throbber
Case: 22-110 Document: 2-1 Page: 1 Filed: 11/01/2021
`
`
`
`No. 21-___
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`
`In re: NETFLIX, INC.,
`
`Petitioner.
`
`
`
`On Petition For A Writ Of Mandamus
`To The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
`In Case No. 2:21-cv-00080
`United States District Judge Rodney Gilstrap
`
`PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
`
`
`Mark A. Lemley
`Nari Ely
`DURIE TANGRI LLP
`217 LEIDESDORFF STREET
`SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111
`Telephone: 415-362-6666
`Facsimile:
`415-236-6300
`
`Katherine E. McNutt
`DURIE TANGRI LLP
`953 EAST 3RD STREET
`LOS ANGELES, CA 90013
`Telephone: 213-992-4499
`Facsimile:
`415-236-6300
`
`November 1, 2021 Attorneys for Petitioner
` Netflix, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`Netflix, Inc. - Ex. 1024, Page 000001
`IPR2021-01293 (Netflix, Inc. v. Avago Technologies International Sales PTE. Limited)
`
`

`

`Case: 22-110 Document: 2-1 Page: 2 Filed: 11/01/2021
`
`FORM 9. Certificate of Interest
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
`
`
`Form 9 (p. 1)
`July 2020
`
`
`Case Number
`Short Case Caption
`Filing Party/Entity
`
`
`
`
`
`Instructions: Complete each section of the form. In answering items 2 and 3, be
`specific as to which represented entities the answers apply; lack of specificity may
`result in non-compliance. Please enter only one item per box; attach
`additional pages as needed and check the relevant box. Counsel must
`immediately file an amended Certificate of Interest if information changes. Fed.
`Cir. R. 47.4(b).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I certify the following information and any attached sheets are accurate and
`complete to the best of my knowledge.
`
`
`Date: _________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Signature:
`
`Name:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`21-
`
`In re Netflix, Inc.
`
`Netflix, Inc.
`
`Mark A. Lemley
`
`/s/ Mark A. Lemley
`
`11/01/2021
`
`Netflix, Inc. - Ex. 1024, Page 000002
`
`

`

`Case: 22-110 Document: 2-1 Page: 3 Filed: 11/01/2021
`
`FORM 9. Certificate of Interest
`
`1. Represented
`Entities.
`Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(1).
`Provide the full names of
`all entities represented
`by undersigned counsel in
`this case.
`
`Form 9 (p. 2)
`July 2020
`
`2. Real Party in
`Interest.
`Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(2).
`Provide the full names of
`all real parties in interest
`for the entities. Do not
`list the real parties if
`they are the same as the
`entities.
`
`3. Parent Corporations
`and Stockholders.
`Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(3).
`Provide the full names of
`all parent corporations
`for the entities and all
`publicly held companies
`that own 10% or more
`stock in the entities.
`
`☐ None/Not Applicable ☐ None/Not Applicable
`
`Additional pages attached
`
`4
`
`4
`
`Netflix, Inc.
`
`Netflix, Inc. - Ex. 1024, Page 000003
`
`

`

`Case: 22-110 Document: 2-1 Page: 4 Filed: 11/01/2021
`
`FORM 9. Certificate of Interest
`
`Form 9 (p. 3)
`July 2020
`
`4. Legal Representatives. List all law firms, partners, and associates that (a)
`appeared for the entities in the originating court or agency or (b) are expected to
`appear in this court for the entities. Do not include those who have already
`entered an appearance in this court. Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(4).
`None/Not Applicable
`Additional pages attached
`
`5. Related Cases. Provide the case titles and numbers of any case known to be
`pending in this court or any other court or agency that will directly affect or be
`directly affected by this court’s decision in the pending appeal. Do not include the
`originating case number(s) for this case. Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(5). See also Fed. Cir.
`R. 47.5(b).
`None/Not Applicable
`
`Additional pages attached
`
`6. Organizational Victims and Bankruptcy Cases. Provide any information
`required under Fed. R. App. P. 26.1(b) (organizational victims in criminal cases)
`and 26.1(c) (bankruptcy case debtors and trustees). Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(6).
`None/Not Applicable
`Additional pages attached
`
`4
`
`4
`
`4
`
`Netflix, Inc. - Ex. 1024, Page 000004
`
`

