Source: https://de.scribd.com/document/288418256/Transfer-Order-for-Second-Core-Wireless-Suit
Timestamp: 2020-08-03 15:08:46
Document Index: 434181248

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1404', '§ 1404', '§ 1404', '§ 1404', '§ 1404', '§ 1404', '§1404']

Transfer Order for Second Core Wireless Suit | Deposition (Law) | Lawsuit
speichernTransfer Order for Second Core Wireless Suit für später speichern
CustomPlay Sues Apple Inc, July 27, 2017 - Patently Apple
IPR2015-00811-FinalDetermination
Case 6:14-cv-00752-JRG-JDL
Filed 08/31/15
Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 3463
CORE WIRELESS LICENSING, S.A.R.L
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:14-CV-751
JRG-JDL
CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:14-CV-752
Before the Court is Defendant Apple Inc.’s (“Apple”) Motions to Transfer Venue
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1404(a). (6:14-cv-751, Doc. No. 69; 6:14-cv-752, Doc. No. 65.) Plaintiff
Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l (“Core Wireless”) filed responses (6:14-cv-751, Doc. No. 79;
6:14-cv-752, Doc. No. 78) to which Apple filed replies (6:14-cv-751, Doc. No. 85; 6:14-cv-752,
Doc. No. 86), and Core Wireless filed sur-replies (6:14-cv-751, Doc. No. 92; 6:14-cv-752, Doc.
Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 3464
No. 93). 1
After considering the parties’ arguments, the Court GRANTS Apple’s Motions to
Transfer Venue (6:14-cv-751, Doc. No. 69; 6:14-cv-752, Doc. No. 65).
Apple further requested an oral hearing on its transfer motions (6:14-cv-751, Doc. No.
69; 6:14-cv-752, Doc. No. 65). Because the Court has made a determination on the submissions,
the request for oral hearing is DENIED.
A. The Present Core Wireless v. Apple Cases
On September 10, 2014, Core Wireless filed two actions in this Court against Apple,
alleging infringement of several U.S. Patents. (6:14-cv-751 (“the -751 case”); 6:14-cv-752 (“the
-752 case”).)
Specifically, in the -751 case, Core Wireless alleges infringement of 6 U.S.
Patents, U.S Patent Nos. 5,907,823 (“the ’823 Patent”); 7,072,667 (“the ’667 Patent”); 7,693,552
(“the ’552 Patent”); 8,434,020 (“the ’020 Patent”); 8,498,671 (“the ’671 Patent”); and 8,713,476
(“the ’476 Patent”). In the -752 case, Core Wireless alleges infringement of 5 additional patents,
U.S. Patent Nos. 5,946,634 (“the ’634 Patent”); 6,477,151 (“the ’151 Patent”); 6,633,536 (“the
’536 Patent”); 7,782,818 (“the ’818 Patent”), and RE44,828 (“the ’828 Patent”).
later, on June 25, 2015, Apple filed the instant motions requesting the cases be transferred to the
Northern District of California (“NDCA”). (6:14-cv-751, Doc. No. 69; 6:14-cv-752, Doc. No.
B. The Prior Core Wireless v. Apple Case
infringement of several U.S. Patents, none of which overlap with the patents being asserted in the
1 Apple filed identical motions to dismiss in both cases the 6:14-cv-751 and 6:14-cv-752 cases. Accordingly, all references and citations herein will be to the documents briefed in the 6:14-cv-751 case, unless otherwise expressly noted.
Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 3465
current actions. (6:12-cv-100.) In addition, in the prior case, Core Wireless asserted a breach of
contract claim related to Apple’s membership in ETSI and use of those standards.
Core Wireless asserts this claim against Apple in the -752 case. This Court tried the prior case in
March of 2015 and has since resolved several post-trial motions.
In the prior case, Apple also moved to transfer the case to the Northern District of
California. (6:12-cv-100, Doc. No. 33.) The Court denied Apple’s motion because Apple failed
to meet its burden in showing the Northern District of California was a clearly more convenient
forum. (6:12-cv-100, Doc. No. 73.) Specifically, Apple failed to identify any willing witnesses or
individuals who would not be subject to the Court’s subpoena power and only stated generalities
about the location of sources of proof, which resulted in the Court being unable to weigh several
factors in its transfer analysis. (6:12-cv-100, Doc. No. 73.)
