Case: 20-129 Document: 2 Page: 1 Filed: 05/26/2020
`
`No.
`United States Court Of Appeals
`For The Federal Circuit
`
`IN RE TCL ELECTRONICS HOLDINGS LTD., TCL CORPORATION,
`SHENZHEN TCL NEW TECHNOLOGIES CO. LTD., TCL KING
`ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES (HUIZHOU) CO., LTD.,
`
`Petitioners,
`
`__________
`
`ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO
`THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS,
`CASE NO. 2:18-CV-00546, JUDGE RODNEY GILSTRAP
`__________
`PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
`Douglas Hallward-Driemeier
`Samuel L. Brenner
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`Kathryn Thornton
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`Prudential Tower
`800 Boylston Street
`2099 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
`Boston, MA 02199
`Washington, DC 20006-6807
`Phone: (617) 951-7120
`Phone: (202) 508-4600
`Fax: (202) 508-6807
`
`Attorneys for the Petitioner
`
`Andrew N. Thomases
`Andrew T. Radsch
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`1900 University Avenue
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2284
`Phone: (650) 617-4000
`Fax: (650) 617-4090
`
`Dated: May 26, 2020
`
`Roku Exhibit 1029
`Roku, Inc. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha
`Page 00001
`
`

`

`Case: 20-129 Document: 2 Page: 2 Filed: 05/26/2020
`
`FORM 9. Certificate of Interest
`
` Form 9
` Rev. 10/17
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`IN RE TCL ELECTRONICS HOLDINGS LTD., TCL
`CORPORATION, SHENZHEN TCL NEW TECHNOLOGIES CO.
`LTD., TCL KING ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES
`(HUIZHOU) CO., LTD.
`
`v.
`
`Case No.
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
`
`Counsel for the:
`(cid:133) (petitioner) (cid:133) (appellant) (cid:133) (respondent) (cid:133) (appellee) (cid:133) (amicus) (cid:133) (name of party)
`XX
`
`TCL ELECTRONICS HOLDINGS LTD., TCL CORPORATION, SHENZHEN TCL NEW TECHNOLOGIES
`CO. LTD., TCL KING ELECTRICAL APPLIANCES (HUIZHOU) CO., LTD.
`certifies the following (use “None” if applicable; use extra sheets if necessary):
`
`1. Full Name of Party
`Represented by me
`
`TCL Corporation
`TCL Electronics Holdings, Ltd.
`
`Shenzhen TCL New Technologies Co. Ltd.
`TCL King Electrical Appliances
`(Huizhou) Co., Ltd.
`
`2. Name of Real Party in interest
`(Please only include any real party
`in interest NOT identified in
`Question 3) represented by me is:
`
`3. Parent corporations and
`publicly held companies
`that own 10% or more of
`stock in the party
`
`None.
`
`See attached.
`
`See attached.
`
`See attached.
`
`4. The names of all law firms and the partners or associates that appeared for the party or amicus now
`represented by me in the trial court or agency or are expected to appear in this court (and who have not
`or will not enter an appearance in this case) are:
`Jennifer H. Doan, Joshua R. Thane, Cole Alan Riddell, Kyle Randall Akin - Haltom & Doan
`Christopher M. Bonny, Lance Shapiro, Scott Stephen Taylor - Ropes & Gray LLP
`
`i
`
`Roku Exhibit 1029
`Page 00002
`
`

`

`Case: 20-129 Document: 2 Page: 3 Filed: 05/26/2020
`
`FORM 9. Certificate of Interest
`
` Form 9
` Rev. 10/17
`
`5. The title and number of any case known to counsel to be pending in this or any other court or agency
`that will directly affect or be directly affected by this court’s decision in the pending appeal. See Fed. Cir.
`R. 47. 4(a)(5) and 47.5(b). (The parties should attach continuation pages as necessary).
`
`5/26/2020
` Date
`
`Please Note: All questions must be answered
`
`/s/ Douglas Hallward-Driemeier
`Signature of counsel
`Douglas Hallward-Driemeier
`Printed name of counsel
`
`cc:
`
`Reset Fields
`
`ii
`
`Roku Exhibit 1029
`Page 00003
`
`