`

`Case: 22-110 Document: 2-1 Page: 5 Filed: 11/01/2021
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST FOR NETFLIX, INC. (CONT’D)
`
`4. Legal Representatives
`
`Pursuant to Federal Circuit Rule 47.4(a) and Federal Rule of Appellate
`
`Procedure 26.1, counsel for Petitioner Netflix, Inc. certifies the following law
`
`firms, partners, and associates have appeared on its behalf before the district court:
`
`From Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP: Harper S. Batts,
`
`Christopher Scott Ponder.
`
`
`
`From Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP: Sharif E. Jacob, Christina Lee,
`
`David Justin Rosen, Edward A Bayley, Emily A. Hasselberg, Hinh D. Tran, Julia
`
`L. Greenberg, Katie Lynn Joyce, Kristin E Lovin, Leo L. Lam, Matthias Andreas
`
`Kamber, Michelle S. Ybarra, Neha Sabharwal, Paven Malhotra, Robert A. Van
`
`Nest.
`
`
`
`
`
`From Gillam & Smith LLP: Melissa Richards Smith.
`
`
`
`Netflix, Inc. - Ex. 1024, Page 000005
`
`

`

`Case: 22-110 Document: 2-1 Page: 6 Filed: 11/01/2021
`
`5. Related Cases
`
`Netflix, Inc. (“Netflix”) previously filed a petition for mandamus on
`
`September 24, 2021, seeking a stay of substantive proceedings pending resolution
`
`of its motion to dismiss or transfer. This Court denied that petition on October 25,
`
`2021. Order on Pet., In re Netflix, Inc., No. 21-190, 2021 WL 4944826, at *2
`
`(Fed. Cir. Oct. 25, 2021) (TD, SP, TH, per curiam). Netflix and its counsel are
`
`aware of the following case pending in this Court or any other court or agency that
`
`will directly affect or be directly affected by this Court’s ruling in this case:
`
`• Netflix, Inc. v. CA, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-03649 (N.D. Cal. filed
`
`May 14, 2021)
`
`
`
`Netflix, Inc. - Ex. 1024, Page 000006
`
`

`

`Case: 22-110 Document: 2-1 Page: 7 Filed: 11/01/2021
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`ISSUES PRESENTED .................................................................................... 1
`I.
`JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT ................................................................ 2
`II.
`III. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT AND RELIEF SOUGHT ............................. 3
`IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS .............................................................................. 3
`A. Nothing of Any Relevance to This Case Is Located in the Eastern
`District of Texas .................................................................................... 3
`B. One Court Has Already Recognized That a Dispute Between the
`Parties Belongs in the Northern District of California .......................... 6
`The District Court Denied Netflix’s Motion to Dismiss or Transfer
`and Has Sped This Case Towards Trial ................................................ 7
`LEGAL STANDARD ..................................................................................... 9
`V.
`VI. REASONS THE WRIT SHOULD ISSUE...................................................... 9
`A. Netflix’s Right to Dismissal for Improper Venue Is Indisputable ........ 9
`Even if Venue Were Proper, There Is No Question that this Case
`B.
`Should Be Transferred to the Northern District of California, the
`“Center of Gravity” of This Case ........................................................ 19
`C. Netflix Has No Other Adequate Means to Obtain Relief, and
`Mandamus Is Appropriate Under the Circumstances ......................... 33
`VII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 34
`
`C.
`
`i
`
`Netflix, Inc. - Ex. 1024, Page 000007
`
`

