 9, 15

In re Netflix, Inc.,

2022 WL 167470 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 19, 2022) .............................................................................. 8

In re NetScout Sys., Inc.,

2021 WL 4771756 (Fed. Cir. 2021).......................................................................................... 8

In re Nintendo Co.,

589 F.3d 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2009)............................................................................................... 14

In re Radmax,

720 F.3d 285 (Fed. Cir. 2013)....................................................................................... 9, 11, 15

In re Samsung Elecs. Co.,

2 F.4th 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ................................................................................................. 12

In re Toyota Motor Corp.,

747 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2014)........................................................................................... 8, 10

In re TS Tech USA Corp,

551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2008)........................................................................................... 4, 15

In re Volkswagen AG,

371 F.3d 201 (5th Cir. 2004) (“Volkswagen I”).......................................................... 4, 5, 6, 12

In re Volkswagen, Inc.,

545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) (“Volkswagen II”) ........................................................ 4, 6, 8, 11

Innoband, Inc. v. Aso Corp.,

2011 WL 835934 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 4, 2011) ........................................................................... 14

Jones v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co.,

2009 WL 10677487 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 11, 2009)........................................................................ 7

Realtime Data LLC v. Dropbox, Inc.,

2016 WL 153860 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2016)........................................................................... 12

Case 2:23-cv-00028-JRG-RSP Document 30 Filed 05/31/23 Page 4 of 22 PageID #: 175
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page

iv

TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC,

137 S.Ct. 1514 (2017)............................................................................................................... 5

Statutes

28 U.S.C. § 1400(b)........................................................................................................................ 4

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

Rules

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1)(A)-(B)....................................................................................................... 9

Case 2:23-cv-00028-JRG-RSP Document 30 Filed 05/31/23 Page 5 of 22 PageID #: 176
1

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendants Micron Technology, Inc., Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc., and Micron 

Technology Texas, LLC (collectively, “Micron”) move the Court to transfer venue to the District 

of Idaho pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

BeSang’s claims against Micron have multiple ties to the District of Idaho, but none to this 

District. Micron’s likely witnesses include engineers based in Idaho. Micron’s sources of proof 

include documents and other evidence located in Idaho—research, development, and testing of the 

accused products took place at Micron’s headquarters in Boise, Idaho. Additionally, at least one 

non-party witness specifically identified by BeSang in the Complaint as having knowledge 

relevant to this dispute is located in Idaho. By contrast, there are no relevant witnesses or sources 

of proof located in this District. BeSang is an Oregon corporation with no connection to this 

District. And while BeSang relies on the presence of one small Micron office in Allen, Texas for 

venue, none of Micron’s small number of Allen, Texas employees have any knowledge relevant 

to this case, nor do Micron’s limited business activities in Texas have any meaningful connection 

to the disputes at issue in this case. These facts, coupled with the strong local interest Idaho has 

in the outcome of litigation involving one of its major employers, strongly support transfer to the 

clearly more convenient District of Idaho. 

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On January 23, 2023, BeSang filed its Complaint against Micron alleging infringement of 

U.S. Patent No. 7,378,702 (“the ’702 Patent”). The asserted claims are directed to a 

“semiconductor memory structure.” ECF No. 1, ¶ 52. BeSang alleges that Micron infringes the 

’702 Patent by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing certain products that 

include “3D NAND Flash products incorporating CMOS under Array.” Id., ¶¶ 40, 51. While the 

Case 2:23-cv-00028-JRG-RSP Document 30 Filed 05/31/23 Page 6 of 22 PageID #: 177
2

accused products include various SSDs (“solid-state drives”), BeSang’s infringement contentions 

are based entirely on the 3D NAND chips included within those SSDs—no other components of 

the accused SSDs are implicated by BeSang’s contentions. Id. ¶ 41; Mackay Decl., ¶ 1; Ex 1 

(Exhibit 1 to Micron’s Infringement Contentions). In particular, BeSang bases its infringement 

contentions on the internal structure of Micron’s 3D NAND chips, including, for example, the 

presence of “vertically oriented semiconductor memory cells.” ECF No. 1, ¶ 73.