`

`Case: 20-129 Document: 2 Page: 4 Filed: 05/26/2020
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST (Cont.)
`
`Petitioner Shenzhen TCL New Technologies Co. Ltd., is a subsidiar y of
`
`Petitioner TCL King Electrical Appliances (Huizhou) Co. Ltd., whic h is a
`
`subsidiary of TCL Holdings (BVI) Ltd., which is a subsidiary of TTE Corporation,
`
`which is a subsidiary of Petitioner TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd. , which is a
`
`subsidiary of TCL Industries Holdings (H.K.) Ltd., which is a subsidiary of TCL
`
`Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd. Aside from the foregoing, no publicly held
`
`company owns 10% or more of the stock of Shenzhen TCL New Technologies
`
`Co. Ltd., TCL King Electrical Appliances (Huizhou) Co. Ltd. or TCL
`
`Electronics Holdings Ltd.
`
`iii
`
`Roku Exhibit 1029
`Page 00004
`
`

`

`Case: 20-129 Document: 2 Page: 5 Filed: 05/26/2020
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES .................................................................. x
`STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ...................................................................... 1
`RELIEF SOUGHT ................................................................................................... 1
`ISSUES PRESENTED ............................................................................................. 1
`I.
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 2
`II.
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................... 4
`A.
`This Litigation Has No Connection to EDTX. .................................. 5
`B.
`TCL’s Timely Motion to Transfer Was Pending for Six
`Months. ................................................................................................. 7
`C. Despite the Lawsuit’s Lack of Connection to EDTX, the
`District Court Denied Transfer. ......................................................... 9
`1.
`The district court found the private factors to be neutral
`or to weigh against transfer. .................................................... 10
`The district court also found the public factors to be
`neutral or weigh against transfer. ........................................... 12
`III. STANDARD OF REVIEW ......................................................................... 13
`IV. REASONS THE WRIT SHOULD ISSUE ................................................ 14
`A.
`The District Court Legally Erred by Restricting Its Analysis
`to “the Situation which Existed when Suit Was Instituted,”
`While Weighing Against Transfer the Experience the Court
`Gained During Its Own Delay. ......................................................... 14
`1.
`The district court legally erred by restricting its analysis
`to “the situation which existed when suit was
`instituted.” ................................................................................ 14
`The district court further erred by nonetheless counting
`its own delay—a post-complaint development—against
`transfer. ..................................................................................... 18
`The District Court Legally Erred by Drawing Inferences
`and Resolving Factual Conflicts in Favor of the Non-
`Moving Party and Against Transfer. .............................................. 21
`1.
`Section 1404(a) requires the court to make factual
`findings on convenience and fairness. .................................... 21
`
`2.
`
`2.
`
`B.
`
`iv
`
`Roku Exhibit 1029
`Page 00005
`
`

`

`Case: 20-129 Document: 2 Page: 6 Filed: 05/26/2020
`
`By drawing inferences and resolving factual conflicts in
`Canon’s favor, the district court skewed its analysis of
`the cost of attendance and availability of evidence in
`Canon’s favor, rather than in favor of the most
`convenient venue. ..................................................................... 24
`By Maintaining Venue in EDTX with No Parties, No
`Witnesses, and No Evidence, Despite NDCA’s Access to
`Witness and Evidence and Interest in the Dispute, the
`District Court Clearly Erred in Weighing the Private and
`Public Venue Factors. ....................................................................... 27
`1.
`The district court entirely excluded Roku’s and TTE’s
`California witnesses from its analysis, failing to
`properly consider them in the cost of attendance factor
`or, despite improperly finding them unwilling, in the
`compulsory process factor. ...................................................... 27
`The district court also erroneously excluded Party
`witnesses from its analysis on cost of attendance for
`willing witnesses. ...................................................................... 30
`The district court abused its discretion by refusing to
`consider NDCA’s local interest based on Roku’s and
`TTE’s involvement in the case................................................. 30
`V. MANDAMUS IS APPROPRIATE ............................................................ 33
`VI. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 34
`
`
`
`C.
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`
`
`v
`
`Roku Exhibit 1029
`Page 00006
`
`

