Case 1:17-cv-00585-JFB-SRF Document 38 Filed 10/23/17 Page 1 of 15 PageID #: 877
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
`
`
`UNIVERSAL SECURE REGISTRY LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`)
`)
`)
`) C.A. No. 17-585-JFB-SRF
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`APPLE INC., VISA INC., and VISA U.S.A., INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`REPLY BRIEF OF DEFENDANTS APPLE INC., VISA INC., AND
`VISA U.S.A., INC. IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
`
`
`Frederick L. Cottrell, III (#2555)
`Jason J. Rawnsley (#5379)
`RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.
`920 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 651-7700
`cottrell@rlf.com
`rawnsley@rlf.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.
`
`
`Dated: October 23, 2017
`
`
`David E. Moore (#3983)
`Bindu Palapura (#5370)
`POTTER ANDERSON CORROON LLP
`1313 North Market Street 6th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 984-6147
`dmoore@potteranderson.com
`bpalapura@potteranderson.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Visa Inc. and
`Visa U.S.A., Inc.
`
`
`
`
`RLF1 18316866v.1
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00585-JFB-SRF Document 38 Filed 10/23/17 Page 2 of 15 PageID #: 878
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii
`Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 1 
`I. 
`II.  Argument ................................................................................................................................ 1 
`A.  The Private Interest Factors Weigh in Favor of Transfer. .................................................. 2 
`B.  The Relevant Public Interest Factors Also Weigh in Favor of Transfer. ............................ 9 
`III. 
`Conclusion ........................................................................................................................ 10 
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RLF1 18316866v.1
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00585-JFB-SRF Document 38 Filed 10/23/17 Page 3 of 15 PageID #: 879
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`CASES
`
`Page(s)
`
`Am. Axle & Mfg., Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC,
`No. 15-1168-LPS-CJB, 2016 WL 8677211 (D. Del. Sept. 23, 2016) .........................4, 5, 8
`
`Blackbird Tech LLC v. Cloudflare, Inc.,
`No. 17-283, 2017 WL 4543783 (D. Del. Oct. 11, 2017) ...........................................5, 7, 10
`
`ChriMar Sys., Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,
`No. 11-1050-GMS, 2013 WL 828220 (D. Del. Mar. 6, 2013) ............................................6
`
`Contour IP Holding, LLC v. GoPro, Inc.,
`No. 15-1108-LPS-CJB, 2017 WL 3189005 (D. Del. July 6, 2017), order
`adopted by Contour IP Holding, LLC v. GoPro, Inc., No. 15-1108-LPS-
`CJB, 2017 WL 3225983 (D. Del. July 31, 2017) ......................................................3, 4, 10
`
`Cruise Control Techs. LLC v. Chrysler Grp. LLC,
`No. 12-1755-GMS, 2014 WL 1304820 (D. Del. Mar. 31, 2014) ........................................6
`
`In re Genentech, Inc.,
`566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009)............................................................................................7
`
`In re Hoffmann-La Roche Inc.,
`587 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2009)............................................................................................4
`
`In re Link_A_Media Devices Corp.,
`662 F.3d 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2011)........................................................................................7, 9
`
`Ithaca Ventures k.s. v. Nintendo of Am. Inc.,
`No. 13-824-GMS, 2014 WL 4829027 (D. Del. Sept. 25, 2014) ......................................5, 8
`
`Linex Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,
`No. 11-400-GMS, 2013 WL 105323 (D. Del. Jan. 7, 2013) ...............................................9
`
`Mekiki Co. v. Facebook, Inc.,
`No. 09-745-JAP, 2010 WL 2348740 (D. Del. June 7, 2010) ..............................................7
`
`Memory Integrity, LLC v. Intel Corp.,
`No. 13-1804-GMS, 2015 WL 632026 (D. Del. Feb. 13, 2015) .......................................4, 7
`
`Mitel Networks Corp. v. Facebook, Inc.,
`943 F. Supp. 2d 463 (D. Del. 2013) .....................................................................................9
`
`MoneyCat Ltd. v. PayPal Inc.,
`No. 13-1358-MSG, 2014 WL 2042699 (D. Del. May 15, 2014) ........................................2
`
`RLF1 18316866v.1
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00585-JFB-SRF Document 38 Filed 10/23/17 Page 4 of 15 PageID #: 880
`
`
`OpenTV, Inc. v. Netflix, Inc.,
`No. 12-1733-GMS, 2014 WL 1292790 (D. Del. Mar. 31, 2014) ..............................2, 3, 10
`
`Rothschild Mobile Imaging Innovations, LLC v. Mitek Systems, Inc.,
`No. 14-1142-GMS, 2015 WL 4624164 (D. Del. July 31, 2015) .........................................4
`
`Symantec Corp. v. Zscaler, Inc.,
`No. 17-806, 2017 WL 3262246 (D. Del. July 31, 2017) ...............................................2, 10
`
`Williamson v. Google Inc.,
`No. 14-216-GMS, 2015 WL 13311284 (D. Del. Mar. 2, 2015) ..........................................8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RLF1 18316866v.1
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00585-JFB-SRF Document 38 Filed 10/23/17 Page 5 of 15 PageID #: 881
`
`
`Defendants Apple Inc. (“Apple”), Visa Inc., and Visa U.S.A., Inc. (“Visa”) (collectively,
`
`“Defendants”) respectfully submit this reply brief in further support of their Motion to Transfer
`
`to the Northern District of California.
