Case 2:16-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 188 Filed 02/27/17 Page 1 of 21 PageID #: 10127
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`MEMORANDUM ORDER
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:16-CV-0134-JRG-RSP
`
`
`
`
`
`GODO KAISHA IP BRIDGE 1
`
`v.
`
`
`BROADCOM LIMITED, ET AL.
`
`Before the Court is Defendants Broadcom Ltd., Broadcom Corp., Avago Technologies
`
`Ltd., Avago Technologies U.S. Inc., and LSI Corporation (“Defendants”)’s Motion to Transfer
`
`Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (Dkt. No. 64), specifically to the Northern District of
`
`California, to which Plaintiff Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 (“GK”) filed a Response in Opposition
`
`(Dkt. No. 97), Defendants filed a Reply (Dkt. No. 101) and GK filed a Sur-Reply (Dkt. No. 104).
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Plaintiff GK is a Japanese company with its principal place of business located in Tokyo.
`
`(Dkt. No. 42 at 2, para. 2). Defendants Broadcom Ltd., Avago Ltd., and Avago U.S. all have
`
`principal places of business in San Jose, California, Defendant LTI has its principal place of
`
`business in Milpitas, California, and Defendant Broadcom Corp. has its principal place of
`
`business in Irvine, California. Id. at 2-3, paras. 3-7.
`
` In its Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 42), GK accuses Defendants of infringing six
`
`patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,538,324 (“the ’324 patent”), 6,197,696 (“the ’696 patent”), RE41,980
`
`(“the ’980 patent”), 7,126,174 (“the ’174 patent”), 8,354,726 (“the ’726 patent”), RE43,729 (“the
`
`’729 patent”) (“the Asserted Patents”).
`
`Five of these patents – the ’324 patent, ’696 patent, the ’980 patent, the ’174 patent, and
`
`the ’726 patent (“the Fabrication Patents”) – are directed to semiconductor structures and
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 188 Filed 02/27/17 Page 2 of 21 PageID #: 10128
`
`manufacturing processes. (Dkt. No. 42 at FAC at 12-30, paras. 42, 52, 62, 72, 82.) The sixth
`
`patent – the ’729 patent (“the Processor Patent”) – is directed to processor instruction sets. Id. at
`
`32-33, para. 92. All of the Asserted Patents were originally assigned to either Panasonic Corp. or
`
`NEC Corp., which are both Japanese companies with headquarters in Japan. (Dkt. No. 64 at 2-3).
`
`GK now owns the Asserted Patents. (Dkt. No. 42 at 2, para. 2).
`
`II.
`
`RELEVANT LAW
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) provides that “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the
`
`interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division
`
`where it might have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (2006). The first inquiry when
`
`analyzing a case’s eligibility for § 1404(a) transfer is “whether the judicial district to which
`
`transfer is sought would have been a district in which the claim could have been filed.” In re
`
`Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201, 203 (5th Cir. 2004) (“Volkswagen I”).
`
`Once that threshold is met, courts analyze both public and private factors relating to the
`
`convenience of parties and witnesses as well as the interests of particular venues in hearing the
`
`case. See Humble Oil & Ref. Co. v. Bell Marine Serv., Inc., 321 F.2d 53, 56 (5th Cir. 1963); In
`
`re Nintendo Co., Ltd., 589 F.3d 1194, 1198 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d
`
`1315, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`
`The private factors are: (1) the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (2) the
`
`availability of compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses; (3) the cost of
`
`attendance for willing witnesses; and (4) all other practical problems that make trial of a case
`
`easy, expeditious, and inexpensive. Volkswagen I, 371 F.3d at 203; Nintendo, 589 F.3d at 1198;
`
`TS Tech, 551 F.3d at 1319. The public factors are: (1) the administrative difficulties flowing
`
`from court congestion; (2) the local interest in having localized interests decided at home; (3) the
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 188 Filed 02/27/17 Page 3 of 21 PageID #: 10129
`
`familiarity of the forum with the law that will govern the case; and (4) the avoidance of
`
`unnecessary problems of conflict of laws or in the application of foreign law. Volkswagen I, 371
`
`F.3d at 203; Nintendo, 589 F.3d at 1198; TS Tech, 551 F.3d at 1319.