`

`Case: 22-110 Document: 2-1 Page: 8 Filed: 11/01/2021
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`In re Acer Am. Corp.,
`626 F.3d 1252 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .......................................................................... 23
`In re Adobe Inc.,
`823 F. App’x 929, 932 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ............................................................. 31
`Andra Grp., LP v. Victoria’s Secret Stores, L.L.C.,
`6 F.4th 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................. 3, 13, 18, 19
`In re Apple Inc.,
`979 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .............................................................. 22, 24, 32
`B & G Enters., Ltd. v. United States,
`220 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2000) .......................................................................... 17
`Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Dist. of Columbia,
`542 U.S. 367 (2004) .............................................................................................. 9
`In re Cray Inc.,
`871 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2017) .............................................................. 10, 11, 12
`In re Dish Network L.L.C.,
`No. 2021-182, 2021 WL 4911981 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 21, 2021) ............................. 32
`Frito-Lay N. Am., Inc. v. Medallion Foods, Inc.,
`867 F. Supp. 2d 859 (E.D. Tex. 2012) ................................................................ 27
`In re Genentech, Inc.,
`566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................................... 31
`In re Google LLC,
`949 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ...................................................................passim
`Hampton v. Nicholson,
`175 F. App’x 334 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ....................................................................... 9
`In re HP Inc.,
`826 F. App’x 899 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ......................................................... 20, 24, 34
`
`ii
`
`Netflix, Inc. - Ex. 1024, Page 000008
`
`

`

`Case: 22-110 Document: 2-1 Page: 9 Filed: 11/01/2021
`
`In re Hulu, LLC,
`No. 2021-142, 2021 WL 3278194 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 2, 2021) .......................passim
`In re Juniper Networks, Inc.,
`14 F.4th 1313, 2021 WL 4343309 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (per curiam) ...............passim
`In re Morgan Stanley,
`417 F. App’x 947 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ..................................................................... 32
`N. Shipping Funds I, LLC v. Icon Capital Corp.,
`921 F. Supp. 2d 94 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) .................................................................. 17
`In re Netflix, Inc.,
`No. 2021-190, 2021 WL 4944826 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 25, 2021) (per
`curiam) .................................................................................................................. 8
`In re Netscout Sys., Inc.,
`No. 2021-173, 2021 WL 4771756 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 13, 2021) ................. 21, 30, 31
`In re Pandora Media, LLC,
`No. 2021-172, 2021 WL 4772805 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 13, 2021) ....................... 28, 29
`In re Radmax, Ltd.,
`720 F.3d 285 (5th Cir. 2013) .............................................................................. 20
`In re Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`2 F.4th 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................................. 32
`Seven Networks, LLC v. Google LLC,
`315 F. Supp. 3d 933 (E.D. Tex. 2018) .......................................................... 10, 11
`In re SK hynix Inc.,
`835 F. App’x 600, 601 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................. 32
`SynKloud Techs., LLC v. Adobe, Inc.,
`141 S. Ct. 2469 (2021) ........................................................................................ 31
`TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC,
`137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017) .................................................................................. 11, 12
`In re Toyota Motor Corp.,
`747 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .......................................................................... 24
`
`iii
`
`Netflix, Inc. - Ex. 1024, Page 000009
`
`

`

`Case: 22-110 Document: 2-1 Page: 10 Filed: 11/01/2021
`
`In re TS Tech USA Corp.,
`551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ........................................................ 19, 20, 33, 34
`In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc.,
`545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc) ............................................ 19, 20, 21, 33
`In re WMS Gaming Inc.,
`564 F. App’x 579 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ............................................................... 24, 32
`Statutes
`28 U.S.C. § 1295 ........................................................................................................ 2
`28 U.S.C. § 1331 ........................................................................................................ 2
`28 U.S.C. § 1338(a) ................................................................................................... 2
`28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) ................................................................................................. 10
`28 U.S.C. § 1651 ........................................................................................................ 2
`Other Authorities
`RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF AGENCY § 1(1) (Am. Law Inst. 1958) ........................ 17
`Resp. to Pet. for Writ of Mandamus, In re Google LLC, No. 2019-126,
`ECF No. 20-1 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 10, 2019) ............................................................. 12
`
`
`
`iv
`
`Netflix, Inc. - Ex. 1024, Page 000010
`
`

