UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TEXARKANA DIVISION 

OPTIMORPHIX, INC., 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

AMAZON.COM, INC. and 

AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC., 

Defendants. 

 No. 5:23-CV-00123-RWS-JBB 

 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FOR 

IMPROPER VENUE UNDER FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(b)(3) 

Case 5:23-cv-00123-RWS-JBB Document 15 Filed 01/26/24 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 387
i 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

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

II. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................... 2 

A. The Parties. ............................................................................................................ 2 

1. OptiMorphix, Inc. ...................................................................................... 2 

2. Amazon Web Services, Inc. ....................................................................... 2 

3. Amazon.com, Inc. ...................................................................................... 3 

B. The Complaint. ...................................................................................................... 4 

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

A. Venue in patent infringement cases is controlled by a two-pronged statute. ......... 4 

B. Plaintiff bears the burden of sustaining venue for each defendant, and the 

Court may consider evidence outside the complaint. ............................................ 4 

IV. VENUE IS IMPROPER BECAUSE PLAINTIFF CANNOT SHOW THAT 

DEFENDANTS SATISFY EITHER OF § 1400(B)’S TWO PRONGS ........................... 5 

A. Defendants cannot satisfy § 1400(b)’s first prong because neither 

“resides” in this District. ........................................................................................ 5 

B. Defendants cannot satisfy § 1400(b)’s second prong because neither has a 

“regular and established place of business” in this District. .................................. 6 

1. Amazon.com, Inc., a holding company, does not have a regular 

and established place of business in this District. ...................................... 6 

2. AWS does not have a regular and established place of business in 

this District. ................................................................................................ 7 

3. The Complaint’s venue allegations are controverted by evidence 

and cannot be accepted as true. .................................................................. 7 

4. Amazon.com Services LLC’s places of business cannot be imputed 

to Defendants because Amazon entities respect corporate 

separateness. ............................................................................................... 9 

C. Defendant Amazon.com, Inc. also cannot satisfy § 1400(b)’s second prong 

because it cannot “commit[] acts of infringement.” ............................................ 10 

V. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 11 

Case 5:23-cv-00123-RWS-JBB Document 15 Filed 01/26/24 Page 2 of 17 PageID #: 388
ii 

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 

 Page(s) 

Cases 

Agis Software Dev. LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 

No. 2:21-cv-00072-JRG-RSP, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 251146 (E.D. Tex. 

Nov. 10, 2021) ...........................................................................................................................5 

Agis Software Dev., LLC v. ZTE Corp., 

No. 2:17-CV-00517-JRG, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 235914 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 28, 

2018) ..........................................................................................................................................5 

Alexsam, Inc. v. Simon Prop. Grp. Tex., L.P., 

No. 2:19-CV-00331-JRG, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 257986 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 3, 

2021) ........................................................................................................................................11 

Andra Grp., LP v. Victoria’s Secret Stores, LLC, 

6 F.4th 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ....................................................................................................8 

Andra Grp., LP v. Victoria’s Secret Stores, LLC, 

No. 4:19-cv-288-ALM-KPJ, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53868 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 

24, 2020) ..................................................................................................................................10 

B/E Aero., Inc. v. Zodiac Aero., 

No. 2:16-cv-01417-JRG-RSP, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 220294 (E.D. Tex. 

Nov. 29, 2018) ...........................................................................................................................9 

Better Mouse Co., LLC v. Razer USA Ltd., 

No. 2:17-cv-00317-JRG-RSP, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213528 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 

12, 2017) ....................................................................................................................................5 

BSD Crown, Ltd. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 

No. 3:23-cv-00057-WHO, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181407 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 

2023) ........................................................................................................................................10 

Celgene Corp. v. Mylan Pharms., Inc., 

17 F.4th 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ..................................................................................................9 

In re Cray, Inc., 

871 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2017)..............................................................................................6, 8 

EMA Electromechanics, Inc. v. Siemens Corp., 

No. 6:21-cv-1001-ADA, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76297 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 4, 

2022) ................................................................................................................................5, 9, 11 

Case 5:23-cv-00123-RWS-JBB Document 15 Filed 01/26/24 Page 3 of 17 PageID #: 389
iii 

Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Teva Pharms. United States, Inc., 

290 F. Supp. 3d 599 (N.D. Tex. 2017) ......................................................................................7 