`
`I.
`
`Introduction
`
`Defendants’ opening brief demonstrated that the Northern District of California is the
`
`locus of this case and a far more convenient forum. Nothing in Universal Secure Registry’s
`
`(“USR’s”) Opposition (“Opp.”) calls that conclusion into question. Indeed, USR fails to dispute
`
`that there is no meaningful connection between this case and Delaware, including that: (1) USR
`
`does not have any presence or employees in Delaware; (2) there is not a single party or non-
`
`party witness who resides in Delaware; (3) none of the accused products was designed or
`
`manufactured in Delaware; and (4) none of the technical documents for the accused products is
`
`maintained in Delaware.
`
`USR also fails to create a real dispute over the Northern District of California’s
`
`substantial connection to this case. The undisputed facts show that: (1) Apple and Visa are
`
`headquartered in and have their principal place of business in the Northern District of California;
`
`(2) Apple is incorporated in California; (3) the Apple and Visa employees who are
`
`knowledgeable about the design and development, functionality, and marketing of the accused
`
`products and the Apple and Visa relationship are located primarily in the Northern District of
`
`California; and (4) prior art witnesses are located in the Northern District of California.
`
`Other than USR’s choice of forum, which USR concedes is “not determinative” (Opp. at
`
`5), all factors support transfer. Accordingly, Defendants respectfully request that their motion be
`
`granted and this case transferred to the Northern District of California.
`
`II.
`
`Argument
`
`USR’s brief confirms that the transfer would best serve the convenience of the parties and
`
`RLF1 18316866v.1
`RLF1 18316866v.1
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00585-JFB-SRF Document 38 Filed 10/23/17 Page 6 of 15 PageID #: 882
`
`
`witnesses as well as the interest of justice.
`
`A.
`
`The Private Interest Factors Weigh in Favor of Transfer.
`
`The Parties’ Choice of Forum. USR concedes that its “home turf” is Massachusetts, not
`
`Delaware. (Opp. at 4.) USR also appears to concede (or at least does not dispute) that it has no
`
`ties to Delaware. USR’s “preference for Delaware” therefore “weighs minimally against
`
`transferring venue.” See Symantec Corp. v. Zscaler, Inc., No. 17-806, 2017 WL 3262246, at *2
`
`(D. Del. July 31, 2017) (both parties “are Delaware corporations and [plaintiff] does not have
`
`facilities, employees, or operations here”).
`
`USR argues that Delaware is “within a few hours’ train or car ride from its place of
`
`business and from many witnesses” (Opp. at 5), but Delaware is approximately five to six hours
`
`by car or the Acela train. Second Declaration of Mark D. Selwyn (“Selwyn Reply Decl.”) ¶¶ 3-
`
`4, Exs. 2-3. The time difference between this and a non-stop plane flight from Boston to San
`
`Francisco is marginal. Id.; see also MoneyCat Ltd. v. PayPal Inc., No. 13-1358-MSG, 2014 WL
`
`2042699, at *4 (D. Del. May 15, 2014) (transferring case to Northern District of California
`
`despite fact that Delaware was five hours closer to Israel, i.e., California was 50 percent farther,
`
`because “marginal additional inconvenience” to plaintiff “is outweighed by transferring this case
`
`to the place where the bulk of the evidence exists”).