Micron is headquartered in Idaho, with its principal place of business in Boise, Idaho. See 

Kiehlbauch Decl. ¶ 4. Micron is one of Idaho’s largest private employers, with more than 5,400 

employees in Idaho alone. Id. ¶ 5. While Micron has two Texas facilities—one in this District, in 

Allen, and another in Austin—Micron’s Texas sites employ only approximately 3% of Micron’s 

United States employees, and less than 1% of Micron’s employees worldwide. Id. ¶ 7.

Micron conducts 3D NAND-related research, development, and testing at its Boise 

headquarters. Id. ¶ 9. Accordingly, Micron employees with relevant technical knowledge about 

Micron’s accused 3D NAND products are located in Idaho. Id. ¶¶ 12-13. These include Mark 

Kiehlbauch, Mallesh Rajashekharaiah; Lars Heineck; Richard Hill; Allen Mcteer; Kunal Shrotri; 

and Mike Bernhardt, all of whom are Micron engineers involved in the research, design, and 

development of the accused products. Id. ¶ 13. Because Micron’s 3D NAND-related design and 

product engineering occurs at both Micron’s Boise headquarters and in Micron’s San Jose and 

Folsom, California facilities, additional Micron employees with relevant technical knowledge are 

also located in California. Id. ¶¶ 9, 13. Micron employees with relevant knowledge are also likely 

located in Singapore, where Micron manufactures all of the accused products. Id. 

Case 2:23-cv-00028-JRG-RSP Document 30 Filed 05/31/23 Page 7 of 22 PageID #: 178
3

Former Micron employees, Kirk Prall and Matt Freeman, both of whom are named in the 

Complaint, were based at Micron’s Boise, Idaho site. Id. ¶ 18. Mr. Prall is still in Idaho, based on 

public sources. ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 33-35, 37; Mackay Decl. ¶ 2; Ex. 2. 

Micron facilities in Idaho house a vast amount of relevant design and development 

documents for the accused products, as well as relevant marketing documents. Kiehlbauch Decl. 

¶ 10. To the extent any relevant documents are not located in Idaho (including manufacturing and 

financial documents), they are located in California and Singapore, not Texas. Id. ¶¶ 10-11. 

None of Micron’s NAND-related research, design, development, or manufacturing occurs 

in Texas, and Micron does not have any Texas employees with relevant knowledge of the 3D 

NAND chips included within the accused products, or any relevant sources of proof located in 

Texas. Id. ¶¶ 11-12, 16-17. While some testing of the accused SSDs occurs at Micron’s Austin 

site (outside of this District), that testing primarily involves measuring read/write speeds and 

power consumption of the SSDs, and not any separate testing of the individual components 

included within those SSDs (such as any 3D NAND chips, the internal structure of which forms 

the basis for BeSang’s infringement contentions). Id. ¶¶ 9, 17; ECF No. 1, ¶ 40. Furthermore, no 

employees at Micron’s Austin site work on the research, design, development, or manufacturing 

of the accused products. Id. ¶ 17; ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 40, 51.

BeSang is an Oregon corporation, with its principal place of business in Hillsboro, Oregon. 

ECF No. 1, ¶ 1. BeSang’s President and CEO, Dr. Sang-Yun Lee, is the only listed inventor on 

the ’702 Patent. ECF No. 1, ¶ 25. Based on public sources, Dr. Lee lives in Portland, Oregon. 

Mackay Decl. ¶ 3; Ex. 3. Dr. Lee allegedly conducted research relating to the ’702 Patent “at the 

Stanford Nanofabrication Facility in California and the National NanoFab Center in Korea.” ECF 

No. 1, ¶ 27.

Case 2:23-cv-00028-JRG-RSP Document 30 Filed 05/31/23 Page 8 of 22 PageID #: 179
4

III. LEGAL STANDARD

In patent cases, motions to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) 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 first question under Section 1404(a) is whether a civil action “might have been 

brought” in the proposed transferee district. In re Volkswagen, Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 312 (5th Cir. 

2008) (“Volkswagen II”).