Apple subsequently filed a petition
for a writ of mandamus on the Court’s decision and the Federal Circuit denied that petition,
agreeing that “the evidence before the court was so general in nature that the court was unable to
evaluate its relevance in the transfer analysis.” In Re Apple, 743 F.3d 1377, 1379 (Fed. Cir.
Core Wireless is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the Grand
Duchy of Luxembourg, with a principal place of business at 16, Avenue Pasteur L-2310
(Doc. No. 1, at ¶ 1.) Core Wireless is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Conversant
Intellectual Property Management Inc. (“Conversant IP”), which is a corporation based in
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. (Doc. No. 78-2, Declaration of Scott W. Burt, at ¶ 2) (“Burt Decl.”).)
Conversant IP also maintains a separate wholly owned subsidiary called Conversant Intellectual
Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 3466
Property Management Corp. (“Conversant Texas”), which is a Texas corporation, with a
principal place of business at 5601 Granite Parkway, Suite 1300, in Plano, Texas. Id. at ¶¶ 4,5.
Core Wireless maintains a wholly-owned subsidiary, Core Wireless Licensing Ltd. (“Core
Wireless Texas”), a Texas corporation with a principal place of business in Plano, Texas. Id. at ¶
3. Core Wireless Texas and Conversant Texas share offices. Id. at ¶ 6.
Core Wireless has
invested close to $1 million dollars in developing this office space, which spans over 25,000
useable square feet. Id. at ¶ 10. Core Wireless has one employee who works out of Luxembourg.
Id. at ¶ 7. Since 2009, Conversant has employed Doo Seon Shin who works in Plano, Texas and
lives in Allen, Texas. Id. at ¶ 8. Conversant Texas has “10 employees who all work in Plano and
live in the surrounding area,” all of whom work on “patent prosecution, portfolio maintenance,
engineering analysis, due diligence activities, patent acquisition support, licensing support, and
litigation support.” Id. at ¶ 9. According to Core Wireless, “at the time these actions were filed,
Core Wireless Texas had eight full-time employees who were part of the patent prosecution
team.” Id. at ¶ 13. Core Wireless Texas maintains records totaling 171.6 GB related to the
patents-in-suit in Plano, Texas. Id. at ¶ 14.
Apple is a California corporation with a principal place of business at 1 Infinite Loop,
Cupertino, CA 95014. (Doc. No. 98, at ¶ 2.) Apple maintains source code, and other relevant
documents, for the accused technology “in or near its Cupertino offices.” (Doc. No. 69-4,
Declaration of Michael Jaynes, at ¶ 6) (“Jaynes Decl.”).) Apple conducts its primary research
and development activities for the accused products in or near Cupertino, California, and
similarly employs its knowledgeable engineers there. Id. at ¶ 7.
Apple maintains business
documents and records relating to research, design, development, marketing and product revenue
Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 3467
in the Cupertino California area. Id. Apple’s employees involved in the design and manufacture
of the accused products reside in and around Cupertino, CA. Id. Apple specifically identifies 15
employees, including Mr. Jaynes, who will be likely witnesses and have relevant knowledge. Id.
at ¶ 8. The accused products contain “baseband processors” that are supplied by Intel Corp. and
Qualcomm Inc. Id. at ¶ 5.
Apple operates two retails stores in this District and maintains non-
retail offices in Austin, Texas, Grapevine, Texas, and Houston, Texas. Id. at ¶¶ 9, 11.
Section 1404(a) provides that “[f]or the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the
where it might have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The goals of § 1404(a) are to prevent
waste of time, energy, and money, and also to protect litigants, witnesses, and the public against
unnecessary inconvenience and expense.
Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964).
Ultimately it is within a district court’s sound discretion to transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1404(a), but the court must exercise its discretion in light of the particular circumstances of the
Hanby v. Shell Oil Co., 144 F. Supp. 2d 673, 676 (E.D. Tex. 2001); Mohamed v. Mazda
Corp., 90 F. Supp. 2d 757, 768 (E.D. Tex. 2000).
The party seeking transfer must show good
cause for the transfer. In re Volkswagen of America, Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 315 (5th Cir. 2008) (en
banc) (“Volkswagen II”).
To show good cause, the moving party must demonstrate the
transferee venue is clearly more convenient. Id.