`

`Case: 22-110 Document: 2-1 Page: 11 Filed: 11/01/2021
`
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
`
`Netflix, Inc. (“Netflix”) previously filed a petition for mandamus on
`
`September 24, 2021, seeking a stay of substantive proceedings pending resolution
`
`of its motion to dismiss or transfer. This Court denied that petition on October 25,
`
`2021. Order on Pet., In re Netflix, Inc., No. 21-190, 2021 WL 4944826, at *2
`
`(Fed. Cir. Oct. 25, 2021) (TD, SP, TH, per curiam). Netflix and its counsel are
`
`aware of the following case pending in this Court or any other court or agency that
`
`will directly affect or be directly affected by this Court’s ruling in this case:
`
`• Netflix, Inc. v. CA, Inc., Case No. 3:21-cv-03649 (N.D. Cal. filed
`
`May 14, 2021)
`
`
`
`v
`
`Netflix, Inc. - Ex. 1024, Page 000011
`
`

`

`Case: 22-110 Document: 2-1 Page: 12 Filed: 11/01/2021
`
`I.
`
`ISSUES PRESENTED
`1. Should this Court issue a writ of mandamus requiring the district court to
`
`comply with well-established law and dismiss this case for lack of proper venue?
`
`2. In the alternative, should this Court issue a writ of mandamus requiring
`
`the district court to comply with well-established law and transfer this case to the
`
`Northern District of California?
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`Netflix, Inc. - Ex. 1024, Page 000012
`
`

`

`Case: 22-110 Document: 2-1 Page: 13 Filed: 11/01/2021
`
`II.
`
`JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT
`This Court has jurisdiction over this case because the underlying case is a
`
`patent case. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1295, 1331, 1338(a). This Court has jurisdiction
`
`over this petition for writ of mandamus under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`Netflix, Inc. - Ex. 1024, Page 000013
`
`

`

`Case: 22-110 Document: 2-1 Page: 14 Filed: 11/01/2021
`
`III. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT AND RELIEF SOUGHT
`The district court’s decision denying Netflix’s motion to dismiss for lack of
`
`venue is irreconcilable with In re Google LLC, 949 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2020),
`
`where this Court held that venue was improper on facts that were, if anything,
`
`more favorable to the plaintiff than those here. And its conclusion that
`
`independent third parties somehow become Netflix’s agents merely by agreeing to
`
`do business with Netflix is irreconcilable with Andra Group, LP v. Victoria’s
`
`Secret Stores, L.L.C., 6 F.4th 1283, 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
`
`The district court’s decision denying Netflix’s alternative motion to transfer
`
`ignores no fewer than six of this Court’s precedents that directly contradict its
`
`ruling, relying instead on outdated decisions from the Eastern District of Texas that
`
`do not state the law. This Court’s cases compel transfer. All parties in this case
`
`are based in the Northern District of California. So too are the vast majority of the
`
`evidence and the witnesses. Indeed, Netflix has no place of business at all and no
`
`agents in the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`The district court’s refusal to follow the law justifies mandamus.
`
`IV. STATEMENT OF FACTS
`A. Nothing of Any Relevance to This Case Is Located in the Eastern
`District of Texas
`All parties to this case are based in the Northern District of California.
`
`Netflix’s principal place of business is in Los Gatos, California. Appx238 ¶ 4. Per
`
`3
`
`Netflix, Inc. - Ex. 1024, Page 000014
`
`