`
`The plaintiff’s choice of venue is not a factor in this analysis. In re Volkswagen of Am.,
`
`Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 314-15 (5th Cir. 2008) (“Volkswagen II”). Rather, the plaintiff’s choice of
`
`venue contributes to the defendant’s burden of proving that the transferee venue is “clearly more
`
`convenient” than the transferor venue. Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 315; Nintendo, 589 F.3d at
`
`1200; TS Tech, 551 F.3d at 1319. Furthermore, though the private and public factors apply to
`
`most transfer cases, “they are not necessarily exhaustive or exclusive,” and no single factor is
`
`dispositive. Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 314-15. Timely motions to transfer venue should be
`
`“should [be given] a top priority in the handling of [a case],” and “are to be decided based on
`
`‘the situation which existed when suit was instituted.’” In re Horseshoe Entm’t, 337 F.3d 429,
`
`433 (5th Cir. 2003); In re EMC Corp., Dkt. No. 2013-M142, 2013 WL 324154 (Fed. Cir. Jan.
`
`29, 2013) (quoting Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 443 (1960)).
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`
`A threshold issue in the §1404(a) analysis is “whether the judicial district to which
`
`transfer is sought would have been a district in which the claim could have been filed.”
`
`Volkswagen I, 371 F.3d at 203. In a patent infringement action, venue is proper in “the judicial
`
`district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement
`
`and has a regular and established place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).
`
`Defendants argue that there is no question that this case could have been brought in the
`
`Northern District of California because each of the Defendants is subject to personal jurisdiction
`
`in that venue: specifically, four of the Defendants – Broadcom Ltd., Avago Ltd., Avago U.S.,
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 188 Filed 02/27/17 Page 4 of 21 PageID #: 10130
`
`and LSI – have headquarters in or near San Jose, which is within the Northern District of
`
`California – and Defendant Broadcom Corp. is a California corporation with its headquarters
`
`also in California, specifically Irvine, California, such that a civil action under 28 U.S.C. §
`
`1391(b)(1) can be brought in the Northern District of California, “a judicial district in which any
`
`defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located.”
`
`(Dkt. No. 64 at 5-6).
`
`GK contends that transfer is not warranted here because Defendants “substantially and
`
`inexcusably delayed filing their motion more than six months after this case was filed, a week
`
`after the close of claim construction discovery, and just one week before the deadline for the
`
`substantial completion of document production and submission of opening claim construction
`
`briefs.” (Dkt. No. 97 at 1). However, because this issue involves the timing of motion practice
`
`within the overall schedule of a case, the Court will address the date when Defendants filed their
`
`present Motion to Transfer (Dkt. No. 64) when it reaches analysis of the fourth private factor
`
`(“all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious, and inexpensive.”).
`
`In addition, GK asserts that Defendant’s Motion to Transfer (Dkt. No. 64) must be denied
`
`because Defendants have failed to carry their significant burden of demonstrating that the
`
`Northern District of California is the “clearly more convenient” forum. (Dkt. No. 97 at 1, 4-5).
`
`
`
`As a threshold matter, the Court finds that the suit could have been filed in the Northern
`
`District of California. Thus, the Court will now turn to weighing the private and public interest
`
`factors in order to ascertain if transfer to the Northern District of California is warranted here.
`
`A.
`
`
`
`Private Interest Factors
`
`1.
`
`Relative Ease of Access to Sources of Proof
`
`“In patent infringement cases, the bulk of the relevant evidence usually comes from the
`
`accused infringer. Consequently, the place where the defendant’s documents are kept weighs in
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 188 Filed 02/27/17 Page 5 of 21 PageID #: 10131
`
`favor of transfer to that location.” In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2009)
`
`(citation omitted). This factor is still to be weighed, regardless of whether the documents are in
`
`electronic form and can be easily transported. See Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Starbucks Corp.,
`
`Inc., No. 2:13-cv-936-JRG, 2014 WL 5343168, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 30, 2014) (“Despite
`
`technological advances in transportation of electronic documents, physical accessibility to
`
`sources of proof continues to be weighed as a private interest factor… Indeed, the Federal Circuit
`
`has indicated that access to an alleged infringer's proof is important to venue transfer analyses in
`
`patent infringement cases.”). However, this factor may be accorded less weight if the documents
`
`are in easily-transportable electronic form. See Rembrandt Patent Innovations, LLC v. Apple,
`
`Inc., No. 2:14-cv-0015-JRG, 2014 WL 3835421, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 1, 2014) (“[G]iven the
`
`ease in the modern era of transferring electronic data from one place to another, this factor
`
`weighs only slightly in [The Court]’s decision.”).