`
`USR’s attempts to distinguish OpenTV v. Netflix, Inc. fail. Even though OpenTV was
`
`incorporated in Delaware—which USR is not—the court did not “accord substantial weight to
`
`OpenTV’s choice of Delaware” because it “chose to litigate in a state in which OpenTV is not
`
`physically located.” OpenTV, Inc. v. Netflix, Inc., No. 12-1733-GMS, 2014 WL 1292790, at *1-
`
`2 (D. Del. Mar. 31, 2014). The court did not address whether OpenTV had a legitimate reason
`
`for its choice of forum. Instead, the court merely observed that the defendant’s preferred forum
`
`was a “legitimate choice” because both parties had principal places of business in the Northern
`
`RLF1 18316866v.1
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00585-JFB-SRF Document 38 Filed 10/23/17 Page 7 of 15 PageID #: 883
`
`
`District of California. Id.
`
`USR appears to concede that Defendants have “rational, legitimate reasons to support”
`
`their forum preference because it does not address them. See Contour IP Holding, LLC v.
`
`GoPro, Inc., No. 15-1108-LPS-CJB, 2017 WL 3189005, at *9 (D. Del. July 6, 2017) (proximity
`
`of “transferee district to a defendant’s principal place of business” and to potential “witnesses
`
`and evidence” is “a clear, legitimate basis for seeking transfer”), order adopted by Contour IP
`
`Holding, LLC v. GoPro, Inc., No. 15-1108-LPS-CJB, 2017 WL 3225983 (D. Del. July 31, 2017).
`
`The Location Where the Claims Arose Favors Transfer. USR’s attempt to argue that
`
`the Apple and Visa Accused Products were not developed in Northern California should be
`
`rejected. Apple and Visa have submitted declarations that identify specific individuals with
`
`knowledge of the design and development and where it occurred. See Declaration of Michael
`
`Jaynes ISO Motion to Transfer (“Jaynes Decl.”) ¶¶ 7-9; Declaration of Andrew Carpenter ISO
`
`Motion to Transfer (“Carpenter Decl.”) ¶¶ 6-8. By contrast, USR’s sole support for its argument
`
`is an out-of-context quotation of a news article discussing companies that are not defendants in
`
`this litigation. (Opp. at 7.) USR does not even attempt to argue that these companies will be
`
`relevant to the case or that their employees will testify at trial. These companies were not
`
`involved in Apple’s development of Apple Pay. Declaration of Chris Sharp ¶ 4. To the extent
`
`these companies’ involvement with Apple’s testing of Apple Pay is relevant, their involvement
`
`occurred in the Northern District of California. Id. ¶ 5.1
`
`It is therefore unrebutted that USR’s infringement allegations will likely be resolved
`
`based on the testimony of California witnesses regarding functionality designed, developed, and
`
`
`1 This is consistent with a news article linked to by the article USR cited, which states
`“JPMorgan, the largest card issuer in the country, set up a war room in a windowless conference
`room in San Francisco, where the most sensitive work was done.” Selwyn Reply Decl., ¶ 2, Ex.
`1 (emphasis added).
`
`RLF1 18316866v.1
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00585-JFB-SRF Document 38 Filed 10/23/17 Page 8 of 15 PageID #: 884
`
`
`marketed in the Northern District of California and using evidence located in the Northern
`
`District of California. See Jaynes Decl. ¶¶ 7-9; Carpenter Decl. ¶¶ 6-8.
`
`Rothschild Mobile Imaging Innovations, LLC v. Mitek Systems, Inc., cited by USR as
`
`support for the position that this factor is neutral because of “the competing allegations regarding
`
`where the accused products were developed” (Opp. at 7), is distinguishable. There, plaintiff
`
`alleged that the claims asserted against Mitek arose at least “in part, from its sales of the accused
`
`products to the Bank defendants who are located in and have heavy ties to the district of
`
`Delaware”—not unrelated companies that are unassociated with the litigation. See No. 14-1142-
`
`GMS, 2015 WL 4624164, at *5 (D. Del. July 31, 2015). Moreover, USR does not argue that the
`
`companies it identifies have “heavy ties” to Delaware; instead, it argues that four of the five
`
`companies are headquartered in North Carolina, New York, and Virginia and that the fifth is
`
`headquartered in the Northern District of California. (Opp. at 7.)