`

`Case: 22-110 Document: 2-1 Page: 15 Filed: 11/01/2021
`
`the complaint, Plaintiffs CA and Avago are based in San Jose, California.
`
`Appx091. Neither Avago nor CA even appears to be in good standing to do
`
`business in Texas. See Appx219 ¶ 17, Appx231-236.
`
`Likewise, the bulk (if not all) of the relevant evidence in this case is in the
`
`Northern District of California. Netflix makes its product development and
`
`business management decisions at its Los Gatos, California headquarters, where its
`
`management, engineering, and product design and development staff are based.
`
`Appx238 ¶ 5. Netflix’s technical documents are located in Los Gatos, and there
`
`are twenty-two Netflix employees with potentially relevant information in the
`
`Northern District of California. Appx238-240 ¶¶ 6, 8. There are also four
`
`inventors and thirteen potential third-party witnesses identified in that district,
`
`including patent prosecution counsel, prior artists, and former employees—each
`
`outside the subpoena power of Eastern District of Texas. Appx240 ¶ 11, Appx219-
`
`221 ¶¶ 18-20. The report and recommendation did not explain how any evidence
`
`relevant to the merits of the case was located in the Eastern District of Texas.1
`
`Netflix neither owns nor leases real estate in the Eastern District of Texas, and it
`
`employs only eight people who reside there. Appx240-242 ¶¶ 13-18. All work
`
`remotely from their homes, and none have been identified as having potentially
`
`
`1 The report and recommendation relied on the presence in or near the Eastern
`District of Texas of witnesses such as internet service providers (“ISPs”) relevant
`to the venue decision but not to the merits, e.g., Appx026.
`
`4
`
`Netflix, Inc. - Ex. 1024, Page 000015
`
`

`

`Case: 22-110 Document: 2-1 Page: 16 Filed: 11/01/2021
`
`relevant information. Appx240-242 ¶¶ 14-18. Netflix neither pays any portion of
`
`their rent nor requires them to live in the district. Appx240-242 ¶¶ 14-18.
`
`While Netflix owns or leases data centers (“Internet Exchange Points”) in
`
`some locations that contain equipment owned by Netflix for the purpose of caching
`
`content for delivery, there are no such data centers in the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`Appx243 ¶ 33.
`
`Netflix also gives server hardware to third-party internet service providers
`
`(“ISPs”), independent businesses providing internet access who may install and use
`
`that hardware to deliver Netflix content to the ISPs’ customers. Netflix irrevocably
`
`transfers ownership, title, and control of that server hardware—referred to as Open
`
`Connect Appliance (“OCA”) hardware—to the ISPs. See, e.g., Appx246 § 1; see
`
`also Appx245-255. All OCA hardware that Netflix has transferred to ISPs in the
`
`Eastern District of Texas includes the irrevocable transfer of both ownership and
`
`control. Appx243 ¶ 29, Appx246 § 1, Appx245-255.
`
`OCA hardware comes preloaded with Netflix’s software, but Netflix has no
`
`rights of any kind—control, oversight, access, or inspection—with respect to the
`
`ISPs’ employees working with the servers, the hardware itself, or the physical
`
`space in which the ISP chooses to deploy that hardware. Netflix neither has signs
`
`on any of the ISPs’ buildings nor lists those buildings as Netflix locations.
`
`Appx243 ¶ 31. And though the ISP must cease using the licensed software after
`
`5
`
`Netflix, Inc. - Ex. 1024, Page 000016
`
`

`

`Case: 22-110 Document: 2-1 Page: 17 Filed: 11/01/2021
`
`expiration of the term specified in its Software License Agreement with Netflix,
`
`the ISP may do whatever it wants with the hardware. See, e.g., Appx246 § 1; see
`
`also Appx192, Appx245-255.
`
`B. One Court Has Already Recognized That a Dispute Between the
`Parties Belongs in the Northern District of California
`On March 13, 2020, Avago and Broadcom Corp. (both Broadcom Inc.
`
`subsidiaries) sued Netflix in the Central District of California on nine patents.
`
`Appx059 (ECF No. 1), Appx064-065. There, as here, the Broadcom plaintiffs
`
`accused Netflix’s streaming technology, Netflix’s container management platform,
`
`and third-party container software of infringing the asserted patents. Appx064-
`
`077.
`
`On July 10, 2020, Judge Selna granted Netflix’s motion to transfer that case,
`
`finding that the Northern District of California was the “center of gravity” of the
`
`dispute, Appx086, and “that the convenience of its witnesses, the parties’ contacts
`
`with the forum, contacts with the forum related to the causes of action, and the
`
`difference in litigation costs favor transfer to the Northern District,” Appx090. In
`
`finding the Northern District of California the “center of gravity” of the dispute, he
`
`also considered that “the allegedly infringing products were designed, developed,
`
`and continue to be managed at the Los Gatos headquarters,” where “‘Netflix makes
`
`its product development and business management decisions’ and staffs its
`
`management, engineering, and product design and development teams,” Appx086
`
`6
`
`Netflix, Inc. - Ex. 1024, Page 000017
`
`