`
`Defendants contend that a significant portion of the relevant documents and things
`
`necessary to resolve this case (e.g. relevant documents and evidence regarding the structure,
`
`operation, function, marketing and sales – including financials – of the accused products) are
`
`located in the Northern District of California, where four of the Defendants maintain their
`
`corporate headquarters. (Dkt. No. 64 at 10). Defendants also argue that the Northern District of
`
`California provides easier access to such documents and evidence for Defendant Broadcom
`
`Corp., which is located in Irvine, California. Id.
`
`Defendants state that they do not manufacture any of the accused devices, but rather
`
`purchase them from third-party “foundries” which manufacture them outside the U.S. and which
`
`include GlobalFoundries Inc., Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company Ltd. (“TSMC”),
`
`Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corp. (“SMIC”) and United Microelectronics
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 188 Filed 02/27/17 Page 6 of 21 PageID #: 10132
`
`Company (“UMC”). (Dkt. No. 64 at 3). Thus, “significant” third-party evidence exists in the
`
`Northern District of California, because files and documents in the possession of the U.S.
`
`foundry GlobalFoundries are present or accessible at its corporate headquarters in Santa Clara
`
`and other relevant documents and information exist in at least eight other foundries in the
`
`Northern District of California, which GK seeks to obtain via subpoenas. Id. at 10. Defendants
`
`also note that in their invalidity contentions served on GK, a number of prior art publications and
`
`prior art devices are identified as belonging to Intel Corp. (“Intel”) and Sun Microsystems
`
`(“Sun”). Id. at 4. As a result, the Northern District of California is where evidence pertaining to
`
`certain prior art is kept, because that is the district where the headquarters of Intel and Oracle
`
`Corporation (“Oracle”), the successor to Sun, are located. Id. at 10. Defendants further indicate
`
`that of the seven companies that GK has engaged in licensing negotiations, five of them – AMD,
`
`Intel, Marvell, Nvidia, and OmniVision – are headquartered in the Northern District of
`
`California. Id. at 10-11. Therefore, Defendants aver that “significant” evidence relating to GK’s
`
`efforts to license the Asserted Patents is more readily accessible in the Northern District of
`
`California. Id. at 10. Defendants finally mention that GK, a foreign company, is unlikely to have
`
`any relevant evidence located in this District and none of the Defendants have any facilities or
`
`employees in this District. Id. at 11.
`
`
`
`In response, GK asserts that Defendants cannot dispute that the large majority of proof
`
`will be established through documents produced in electronic form, thereby obviating arguments
`
`that there is a burden on document transportation. (Dkt. No. 97 at 8). GK also points to Brad
`
`Mitchell, Defendants’ Rule 30(b)(6) witness, who testified that he was not aware of any
`
`difficulties Defendants’ experienced by collecting and producing documents in this District. Id.
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 188 Filed 02/27/17 Page 7 of 21 PageID #: 10133
`
`at 8-9. GK further notes that Defendants, either directly or through their subsidiaries, have filed
`
`nine patent infringement suits in this District, thereby showing that they would not be
`
`inconvenienced by litigation here. Id. at 9.
`
`GK also identifies substantial sources of proof within, immediately adjacent to, or
`
`otherwise closer to this District than to the Northern District of California, which include: (i)
`
`Defendants’ 30(b)(6) designee testified that the Broadcom employee who interfaces most with
`
`engineers from ARM (which provides accused technology) is located in Boston, Massachusetts –
`
`closer to Texas than California; (ii) ARM, a relevant third party identified by Defendants,
`
`produced its source code in Washington, D.C., which is closer to Marshall, Texas than
`
`California; (iii) authorized distributors of the accused products exist in Texas who may have
`
`relevant sales and marketing information, such as Avnet Electronic Marketing, a Broadcom
`
`national distributor with locations in Richardson, Sugarland, and Austin, Texas; (iv) GK has
`
`subpoenaed several third parties with offices in or near this District, including GlobalFoundries
`
`(Richardson and Austin, TX), ARM Ltd. (Plana and Austin, TX), and TSMC Americas (Austin,
`
`TX); and (v) Defendants sell the accused products to many third-party customers – including HP
`
`and Dell – located in or near this District, have offices (with at least 168 employees) in this
`
`District and an international sales force.1
`
`
`1 E.g. “Cisco (facilities and offices in Irving, Richardson, Houston, San Antonio, and Lubbock, TX), Arris
`(facilities and offices in Austin and Houston, TX), Alcatel-Lucent (regional headquarters in Plano,
`TX),16 Huawei (North America headquarters in Plano, TX and facilities in Richardson, TX),17 Dell
`(headquarters in Round Rock, TX),18 Verizon (facilities and offices in Dallas, Irving, Richardson, and
`Westlake, TX),19 Apple (second-largest office complex in Austin, Texas),20 Enseo (headquarters in
`Richardson, TX),21 and EMC Corp. (facilities and offices in Austin, Coppell, Dallas, Houston,
`Richardson, and San Antonio, TX). Id. at 10. “Furthermore, as of the filing of the motion, Defendants had
`four offices in Texas, with at least 168 employees, many of whom likely have relevant evidence. Indeed,
`two large customers—HP and Dell—are serviced primarily out of Texas. Defendants have not proven that
`for each accused product there is only duplicative documentation in those locations. In addition,
`Defendants’ corporate designee testified that Defendants maintain a sales force, another significant source
`of proof, throughout the United States and the world.” Id. at 10-11.