In re Google LLC, 

949 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2020)..................................................................................................8 

Huong Hoang v. Amazon.com, Inc., 

No. C11-1709MJP, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 190477 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 18, 

2013) ........................................................................................................................................10 

Kranos IP Corp. v. Riddell, Inc., 

No. 2:17-cv-443-JRG, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138108 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 28, 

2017) ......................................................................................................................................5, 9 

Optic153 LLC v. Thorlabs Inc., 

No. 6:19-CV-00667-ADA, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108167 (W.D. Tex. June 

19, 2020) ....................................................................................................................................7 

Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst. v. Amazon, 

No. 1:18-cv-00549, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 136436 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 7, 2019) ......................10 

Rex Real Estate I, L.P. v. Rex Real Estate Exch., Inc., 

No. 4:18-cv-00371-ALM, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102059 (E.D. Tex. June 19, 

2019) ..........................................................................................................................................4 

Soverain IP, LLC v. AT&T Inc., 

No. 2:17-CV-00293-RWS-RSP, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186656 (E.D. Tex. 

Oct. 31, 2017) ......................................................................................................................9, 10 

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

581 U.S. 258 (2017) ...............................................................................................................1, 5 

Tenpenny v. Prime Now, LLC, 

No. 3:19-0420, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75233 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 29, 2020)...........................10 

Trois v. Apple Tree Auction Ctr., Inc., 

882 F.3d 485 (5th Cir. 2018) .....................................................................................................5 

In re Volkswagen Grp. of Am., 

28 F.4th 1203 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ..................................................................................................4 

Statutes 

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

Case 5:23-cv-00123-RWS-JBB Document 15 Filed 01/26/24 Page 4 of 17 PageID #: 390
1 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Venue is not proper in this District for either Defendant because neither entity “resides” 

here or has a “regular and established place of business” in this District. 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). 

A corporation “resides” only in its state of incorporation for purposes of § 1400(b). TC 

Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC, 581 U.S. 258, 270 (2017). Plaintiff does not 

dispute that both Defendants are incorporated in Delaware, not Texas. See ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 9, 10. 

Thus, venue is not proper in this District for either Defendant under § 1400(b)’s first prong. 

Although § 1400(b)’s second prong allows a patent infringement action to be brought in a 

district “where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established 

place of business,” neither Defendant has such a place in this District. Defendant Amazon.com, 

Inc. is a holding company whose limited operations are generally confined to Seattle, Washington. 

Defendant Amazon Web Services, Inc. (“AWS”) operates regular and established places of 

business elsewhere in Texas but none in this District. Thus, venue is also not proper in this District 

for either Defendant under § 1400(b)’s second prong. 

That is unlikely to deter Plaintiff OptiMorphix, Inc. from trying to manufacture venue here 

by, for example, wrongly attributing two fulfillment centers to Defendants despite sworn testimony 

establishing that a wholly separate entity leases and operates those facilities. But no facts support 

the contention that either Defendant has “established or ratified” such fulfillment centers as its 

“place of business,” and Plaintiff’s mere allegations to the contrary cannot be accepted as true 

when controverted by sworn testimony. Nor can Plaintiff meet the high burden required to impute 

another entity’s lease and operation of those facilities to either Defendant under an alter-ego or 

veil-piercing theory. 

Accordingly, the Court should dismiss the Complaint under Rule 12(b)(3). 

Case 5:23-cv-00123-RWS-JBB Document 15 Filed 01/26/24 Page 5 of 17 PageID #: 391
2 

II. BACKGROUND 

A. The Parties. 

1. OptiMorphix, Inc. 

Plaintiff OptiMorphix, Inc. is a Delaware corporation formed February 17, 2023. Ex. 1.1

Plaintiff was assigned several patents two months after it was formed. Ex. 2. Five months later, 

Plaintiff filed its first patent infringement action in Delaware.2 

2. Amazon Web Services, Inc. 

Defendant AWS is a Delaware corporation, headquartered in Seattle, Washington. 

Declaration of Damian Hunt (“Hunt Decl.”) ¶ 4; ECF No. 1 ¶ 10. AWS is a leading cloud 

computing company: AWS’s customers gain access to the computing power and storage capacity 

of AWS’s cloud systems on an as-needed basis in place of buying, owning, and maintaining their 

own physical servers or data centers. See Ex. 3. AWS provides a broad set of cloud-based 

computing services. In contrast to the physical goods customers purchase on the Amazon.com 

website, the accused cloud services are services AWS customers access by communicating with 

AWS data centers. 

AWS does not own, lease, or operate any office or data center in this District. Declaration 

of Keith Klein (“Klein Decl.”) ¶ 3. 

1

 Citations to “Ex.” refer to exhibits attached to the Declaration of Regan J. Rundio, 

submitted herewith, unless otherwise noted. 

2

 Plaintiff has so far filed six other patent infringement suits: OptiMorphix, Inc. v. Alphabet, 

Inc., No. 1:23-cv-01065 (D. Del. Sep. 27, 2023); OptiMorphix, Inc. v. VMware, Inc., No. 1:23-cv01146 (D. Del. Oct. 12, 2023); OptiMorphix, Inc. v. Oracle Corp., No. 1:23-cv-01249 (D. Del. 

Nov. 1, 2023); OptiMorphix, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc., No. 5:23-cv-00126 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 2, 2023); 

OptiMorphix, Inc. v. Broadcom Inc., No. 5:23-cv-00134 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 20, 2023); OptiMorphix, 

Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 5:23-cv-00150 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 20, 2023). 

Case 5:23-cv-00123-RWS-JBB Document 15 Filed 01/26/24 Page 6 of 17 PageID #: 392
3 

3. Amazon.com, Inc. 

Amazon.com, Inc. is a Delaware corporation, headquartered in Seattle, Washington. Hunt 

Decl. ¶ 2; ECF No. 1 ¶ 9. It is a holding company that does not produce or sell goods or services 

to the public but merely owns stock in subsidiaries. Hunt Decl. ¶ 3. Amazon.com, Inc. is the 

ultimate parent company of AWS and a variety of other entities. For example, it owns businesses 

responsible for the online store, Amazon.com, through which various merchants sell and ship a 

variety of physical goods around the world. The entity that owns and operates the Amazon.com 

website is Amazon.com Services LLC. Id. ¶ 7. 

Amazon.com, Inc. organizes its holdings “into three segments: North America, 

International, and Amazon Web Services.” Ex. 4 at 3, 66. “These segments reflect the way the 

Company evaluates its business performance and manages its operations.” Id. at 3. Separate books 

are maintained for each segment. See, e.g., id. at 23-24, 67-69. In other words, AWS is its own 

business organization; it is incorporated, evaluated, managed, and operated as a separate business 

from Amazon’s domestic and international retail and marketplace operations. 

Amazon.com Services LLC, one of Amazon.com, Inc.’s separate and indirect subsidiaries, 

operates distribution facilities for shipping products purchased on the Amazon.com website, 

including the two fulfillment centers referenced in the Complaint. See Klein Decl. ¶¶ 4-6; Hunt 

Decl. ¶ 6; ECF No. 1 ¶ 13. These facilities do not engage in designing, building, commercializing, 

marketing, selling, distributing, testing, or servicing the accused cloud services. See Klein Decl. 

¶¶ 4-8. That is because they are not AWS facilities, but instead industrial buildings of a wholly 

separate line of business. 

Amazon.com, Inc. does not have any real estate or offices in this District. Hunt Decl. ¶ 9. 

Case 5:23-cv-00123-RWS-JBB Document 15 Filed 01/26/24 Page 7 of 17 PageID #: 393
4 

B. The Complaint. 

Plaintiff filed its Complaint against Defendants on October 23, 2023, alleging infringement 

of U.S. Patents Nos. 7,099,273; 7,444,418; 7,031,314; 7,136,353; 7,586,871; 7,616,559; 

7,987,285; 8,230,105; 8,255,551; 10,412,388; 9,167,021; and 10,362,081. See generally ECF 

No. 1. Plaintiff specifically identifies several accused products, all but one of which is an AWS 

cloud-based service or feature. Id. The only outlier, the accused Amazon Echo Show device, is not 

an AWS product. Klein Decl. ¶ 9. AWS did not design and does not make, import, or sell that 

device, which is generally available on the Amazon.com website operated by non-party 

Amazon.com Services LLC. Id.; Ex. 5. 

III. LEGAL STANDARD 

A. Venue in patent infringement cases is controlled by a two-pronged statute. 

Venue in a patent infringement case is controlled by 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), which provides: 

“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.” § 1400(b). “Whether venue is appropriate in a patent 

infringement action is unique to patent law and therefore Federal Circuit law applies.” In re 

Volkswagen Grp. of Am., 28 F.4th 1203, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2022). 

B. Plaintiff bears the burden of sustaining venue for each defendant, and the 

Court may consider evidence outside the complaint. 

Once a defendant raises improper venue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3), 

“the burden of sustaining venue will be on [the] Plaintiff.” Rex Real Estate I, L.P. v. Rex Real 

Estate Exch., Inc., No. 4:18-cv-00371-ALM, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102059, at *3 (E.D. Tex. 

June 19, 2019) (citation omitted); Volkswagen, 28 F.4th at 1207. “Plaintiff may carry this burden 

Case 5:23-cv-00123-RWS-JBB Document 15 Filed 01/26/24 Page 8 of 17 PageID #: 394
5 

by establishing facts that, if taken to be true, establish proper venue.” Rex Real Estate, 2019 U.S. 

Dist. LEXIS 102059, at *3 (citation omitted). 

The plaintiff must satisfy its burden for each defendant. See Agis Software Dev., LLC v. 

ZTE Corp., No. 2:17-CV-00517-JRG, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 235914, at *8 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 28, 

2018) (“[I]n an action involving multiple defendants[,] venue and jurisdiction requirements must 

be met as to each defendant.”). And venue is determined “at the time the complaint is filed.” Better 

Mouse Co., LLC v. Razer USA Ltd., No. 2:17-cv-00317-JRG-RSP, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 213528, 

at *2 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 12, 2017); Agis Software Dev. LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., No. 2:21-cv00072-JRG-RSP, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 251146, at *9 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 10, 2021). 

The Court may consider both the complaint and evidence outside the complaint in resolving 

a Rule 12(b)(3) motion. See Trois v. Apple Tree Auction Ctr., Inc., 882 F.3d 485, 493 (5th Cir. 

2018) (citing Ambraco, Inc. v. Bossclip B.V., 570 F.3d 233, 237 (5th Cir. 2009)). A complaint’s 

alleged facts may be accepted as true “only to the extent that such facts are uncontroverted by [a] 

defendant’s affidavit.” Kranos IP Corp. v. Riddell, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-443-JRG, 2017 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 138108, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 28, 2017) (quoting Pierce v. Shorty Small’s of Branson Inc., 

137 F.3d 1190, 1192 (10th Cir. 1998)); EMA Electromechanics, Inc. v. Siemens Corp., No. 6:21-

cv-1001-ADA, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76297, at *16 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 4, 2022). 

IV. VENUE IS IMPROPER BECAUSE PLAINTIFF CANNOT SHOW THAT 

DEFENDANTS SATISFY EITHER OF § 1400(b)’S TWO PRONGS 

A. Defendants cannot satisfy § 1400(b)’s first prong because neither “resides” in 

this District. 

Section 1400(b)’s first prong provides that a patent infringement action may be brought in 

a district where the “defendant resides.” § 1400(b). For purposes of § 1400(b), a corporation only 

“resides” in its state of incorporation. TC Heartland, 581 U.S. at 270. 

Case 5:23-cv-00123-RWS-JBB Document 15 Filed 01/26/24 Page 9 of 17 PageID #: 395
6 

Plaintiff effectively concedes that venue is not satisfied under § 1400(b)’s first prong. 

Plaintiff admits Defendants are incorporated in Delaware—not Texas. See ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 9, 10. 

Thus, neither Defendant “resides” in this District as the first prong requires. 

B. Defendants cannot satisfy § 1400(b)’s second prong because neither has a 

“regular and established place of business” in this District. 

Section 1400(b)’s second prong includes two requirements: a patent infringement action 

may be brought in a district “where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a 

regular and established place of business.” § 1400(b) (emphasis added). The Federal Circuit has 

held that a “regular and established place of business” under § 1400(b) must meet three 

requirements: “(1) there must be a physical place in the district; (2) it must be a regular and 

established place of business; and (3) it must be the place of the defendant.” In re Cray, Inc., 871 

F.3d 1355, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017). 

Plaintiff has not and cannot meet its burden in establishing venue under the second prong 

because neither Defendant has a regular and established place of business in this District. 

1. Amazon.com, Inc., a holding company, does not have a regular and 

established place of business in this District. 

Amazon.com, Inc. is a holding company. It does not produce goods or provide services to 

the public; it merely holds a direct or indirect interest in companies that do. Hunt Decl. ¶ 5. 

Amazon.com, Inc. does not, for example, commercialize or maintain AWS services, operate the 

Amazon.com website, or fulfill orders made on that site—those operations fall to Amazon.com, 

Inc. subsidiaries like AWS and Amazon.com Services LLC. Id.; Klein Decl. ¶¶ 2, 4-6. 

Amazon.com, Inc.’s narrow operational footprint does not include maintaining places of business 

or employing personnel, let alone maintaining such places in this District or employing personnel 

claiming to reside here. Hunt Decl. ¶¶ 7-9. Venue is, therefore, improper in this District as to 

Amazon.com, Inc. 

Case 5:23-cv-00123-RWS-JBB Document 15 Filed 01/26/24 Page 10 of 17 PageID #: 396
7 

2. AWS does not have a regular and established place of business in this 

District. 

AWS’s physical places of business include corporate offices scattered across the country. 

None are in the Eastern District of Texas. AWS does not own, lease, or operate a facility of any 

kind, much less a data center or office, in this District. Klein Decl. ¶ 3. Thus, venue is not proper 

in this District for AWS because it lacks a regular and established place of business in this District. 

3. The Complaint’s venue allegations are controverted by evidence and 

cannot be accepted as true. 

The Complaint incorrectly alleges that two places in this District are places “of the 

defendant[s]” satisfying Cray’s third requirement for establishing venue.3

 Specifically, the 

Complaint alleges that the Amazon Fulfillment Center FTW3/FTW4 in Fort Worth, Texas, and 

the Sub-Same Day Fulfillment Center STX8 in Richardson, Texas, are Defendants’ places of 

business.4 ECF No. 1 ¶ 13. But sworn declarations establish that neither facility is a place of either 

Defendant. 

Plaintiff cannot show that either of these fulfillment centers are places of Defendants. First, 

sworn testimony establishes that Defendants do not own, lease, or operate these fulfillment centers 

(or any others in this District). Klein Decl. ¶¶ 3-5. Rather, a separate company engaged in a 

separate line of business, Amazon.com Services LLC, leases and operates these fulfillment centers. 

Id. ¶¶ 4, 5. 

3

 The Complaint’s other venue-related allegations are irrelevant. See ECF No. 1 ¶ 17. 

Defendants’ receipt of revenue from and registration in Texas has no bearing on the Court’s venue 

analysis. See Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Teva Pharms. United States, Inc., 290 F. Supp. 3d 599, 613 

(N.D. Tex. 2017); Optic153 LLC v. Thorlabs Inc., No. 6:19-CV-00667-ADA, 2020 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 108167, at *5 (W.D. Tex. June 19, 2020). 

4

 Plaintiff erroneously identifies the address of the STX8 facilities as 3501 Research Drive, 

Richardson, Texas. ECF No. 1 ¶ 13. The correct address is 3051 Research Drive, Richardson, 

Texas. Klein Decl. ¶ 5. Additionally, the FTW4 facility has been decommissioned and absorbed 

into an expansion of FTW3. Id. ¶ 4. 

Case 5:23-cv-00123-RWS-JBB Document 15 Filed 01/26/24 Page 11 of 17 PageID #: 397
8 

Second, neither Defendant has otherwise “established or ratified” those facilities as its 

own. See Cray, 871 F.3d at 1363-64. Defendants do not hold out the fulfillment centers as their 

own. They do not, for example, list them on any website or directory as affiliated with AWS or 

Amazon.com, Inc. Klein Decl. ¶ 8. And the signs at FTW3/FTW4 and STX8 do not reference 

Amazon.com, Inc. or AWS. Id. Signs at FTW3/FTW4 read “Amazon Fulfillment.” Exs. 6, 7. Signs 

at STX8 simply reflect a generic “Amazon” logo. Ex. 8; cf. Andra Grp., LP v. Victoria’s Secret 

Stores, LLC, 6 F.4th 1283, 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (“[T]he companies’ shared use of ‘Victoria’s 

Secret’ in their name does not detract from the separateness of their businesses.”).

Finally, neither Defendant “actually engage[s] in business from that location.” Cray, 871 

F.3d at 1363-64; Andra, 6 F.4th at 1290. Amazon.com, Inc. and AWS personnel do not work from 

FTW3/FTW4 or STX8.5

 Klein Decl. ¶ 7. Also, the non-party Amazon.com Services LLC 

personnel that do work from FTW3/FTW4 and STX8 are not doing so on Defendants’ behalf or 

subject to their control such that they could be said to be Defendants’ agents doing either 

Defendants’ business. Id.; see also Andra, 6 F.4th at 1288-89 (finding that the defendant did not 

exercise “the degree of control over” a corporate affiliate’s employees necessary to find an agency 

relationship). AWS and non-party Amazon.com Services LLC are separate entities with wholly 

separate lines of business, each with a distinct character and objective, and Amazon.com, Inc. is 

merely a holding company. Klein Decl. ¶ 6; Hunt Decl. ¶¶ 3, 7. 

Accordingly, sworn testimony establishes that the two fulfillment centers identified in the 

Complaint are not places of either Defendant. The Court therefore cannot accept the Complaint’s 

5

 These facilities fail to meet Cray’s second requirement on the same ground. See In re 

Google LLC, 949 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (holding that the second requirement demands 

“the regular, physical presence of an employee or other agent of the defendant conducting the 

defendant’s business at the alleged ‘place of business’”). 

Case 5:23-cv-00123-RWS-JBB Document 15 Filed 01/26/24 Page 12 of 17 PageID #: 398
9 

allegations to the contrary as true. See Kranos, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138108, at *4 (holding that 

allegations need not be assumed true when controverted by declaration); EMA, 2022 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 76297, at *16 (same). 

4. Amazon.com Services LLC’s places of business cannot be imputed to 

Defendants because Amazon entities respect corporate separateness. 

Amazon.com, Inc.’s and its subsidiaries’ respect for corporate separateness forecloses any 

argument that Amazon.com Services LLC’s control of the fulfillment centers should be imputed 

to either Defendant under an alter-ego or veil-piercing theory. 

Fifth Circuit law governs the standards for imputing venue among corporate relatives. See 

Celgene Corp. v. Mylan Pharms., Inc., 17 F.4th 1111, 1125 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Under that law, 

imputation is only proper in the absence of “formal corporate separateness, which is a difficult 

standard to meet.” B/E Aero., Inc. v. Zodiac Aero., No. 2:16-cv-01417-JRG-RSP, 2018 U.S. Dist. 

LEXIS 220294, at *17 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 29, 2018), R&R adopted, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13495 

(E.D. Tex. Jan. 28, 2019) (citation omitted). 

This Court faced—and rejected—an imputation theory in Soverain IP, LLC v. AT&T Inc., 

No. 2:17-CV-00293-RWS-RSP, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 186656, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 31, 2017), 

R&R adopted, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 207551 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 18, 2017). In that case, the plaintiff 

argued that a subsidiary’s regular and established places of business in this District should be 

imputed to a parent company, AT&T Inc. Id. at *2-3. The defendant submitted sworn testimony 

establishing that AT&T Inc. was a holding company that is a “legally and factually separate 

corporate entity, distinct from its subsidiaries,” and that each subsidiary “maintains its own 

independent corporate, partnership, or limited liability company status, identity, and structure.” Id. 

at *2. Given the “uncontroverted declaration” and lack of record evidence indicating “a specific 

or unusual circumstance,” this Court rejected plaintiff’s imputation theory and dismissed AT&T 

Case 5:23-cv-00123-RWS-JBB Document 15 Filed 01/26/24 Page 13 of 17 PageID #: 399
10 

Inc. Id. at *3-4; see also Andra Grp., LP v. Victoria’s Secret Stores, LLC, No. 4:19-cv-288-ALMKPJ, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53868, at *9 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 24, 2020) (refusing to impute one 

defendant’s in-district stores to corporate parent and sister), R&R adopted, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

52240 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 26, 2020). 

Plaintiff has not and cannot meet the high standard for imputation under an alter-ego or 

veil-piercing theory. Defendants’ sworn testimony establishes that Amazon.com, Inc. is a holding 

company distinct from its subsidiaries, including AWS and Amazon.com Services LLC. Hunt 

Decl. ¶¶ 6-7. That testimony also establishes that AWS and Amazon.com Services LLC maintain 

independent corporate status and operate businesses of a different character. Klein Decl. ¶ 6. Like 

the plaintiff in Soverain, Plaintiff cannot establish “specific or unusual circumstance[s] that 

justif[y] ignoring the corporate separateness” of the relevant entities. Id. Plaintiff thus cannot meet 

the high standard for imputing non-party Amazon.com Services LLC’s control of fulfillment 

centers to either Defendant.6

C. Defendant Amazon.com, Inc. also cannot satisfy § 1400(b)’s second prong 

because it cannot “commit[] acts of infringement.” 

To satisfy § 1400(b)’s second prong, Plaintiff must also establish that each Defendant has 

“committed acts of infringement” in this District. § 1400(b). The Complaint here merely alleges 

6

 Several recent decisions have similarly refused to impute conduct among Amazon.com, 

Inc. and its subsidiaries, including AWS and Amazon.com Services LLC. See, e.g., BSD Crown, 

Ltd. v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 3:23-cv-00057-WHO, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 181407, at *11 (N.D. 

Cal. July 27, 2023) (refusing to disregard the corporate separateness between Amazon.com, Inc. 

and its subsidiaries, Twitch Interactive, Inc. and AWS); Tenpenny v. Prime Now, LLC, No. 3:19-

0420, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75233, at *14 (M.D. Tenn. Apr. 29, 2020) (same between 

Amazon.com, Inc. and its subsidiaries, Amazon.com Services LLC and Prime Now, LLC); 

Rensselaer Polytechnic Inst. v. Amazon, No. 1:18-cv-00549 (BKS/CFH), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

136436, at *28 (N.D.N.Y. Aug. 7, 2019) (same between Amazon.com, Inc. and its subsidiary, 

Whole Foods); Huong Hoang v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. C11-1709MJP, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 

190477, at *10 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 18, 2013) (same between Amazon.com, Inc. and its subsidiary, 

IMDB, Inc.). 

Case 5:23-cv-00123-RWS-JBB Document 15 Filed 01/26/24 Page 14 of 17 PageID #: 400
11 

that Defendants have “committed acts of direct and indirect infringement in the Eastern District of 

Texas” by “commercializing, marketing, selling, distributing, testing, and servicing the Accused 

Products identified herein.” ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 17-18. The Court need not assume that truth of such 

allegations where the defendant submits affidavit evidence that it did not commit the acts that 

purportedly infringe within the relevant district. See EMA, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 76297, at *17-

19 (“[W]hen a defendant challenges the complaint’s characterization of its contacts with the forum 

district, courts demand proof of those contacts.”); Alexsam, Inc. v. Simon Prop. Grp. Tex., L.P., 

No. 2:19-CV-00331-JRG, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 257986, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 3, 2021) (“[W]hen 

unsubstantiated allegations are controverted by affidavit or declaration, the affidavit or declaration 

trumps the allegation.” (citation omitted)). 

Defendants’ declarations controvert Plaintiff’s allegations. Again, Amazon.com, Inc., as a 

holding company, does not offer goods and services to the public. Hunt Decl. ¶ 5. Its narrow 

operational footprint does not include committing the acts Plaintiff contends are infringing (i.e.

commercializing, marketing, selling, distributing, testing, and servicing the accused products), 

much less committing them in the Eastern District of Texas. See id. This is a second independent 

basis for deeming venue improper against Amazon.com, Inc. 

V. CONCLUSION 

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should dismiss this Action for improper venue under 

Rule 12(b)(3) and § 1400(b). 

Case 5:23-cv-00123-RWS-JBB Document 15 Filed 01/26/24 Page 15 of 17 PageID #: 401
12 

Dated: January 26, 2024 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

By: /s/ Brian C. Nash

Brian C. Nash (TX Bar No. 24051103) 

BNash@mofo.com 

300 Colorado Street, Suite 1800 

Austin, TX 78701 

Telephone: 512.617.0650 

Counsel for Defendants 

Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon Web 

Services, Inc.

 

Case 5:23-cv-00123-RWS-JBB Document 15 Filed 01/26/24 Page 16 of 17 PageID #: 402
13 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing 

document has been served on all counsel of record via the Court’s ECF system on January 26, 

2024. 

/s/ Brian C. Nash 

Brian C. Nash 

Case 5:23-cv-00123-RWS-JBB Document 15 Filed 01/26/24 Page 17 of 17 PageID #: 403