`
`Therefore, “this factor favors transfer.” Contour IP Holding, 2017 WL 3189005, at *10;
`
`see also In re Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., 587 F.3d 1333, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“[I]f there are
`
`significant connections between a particular venue and the events that gave rise to a suit, this
`
`factor should be weighed in that venue’s favor.”). Even if this Court were to credit USR’s
`
`allegations, this factor still “weighs in favor of transfer” because “it is clear that no amount of
`
`product development or manufacture took place in Delaware.” Memory Integrity, LLC v. Intel
`
`Corp., No. 13-1804-GMS, 2015 WL 632026, at *4 (D. Del. Feb. 13, 2015) (factor “weighs in
`
`favor of transfer” despite “dispute among the parties as to where the development of the products
`
`is centered” where neither party argued the development was in Delaware).
`
`The Convenience of the Parties Favors Transfer. USR improperly quotes American
`
`Axle & Manufacturing, Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC’s discussion of the convenience of the
`
`RLF1 18316866v.1
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00585-JFB-SRF Document 38 Filed 10/23/17 Page 9 of 15 PageID #: 885
`
`
`witnesses’ factor when discussing whether party witnesses are relevant to the convenience of the
`
`parties’ analysis. (Opp. at 12.) Contrary to USR’s argument, American Axle confirms that party
`
`employees are relevant to the convenience of the parties’ analysis. See No. 15-1168-LPS-CJB,
`
`2016 WL 8677211, at *6-7 (D. Del. Sept. 23, 2016) (convenience of the parties “slightly favors
`
`transfer” and considering “associated logistical and operational costs to the parties’ employees in
`
`traveling to Delaware (as opposed to the proposed transferee district) for litigation purposes”).
`
`USR does not dispute that the Northern District of California would be significantly more
`
`convenient for Apple’s and Visa’s employee-witnesses. See Jaynes Decl. ¶¶ 6-9 (identifying
`
`relevant Apple witnesses and locations); Carpenter Decl. ¶¶ 6-7 (identifying relevant Visa
`
`witnesses and locations); Declaration of Mark D. Selwyn (D.I. 24), ¶¶ 9-11, Ex. H.
`
`USR’s allegations of “operational costs” to it of litigating in the Northern District of
`
`California should be accorded minimal, if any, weight. First, USR concedes that it will need to
`
`travel regardless of the forum. (Opp. at 9-10.) See Blackbird Tech LLC v. Cloudflare, Inc., No.
`
`17-283, 2017 WL 4543783, at *8 (D. Del. Oct. 11, 2017) (“factor supports transfer” where
`
`plaintiff “maintains all of its offices and employees in Massachusetts” because “whether the case
`
`proceeds in Delaware or California, Plaintiff’s employees will still have to travel and incur
`
`associated travel costs”); Ithaca Ventures k.s. v. Nintendo of Am. Inc., No. 13-824-GMS, 2014
`
`WL 4829027, at *4 (D. Del. Sept. 25, 2014) (“The court does not suggest that an additional few
`
`hours on a plane is irrelevant, but . . . [plaintiff’s] witnesses will be inconvenienced regardless of
`
`the forum. . . . It is unreasonable to subject all parties to an inconvenient forum when a forum
`
`exists that would significantly reduce the burden of at least one of the parties.”). As discussed
`
`above, the absolute travel time between Boston and Delaware by car/train (the methods of travel
`
`identified by USR) and between Boston and the Northern District of California are similar.
`
`RLF1 18316866v.1
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00585-JFB-SRF Document 38 Filed 10/23/17 Page 10 of 15 PageID #: 886
`
`
`Second, other than the named inventor Ken Weiss, USR has also not explained how its “2
`
`employees” or USR ID’s “4 full-time employees and 2 part-time employees” have any relevance
`
`to this litigation. Unlike Defendants, which submitted declarations justifying the relevance of
`
`their potential witnesses, USR does not provide these employees’ names, their positions, or any
`
`description of their job roles. (See Opp. at 9; Weiss Decl. ¶ 9.) These employees should
`
`therefore not affect the transfer analysis. Third, USR ignores the additional cost to it of having
`
`its West Coast counsel travel to Delaware.2
`
`That Apple and Visa are large companies does not compel a different conclusion—this
`
`factor still favors transfer.3 “The fact that the Defendants possess vast resources, however, does
`
`not mean that the court should follow an approach that would unnecessarily waste these
`
`resources.” See Cruise Control Techs. LLC v. Chrysler Grp. LLC, No. 12-1755-GMS, 2014 WL
`
`1304820, at *3-4 (D. Del. Mar. 31, 2014) (factor favors transfer where plaintiff “alleges that
`
`‘some of [its] witnesses and counsel are on the east coast or in Delaware,’” but provides no facts
`
`regarding witnesses “that would permit the court to evaluate their relevance and importance” and
`
`“locations of the Defendants and their employees” suggests transferring case would “cabin
`
`costs”). “While the court does consider ‘the relative ability of each party to bear [the costs of
`
`litigation-related travel] in light of its size and financial wherewithal’ and, as a result, appreciates
`
`[plaintiff’s] point regarding the national presence of the moving defendants, it must also account
`
`for the absolute costs likely to flow from its transfer decision.” ChriMar Sys., Inc. v. Cisco Sys.,
`
`Inc., No. 11-1050-GMS, 2013 WL 828220, at *5 (D. Del. Mar. 6, 2013) (plaintiff “has only three
`
`
`2 USR’s lead counsel is Quinn Emanuel and the attorneys who have entered their appearance
`work out of Quinn Emanuel’s Los Angeles and San Francisco offices. See D.I. 5.
`3 In a carefully worded phrase, USR represents that the company is being funded out of Weiss’s
`savings to try to contrast its resources with those of Defendants. But it does not state how this
`litigation is being funded. (See Opp. at 9; Weiss Decl. ¶ 11.)
`
`RLF1 18316866v.1
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00585-JFB-SRF Document 38 Filed 10/23/17 Page 11 of 15 PageID #: 887
`
`
`employees,” all in Michigan, and would be “forced to bear travel costs no matter the court’s
`
`decision, but proceeding in California will likely spare the defendants significant expense”); see
`
`also Cloudflare, 2017 WL 4543783, at *7-8 (despite plaintiff’s argument that it “is a much
`
`smaller organization with only six full-time employees, making it significantly more burdensome
`
`for [Plaintiff] to litigate in the Northern District of California than for Defendant to litigate in
`
`Delaware,” and fact that “both Defendants are incorporated in Delaware and would likely not
`
`suffer great financial hardship by litigating there,” factor “weighs slightly in favor of transfer”).
`
`Nor does Visa’s incorporation in Delaware compel a different conclusion. See Mekiki
`
`Co. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 09-745-JAP, 2010 WL 2348740, at *4 (D. Del. June 7, 2010)
`
`(“[Plaintiff] has not identified any witnesses, records or evidence in Delaware. As such, the lack
`
`of connection to Delaware deems the state of incorporation of the Defendant of less
`
`significance.”); In re Link_A_Media Devices Corp., 662 F.3d 1221, 1223-24 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
`
`(“The court’s heavy reliance on the fact that [defendant] was incorporated in Delaware was
`
`similarly inappropriate. Neither § 1404 nor Jumara list a party’s state of incorporation as a factor
`
`for a venue inquiry.”) (internal citations omitted).
`
`That Apple has previously litigated as a plaintiff in this forum is irrelevant. See In re
`
`Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (finding “clear error” in district court’s
`
`determination that defendant’s prior unrelated lawsuits in the district weighed against transfer
`
`because “[t]he Supreme Court has long held that § 1404(a) requires ‘individualized, case-by-case
`
`consideration of convenience and fairness’”); Memory Integrity, 2015 WL 632026, at *3 (“the
`
`fact that Intel initiated unrelated cases in the District of Delaware is irrelevant to the transfer
`
`analysis in this case”). USR selectively quotes a prior Apple brief to suggest that Apple has
`
`previously argued otherwise. However, as the full quote that USR excerpts makes clear, Apple
`
`RLF1 18316866v.1
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00585-JFB-SRF Document 38 Filed 10/23/17 Page 12 of 15 PageID #: 888
`
`
`was stating that HTC cannot try to transfer Apple’s case against it while simultaneously suing
`
`Apple in Delaware.4 This is a very different factual scenario.