`
`- 7 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 188 Filed 02/27/17 Page 8 of 21 PageID #: 10134
`
`On balance, the Court finds that this factor favors transfer, but only slightly. Although
`
`courts look to the location of the accused infringer’s documents, and the bulk of Defendants’
`
`documents relevant to this case appear to be in the Northern District of California, there is no
`
`dispute that nearly all of these documents are in electronic form. The same would apply to any of
`
`GK’s documents, albeit located in Texas or in the Northern District of California. Accordingly,
`
`the burden of accessing, collecting, producing or transporting documents is minimal for both
`
`parties, regardless of where those documents are from.
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Availability of Compulsory Process to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses
`
`‘This factor will weigh heavily in favor of transfer when more third-party witnesses
`
`reside within the transferee venue than reside in the transferor venue.” In re Apple, Inc., 581 Fed.
`
`Appx. 886, 889 (Fed. Cir. 2014), citing Genentech, 566 F.3d at 1345.
`
`Defendants assert that there are no less than nine relevant non-party corporate entities
`
`from which the Northern District of California may compel testimony at trial: GlobalFoundries,
`
`Intel, Oracle Corp., Seagate, Cypress Semiconductor, AMD, Marvell, Nvidia, and OmniVision –
`
`each of which is located 25 miles from the courthouse in San Jose. (Dkt. No. 64 at 11).
`
`Defendants additionally point out that GlobalFoundries, which is headquartered in Santa Clara,
`
`California, is also the only U.S. foundry at issue in this case, and, as GK’s own disclosures
`
`recognize, is the best source of information about the details relating to its accused
`
`manufacturing processes. Id. at 11-12. Seagate and Cypress Semiconductor – also located in the
`
`Northern District of California – now own the businesses relating to two of the six products
`
`charted by GK in its Infringement Contentions. Id. at 12. Furthermore, nearly all of the targets of
`
`GK’s licensing efforts – Intel, AMD, Marvell, Nvidia, and Omnivision – are subject to
`
`compulsory process in the Northern District of California. Id. Defendants further allege that the
`
`ability to compel testimony from Intel is particularly significant here because it is also the
`
`- 8 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 188 Filed 02/27/17 Page 9 of 21 PageID #: 10135
`
`developer of several key pieces of prior art (e.g., the Yonah, Prescott, Klamath, and Pentium
`
`processors) which Defendants intend to rely on to prove that at least three of the Asserted Patents
`
`are invalid. Id. Similarly, Oracle, the successor to Sun – which developed the processors that
`
`Defendants intend to rely upon to prove the invalidity of the ’729 patent – is also located in the
`
`Northern District of California. Id. Defendants also identify four non-party witnesses who “are
`
`believed to possess factual knowledge of the existence, structure and operation of [Oracle or
`
`Sun]’s invalidating prior art systems” and are all based in the Northern District of California:
`
`Leslie Kohn, Carole Dulong, Millind Mittal and Michael Kagan. Id. Defendants lastly note that
`
`in contrast to the Northern District of California, there are no known non-party witnesses subject
`
`to the subpoena power of this District or this Court. Id.