If the destination venue would have been a proper venue, then “[t]he determination of 

‘convenience’ turns on a number of public and private interest factors, none of which can be said 

to be of dispositive weight.” Action Indus., Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 358 F.3d 337, 340 (5th 

Cir. 2004). The 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 of a case easy, 

expeditious, and inexpensive.” In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201, 203 (5th Cir. 2004) 

(“Volkswagen I”). The 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 law that will govern the case; and (4) the avoidance of 

unnecessary problems of conflict of laws of the application of foreign law.” Id. 

Plaintiff’s choice of forum is not a separate factor entitled to special weight. Rather, respect 

for the plaintiff’s choice of forum is encompassed in the movant’s burden to demonstrate that the 

proposed transferee forum is “clearly more convenient.” Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 314-15.

IV. THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO IS CLEARLY MORE CONVENIENT

A. This Case Could Have Been Brought in the District of Idaho

A patent infringement case 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 

Case 2:23-cv-00028-JRG-RSP Document 30 Filed 05/31/23 Page 9 of 22 PageID #: 180
5

established place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b); TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. 

Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514, 1519 (2017). A domestic corporate defendant is deemed to reside 

(i) in its state of incorporation, and (ii) in the state where it has its principal place of business. TC 

Heartland, 137 S. Ct. at 1521. 

All three of the Micron defendants have their principal place of business in Boise, Idaho. 

See Kiehlbauch Decl. ¶ 4. In addition, two of the three Micron defendants were incorporated under 

the laws of Idaho and are Idaho entities, with the third being a Delaware (and not Texas) company. 

ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 2-4; Kiehlbauch Decl., ¶ 6. As a result, all three Micron defendants reside in the 

District of Idaho, making venue proper there.

B. The Private Interest Factors Favor Transfer to the District of Idaho

1. Cost of Attendance For Willing Witnesses Favors Transfer

This private interest factor considering the convenience of witnesses “is probably the single 

most important factor in [the] transfer analysis.” In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1343 (Fed. 

Cir. 2009). Where, as here, “the distance between an existing venue for trial of a matter and a 

proposed venue . . . is more than 100 miles, the factor of inconvenience to witnesses increases in 

direct relationship to the additional distance to be traveled.” Volkswagen I, 371 F.3d at 204-05. 

Additionally, under this factor, both the convenience of party and non-party witnesses must be 

considered. See, e.g., In re Juniper Networks, Inc., 14 F.4th 1313, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (rejecting 

an approach that discounted importance of this factor for party witnesses); In re Hulu, LLC, No. 

2021-142, 2021 WL 3278194, at *5 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 2, 2021) (error for district court to not consider 

inconvenience for party witnesses).

Micron is not aware of—and the Complaint does not identify—any potential witnesses 

residing in the EDTX or for whom proceedings would be more convenient if a trial was held here. 

In contrast, at least seven relevant, willing witnesses for Micron are located in Idaho. Micron 

Case 2:23-cv-00028-JRG-RSP Document 30 Filed 05/31/23 Page 10 of 22 PageID #: 181
6

engineers who are primarily responsible for the research, design, and development of the accused 

products include Mark Kiehlbauch, Mallesh Rajashekharaiah; Lars Heineck; Richard Hill; Allen 

Mcteer; Kunal Shrotri; and Mike Bernhardt. Kiehlbauch Decl., ¶ 13. All are working and based 

in Boise, Idaho.

The convenience of these potential trial witnesses favors transfer to the District of Idaho, 

as it is well-established that “it is more convenient [] to testify at home.” Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d 

at 317. Traveling to Shreveport (the nearest airport to Marshall, Texas) would require over five 

hours of flight time, not including time spent traveling from the Shreveport airport to Marshall. 

Mackay Decl. ¶ 4; Ex. 4. The long trips and overnight stays in Marshall would lead to lost 

productivity and disruption to the witnesses’ lives while “being away from work, family, and 

community.” Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 317. By contrast, if this case is transferred to the District 

of Idaho, Micron’s witnesses could readily travel back and forth between court and their homes, 

and the federal courthouse in Boise is only approximately eight miles from Micron’s headquarters

(well under a thirty-minute commute). Mackay Decl. ¶ 5; Ex. 5; see also Volkswagen I, 371 F.3d 

at 205 (“[T]he 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 witnesses not in Idaho, attending trial in Boise would still be more convenient than 

doing so in Marshall. For example, for Micron witnesses in California, Boise is significantly closer

(~1,100 miles closer) than Marshall. Mackay Decl. ¶ 6; Ex. 6. The same is true for BeSang’s 

likely witness, Dr. Lee, whose location in Oregon is significantly closer (~1,400 miles closer) to 

Boise than to Marshall. Mackay Decl. ¶ 7; Ex. 7. Numerous prior art witnesses are also located 

Case 2:23-cv-00028-JRG-RSP Document 30 Filed 05/31/23 Page 11 of 22 PageID #: 182
7

in the Silicon Valley area, which is ~1,100 miles closer to Boise than to Marshall. Mackay Decl. 