`
`The Convenience of the Witnesses Favors Transfer. First, while USR discusses several
`
`third parties, it does not identify any in Delaware and articulates a potential relevance only for
`
`Mr. Brainard, an “independent technology consultant to USR and USR ID Inc.” who previously
`
`worked at RSA Security and Security Dynamics, presumably with Mr. Weiss. (Opp. at 14;
`
`Brainard Decl. ¶ 2.) Given this relationship, there is reason to believe he “would cooperate by
`
`providing live testimony at trial” in California. Am. Axle, 2016 WL 8677211, at *9.
`
`Second, the prior art inventors whom Apple identified are relevant. For example, the US
`
`2004/0236632 is highly relevant prior art for the ’826 and ’137 patents.5 Selwyn Reply Decl. ¶
`
`5. Third, the prior art witnesses are subject to the Northern District of California’s subpoena
`
`power and “there is reason to believe that those witnesses will refuse to testify absent subpoena
`
`power” as they have no relationship to any of the parties. See Ithaca Ventures, 2014 WL
`
`4829027, at *5 (no need to prove “actually [] unavailable”; allegation third party was a former
`
`employee “provid[ed] some reason to believe that she will refuse to testify”); Williamson v.
`
`Google Inc., No. 14-216-GMS, 2015 WL 13311284, at *2 (D. Del. Mar. 2, 2015)
`
`(“[Defendant’s] identified witnesses have no relationship with [Defendant], thus providing ‘some
`
`reason to believe’ that they would refuse to testify. This factor favors transfer.”).
`
`Finally, USR argues that “courts consider this factor only to the extent that the witnesses
`
`
`4 The full quotation that USR excerpts reads: “And importantly, HTC has affirmatively chosen
`Delaware as the venue for its own patent infringement claims against Apple in the 167 Case.
`Though it could have brought its claims for patent infringement against Apple in the Northern
`District of California, HTC chose to bring them here. HTC cannot have it both ways – i.e., try to
`transfer Apple’s claims against it to the Northern District of California, while simultaneously
`bringing its own claims against Apple in the District of Delaware.” Tigan Decl. Ex. D at 12
`(portions quoted by USR underlined).
`5 Michael Maritzen and Harold Aaron Ludtke are both inventors of US 2004/0236632.
`
`RLF1 18316866v.1
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00585-JFB-SRF Document 38 Filed 10/23/17 Page 13 of 15 PageID #: 889
`
`
`may actually be unavailable for trial in one of the fora.” (Opp. at 13 (quotations omitted).) Yet,
`
`the witnesses whom USR itself identifies do not meet this standard. No declaration USR
`
`submitted states that the witness is unwilling to travel to the Northern District of California. See
`
`Anastasi Decl. ¶ 6 (Delaware is more convenient); Brainard Decl. ¶ 5 (same); Grady Decl. ¶ 6
`
`(same). Accordingly, to the extent that the Court adopts USR’s standard, none of its witnesses
`
`should be considered and this factor is neutral.
`
`The Location of the Relevant Evidence Favors Transfer. USR does not dispute that the
`
`majority of the relevant evidence will come from Defendants. USR also does not allege that any
`
`of its evidence is in Delaware. The Federal Circuit has cautioned that “[w]hile advances in
`
`technology may alter the weight given” to this factor, “it is improper to ignore [it] entirely.” In
`
`re Link_A_Media, 662 F.3d at 1224. As all the relevant evidence is outside of this District and
`
`most of it is in the Northern District of California, the location of the evidence favors transfer.
`
`B.
`
`The Relevant Public Interest Factors Also Weigh in Favor of Transfer.