`

`Case: 22-110 Document: 2-1 Page: 18 Filed: 11/01/2021
`
`(citation omitted).
`
`C. The District Court Denied Netflix’s Motion to Dismiss or Transfer
`and Has Sped This Case Towards Trial
`On March 9, 2021, nine months after their prior case had been transferred to
`
`the Northern District of California, Plaintiffs filed this case in the Eastern District
`
`of Texas on five new patents, accusing largely the same Netflix technology that
`
`was at issue in the pending case in the Northern District of California. See
`
`Appx046; compare, e.g., Appx067-068, with Appx098-99. The case was assigned
`
`to Judge Gilstrap, who referred pretrial proceedings to Magistrate Judge Payne for
`
`report and recommendation. See Appx042 (between ECF Nos. 10-11).
`
`On May 17, 2021, Netflix timely filed a motion to dismiss for improper
`
`venue or, in the alternative, for transfer to the Northern District of California.
`
`Appx043 (ECF No. 26). On September 27, 2021, the magistrate judge issued a
`
`report and recommendation recommending that the district court deny Netflix’s
`
`motion to dismiss or transfer.
`
`The magistrate judge concluded that venue was proper in the Eastern
`
`District, finding that the OCAs owned by the ISPs were Netflix’s “places of
`
`business.” Appx009. The district court based this conclusion on Netflix’s
`
`purported “possession and control” over the OCAs after their transfer to the ISPs,
`
`Netflix’s supposed ratification of the OCAs as Netflix’s places of business, and
`
`Netflix’s ostensible control over the ISPs who received the OCAs. Appx009-020.
`
`7
`
`Netflix, Inc. - Ex. 1024, Page 000018
`
`

`

`Case: 22-110 Document: 2-1 Page: 19 Filed: 11/01/2021
`
`The magistrate judge likewise concluded that the Northern District of
`
`California was not a more convenient forum. With respect to private interest
`
`transfer factors, the magistrate judge concluded that access to sources of proof and
`
`the availability of compulsory process weighed slightly against transfer, and found
`
`the cost of attendance for willing witnesses neutral, despite the concentration of
`
`documents, party witnesses, and third-party witnesses in the Northern District of
`
`California. Appx021-032. The report and recommendation determined that court
`
`congestion weighed against transfer based on the Texas forum’s faster case
`
`schedule (much of which happened while Netflix was awaiting a ruling on its
`
`venue motions, despite this Court’s precedent) and speculation about the schedule
`
`that would be set in the California forum if the case were transferred. Appx032.
`
`On October 5, 2021, Netflix filed objections to the report and recommendation.
`
`Appx364-372.
`
`On October 25, 2021, this Court denied Netflix’s prior mandamus petition
`
`seeking a stay of merits proceedings pending a ruling on the venue motion, noting
`
`that the magistrate judge had issued a report and recommendation, and stating its
`
`expectation that the district “court will promptly decide the pending motion to
`
`dismiss or transfer.” Order, In re Netflix, Inc., No. 2021-190, 2021 WL 4944826,
`
`at *2 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 25, 2021) (per curiam); Appx054. On October 25, 2021, the
`
`district court summarily adopted the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation
`
`8
`
`Netflix, Inc. - Ex. 1024, Page 000019
`
`