`

`Case: 20-129 Document: 2 Page: 7 Filed: 05/26/2020
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`In re Acer Am. Corp.,
`626 F.3d 1252 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 29
`Adaptix, Inc. v. HTC Corp.,
`937 F. Supp. 2d 867 (E.D. Tex. 2013) ................................................................ 31
`In re Air Crash Disaster Near New Orleans, La. On July 9, 1982,
`821 F.2d 1147 (5th Cir. 1987) ............................................................................ 17
`In re Apple,
`No. 20-112 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 3, 2020) (ECF No. 28) ................................ 14, 17, 33
`Atl. Marine Const. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for W. Dist. of Tex.,
`571 U.S. 49 (2013) .............................................................................................. 16
`In re BP Lubricants USA Inc.,
`637 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 33
`Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C.,
`542 U.S. 367 (2004) ............................................................................................ 13
`Cont’l Grain Co. v. The FBL-585,
`364 U.S. 19 (1960) .............................................................................................. 18
`In re EMC Corp.,
`501 F. App’x 973 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ..................................................................... 16
`In re EMC Corp.,
`677 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 13
`Ferens v. John Deere Co.,
`494 U.S. 516 (1990) ............................................................................................ 15
`In re Fine Paper Antitrust Litig.,
`685 F.2d 810 (3d Cir. 1982) ............................................................................... 16
`In re Genentech Inc.,
`566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................................... 25, 26
`
`vi
`
`Roku Exhibit 1029
`Page 00007
`
`

`

`Case: 20-129 Document: 2 Page: 8 Filed: 05/26/2020
`
`General Tire & Rubber Co. v. Watkins,
`373 F.2d 361 (4th Cir. 1967) .............................................................................. 16
`In re Google Inc.,
`No. 2015-138, 2015 WL 5294800 (Fed. Cir. July 16, 2016) ............................. 19
`In re Google Inc.,
`No. 2017-107, 2017 WL 977038 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 23, 2017) ............................... 15
`Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert,
`330 U.S. 501 (1947) ............................................................................................ 32
`Hoffman v. Blaski,
`363 U.S. 335 (1960) .....................................................................................passim
`In re Hoffman-La Roche Inc.,
`587 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ...................................................................passim
`In re Horseshoe Entm’t,
`337 F.3d 429 (5th Cir. 2003) .............................................................................. 19
`Knowlton v. Allied Van Lines, Inc.,
`900 F.2d 1196 (8th Cir. 1990) ............................................................................ 16
`In re Link_A_Media Devices,
`662 F.3d 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 13
`McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Polin,
`429 F.2d 30 (3d Cir.1970) ............................................................................ 19, 21
`In re Microsoft Corp.,
`630 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................... 23, 24
`Minn. Mining and Mfg. Co. v. Norton Co.,
`929 F.2d 670 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ............................................................................ 13
`Montero v. Tulsa Airport Improvements Trust,
`770 F. App’x 439 (10th Cir. 2019) ..................................................................... 16
`In re Nintendo Co., Ltd.,
`589 F.3d 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................................... 30, 31
`
`vii
`
`Roku Exhibit 1029
`Page 00008
`
`

`

`Case: 20-129 Document: 2 Page: 9 Filed: 05/26/2020
`
`Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno,
`454 U.S. 235 (1981) ...................................................................................... 16, 23
`In re Queen’s Univ. at Kingston,
`820 F.3d 1287 (Fed. Cir. 2016) .......................................................................... 33
`In re Radmax, Ltd.,
`720 F.3d 285 (5th Cir. 2013) .............................................................................. 20
`Research Automation, Inc. v. Schrader-Bridgeport Int’l, Inc.
`626 F.3d 973 (7th Cir. 2010) .............................................................................. 16
`Sleepy Lagoon, Ltd., v. Tower Grp., Inc.,
`809 F. Supp. 2d 1300 (N.D. Okla. 2011) ............................................................ 22
`In re SpaldingSports Worldwide, Inc.,
`203 F.3d 800 (Fed. Cir. 2000) ............................................................................ 33
`Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp.,
`487 U.S. 22 (1988) .............................................................................................. 23
`TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC,
`137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017) ................................................................................ 2, 4, 32
`In re TS Tech USA Corp.,
`551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .................................................................... 23, 33
`Van Dusen v. Barrack,
`376 U.S. 612 (1964) .......................................................................... 14, 15, 19, 22
`In re Vistaprint, Ltd.,
`628 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 15
`In re Volkswagen AG (“Volkswagen I”),
`371 F.3d 201 (5th Cir. 2004) ........................................................................ 25, 32
`In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc. (“Volkswagen II”),
`545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc) .......................................................passim
`In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc. (“Volkswagen III”),
`566 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 15
`
`viii
`
`Roku Exhibit 1029
`Page 00009
`
`

`

`Case: 20-129 Document: 2 Page: 10 Filed: 05/26/2020
`
`In re Warrick,
`70 F.3d 736 (2d Cir. 1995) ................................................................................. 15
`In re Zimmer Holdings, Inc.,
`609 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................... 23, 25
`Statutes
`28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3) ......................................................................................passim
`28 U.S.C. § 1404 ...............................................................................................passim
`Other Authorities
`Fed. Cir. R. 31.1(d) .................................................................................................. 16
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) ...................................................................................... 21, 22
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c) ................................................................................................. 29
`Matthew Bultman, Foreign Cos. Expected to Test Venue Rules After
`TC Heartland, Law360 (June 5, 2017) ................................................................. 2
`
`
`
`
`ix
`
`Roku Exhibit 1029
`Page 00010
`
`

`

`Case: 20-129 Document: 2 Page: 11 Filed: 05/26/2020
`
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
`Pursuant to Federal Circuit Rule 47.5(a), counsel for Petitioners TCL
`
`
`
`Electronics Holdings, Shenzhen TCL New Technologies Co., Ltd., TCL
`
`Corporation, and TCL King Electrical Appliances (Huizhou) Co., Ltd. (collectively,
`
`“Petitioners”) is unaware of any appeal in or from the same proceeding in the United
`
`States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`
`
`
`
`x
`
`Roku Exhibit 1029
`Page 00011
`
`

`

`Case: 20-129 Document: 2 Page: 12 Filed: 05/26/2020
`
`STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
`This Court has mandamus jurisdiction under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1651.
`
`RELIEF SOUGHT
`Petitioners seek an order directing the district court to transfer the case brought
`
`in the Eastern District of Texas (“EDTX”) to the Northern District of California
`
`(“NDCA”).
`
`ISSUES PRESENTED
`Did the district court commit legal error in denying transfer, where it
`
`1.
`
`incorrectly restricted its analysis to “the situation which existed when suit was
`
`instituted” to exclude post-filing developments weighing in favor of transfer,
`
`except to incorrectly weigh against transfer the court’s experience with the
`
`case gained during its six-month delay in ruling on the motion?
`
`2.
`
`Did the district court commit legal error by denying transfer, where it
`
`improperly resolved all disputed facts and inferences against transfer?
`
`3.
`
`Did the district court commit a clear abuse of discretion in weighing the public
`
`and private factors affecting transfer when it treated EDTX as more
`
`convenient than NDCA, notwithstanding that no parties, witnesses, or
`
`evidence are located in EDTX, whereas two third parties accused of direct
`
`infringement and the majority of relevant witnesses and evidence are located
`
`in or near NDCA?
`
`1
`
`Roku Exhibit 1029
`Page 00012
`
`

`

`Case: 20-129 Document: 2 Page: 13 Filed: 05/26/2020
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`In reaching its conclusion that a district in which no party, no third party, no
`
`witness, and no document is present is more convenient than the district where (or
`
`near where) the accused third-party entities and their witnesses and documents
`
`reside, the district court committed several legal and factual errors. This suit reflects
`
`a growing trend in which creative plaintiffs seek to evade the holding in TC
`
`Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017), by suing
`
`a defendant in the supply chain in a court where the real focus of the infringement
`
`allegations—non-parties accused of direct infringement—could not be sued under
`
`TC Heartland, and where no parties, witnesses, or documents are located.1 A proper
`
`application of transfer principles under 28 U.S.C. § 1404 should nonetheless lead to
`
`proceeding in the venue where the relevant entities and evidence are located. The
`
`district court’s numerous errors make transfer virtually impossible, however, and
`
`largely negate TC Heartland’s significance.
`
`First, in mistaken reliance on Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 343 (1960),
`
`the district court committed legal error by refusing to consider post-complaint facts.
`
`As Supreme Court and circuit precedent make clear, however, the section 1404
`
`
`1 Matthew Bultman, Foreign Cos. Expected to Test Venue Rules After TC Heartland,
`Law360 (June 5, 2017) (quoting Yar Chaikovsky—trial counsel for Canon—as
`stating that plaintiffs will “try to name just the foreign corporations” to avoid the
`Supreme Court’s restrictions in TC Heartland).
`
`2
`
`Roku Exhibit 1029
`Page 00013
`
`

`

`Case: 20-129 Document: 2 Page: 14 Filed: 05/26/2020
`
`convenience and interest-of-justice analysis is not limited to facts as of the
`
`complaint’s filing. The district court exacerbated that error by disregarding post-
`
`complaint facts favoring transfer, while simultaneously relying on its own delay in
`
`ruling on transfer as weighing against transfer. Under this approach, post-filing
`
`developments become a one-way ratchet against transfer.
`
`Second, the court committed legal error by resolving all factual disputes and
`
`inferences against transfer, rather than making relevant factual determinations. By
`
`weighing plaintiff’s attorney argument and speculation more heavily than the
`
`inconvenienced parties’ sworn testimony, the district court made it impossible to
`
`satisfy the transfer standard.
`
`Third, the court made numerous clearly erroneous determinations, including
`
`by repeatedly disregarding the convenience and local interest of third parties and
`
`third-party witnesses located in California. Indeed, the court made inconsistent
`
`statements, counting the third-party California witnesses as unwilling witnesses and
`
`yet excluding them from its analysis of the availability of compulsory process for
`
`unwilling witnesses, to ensure these factors would weigh against transfer.
`
`Mandamus here is proper not only to correct the legally and factually
`
`erroneous analysis of “the convenience of parties and witnesses” and “interests of
`
`justice” under section 1404(a), but also because these errors present unsettled issues
`
`3
`
`Roku Exhibit 1029
`Page 00014
`
`

`

`Case: 20-129 Document: 2 Page: 15 Filed: 05/26/2020
`
`and questions of first impression on which the district court requires guidance, lest
`
`section 1404(a) become a dead letter.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`Though Canon, Inc. technically brought this patent infringement suit against
`
`several foreign entities, its claims are aimed squarely at Roku, Inc. and TTE
`
`Technology Inc., U.S.-based third parties that, under TC Heartland, Canon could not
`
`have sued in EDTX.
`
`Canon asserts claims of patent infringement against TCL King Electrical
`
`Appliances (Huizhou) Co., Ltd. (“TCL King”); TCL Electronics Holdings Ltd.
`
`(“TCL Holdings”); Shenzhen TCL New Technologies Co. Ltd. (“Shenzhen TCL”);
`
`and TCL Corporation (collectively, “Defendants” or “TCL”)2 for a variety of
`
`accused products featuring “television systems that integrate the Roku operation
`
`system.” Appx40-41 (¶¶2-5); Appx58-60 (¶¶52-57); Appx63-130 (Counts I-XV).
`
`Defendants are Chinese companies with no or very little presence in the United
`
`States. E.g., Appx159-160 (¶5-7). TCL King manufactures the accused products,
`
`while its subsidiary Shenzhen TCL conducts research and development. Appx135-
`
`136 (¶¶7-8); Appx159 (¶3). Neither TCL Holdings nor TCL Corporation performs
`
`work related to the accused products. See Appx159 (¶3); Appx162 (¶6).
`
`
`2 Canon sued eight foreign TCL entities, but consented to dismissal of the others.
`See Appx39; Appx259.
`
`4
`
`Roku Exhibit 1029
`Page 00015
`
`

`

`Case: 20-129 Document: 2 Page: 16 Filed: 05/26/2020
`
`Canon’s claims focus on two third parties: Roku and TTE. Indeed, Canon’s
`
`first amended complaint mentions them over 150 times. E.g., Appx74-79 (¶¶89-92,
`
`97, 101-103). Canon puts Roku at the heart of its case, targeting Roku’s operating
`
`system as the accused technology allegedly causing infringement by the accused
`
`products.3 E.g., Appx58-60 (¶¶52-57). Canon also asserts that TTE, a subsidiary of
`
`TCL Holdings, Appx37 (¶13), engages in direct infringement by using, selling, and
`
`importing the accused products. E.g., Appx64-66 (¶¶65-67). Canon repeatedly
`
`describes Roku and TTE as direct infringers and “agents” of the Defendants. E.g.,
`
`Appx74 (¶¶89-91); Appx77-78 (¶101).
`
`A. This Litigation Has No Connection to EDTX.
`Apart from the nationwide sale of the accused products, this case has no
`
`connection to EDTX. None of the parties has any connection to EDTX—in fact,
`
`none of the documents or witnesses of any party or third party is even located in the
`
`district. 4
`
`
`3 While Roku is not a party to this case, Canon sued Roku in April 2019 and then
`dismissed the case without prejudice. Canon, Inc. v. Roku, Inc., No. 6:19-cv-245
`(W.D. Tex.). Roku filed for inter partes review of the patents in suit, identifying
`Defendants as its privies. Appx268. Defendants also have an indemnification
`agreement with Roku.
`4 In another case, Canon recently sought transfer from EDTX to the location of its
`U.S. subsidiary, asserting transfer was appropriate where “most of the documents
`and witnesses were in another jurisdiction, and none were in this District.” Mot. to
`Transfer at 1-3, 15 Optimum Imaging Techs. LLC v. Canon Inc., No. 2:19-cv-00246-
`JRG (E.D. Tex. Nov. 12, 2019), ECF No. 39, (emphasis added).
`
`5
`
`Roku Exhibit 1029
`Page 00016
`
`