`
`Practical Considerations Favor Transfer. Contrary to USR’s arguments, the fact that
`
`Defendants’ employees and documents and potential third-party witnesses are all in the Northern
`
`District of California is not “re-stating” or “double-count[ing]” arguments. (Opp. at 16.) To the
`
`extent that this Court credits USR’s arguments that Apple’s and Visa’s wealth, or Visa’s
`
`incorporation in Delaware, reduce the amount the parties’ convenience factor weighs in favor of
`
`Defendants, those facts are irrelevant to this factor. See Mitel Networks Corp. v. Facebook, Inc.,
`
`943 F. Supp. 2d 463, 475-76 (D. Del. 2013) (While the convenience of the parties factor was
`
`neutral because defendant is incorporated in Delaware the underlying facts support transfer
`
`because the “aggregate litigation costs would be reduced by litigating in California. Thus, … the
`
`‘practical considerations’ factor weighs in favor of transfer.”); Linex Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-
`
`Packard Co., No. 11-400-GMS, 2013 WL 105323, at *6 (D. Del. Jan. 7, 2013) (factor examines
`
`RLF1 18316866v.1
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00585-JFB-SRF Document 38 Filed 10/23/17 Page 14 of 15 PageID #: 890
`
`
`“practical considerations rather than ones of form;” “there is little reason to believe a California-
`
`based firm actually reduces its costs of litigating in this district . . . by incorporating in Delaware.
`
`. . . [T]he parties’ aggregate litigation costs will be reduced by litigating in California.”).
`
`Court Congestion Weighs in Favor of Transfer. “[F]rom May 22, 2017 to June 7, 2017,
`
`Delaware was the leading jurisdiction in the filing of new patent cases, receiving 16.4% of those
`
`cases. The Northern District of California, while second in the rankings, has received only 11.3%
`
`of new patent cases.” Cloudflare, 2017 WL 4543783, at *1-2, *12 (factor favors transfer where
`
`all parties incorporated in Delaware and California available and convenient); Symantec, 2017
`
`WL 3262246, at *2, *4 (factor favors transfer where both parties incorporated in Delaware).
`
`The Northern District of California Has a Strong Interest. Contrary to USR’s
`
`assertions, Visa’s incorporation in Delaware does not counterbalance the Northern District of
`
`California’s interest in this case. See OpenTV, 2014 WL 1292790, at *4 (“local interests” favor
`
`transfer because “Delaware’s resulting interest is less compelling than that of Northern
`
`California” where products designed and developed in transferee forum and Delaware’s only
`
`connection is both parties’ incorporation “and that the parties both offer services nationwide”);
`
`Contour IP Holding, 2017 WL 3189005, at *14 (“factor slightly favors transfer” where
`
`defendant incorporated in Delaware “[b]ut it does not want to claim the benefits of being a
`
`Delaware corporation;” “its Delaware corporate status should have little bearing” on factor.).
`
`III. Conclusion
`
`For these reasons and the reasons set forth in Defendants’ opening brief, this Court
`
`should grant Defendants’ motion, and transfer this action to the Northern District of California.
`
`
`
`RLF1 18316866v.1
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cv-00585-JFB-SRF Document 38 Filed 10/23/17 Page 15 of 15 PageID #: 891
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Bindu Palapura
`
`David E. Moore (#3983)
`Bindu Palapura (#5370)
`POTTER ANDERSON CORROON LLP
`1313 North Market Street 6th Floor
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 984-6147
`dmoore@potteranderson.com
`bpalapura@potteranderson.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants Visa Inc. and
`Visa U.S.A., Inc.
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`James Yoon
`Jamie Y. Otto
`WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI
`650 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto CA 94304
`(650) 320-4726
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Jason J. Rawnsley
`
`Fredrick L. Cottrell, III (#2555)
`Jason J. Rawnsley (#5379)
`RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.
`920 North King Street
`Wilmington, DE 19801
`(302) 651-7700
`cottrell@rlf.com
`rawnsley@rlf.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.
`
`OF COUNSEL:
`
`Mark D. Selwyn
`Liv L. Herriot
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE & DORR LLP
`950 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`(650) 858-6000
`
`Monica Grewal
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE & DORR LLP
`60 State Street
`Boston, MA 02109
`(202) 663-6000
`
`Derek A. Gosma
`WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
` HALE & DORR LLP
`350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2100
`Los Angeles, CA 90071
`(213) 443-5300
`
`Dated: October 23, 2017
`
`
`RLF1 18316866v.1
`
`11
`
`