`

`Case: 22-110 Document: 2-1 Page: 20 Filed: 11/01/2021
`
`in a one-page opinion that contained no analysis. Appx001.
`
`While the initial venue and transfer motions were not resolved until
`
`October 25, the district court set an aggressive schedule despite this Court’s
`
`repeated instruction to resolve venue and transfer issues first. The Markman
`
`hearing is scheduled for November 2, 2021, the close of fact discovery for
`
`November 29, and trial for April 2022. Appx048 (btw. ECF Nos. 107 and 108),
`
`Appx358, Appx360.
`
`V. LEGAL STANDARD
`This Court has adopted a three-pronged test for granting a writ of
`
`mandamus:
`
`(1) the party seeking issuance of the writ must have no other adequate
`means to attain the relief he desires; (2) the petitioner must satisfy the
`burden of showing that his right to issuance of the writ is “clear and
`indisputable”; and (3) the issuing court, in the exercise of its discretion,
`must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.
`Hampton v. Nicholson, 175 F. App’x 334, 335 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (quoting Cheney v.
`
`U.S. Dist. Court for the Dist. of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004)).
`
`VI. REASONS THE WRIT SHOULD ISSUE
`Netflix seeks a writ of mandamus to correct the district court’s clear abuse of
`
`discretion in denying Netflix’s motion seeking dismissal of the case for improper
`
`venue or, alternatively, transfer to the Northern District of California.
`
`A. Netflix’s Right to Dismissal for Improper Venue Is Indisputable
`Venue is proper for patent infringement suits “where the defendant resides,
`
`9
`
`Netflix, Inc. - Ex. 1024, Page 000020
`
`

`

`Case: 22-110 Document: 2-1 Page: 21 Filed: 11/01/2021
`
`or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and
`
`established place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). For a defendant to have a
`
`“regular and established place of business” in a given district, “(1) there must be a
`
`physical place in the district; (2) it must be a regular and established place of
`
`business; and (3) it must be the place of the defendant.” In re Cray Inc., 871 F.3d
`
`1355, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
`
`Netflix is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Los
`
`Gatos, California. Netflix does not own or lease any real estate in the Eastern
`
`District. This Court concluded that venue was improper in Google even though the
`
`district court found that Google leased server rack space in the district. Seven
`
`Networks, LLC v. Google LLC, 315 F. Supp. 3d 933, 949 (E.D. Tex. 2018).
`
`Likewise, Google exerted more control over its Google Global Cache servers
`
`(“GGCs”) and the ISPs who hosted them than Netflix does over the OCAs and
`
`ISPs who own them in this case. Id. at 1340-41. The district court nonetheless
`
`relied on the same venue allegations here that this Court found deficient in Google:
`
`(1) Netflix gives OCAs to ISPs, Appx255; (2) Netflix confirms that the ISPs meet
`
`certain network requirements, Appx094-095 ¶ 15; (3) Netflix performs
`
`maintenance activities, Appx094-095 ¶ 15; and (4) Netflix contracts with the ISPs
`
`to deliver cached content to residents in this district, Appx095 ¶¶ 16-17. The
`
`district court’s conclusions that the ISPs’ OCAs are Netflix’s “places of business”
`
`10
`
`Netflix, Inc. - Ex. 1024, Page 000021
`
`