`

`Case: 20-129 Document: 2 Page: 17 Filed: 05/26/2020
`
`Canon’s documents and witnesses are located in Japan, where it is
`
`incorporated. Appx40 (¶1); Appx185, Appx195. TCL’s documents and employees
`
`are primarily located in China, though TCL King has a single employee, located in
`
`Corona, California (near NDCA), with knowledge of U.S. clients, the manufacture
`
`of accused products, and the location of documents. Appx159-160 (¶¶5-8);
`
`Appx162 (¶¶5-6).
`
`Roku—one of the true targets of this suit—similarly has no connection to
`
`EDTX. Roku is headquartered in NDCA, where its work on the accused technology
`
`is primarily performed. Appx165-166 (¶¶4, 7). No Roku witness or evidence is in
`
`EDTX. Appx167 (¶14). Roku specifically identified six witnesses in NDCA who
`
`are knowledgeable about the accused technology and accused products and willing
`
`to testify. Appx165-167 (¶¶1, 6-13). Though Roku has a facility in Austin (in the
`
`Western District of Texas, “WDTX”), the individuals who designed, developed, and
`
`are responsible for the accused technology, including the Roku OS, are located in
`
`NDCA. Appx167 (¶15).
`
`TTE—the other true target of this suit—similarly has no connection to EDTX
`
`beyond its nationwide marketing, sale, and distribution of the accused products.
`
`Appx169 (¶6). TTE is located in Corona, California (near NDCA), and has no
`
`employees or documents in EDTX. Appx169-172 (¶¶1, 5, 8, 13-14). TTE identified
`
`four employees in California, including Chris Larson, the head of marketing and
`
`6
`
`Roku Exhibit 1029
`Page 00017
`
`

`

`Case: 20-129 Document: 2 Page: 18 Filed: 05/26/2020
`
`sales, who are knowledgeable about the accused products and willing to testify.
`
`Appx169-171 (¶¶1, 4-5, 9-12). A TTE sales director who resides in Texas, but
`
`outside EDTX, has limited access to sales information and is supervised by Mr.
`
`Larson. Appx172 (¶13); Appx212 (¶¶4-5).
`
`B.
`
`TCL’s Timely Motion to Transfer Was Pending for Six Months.
`On December 27, 2018, Canon sued TCL Holdings, located in China, alleging
`
`infringement of five patents. Appx19; see Appx40 (¶2); Appx57-58 (¶50). After
`
`TCL Holdings moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, Canon filed a First
`
`Amended Complaint alleging infringement against seven additional foreign TCL
`
`entities. Appx20-21; Appx40-41 (¶¶3-9). On September 12, 2019—within a month
`
`of the new defendants’ timely motion to dismiss, Appx23, and before the court had
`
`even held a scheduling conference, Appx25—all defendants jointly moved to
`
`transfer to NDCA. Appx24.5 In support, defendants provided sworn declarations
`
`identifying the Roku and TTE employees most knowledgeable about the accused
`
`technology and products and who were willing to testify, despite the inconvenience
`
`of traveling from California to EDTX. Appx166-167 (¶¶6-13); Appx170-171 (¶¶4-
`
`5, 9-12).
`
`
`5 As foreign entities who waived cumbersome service formalities, defendants had 90
`days to file responsive pleadings. Appx34; Appx20-23. With brief unopposed
`motions to extend the time to answer, defendants timely filed their motions to
`dismiss. See Appx20, Appx23.
`
`7
`
`Roku Exhibit 1029
`Page 00018
`
`

`

`Case: 20-129 Document: 2 Page: 19 Filed: 05/26/2020
`
`Canon filed a response on October 4, 2019, relying heavily on LinkedIn
`
`profiles of irrelevant Roku employees in Austin, outside of EDTX. Appx188-189,
`
`Appx191. Despite briefing being completed on October 22, 2019, see Appx25, and
`
`defendants’ unopposed request for hearing on November 7, 2019, Appx238-239, the
`
`district court did not act on the motion.
`
`Over six months after the motion was filed, on March 25, 2020, Defendants
`
`filed a motion requesting a ruling on the motions to dismiss and transfer.6 The
`
`motion for ruling explained that Canon’s discovery requests confirmed the
`
`materiality of Roku’s and TTE’s documents and witnesses in NDCA to Canon’s
`
`claims. In particular, Canon had served subpoenas seeking documents, corporate
`
`testimony, and testimony from seven Roku employees and four TTE employees in
`
`NDCA and CDCA. Appx285-286 n.3; Appx298. Tellingly, as Defendants pointed
`
`out, Canon had not sought to depose any Roku or TTE employees in Texas.
`
`Appx285 n3. Indeed, Canon had removed every potential Texas-based witness from
`
`its amended initial disclosures served on March 13, 2020. Compare Appx225-235,
`
`with Appx272-279. On the same day as the motion for ruling, the district court
`
`denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss, but still did not rule on the motion to transfer.
`
`See Appx28.
`
`
`6 Defendants’ motion also requested to stay the litigation. Appx287 n.4.
`
`8
`
`Roku Exhibit 1029
`Page 00019
`
`

`

`Case: 20-129 Document: 2 Page: 20 Filed: 05/26/2020
`
`On April 7, 2020, less than three weeks before the then-scheduled close of
`
`fact discovery and one day before responding to Defendants’ motion for ruling,
`
`Canon sought to serve deposition subpoenas on seven Roku employees in Austin
`
`(outside EDTX). Appx316; Appx263. A few days later, Canon subpoenaed TTE’s
`
`Texas-based sales-person for deposition in Houston (outside EDTX). Appx336.
`
`The district court denied Defendants’ motion to transfer on April 24, 2020,
`
`and denied the motion for ruling as moot. Appx1-2.
`
`C. Despite the Lawsuit’s Lack of Connection to EDTX, the District Court
`Denied Transfer.
`The district court first determined that both EDTX and NDCA are “places of
`
`proper venue,” because as foreign corporations, Defendants could “be sued in any
`
`judicial district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3).” Appx4. The court next analyzed the
`
`“public and private factors relating to the convenience of the parties and witnesses
`
`as well as the interests of particular venues in hearing the case.” Id. The court stated
`
`that this analysis was limited to “the situation which existed when suit was
`
`instituted.” Id. (citing Hoffman, 363 U.S. at 343). Beyond requiring defendants to
`
`meet an “elevated burden” to show transfer is “clearly more convenient,” the district
`
`court effectively imposed a still-higher burden by “draw[ing] all reasonable
`
`inferences and resolv[ing] factual conflicts in favor of the non-moving party.”
`
`Appx3.
`
`9
`
`Roku Exhibit 1029
`Page 00020
`
`

`

`Case: 20-129 Document: 2 Page: 21 Filed: 05/26/2020
`
`1.
`
`The district court found the private factors to be neutral or to weigh
`against transfer.
`The district court determined that the ease of access to sources of proof was
`
`neutral. Despite Defendants’ evidence that TCL King, TTE, and Roku all had highly
`
`relevant documents in California concerning the alleged direct infringement, the
`
`court found TCL “failed to show that transfer to [NDCA] will result in more
`
`convenient access to sources of proof.” Appx5-6. Instead, the court relied on
`
`Canon’s counsel’s unsupported speculation that Roku “likely stores” documents in
`
`Austin, and that TTE’s Dallas-based witness would “presumably have access” to
`
`documents on the accused products. Id. (emphasis added). The court determined
`
`that neither district was more convenient because the “relevant documents are
`
`located across the world—in China, Hong Kong, Japan and throughout the United
`
`States,” including “at least in Austin, Corona, Dallas, Los Gatos, and San Jose,”
`
`weighing Austin and Dallas equally to the others based on speculation. Appx6.
`
`The district court then found that compulsory process weighed slightly against
`
`transfer. Appx8. The court credited Canon’s assertion (based solely on eleventh
`
`hour discovery requests) that “key Roku and TTE witnesses, with knowledge of the
`
`accused products and development cycles, are present in Texas,” but refused to
`
`consider any other witnesses, including the California witnesses whose relevance
`
`was substantiated by declarations. Id. The court explained that it was “lar