When deciding whether to transfer venue, a district court balances the private interests of
the parties and the public interests in the fair and efficient administration of justice. The private
interest factors the court considers are: (1) the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (2) the
Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 3468
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 interest factors are: (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 laws or in the application of foreign law. Id.
The threshold issue in a § 1404(a) analysis is “whether the judicial district to which
transfer is sought would have been a district in which the claim could have been filed.”
Volkswagen I, 371 F.3d at 203. In a patent infringement action, venue is proper in “the judicial
and has a regular and established place of business.”
In this case, Core
Wireless does not contest that Apple conducts business within the Northern District of California
and transfer is permissible under § 1404.
I. The Private Interest Factors
(a) The Relative Ease of Access to Sources of Proof
For this factor to weigh in favor of transfer, the movant must demonstrate that transfer
will result in more convenient access to sources of proof. The Federal Circuit requires the Court
to assume that the bulk of all relevant evidence will come from the accused infringer.
Genentech, 566 F.3d at 1345. As a result, “the place where the defendant’s documents are kept
weighs in favor of transfer to that location.” Id. (quoting Neil Bros. Ltd. v.
World Wide Lines,
Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 3469
Inc., 425 F. Supp. 2d 325, 330 (E.D.N.Y. 2006)).
To meet its burden, Apple must identify its
sources of proof with some specificity such that the Court may determine whether transfer will
increase the convenience of the parties. In Re Apple, 743 F.3d at 1379; see also Invitrogen v.
Gen. Elec. Co., No. 6:08–CV–113, 2009 WL 331889 at *3 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 9, 2009) (finding that
general statements that relevant documents were located in either England or New Jersey “fail to
show that transfer would make access to sources of proof either more or less convenient for the
Through its declarations, Apple states that the alleged infringing products were designed
and developed in or near Cupertino, California, and the employees responsible for that
development are based in the Cupertino area. (Jaynes Decl. at ¶ 4.) Apple specifically identifies
12 employees who are knowledgeable of certain aspects of the design and development of the
accused products relevant to this litigation. Id. at ¶ 8.
Apple also specifically identifies 2
employees with knowledge about the marketing of the accused devices, and 1 employee with
Id. All of these employees are located in the Northern District of
California. Id. As to its documents, Apple contends that the electronic records of this work are
maintained in Cupertino, California, along with business records related to product revenue,
financial documents, relevant patent licenses, and the source code for the accused technology. Id.
at ¶¶ 6-7. Apple also maintains there are several third parties who will have relevant documents
in the Northern District of California. (Doc. No. 69, at 10.)
Core Wireless states that its subsidiary, Core Wireless Texas, maintains records totaling
171.6 GB related to the patents-in-suit in Plano, Texas. (Burt Decl. at ¶ 14.) Core Wireless also
maintains that a separate subsidiary of its parent company has “10 employees who all work in
Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 3470
Plano and live in the surrounding area,” all of whom work on “patent prosecution, portfolio
maintenance, engineering analysis, due diligence activities, patent acquisition support, licensing
support, and litigation support” and that its wholly-owned subsidiary has “eight full-time
employees who were part of the patent prosecution team.” Id. at ¶¶ 9, 13.
specifically identifies Mr. Johnson, a prosecuting attorney at Core Wireless, and Mr. Shin, a
patent engineer at Conversant Texas, both of whom have knowledge of the asserted patents.
(Doc. No. 79, at 10.)
Weighing Apple’s specific identification of the location of its sources of proof in the
Northern District of California, including specific employees with relevant knowledge and
specific documents, against Core Wireless’s general statements about its sources of proof,
including only two specifically identified employees with relevant knowledge located in this
District, the Court finds this factor weighs in favor of transfer.
(b)The Availability of the Compulsory Process to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses
The second private interest factor instructs the Court to consider the availability of
compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses, particularly non-party witnesses
whose attendance may need to be secured by a court order. See In re Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at
316. The Court gives more weight to those specifically identified witnesses and affords less
weight to vague assertions that witnesses are likely located in a particular forum. See Novelpoint
Learning v. Leapfrog Enter., No 6:10-cv-229, 2010 WL 5068146, at *6 (E.D.Tex Dec. 6, 2010)
(stating that the Court will not base its conclusion on unidentified witnesses); See also West
Coast Trends, Inc. v. Ogio Int’l, Inc., No. 6:10-cv-688, 2011 WL 5117850, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Oct.
Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 3471
Apple identifies 9 potentially relevant third parties located in California: Audience,
Facebook, Google, Intel, Qualcomm, Twitter, Uber, Yahoo!, and Yelp. (Doc. No. 69, at 12.)
Apple further identifies one Qualcomm engineer, Arunava Choudhuri, who is located in San
Diego. Id. at 6. 2
Core Wireless identifies a prosecuting attorney, Shoaib A. Mithani, who is
located in Dallas, Texas, and identifies generally any current or former employee of Cirrus
Logic, a Texas-based third-party supplier of a component of the accused technology, as being
subject to this Court’s subpoena power. (Doc. No. 79, at 12.) Apple has submitted an affidavit
from Cirrus Logic’s Associate General Counsel attesting that “Cirrus will make available for
trial in [the Northern District of California] any Cirrus-employed witness that Core Wireless can
compel to attend trial in the Eastern District of Texas.” (Doc. No. 69-3, Declaration of Michael
Barrett, at ¶ 7) (“Barrett Decl.”).) Because Core Wireless has not specifically named any current
or former employees of Cirrus Logic, and Cirrus Logic has not submitted any guarantees from
any specific employees with relevant knowledge, the Court finds any consideration of these
statements would be merely speculative.
Apple has specifically named one potential unwilling witness from Qualcomm who
would be subject to the Northern District of California’s trial subpoena power should Apple
show that Mr. Choudhuri would not incur substantial expense in attending trial. Fed. R. Civ. P.
2 Apple also notes that four third-party witnesses from Qualcomm and CETECOM testified via deposition at trial in the prior case. (Doc. No. 69, at 7.) As a preliminary matter, Apple does not state whether these witnesses would also likely be called to testify during deposition or at trial for these actions. Moreover, because the witnesses testified via deposition, none had to be compelled to trial in this District. Apple further does not contend these witnesses would have been called live had that case been tried in the Northern District of California. Ultimately, the course of the prior trial shows that there were no witnesses who needed to be compelled to that trial over whom this Court lacked subpoena power. That is, neither Core Wireless nor Apple called any unwilling witnesses to testify at trial. The Court understands the inherent difficultly in naming witnesses who will need to be called to trial at the time the complaint is filed. For that reason, the Court gives weight to parties’ good faith identification of witnesses who are specifically identified by name and location, and for whom parties provide a general statement of the nature of their testimony. However, in the prior case, Apple failed to specifically identify any third party witness who may need to be called. Accordingly, the Court could not weigh that factor, and ultimately, none needed to be compelled to trial.
Page 10 of 15 PageID #: 3472
45(c)(1)(B)(ii). 3 Core Wireless has named one potential unwilling witness, a former prosecuting
attorney located in Dallas, Texas, who would be subject to this Court’s absolute subpoena power.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1)(A). 4 Weighing the one third-party witness specifically identified in
California, along with the 9 third parties identified by Apple who may have relevant information
in California, against the one third-party witness in Texas and the speculative statements
regarding the availability of Cirrus Logic’s witnesses, the Court finds this factor weighs slightly
in favor of transfer.
(c) The Cost of Attendance for Willing Witnesses
In analyzing this factor, all parties and witnesses must be considered. Volkswagen I, 371
F.3d at 204. “Because it generally becomes more inconvenient and costly for witnesses to attend
trial the further they are away from home, the Fifth Circuit established in Volkswagen I a ‘100-
mile’ rule, which requires that ‘[w]hen the distance between an existing venue for trial of a
matter and a proposed venue under §1404(a) is more than 100 miles, the factor of inconvenience
to witnesses increases in direct relationship to the additional distance to be traveled.’” In re TS
Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citations omitted).
As discussed, Apple has specifically named 15 employees as willing witnesses with
relevant knowledge of the accused technology/devices who are located in the Northern District
of California. (Jaynes Decl. at ¶ 8.) Core Wireless has specifically identified two employees of
its subsidiary, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Kim, who are located in Plano, Texas, and one employee of
3 As Apple concedes, Mr. Choudhuri is located in San Diego, California (Doc. No. 69, at 6), more than 100 miles outside of the Northern District of California. Accordingly, he could only be compelled to trial under Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1)(B)(ii), which would require a showing that he “would not incur substantial expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1)(B)(ii). In its motion, Apple does contend Mr. Choudhuri would not incur substantial expense traveling from San Diego to the Northern District of California because it is “only a 90-minute direct flight away from Qualcomm’s San Diego facilities.” (Doc. No. 69, at 13.)