`

`Case: 22-110 Document: 2-1 Page: 22 Filed: 11/01/2021
`
`and that the ISPs are Netflix’s agents flatly contradict Google. Either error is
`
`independently sufficient to establish that venue is improper.
`
`1.
`
`Third Party Servers Are Not Netflix’s Places of Business
`Under the Venue Statute.
`The district court’s holding that OCAs—computer servers that store and
`
`serve Netflix content—are Netflix’s “regular and established places of business”
`
`cannot be squared with TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC,
`
`137 S. Ct. 1514, 1519 (2017), and Cray, 871 F.3d at 1355.
`
`A Server Is Not a “Place of Business”
`a.
`In TC Heartland, the Supreme Court rejected the view that venue in a patent
`
`infringement action was proper in any district in which the defendant was “doing
`
`business.” 137 S. Ct. at 1519-20. Instead, the plaintiff had to show that the
`
`defendant had a place of business. In Cray, this Court clarified that the “place of
`
`business” must be a “fixed,” “physical, geographical location . . . from which the
`
`business of the defendant is carried out.” 871 F.3d at 1362. The word “place”
`
`refers to “[a] building or a part of a building set apart for any purpose or quarters of
`
`any kind . . . .” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (citation omitted) (first
`
`alteration in original).
`
`A computer server is an object, not a place. Unlike Google, the district court
`
`here did not find that Netflix leases the rack space the OCAs occupy, and Netflix
`
`does not do so. Compare Seven, 315 F. Supp. at 949, with Appx007-013. The
`
`11
`
`Netflix, Inc. - Ex. 1024, Page 000022
`
`

`

`Case: 22-110 Document: 2-1 Page: 23 Filed: 11/01/2021
`
`OCAs, unlike Google’s servers, are owned by the ISPs to which they are
`
`transferred. Compare id. at 1340, with Appx009-013. The ISP has complete
`
`control over where each OCA is placed; it can be placed in a single location, or
`
`moved between several locations. Appx306-307 (no requirements regarding rack
`
`location); Appx308 (ISP has “full control over the networks that the appliances
`
`will serve.”). Google did not hold that objects were places. In finding proper
`
`venue based on something other than a “place” in the district, Appx013, the district
`
`court abused its discretion and the analysis should end there.
`
`b.
`
`In Any Event, the OCA Servers Are Not Netflix’s
`“Place of Business”
`But even if OCAs were “places” under TC Heartland and Cray, they would
`
`not be Netflix’s places, as they are owned and controlled by the ISPs. Here, the
`
`district court concluded otherwise because it determined that Netflix’s reference to
`
`OCAs “in its marketing materials is sufficient to ratify the OCAs as Defendant’s
`
`place of business.” Appx012. But this is the same argument that failed to establish
`
`venue in Google. See Resp. to Pet. for Writ of Mandamus at 6-7, In re Google
`
`LLC, No. 2019-126, ECF No. 20-1 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 10, 2019) (pointing to marketing
`
`materials where Google stated that “our Edge Network is how we connect with
`
`ISPs to get traffic to and from users” and referred to the ISPs hosting GGC servers
`
`as “Google locations”).
`
`The district court also determined that Netflix “has sufficient control over
`
`12
`
`Netflix, Inc. - Ex. 1024, Page 000023
`
`

`

`Case: 22-110 Document: 2-1 Page: 24 Filed: 11/01/2021
`
`the OCAs and ratifies them as its places of business” even though the ISPs own
`
`them. Appx013. For example, the district court relied on Plaintiffs’ contention
`
`that Netflix instructs its ISP partners that they “should not attempt to modify,
`
`upgrade, or repair the appliance.” Appx011. But Netflix exerts less control over
`
`the OCAs than Google did over the GGCs. Google expressly retained ownership
`
`of the GGCs and Google’s contracts with the ISPs went so far as to “forbid the
`
`ISPs to ‘access, use, or dispose of’ the GGC servers without Google’s
`
`permission . . . .” Google, 949 F.3d at 1341. Neither is true here.
`
`Even if it were true that Netflix holds the OCAs out as its places of business
`
`or controls the OCAs—which it does not—that would still be insufficient to
`
`establish proper venue in the Eastern District because Netflix does not conduct its
`
`business there. Id. at 1344-45; Andra, 6 F.4th at 1289 (“[T]he mere fact that a
`
`defendant has advertised that it has a place of business or has even set up an office
`
`is not sufficient; the defendant must actually engage in business from that
`
`location.”) (citation omitted). While the OCAs perform functions that benefit
`
`Netflix, Netflix does not own or control them and does not engage in business from
`
`the OCAs. ISPs use the OCAs they have been given because they improve the

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket