Source: https://de.scribd.com/document/237118255/14-08-14-Google-Petition-for-Writ-of-Mandamus-Rockstar-Cases
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 21:22:51+00:00

Document:
Telecommunications America, LLC, and Google Inc.
2. No other real parties in interest are represented by the undersigned.
CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST FOR GOOGLE INC.
and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC.
owns 10 percent or more of the stock of Google Inc.
the Northern District of California, or to transfer this action to that court.
California, to retain its case concerning the same seven patents?
consideration of any individual motion?
Google, located in the Northern District of California?
where there is already a case involving the same patents and the same issues.
although the Northern District had already once denied Rockstar’s transfer motion.
would do the opposite, giving any party total freedom to manipulate venue. Id.
commonalities appearing on the face of Rockstar’s infringement allegations.
in Canada, one in North Carolina, and three in New Hampshire. A15, 702-03.
“patent licensing business” that exists solely to assert its patents. A484.
US LP, et al., No. 13-5933 (N.D. Cal. May 9, 2014), Dkt. No. 67-1 ¶ 21.
employees; its officers and directors all work for Rockstar Consortium US LP.
any role at MobileStar, none of whom live or work in the Eastern District of Texas.
offices in Ottawa, Canada. A492-98.
Huawei, HTC, LG, Pantech, Samsung and ZTE (the “Halloween actions”). A335.
the Halloween defendants also made other devices. A319 (citing complaints).
infringed the same patents by selling the same product, but opted not to.
2013, Rockstar responded by amending one of the Halloween actions, Rockstar v.
asserts that Google infringes the same patents by making the same products.
favored transferring Google’s action to Marshall, Texas. A1161-63.
the infringement issues here would likely be dispositive of the other cases.” Id.
Halloween defendants], the present suit takes precedence” over those actions. Id.
customer-suit exception to the first-to-file rule would apply.” Id.
corporation’s activities,’ thus appears to be in Ottawa, Canada.” A303 n.1.
Rockstar does not actually provide any evidence supporting this point.” A310.
advances Apple’s interest in interfering with Google’s Android business.” A319.
before it should proceed before it, not the Eastern District of Texas. A328.
actions from the Eastern District of Texas to the Northern District of California.
holds Google’s documents and witnesses. E.g., A1440, A1463.
No. 13-5933, Docket No. 87 (N.D. Cal. June 26, 2014).
to join the action in California, which addresses the same products and patents.
circumstances.” In re Nintendo Co., 589 F.3d 1194, 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 311 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
re Nintendo Co., 589 F.3d 1194, 1197 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
Toyota Motor Corp., 747 F.3d 1338, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (emphasis in original).
venues.’” In re Nintendo of Am., No. 14-132, 2014 WL 2889911, at *2 (Fed. Cir.
was first filed. Each of these errors requires reversal by this Court.
Am., 2014 WL 2889911, at *2; see also Spread Spectrum Screening LLC v.
suits.” Spread Spectrum, 657 F.3d at 1358 (citing Katz, 909 F.2d at 1464).
case was both first filed and subject to the customer-suit doctrine. A8-9, 323-24.
based on exceptions to the first-to-file rule or on the convenience factors.” A323.
Technologies, Inc. v. Mosaid Technologies, Inc., 518 F.3d 897, 904 (Fed. Cir.
and conservation of judicial resources, usurp the first-filed court’s role.
Texas Instruments Inc. v. Micron Semiconductor, Inc., 815 F. Supp. 994, 999 (E.D.
conveniens argument should be addressed to the court in the first-filed action”).
a stay pending resolution of Google’s California action. See Hybritech Inc. v.
followed the law, and the Northern District, to apply the customer-suit rule here.
meant to prohibit precisely this in passing the America Invents Act, Pub. L. No.
address this concern, Congress in the AIA mandated more stringent joinder rules.
in the severed case, not as to all defendants in the pretrial consolidated case”).
against a transfer.” A1544-45, 1552, 1561-62, 1570-71, 1578.
of the transfer motion.” In re EMC Corp., 501 F. App’x 973, 976 (Fed. Cir.
transfer law and the recently enacted America Invents Act.
GeoTag, Inc. v. Starbucks Corp., No. 10-572, 2013 WL 890484, at *6 (E.D. Tex.
Jan. 14, 2013). The district court made precisely this mistake, requiring reversal.
630 F.3d at 1364; see also In re Zimmer Holdings, Inc., 609 F.3d 1378, 1381 (Fed.
Cir. 2010). Rockstar’s presence in Plano, Texas is entirely an artifact of litigation.
headquarters facility that would attract high-quality employees.
business.” Lake Cherokee Hard Drive Techs., LLC v. Bass Computers, Inc., No.
ruling depends on the Plano facility, so this error requires reversal. E.g., A7.
denying transfer. These errors too require correction by this Court.
and noted that this was a “critical factor in this Court’s analysis of this case.” A7.
Android engineers who work in the San Francisco Bay Area.
substantially more witnesses would travel from Google than from Rockstar. A7.
greater disruption than Rockstar’s attorneys. Cf. Zimmer, 609 F.3d at 1381.
these employees is a Rockstar attorney. A716 ¶ 1, 719 ¶ 1, 728 ¶ 1, 737 ¶ 1.
gave rise to a suit, this factor should be weighed in that venue’s favor.
Affinity Labs of Texas v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 968 F. Supp. 2d 852, 855 (E.D. Tex.
mere jury bias, it would have ruled differently in Hoffmann-La Roche and TOA.
by the holdings of higher courts’ decisions but also by their ‘mode of analysis.’”).
important role, as well as the Northern District’s findings on this point.
without evidence that Samsung’s relevant documents were stored in Dallas. A5.
in Dallas, but not presuming Google’s relevant documents were in California. A5.
argued for transfer to New Jersey, headquarters of its United States subsidiary. Id.
Seoul, Korea, with offices across the United States.” Id.
unnumbered “hard drives” and “boxes of hard copy documents” were in Plano.
“predominantly based in Mountain View.” A5, 669-70 ¶ 5.
of California, or to transfer this action to that court.
TOA, 543 F. App’x at 1010; see also Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 316.
Attorneys for Defendants ASUStek Computer, Inc.
Inc., and LG Electronics MobileComm USA Inc.
Attorneys for Defendants HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc.
Attorneys for Defendants ZTE (USA) Inc. and ZTE Corp.
via E-mail and also via Overnight Delivery to the lead counsel indicated above.
Plaintiff's First Set of Interrogatories to Dr. Cazmo J. Lukrich, M.D.

References: v.

 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.