4 Because Mr. Mithani is located in Dallas, Texas, and conducts regular business at his law firm, Winstead P.C. (Doc. No. 79-7, at 22), he is within 100 miles of this District, and this Court can compel him to trial if needed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1)(A).
Page 11 of 15 PageID #: 3473
its parent company, Mr. Shin, who is also located in Plano, Texas. (Doc. No. 79, at 13.) Core
Wireless also maintains that to the extent the Cirrus Logic witnesses are willing as Cirrus
Logic’s Associate General Counsel has declared, the cost of attendance for those witnesses to
attend trial in this District would be less than the cost to attend trial in the Northern District of
California. Id. at 14.
Trial in this District would be more convenient for Mr. Mithani who is
located in Dallas, Texas, and regularly conducts business within 100 miles of this Court. On the
other hand, trial in the Northern District of California would be more convenient for Mr.
Choudhuri, although he is in San Diego and farther than 100 miles from the Northern District of
Again, the Court affords the most weight to those witnesses who are specifically named.
Here, Apple has identified 15 willing witnesses in the Northern District of California, and Core
Wireless has named three willing witnesses in this District, along with general statements that
the cost of travel would be cheaper for any willing employees from Cirrus Logic. 5
there is one third-party witness for whom this District would be more convenient, and one for
whom the Northern District of California would be more convenient.
Court finds this factor weighs in favor of transfer.
(d) Other Practical Problems
Thus, on balance, the
Although judicial economy is not among the list of the enumerated factors, it can be a
consideration when determining whether a transfer is in the interest of justice.
Volkswagen II,
5 The Court notes that in the prior case, Apple had failed to specifically identify any willing witnesses, their interest in the litigation, or where they reside. Ultimately, Apple only brought one corporate representative to trial, Frank Casanova. (Doc. No. 69, at 7.) Core Wireless argues that this did not inconvenience Apple. (Doc. No. 79, at 14.) While the Court agrees with Core Wireless that a single Apple witnesses traveling from the Northern District of California to this District for trial was not an inconvenience, the Court here has no reason to discount the individuals named by Apple and there is nothing in Federal Circuit jurisprudence that would instruct this Court to do so.
Page 12 of 15 PageID #: 3474
565 F.2d at 1351.
Core Wireless contends that judicial efficiency weighs against transfer
because there are currently four related cases involving ten overlapping patents, which have been
consolidated for claim construction purposes in this District.
(Doc. No. 79, at 8.) This Court is
aware that the instant actions and two additional actions in the Marshall Division (2:14-cv-911
and 2:14-cv-912) are set to go to claim construction in Marshall before Judge Payne on
September 2 and 3, 2015.
Considering that claim construction briefing has completed and the
claim construction proceedings will share a single technical advisor, the Court recognizes the
inefficiency that will ultimately be had by transferring these cases. This inefficiency was
certainly not helped by Apple waiting for over 9 months from the onset of these actions to file its
transfer motions. Nonetheless, this Court must recognize that for purposes of judicial economy,
the relevant inquiry is what benefits existed at the time these cases were filed. See In re EMC
Corp., 2013 WL 324154, at *2 (“a district court may properly consider any judicial economy
benefits which would have been apparent at the time the suit was filed”). Indeed, the two related
cases in Marshall were not filed until 16 days after the instant actions were filed.
Neither Core Wireless nor Apple maintains that any judicial economy benefit would be
retained from this Court having previously tried a case between the parties, other than reference
to a related breach of contract claim by Core Wireless. 6 (Doc. No. 79, at 8.) Apple maintains that
this factor favors transfer to the Northern District of California, but gives absolutely no reason
what judicial efficiency exists for this case being in California, and instead simply asserts that
transfer would not be wasteful. This Court sees no gain in judicial economy benefits that would
6 While the Court is not considering circumstances that existed after the filing of the complaint, it is worthwhile to note that since the transfer briefing in these cases was submitted, Judge Gilstrap has dismissed Core Wireless’s contract claims as to its patent portfolio thereby removing consideration of that claim in 6:14-cv-752. (6:12-cv-100, Doc. No. 466.)