¶ 8; Ex. 8 (U.S. Patent No. 6,881,994, Ex-1007 to Micron’s IPR Filing, listing named prior art 

witness-inventors in Cupertino, Redwood City, Palo Alto, Mountain View, Santa Clara, Los Altos, 

and Portola Valley, California). At the same time, the Boise airport is only approximately five 

miles from the federal courthouse in Boise, while the nearest airport to Marshall, located in 

Shreveport, Louisiana, is significantly further (38 miles). Mackay Decl. ¶ 9; Ex. 9; see e.g., Jones 

v. Hartford Life & Accident Ins. Co., No. 2:08-CV-182, 2009 WL 10677487, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 

11, 2009) (finding that “proximity of . . . a major airport . . . makes [transferee venue] more 

convenient for [witnesses] that must travel regardless of where the trial is held”). And, for any 

Micron witnesses not in Idaho (including potential witnesses in Singapore, for whom the distances 

to Boise and Marshall are both significant), Boise is more convenient because the airport is only 

approximately five miles from Micron’s Boise headquarters. Mackay Decl. ¶ 10; Ex. 10. Those

witnesses could use Micron’s headquarters to minimize the inconvenience of being away from 

their home Micron offices, and may even be able to combine the trip with meetings at Micron’s 

headquarters that might otherwise have been scheduled for a different time. 

The Court should reject any attempt by BeSang to seize on Micron’s small Allen and 

Austin, Texas offices. The employees in these offices represent only approximately 3% of 

Micron’s employees in the United States, and none are likely witnesses, as none have knowledge 

relevant to this case. Kiehlbauch Decl. ¶¶ 7, 9, 12, 14-17. In particular, no research, design, 

development, manufacturing, testing, or sales of the accused products occurs in Micron’s Allen, 

Texas facility. Id. ¶¶ 9, 15-16. While some testing of the accused SSDs occurs in Micron’s Austin, 

Texas facility, that testing is primarily related to the read/write speeds and power consumption of 

those SSDs and does not involve any testing relevant to the subject matter of the asserted claims. 

Case 2:23-cv-00028-JRG-RSP Document 30 Filed 05/31/23 Page 12 of 22 PageID #: 183
8

Id. ¶¶ 9, 17. And even if the Austin employees who perform such testing were relevant to the 

issues in this case—which Micron contends they are not—“any significance of those witnesses 

[would be] slight in the mix as a whole,” given that Austin is located outside of this District, and 

“[t]he comparison between the transferor and transferee forums is not altered by the presence of 

other witnesses and documents in places outside both forums.” In re Netflix, Inc., No. 2022-110, 

2022 WL 167470, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 19, 2022) (emphasis added) (quoting In re Toyota Motor 

Corp., 747 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2014)). 

Where, as here, Micron has “identified several potential party . . . witnesses residing in the

[District of Idaho], and no potential witnesses appear to reside in the [Eastern District of Texas], 

the witness convenience factor weighs strongly in favor of transfer.” In re Apple, No. 2021-181, 

2021 WL 5291804, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2021) (citing In re Google, No. 2021-171, 2021 WL 

4592280, at *5 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 6, 2021)); see also In re Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2022-157, 2022 WL 

17688072, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 15, 2022) (“When, as here, there are numerous witnesses in the 

transferee venue and the only other witnesses are far outside the plaintiff's chosen forum, the 

witness-convenience factor favors transfer.”). 

