IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

MARSHALL DIVISION

VIRTAMOVE, CORP.,

Plaintiff,

v.

HEWLETT PACKARD ENTERPRISE

COMPANY,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Case No. 2:24-cv-00093-JRG

(Lead Case) 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

VIRTAMOVE, CORP.,

Plaintiff,

v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS 

MACHINES

CORP.,

Defendant.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Case No. 2:24-CV-00064-JRG

(Member Case) 

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

PLAINTIFF VIRTAMOVE, CORP.’S SUR-REPLY TO 

HPE CO.’S MOTION TO TRANSFER (DKT. 87)

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 107 Filed 11/22/24 Page 1 of 11 PageID #:

5680
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. The Burden of Proof Changed ............................................................................................ 1

B. Both Fifth and Federal Circuits Now Use the “Rigid” 100-Mile Rule............................... 1

C. Willing Witnesses Will Be Inconvenienced by Transfer.................................................... 2

D. Compulsory Process: HPE lacks evidence ......................................................................... 3

E. Evidence Everywhere Matters............................................................................................ 4

F. Local Interest: Diffuse Interest Nationwide........................................................................ 5

G. Court Congestion Deserves Substantial Weight................................................................. 5

H. HPE’s Procedural Problems................................................................................................ 5

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 107 Filed 11/22/24 Page 2 of 11 PageID #:

5681
ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Backertop Licensing LLC v. Canary Connect, Inc.,

107 F.4th 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2024).................................................................................................. 3

Beijing Meishe Network Tech. Co. v. TikTok Inc.,

No. 6:21-cv-00504, 2023 WL 2903978 (W.D. Tex. Apr. 11, 2023)........................................... 1

DoDots Licensing Sols. LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,

No. 6:22-cv-00535, 2023 WL 4939394 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 2, 2023)............................................ 2

Freedom Pats. LLC v. DISH Network Corp.,

No. 4:23-cv-00303, 2024 WL 1147828 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 15, 2024)........................................ 1, 5

Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert,

330 U.S. 501 (1947) .................................................................................................................... 4

Implicit, LLC v. Wayfair Inc.,

No. 4:22-CV-00940, 2024 WL 3878421 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 20, 2024).......................................... 2

In re Clarke,

94 F.4th 502 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 1, 2024) ................................................................................. 1, 2, 3

In re Genentech, Inc.,

566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009)............................................................................................... 1, 4

In re Hoffmann-La Roche,

587 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................... 5

In re HP Inc.,

826 F. App’x 899 (Fed. Cir. 2020).............................................................................................. 4

In re Juniper Networks, Inc.,

14 F.4th 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2021).................................................................................................... 4

In re Nintendo Co.,

589 F.3d 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................... 2

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

52 F.4th 625 (5th Cir. 2022)........................................................................................................ 5

In re Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd.,

2023 WL 8642711 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 14, 2023).............................................................................. 2

In re Sony Grp. Corp.,

No. 2024-140, 2024 WL 4344734 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 30, 2024)..................................................... 3

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 107 Filed 11/22/24 Page 3 of 11 PageID #:

5682
iii

In re TikTok, Inc.,

85 F.4th 352 (5th Cir. 2023)........................................................................................................ 1

In re Toyota Motor Corp.,

747 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2014)................................................................................................... 4

In re TS Tech. USA Corp.,

551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2008)................................................................................................... 5

In re Volkswagen,

545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008)................................................................................................... 1, 4

VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Verizon Commc'ns, Inc.,

No. 6:21-CV-00672-ADA, 2022 WL 1785625 (W.D. Tex. June 1, 2022)................................. 3

Rules

Fed. R. Civ. P. 45............................................................................................................................ 3

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 107 Filed 11/22/24 Page 4 of 11 PageID #:

5683
1

A. The Burden of Proof Changed

The Fifth Circuit did change the standard. Earlier cases lacked the “actually materialize” 

standard needed to prove good cause for transfer. In re Clarke, 94 F.4th 502, 508 (Fed. Circ. Mar. 

1, 2024); see, e.g., In re Volkswagen, 545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc). HPE’s case Freedom 

Pats. LLC v. Dish Network Corp. has no discussion of this “actually materialize” standard from 

binding case In re Clarke, so Freedom Pats. applied an outdated rule. Freedom Pats. LLC v. DISH 

Network Corp., No. 4:23-cv-00303, 2024 WL 1147828, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 15, 2024) (citing In 

re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2009)). In re Clarke unambiguously rules there 

is no good cause for transfer unless HPE clearly demonstrates (beyond a preponderance) that the 

proposed convenience will actually materialize. 94 F.4th at 508 n.3. HPE cannot merely speculate

about witnesses with hypothetical relevance who might be needed at trial. 

B. Both Fifth and Federal Circuits Now Use the “Rigid” 100-Mile Rule

The District Court in Beijing Meishe Network Tech. Co. v. TikTok Inc. found that “the key 

witnesses and the employee at the heart of the misappropriation claim are in China” but held this 

factor was neutral using the non-rigid version of the 100-mile rule. No. 6:21-cv-00504, 2023 WL 

2903978 (W.D. Tex. 2023). The Fifth Circuit ruled that the District Court erred because it “ignores 

our 100-mile test,” and the Fifth Circuit weighed this factor in favor of transfer under the rigid 

100-mile rule. In re TikTok, Inc., 85 F.4th 352, 361 (5th Cir. 2023). Had the Fifth Circuit not 

applied the “rigid” version of this rule, the witnesses in China would have found both Texas and 

California equally inconvenient because they would have traveled a significant distance no matter 

where they testify. Thus, the Fifth Circuit’s “rigid” 100-mile rule is binding, and earlier Federal 

Circuit cases that sporadically ignore the rigid version have been overruled. In re TikTok cites an 

exemplary the Federal Case that correctly applied the 100-mile rule. 85 F.4th at 361 n.8. In re 

Nintendo held that witnesses in Japan, far from either district, caused this factor to favor transfer. 

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 107 Filed 11/22/24 Page 5 of 11 PageID #:

5684
2

589 F.3d 1194, 1199 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Recently, the Federal Circuit acknowledged the TikTok 

ruling, held that witnesses in Korea caused this factor to favor transfer to the NDCA, and “rejected 

similar reasoning” to what HPE now argues. In re Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 2023 WL 8642711, 

at *2 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 14, 2023) (reversing DoDots Licensing Sols. LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 

6:22-cv-00535, 2023 WL 4939394, at *3–4 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 2, 2023) which did not rigidly apply 

the 100-mile rule to witnesses in Korea). HPE’s case, Implicit, LLC v. Wayfair Inc., mentions 

TikTok but does not directly address the irreconcilable TikTok ruling and has no discussion of how 

In re Nintendo or In re Samsung affect this factor, and Implicit LLC cannot overrule these cases. 

No. 4:22-CV-00940, 2024 WL 3878421, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 20, 2024).

C. Willing Witnesses Will Be Inconvenienced by Transfer

Transferring this case will cause great inconvenience to all East Coast, Europe, and India 

based witnesses who will need to fly farther. Dkt. 102 at 7. This is the common-sense result, and 

it correctly applies the Fifth Circuit’s rigid 100-mile rule.

HPE’s Reply denies the possibility of additional relevant witnesses in Texas—something 

HPE’s only declarant failed to investigate. See e.g., Dkt. 102 at 5–7. Lee testified that he did not

investigate the location or knowledge of Hawley’s GreenLake team, Sharp’s team, or the ERE 

sales or marketing team. Id. Lee knew neither the quantity nor location of employees involved 

with ERE or GreenLake beyond the four members of his team. Id. at 5. This evidence speaks for 

itself—HPE’s investigation into relevant witnesses was, at best, incomplete. HPE’s incomplete 

evidence prevents this court from accurately assessing the convenience of relevant witnesses—an 

evidentiary burden that is the “movant’s burden alone.” In re Clarke, 94 F.4th at 508.

HPE incorrectly argues that its Texas-based remote workers should be ignored, while also 

arguing that California-based remote worker, Lee, weighs in favor of transfer. Lee is a remote 

employee and testified that he only goes into the office “on average, [...] 4 to 5 times a month.” 

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 107 Filed 11/22/24 Page 6 of 11 PageID #:

5685
3

Dkt. 103, Ex. 23 at 16:16-22. Indeed, HPE provides no authority in support of its argument that 

remote workers should be ignored during the analysis. 

D. Compulsory Process: HPE lacks evidence 

O’Leary, Huffman, Woodward, and O’Connor filed declarations that they are willing to 

testify here, subjecting themselves to the Court’s inherent subpoena power to compel them to do 

so. See Backertop Licensing LLC v. Canary Connect, Inc., 107 F.4th 1335, 1342–43 (Fed. Cir. 

2024) (ruling that the Court’s subpoena power is not bound by the geographic limits of Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 45). If they do not count them under this factor, then they should count as willing witnesses. 

Roth (former President and CEO) and Benedito (former engineering manager) in Dallas 

are subject to the geographic limits of Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1)(B)(ii). Dkt. 102 at 8. Their former 

job titles are evidence of their knowledge regarding the VirtaMove product that HPE accuses of 

being subject to marking requirements. See Dkt. 67 at 7(asserting “Failure to Mark” defense).

VirtaMove provided prima facie evidence of four prior art inventors in Austin. HPE bears 

the evidentiary burden of clearly demonstrating that VirtaMove’s evidence is outdated. HPE 

offered no evidence, only speculation, about this disputed fact.

HPE continues to assert that six prior art inventors should weigh against transfer—

complete speculation manufactured for transfer. HPE has not clearly demonstrated that six prior 

art inventors are going to materialize. Even before In re Clarke, courts discounted them because 

“prior art witnesses rarely appear at trial.” See, e.g., VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Verizon Commc’ns, 

Inc., No. 6:21-CV-00672-ADA, 2022 WL 1785625, at *4 (W.D. Tex. June 1, 2022) (“Defendants 

are unlikely to call a dozen prior art witnesses at trial”); Ex. 24 at 4–7 (filed herewith, arguing that 

Sony failed to predict materializing witnesses with 91% error rate, including all 13 prior art 

witnesses); In re Sony Grp. Corp., No. 2024-140, 2024 WL 4344734, at *1 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 30, 

2024) (holding that Sony “failed to identify any . . . unwilling witness there”). After In re Clarke, 

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 107 Filed 11/22/24 Page 7 of 11 PageID #:

5686
4

speculative prior art witnesses are not good cause for transfer unless HPE has clearly demonstrated 

that they will materialize at trial. 94 F.4th at 508. 

Third party, open-source Kubernetes and Docker witnesses are unlikely to materialize at 

trial unless the Court believes that HPE has clearly demonstrated that their testimony is relevant 

to the operation HPE’s specific implementations of Kubernetes and Docker in the accused HPE 

products. If HPE has clearly demonstrated this, then the Court should make the finding explicit so 

that HPE cannot later seek to exclude unfavorable admissions by Docker/Kubernetes employees 

as not relevant to HPE’s specific implementations in the accused HPE products. Regardless, too 

many other witnesses prevent this factor from weighing against transfer. 

E. Evidence Everywhere Matters

HPE asks the Court to ignore the difficulty of transporting evidence across the country. 

The law does not permit such blindness. In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 

2009) (“Furthermore, because the documents housed in Europe and Washington, D.C. will need 

to be transported in any event, it is only slightly more inconvenient or costly to require the 

transportation of those materials to California than Texas.”). Any contrary instruction from In re 

Juniper Networks, Inc. to ignore sources of proof cannot be reconciled with the overarching Fifth 

Circuit and Supreme Court instructions that require consideration of ease of access to sources of 

proof. 14 F.4th 1313, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2021); Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947)

(“Important considerations are the relative ease of access to sources of proof” without mentioning 

exclusions); Volkswagen, 545 F.3d 304 at 316 (citing and reiterating same rule from Gilbert). The 

rule from Juniper to ignore certain sources of proof was never good law to begin with because the 

cases Juniper cited for that rule do not support that rule. 14 F.4th at 1321 (citing In re Toyota 

Motor Corp., 747 F.3d 1338, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2014) and In re HP Inc., 826 F. App’x 899, 902 (Fed. 

Cir. 2020), neither of which support this rule).

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 107 Filed 11/22/24 Page 8 of 11 PageID #:

5687
5

HPE’s only evidence in the NDCA is electronic, so its weight is neutral. The In re Planned 

Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc. rule on this is recent, binding Fifth Circuit authority. 52 F.4th 625, 

630 (5th Cir. 2022). HPE’s case In re TS Tech. USA Corp., is outdated, conflicting Federal Circuit 

law from 2008. 551 F.3d 1315, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2008). 

F. Local Interest: Diffuse Interest Nationwide

There remains no Fifth Circuit case identifying “design and development” as the proper 

analysis under the local interest factor. Freedom Pats. LLC has no discussion of how the “diffuse 

interest” analysis applies here, nor does it explicitly address the argument that design and 

development of a product are not acts of infringement that give rise to this suit. 2024 WL 1147828, 

at *6. Freedom Pats also has no discussion of the Federal Circuit’s correct rule that “the sale of an 

accused product offered nationwide does not give rise to a substantial interest in any single venue.”

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

G. Court Congestion Deserves Substantial Weight

Although this factor should not outweigh all other factors, it deserves substantial weight, 

as HPE’s ongoing infringement harms its competitor VirtaMove.

H. HPE’s Procedural Problems

HPE fails to address VirtaMove’s specific argument about the meet-and-confer process. 

The L.R. CV-7(h) violation was HPE’s refusal to provide the merits underlying HPE’s arguments, 

as the email chain makes clear that HPE would not identify the witness or evidence that would 

actually materialize at trial. Dkt. 102-1. 

HPE’s Reply fails to justify HPE’s tiny font footnotes that would exceed the page limits. 

In fact, HPE’s Reply uses the same tactic to exceed page limits, this time cramming another 19 

lines of text. Dkt. 105 at 1–5 nn. 1–9. The Court should deem all of HPE’s transfer motion 

footnotes stricken for violating L.R. CV-7(a)(2) and L.R. CV-10(a)(5). 

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 107 Filed 11/22/24 Page 9 of 11 PageID #:

5688
6

Dated: November 22, 2024 Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Qi (Peter) Tong

Reza Mirzaie (CA SBN 246953)

rmirzaie@raklaw.com

Marc A. Fenster (CA SBN 181067)

mfenster@raklaw.com

Neil A. Rubin (CA SBN 250761)

nrubin@raklaw.com

James A. Milkey (CA SBN 281283)

jmilkey@raklaw.com

Amy E. Hayden (CA SBN 287026)

ahayden@raklaw.com

Jacob Buczko (CA SBN 269408)

jbuczko@raklaw.com 

James Tsuei (CA SBN 285530)

jtsuei@raklaw.com

Christian W. Conkle (CA SBN 306374)

cconkle@raklaw.com

Jonathan Ma (CA SBN 312773)

jma@raklaw.com

Daniel B. Kolko (CA SBN 341680)

dkolko@raklaw.com

RUSS AUGUST & KABAT

12424 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90025

Telephone: (310) 826-7474

Qi (Peter) Tong (TX SBN 24119042)

RUSS AUGUST & KABAT

4925 Greenville Ave., Suite 200

Dallas, TX 75206

Telephone: (310) 826-7474

Attorneys for Plaintiff VirtaMove, Corp.

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 107 Filed 11/22/24 Page 10 of 11 PageID #:

5689
7

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 pursuant to Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on November 22, 2024.

/s/ Qi (Peter) Tong

Qi (Peter) Tong

Case 2:24-cv-00093-JRG Document 107 Filed 11/22/24 Page 11 of 11 PageID #:

5690