Page 13 of 15 PageID #: 3475
come from transferring these cases to the Northern District of California. Accordingly, the Court
finds this factor is neutral.
II. The Public Interest Factors
The parties agree that the public interest factors are neutral, aside from the administrative
difficulties flowing from court congestion and local interest considerations.
(a) The Administrative Difficulties Flowing From Court Congestion
This factor is the most speculative, and cannot alone outweigh other factors. Genentech,
566 F.3d at 1347. However, the speed with which a case may get to trial is relevant under the §
Apple contends that this factor weighs in favor of transfer because the
number of new patent cases filed in this District is nearly six times greater than the total number
of patent cases filed in the Northern District of California. (Doc. No. 69, at 15.) Core Wireless
contends that this factor weighs against transfer because these cases are already scheduled for
trial in May 2016 and generally the average time to trial in this District is less than the Northern
District of California. (Doc. No. 79, at 14-15.)
The Court declines to afford any weight to
Apple’s argument regarding this District having six times as many patent cases as the Northern
District of California. Considering
only the number of patent cases in a particular district to
determine how fast a particular case will move to trial would be highly speculative. Similarly, as
the Court has repeatedly found in the past, the Core Wireless’s reliance on general civil statistics
provides the Court with little guidance as to the speed with which patent cases reach trial. See
West Coast Trends, Inc., No. 6:10-cv-688, 2011 WL 5117850, at *4 (E.D. Tex., Oct. 27, 2011)
(“[a]s is common with this factor, the parties cite to incongruous statistics which prevents the
Page 14 of 15 PageID #: 3476
Court from drawing a meaningful conclusion as to court congestion.”). Accordingly, due to its
speculative nature, the Court finds this factor neutral.
(b) The Local Interest in Having Localized Interests Decided at Home
Apple contends that the Northern District of California has a local interest in this case
because the accused products were designed and developed there. (Doc. No. 69, at 14.) Core
Wireless maintains that this District has a local interest in these actions because its parent
company has maintained a subsidiary in this District for more than four years. (Doc. No. 79, at
This District has at least some local interest as Core Wireless has been growing and
developing its business over the past several years in this District, and employs several
individuals in this District through its parent company and its affiliates.
Ultimately, because
Apple has identified several individuals who were involved in the development of the accused
development occurred, the Court finds that the Northern District of California has a greater local
interest in the outcome of the litigation. See Hoffman-La Roche, 587 F.3d at 1336 (“[L]ocal
interest in this case remains strong because the cause of action calls into question the work and
reputation of several individuals residing in or near that district and who presumably conduct
business in that community.”); Eon Corp. IP Holdings, LLC v. Sensus, USA Inc., No. 2:10-cv-
448, 2012 WL 122562, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 9, 2012). Accordingly, this factor weighs slightly in
(c) The Remaining Public Interest Factors
The remaining public interest factors are neutral.
patent law and there are no conflicts to avoid.
Both courts are familiar with federal
Page 15 of 15 PageID #: 3477
For the aforementioned reasons, the Court finds that the Northern District of California is
a clearly more convenient forum. Here, the location of sources of proof and the costs of willing
witnesses weighed in favor of transfer, and the availability of the compulsory process and the
local interests weighed slightly in favor of transfer. The benefits of judicial economy, along with
all other factors, were neutral. Accordingly, on balance, the Court finds transfer appropriate and
therefore GRANTS Apple’s motions to transfer (6:14-cv-751, Doc. No. 69; 6:14-cv-752, Doc.
No. 65). In addition, Apple’s request for oral hearing is DENIED.
Finally, although the parties’ underlying briefing on transfer has been filed under seal, the
Court sees no basis for this Order to remain under seal. Within 7 days the parties shall file any
and all objections to this Order being unsealed. Absent any objections or further Order from the
Court, the Clerk‘s office is directed to unseal this Order 7 days from the issuance of this Order.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 31st day of August, 2015.
Dokumente ähnlich wie Transfer Order for Second Core Wireless Suit
2kW Dual Input DC DC Converter for Fuell Cells and Ultracapa
Garber v. MLB Sept. 22 Order
GUI Global Products v. Apple
iTunes Gift Card Scam Lawsuit
One-E-Way v. Apple
Maxell v. Apple
Uniloc Appeal to Seal Documents Denied
iMessage and FaceTime Bug Lawsuit
3. Internal Policies USU 1819-converted.docx