2. Relative Ease of Access to Sources of Proof Favors Transfer

As the Federal Circuit has explained, “[i]n 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.” Genentech, 566 F.3d 

at 1345 (internal quotation omitted). “While electronic storage makes documents more widely 

accessible than was true in the past, the fact that documents can often be accessed remotely does 

not render the sources-of-proof factor irrelevant.” In re NetScout Sys., Inc., No. 2121-173, 2021 

WL 4771756, at *4 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (citing Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 316). This is because the 

Case 2:23-cv-00028-JRG-RSP Document 30 Filed 05/31/23 Page 13 of 22 PageID #: 184
9

inquiry under this factor involvesthe relative ease of access between the two venues, and electronic 

sources of proof are relatively more easily accessed from where they were created and stored. See, 

e.g., In re Apple Inc., No. 2022-128, 2022 WL 1196768 at *4 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 22, 2022) (explaining 

that “[t]he district court . . . failed to ask the correct question [(i.e., where is it relatively easier to 

access defendant’s electronic documents)], and in doing so improperly discounted the relative 

convenience of the transferee venue”). 

Here, a vast amount of non-witness sources of proof (e.g., documents and physical 

evidence) are located in Idaho, California, and Singapore. Kiehlbauch Decl. ¶¶ 9-10. In particular, 

Micron facilities in Idaho house a vast amount of relevant design and development documents 

relating to the accused products, as well as relevant marketing documents. Id. ¶ 10. Micron also 

has physical samples of certain of the accused products in Boise. Id. On the other hand, no relevant 

sources of proof are located in this District, or even in Texas, more generally. Id. ¶¶ 9, 11, 14-17. 

And, BeSang has no presence in Texas, nor has it identified any sources of proof in Texas. ECF 

No. 1, ¶ 1. Because the relevant inquiry under this factor is the “relative ease of access, not 

absolute ease of access” to sources of proof, the complete absence of any evidence in the Eastern 

District of Texas, coupled with evidence of the research, design, and development of the accused 

products in Idaho, weighs heavily in favor of transfer to the District of Idaho. In re Radmax, Ltd., 

720 F.3d 285, 288 (Fed. Cir. 2013). This conclusion is true regardless of the fact that additional 

sources of proof are likely located at Micron’s facilities in California and Singapore, outside of 

both districts. See, e.g., Juniper, 14 F.4th at 1321 (“We have held that the fact that some evidence 

is stored in places other than either the transferor or the transferee forum does not weigh against 

transfer.”); In re Apple Inc., No. 2022-128, 2022 WL 1196768, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 22, 2022)

(finding that the district court erred by “fault[ing] Apple for not clearly showing that the bulk of 

Case 2:23-cv-00028-JRG-RSP Document 30 Filed 05/31/23 Page 14 of 22 PageID #: 185
10

the documentary evidence was located or stored in the [proposed transferee venue],” because 

“[e]ven so, with nothing on the other side of the ledger in the [transferor venue], the [transferee 

venue] would still have a comparative advantage with regard to the ease of access to the sources 

of proof located within that district.”). 

That Micron does not have relevant sources of proof in Texas is not surprising because, as 

discussed above, none of Micron’s Texas-based personnel worked on the research, design, 

development, or manufacturing of the accused products. Kiehlbauch Decl. ¶¶ 12, 14-17. To the 

extent that BeSang alleges that relevant sources of proof are located at Micron’s Austin site, given 

that some testing of accused SSDs occurs there, such allegations are irrelevant to the transfer 

analysis because Austin is outside this District. See, e.g., In re Toyota Motor Corp., 747 F.3d 

1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (“The comparison between the transferor and transferee forums is not 

altered by the presence of other witnesses and documents in places outside both forums.” 

(emphasis added)).

To the extent BeSang has evidence relevant to this case, it would be easier to access that 

evidence from Boise than from this District. The named inventor of the ’702 Patent, Dr. Lee, is 

located in Portland, Oregon, which is 340 miles from Boise and 1,750 miles from Marshall. 

Mackay Decl. ¶ 7; Ex. 7. In addition, the Complaint alleges that BeSang “created prototypes of 

3D memory devices . . . at the Stanford Nanofabrication Facility in California.” ECF No. 1, ¶ 27. 

Stanford, California is 530 miles from Boise and 1,600 miles from Marshall. Mackay Decl. ¶ 11; 

Ex. 11. Thus, it would be easier to take discovery of the records at the Stanford Nanofabrication 

Facility from Boise than from Marshall.

Because relevant sources of proof are either located in Idaho or more conveniently accessed 

from Idaho, and no proof is located in this District, this factor weighs heavily in favor of transfer. 

Case 2:23-cv-00028-JRG-RSP Document 30 Filed 05/31/23 Page 15 of 22 PageID #: 186
11

3. Availability of Compulsory Process Favors Transfer

The “availability of compulsory process” factor “weigh[s] heavily in favor of transfer when 

more third-party witnesses reside within the transferee venue than reside in the transferor venue.” 

In re Apple, Inc., 581 F. App’x 886, 889 (Fed. Cir. 2014). This is because, under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 45, a court may subpoena a person (a) within 100 miles of where the person works 

or resides, or (b) within the state when the witness is a party, an officer of the party, or would not 

incur substantial expense to attend trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1)(A)-(B).

At least one relevant third party is located in Idaho, whom BeSang specifically identified 

in the Complaint as allegedly relevant to damages issues, including BeSang’s allegations of 

willfulness. The Complaint identifies retired Micron employee Kirk Prall, who allegedly attended 

a workshop at which Dr. Lee made a presentation on the topic of “Architecture of 3D Memory 

Cell Array on 3D IC.” ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 33-34. Based on publicly available information, Mr. Prall 

is currently located in Boise, Idaho. Mackay Decl. ¶ 2; Ex. 2. Micron is not aware of any relevant 

third-party witnesses in the Eastern District of Texas, or Texas more generally. Accordingly, this 

factor favors transfer. 

4. All Other Practical Problems Associated With Trial are Neutral

Under the final private interest factor, courts consider “all other practical problems that 

make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive.” Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 314. 

Moreover, “garden-variety delay associated with transfer is not to be taken into consideration when 

ruling on a § 1404(a) motion to transfer.” Radmax, 720 F.3d at 289.

This case is in its early stages, so transfer would not prejudice BeSang. Micron only 

recently filed its Answer on March 31, 2023, discovery has not opened, and the Case Management 

Conference only just occurred on May 30, 2023. ECF Nos. 23, 27. Accordingly, “no practical 

Case 2:23-cv-00028-JRG-RSP Document 30 Filed 05/31/23 Page 16 of 22 PageID #: 187
12

problems exist that would deter this Court from transferring this litigation.” Cooktek Induction 

Sys., LLC v. I/O Controls Corp., No. 4:15-CV-548, 2016 WL 4095547, at *6 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 2, 

2016); see also Farmobile LLC v. Farmers Edge Inc., No. 2:21-CV-00411, 2022 WL 2653893, at 

*5 (E.D. Tex. July 2, 2022). Because no practical problems weigh for or against transfer, this 

factor is neutral. 

C. The Public Interest Factors Favor Transfer to the District of Idaho

1. The District of Idaho has a Strong Local Interest

The “local interest” factor considers not merely the parties’ “connections to each forum 

writ large, but rather the ‘significant connections between a particular venue and the events that 

gave rise to a suit.’” In re Apple, 979 F.3d 1332, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (quoting In re Acer Am. 

Corp., 626 F.3d 1252, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). In this manner, it takes into consideration the Fifth 

Circuit’s recognition that “jury duty is a burden that ought not to be imposed upon the people of a 

community which has no relation to the litigation.” Volkswagen I, 371 F.3d at 206. 

The District of Idaho has a strong local interest in this case. Not only is Micron 

headquartered in Idaho, but research, design, development, and testing of the accused products 

took place in Idaho. Kiehlbauch Decl., ¶¶ 4, 9, 12-13; see In re Samsung Elecs. Co., 2 F.4th 1371, 

1380 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (strong local interest in district where accused products were “researched, 

designed, and developed”); In re Apple Inc., No. 2021-181, 2021 WL 5291804, at *4 (Fed. Cir. 

Nov. 15, 2021) (agreeing with district court that Apple’s proposed venue had “a strong local 

interest in this matter because the research, development, and operation of the accused technology 

took place there, [and] Apple is headquartered there”). Accordingly, the work of several of the 

over 5,000 Idaho-based Micron employees relates to the accused technology, including at least

seven potential witnesses. Kiehlbauch Decl., ¶¶ 4-5, 12-13; see, e.g., Realtime Data LLC v. 

Dropbox, Inc., No. 6:15-CV-00465-JDL, 2016 WL 153860, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2016)

Case 2:23-cv-00028-JRG-RSP Document 30 Filed 05/31/23 Page 17 of 22 PageID #: 188
13

(“Ultimately, because [Defendant] has identified several individuals whose work relates to the 

accused technology and who are located in the [proposed transferee venue], the Court finds that 

[the proposed venue] has a greater local interest in the outcome of the litigation.”). Further, 

BeSang’s allegations of willful infringement appear to be based on prior interactions between Dr. 

Lee of BeSang and Kirk Prall and Matt Freeman (who were based in Micron’s headquarters in 

Boise at the time of the alleged interactions and where Mr. Prall still resides), and therefore “call[] 

into question the work and reputation of [] individuals residing in or near that district,” adding to 

the strong local interest the District of Idaho already has in this case. In re Hoffman-La Roche 

Inc., 587 F.3d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2009); ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 34-37; Mackay Decl. ¶ 2; Ex. 2. 

By contrast, the Eastern District of Texas is not home to BeSang or Dr. Lee, and none of 

the accused products were developed or designed there. Although Micron has an office in Allen, 

Texas (in this District), Micron’s Allen-based employees do not have any relevant knowledge or 

experience related to the accused products, and the Allen facility does not house relevant sources 

of proof. Kiehlbauch Decl., ¶¶ 9, 11-12, 14-17. And while employees in Micron’s Austin office 

have some experience testing accused SSDs, not only is that office not located within this District, 

but those employees are not involved in the research, design, development, or manufacturing of 

the accused products, and therefore do not have knowledge relevant to the 3D NAND chips 

included within those products and upon which BeSang bases its infringement contentions. Id. ¶¶

9, 17. Accordingly, “even if these Texas-based operations have some connection to the accused 

[products] here [which Micron contends they do not], that connection [would be] insubstantial 

compared to [Idaho]’s significant connection to the design and development of the accused 

features.” In re DISH Network LLC, No. 2021-182, 2021 WL 4911981, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 21, 

2021) (rejecting suggestion that limited facilities in the Western District of Texas created a local 

Case 2:23-cv-00028-JRG-RSP Document 30 Filed 05/31/23 Page 18 of 22 PageID #: 189
14

interest there); see also In re Apple Inc., No. 2022-137, 2022 WL 1676400, at *2 (Fed. Cir. May 

26, 2022) (finding that district court committed “clear abuse of discretion” by weighing Apple’s 

“general presence” in the district against transfer, where “[n]othing in the court’s opinion of the 

record offers any indication that Apple’s in-district offices had any involvement in the research, 

design, or development of the accused technology”). 

And while Micron’s accused products undoubtedly do end up in this District, “[t]he Fifth 

Circuit has unequivocally rejected the argument that citizens of the venue chosen by the plaintiff 

have a ‘substantial interest’ in adjudicating a case locally because some allegedly infringing 

products found their way into the Texas market.” In re Nintendo Co., 589 F.3d 1194, 1198 (Fed. 

Cir. 2009); see also Innoband, Inc. v. Aso Corp., No. 2:10-CV-191-TJW-CE, 2011 WL 835934, 

at *6 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 4, 2011) (“Interests that ‘could apply virtually to any judicial district or 

division in the United States,’ such as the nationwide sale of infringing products, are disregarded 

in favor of particularized local interests.”). Accordingly, this factor strongly favors transfer.

2. The Court Congestion Factor is Neutral

The Federal Circuit has explained that the court congestion factor is neutral where the 

plaintiff “is not engaged in product competition in the marketplace.” In re Google LLC, 58 F.4th 

1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2023). The Complaint does not allege that BeSang is actively selling its 

products. ECF No. 1. Rather, it appears that BeSang was formed by Dr. Lee merely to license his 

patented technologies. Mackay Decl. ¶ 12; Ex. 12. Thus, this factor is neutral.

Even if Besang could show that it is currently marketing products, this factor would still 

not weigh against transfer. Court statistics show that the District of Idaho has a much smaller 

caseload than this District. Mackay Decl. ¶ 13; Ex. 13 (showing that this District has 6,325 pending 

cases and 791 pending cases per judge, whereas the District of Idaho has only 1,090 pending cases 

Case 2:23-cv-00028-JRG-RSP Document 30 Filed 05/31/23 Page 19 of 22 PageID #: 190
15

and 545 pending cases per judge). And although this Court might hold a trial earlier than the 

District of Idaho, the Federal Circuit “do[es] not regard the relative speed with which [a] case 

might be brought to trial in the two districts to be of particular significance.” Juniper, 14 F.4th at 

1322. Accordingly, even if this factor were not neutral because of BeSang’s lack of product 

competition, then it would weigh in favor of transfer.

3. Familiarity with Governing Law and Conflicts of Law are Neutral

The remaining two public interest factors are neutral. All of the claims in this case arise 

under Federal Patent law, such that all federal courts are equally capable of applying the law in 

this case. See TS Tech USA, 551 F.3d at 1320. And, Micron has no reason to believe that this case 

will involve any conflict of law issues. See Radmax, 720 F.3d at 289. 

D. The Balance of Factors Demonstrates that the District of Idaho is the Clearly 

More Convenient Forum

All of the private and public interest factors either favor transfer or are neutral. Likely 

party and non-party witnesses are located in Idaho. None are located in this District. Similarly, 

relevant sources of proof are either located in Idaho or more easily accessed from Idaho. None are 

located in this District. Further, because Micron researches, designs, and develops the accused 

products at its headquarters in Boise, Idaho and employs thousands of Idaho residents, Idaho has 

a strong local interest in this case. Combined, these factors demonstrate that the District of Idaho 

is clearly more convenient than the Eastern District of Texas. 

V. CONCLUSION

For the above reasons, and because the Eastern District of Texas has no connection to this 

case, Micron respectfully asks the Court to transfer this case to the District of Idaho.

Case 2:23-cv-00028-JRG-RSP Document 30 Filed 05/31/23 Page 20 of 22 PageID #: 191
16

Dated: May 31, 2023 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Melissa R. Smith

GILLAM & SMITH, LLP

Melissa R. Smith (TX #24001351)

melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com

303 South Washington Avenue

Marshall, Texas 75670

Telephone: (903) 934-8450

Facsimile: (903) 934-9257

O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP

John Kappos (TX# 24130097)

jkappos@omm.com

Timothy S. Durst (TX #00786924)

tdurst@omm.com

Cason G. Cole (TX#24109741)

ccole@omm.com

Frances Mackay (TX#24109494)

fmackay@omm.com

2501 North Harwood Street, Suite 1700

Dallas, TX 75201

Telephone: (972) 360-1900

Facsimile: (972) 360-1901

Xin-Yi Zhou (TX# 24127916) 

vzhou@omm.com

400 South Hope Street, 18th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90071

Telephone: (213) 430-6000

Facsimile: (213) 430-6407

William M. Fink (admitted pro hac vice)\

tfink@omm.com

Patric Reinbold (admitted pro hac vice)

preinbold@omm.com

1625 Eye Street, NW

Washington, DC 20006

Telephone: (202) 383-5300

Facsimile: (202) 383-5414

Attorneys for Defendants Micron Technology, Inc., 

Micron Semiconductor Products, Inc., and 

Micron Technology Texas, LLC.

Case 2:23-cv-00028-JRG-RSP Document 30 Filed 05/31/23 Page 21 of 22 PageID #: 192
17

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies 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 per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on May 31, 2023. Any other counsel of record will 

be served by facsimile transmission, e-mail and/or first class mail.

/s/ Melissa R. Smith

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

The undersigned hereby certifies that on May 25, 2023, pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(h), 

counsel for Micron met and conferred with counsel for BeSang regarding Micron’s Motion to 

Transfer. Counsel for BeSang indicated that BeSang is opposed to the relief sought by Micron’s 

Motion.

/s/ Melissa R. Smith

Case 2:23-cv-00028-JRG-RSP Document 30 Filed 05/31/23 Page 22 of 22 PageID #: 193