`
`In response, GK states that while Defendants contend that there are nine non-party
`
`entities over which the District of Northern California has the power to compel trial testimony,
`
`they fail to demonstrate that even one has relevant evidence. (Dkt. No. 97 at 11). For example,
`
`GK notes that four of the five entities that Defendants mention were “targets” of GK’s licensing
`
`efforts – AMD, Marvell, Nvidia and OmniVision – did not end up deciding to enter into licenses
`
`with GK after negotiations, and such discussions – years after the hypothetical negotiation date
`
`here – have no bearing on damages issues. Id. GK also asserts that Cypress Semiconductor also
`
`has no relevant information that is non-duplicative of what Defendants already have, that Intel
`
`and Oracle allegedly have information about prior art, but despite having months to take
`
`discovery, Defendants have not shown that those entities in fact have any relevant, discoverable
`
`information in the Northern District of California, and that Defendants have not demonstrated
`
`that GlobalFoundries, which manufactures certain accused products abroad, has any relevant
`
`evidence kept at its entity in the Northern District of California. Id. Finally, GK argues that
`
`- 9 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 188 Filed 02/27/17 Page 10 of 21 PageID #:
` 10136
`
`Defendants’ reliance on their four self-identified prior art non-party witnesses should also be
`
`given little weight because these individuals were added in Defendants’ Supplemental Initial
`
`Disclosures, which was served concurrently with the present Motion to Transfer (Dkt. No. 64),
`
`“solely in a transparent attempt to bolster the connection to the transferee court.” Id. at 11-12.
`
`GK further mentions that there are several third parties outside the subpoena power of
`
`courts in both Districts: in particular, all of the foundries (TSMC, SMIC, UMC, and
`
`GlobalFoundries) that manufacture the accused products do so outside the U.S., and all but
`
`GlobalFoundries are headquartered in Asia, and third-party ARM, which provides relevant
`
`technology, is headquartered in the United Kingdom (“UK”). Id. at 12.
`
`On balance, the Court finds that this factor also leans but slightly in favor of transfer.
`
`Both Defendants and GK have potential party and non-party witnesses who are beyond the
`
`subpoena power of either this District or the Northern District of California. Considering just the
`
`third party witnesses of both parties – which include three foundries headquartered in Asia and
`
`one company, ARM, headquartered in the UK – it does not appear that either District has
`
`absolute subpoena power over them or is clearly more convenient in this regard.
`
`3.
`
`Cost of Attendance for Willing Witnesses
`
`“The convenience of the witnesses is probably the single most important factor in a
`
`transfer analysis.” In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2009). While the Court
`
`must consider the convenience of both the party and non-party witnesses, it is the convenience of
`
`non-party witnesses that is the more important factor and is accorded greater weight in a transfer
`
`of venue analysis. Diamond Grading Techs. v. Am. Gem Soc’y, No. 2:14-cv-1161-JRG-RSP,
`
`2016 WL 1271568 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 31, 2016); Saint Lawrence Comm. LLC v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`
`No. 2:14-cv-1055-JRG, 2015 WL 7854738 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 20, 2014); see also 15 Charles Alan
`
`Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3851 (3d ed. 2012). The
`
`- 10 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 188 Filed 02/27/17 Page 11 of 21 PageID #:
` 10137
`
`inconvenience to witnesses increases with the additional distance to be traveled, including
`
`additional travel time with overnight stays, an increased probability of meal and lodging
`
`expenses, and time away from their regular employment. Portal Technologies LLC v. Yahoo!
`
`Inc., No. 2:11-cv-440-JRG, 2012 WL 3242205, at *4 (quoting Volkswagen I, 371 F.3d at 205).
`
`“A district court should [also] assess the relevance and materiality of the information the witness
`
`may provide.” Genentech, 566 at 1343; see also ThinkTank One Research, LLC v. Energizer
`
`Holdings, Inc., No. M-15-0389, 2015 WL 4116888, at *2 (E.D. Tex. July 7, 2015). However,
`
`even though there is no requirement that the movant identify “key witnesses,” or show “that the
`
`potential witness has more than relevant and material information,” the movant must still provide
`
`enough information to allow the Court to make the required assessment. Genentech at 1343-44.
`
`Defendants argue that in this case, transfer to the Northern District of California would
`
`substantially reduce the cost and burden of attendance at trial for both party and non-party
`
`witnesses. (Dkt. No. 64 at 7).
`
`For party witnesses, Defendants contend that any party witnesses for GK located in Japan
`
`would undoubtedly have lower costs and shorter travel to California, as opposed to having to
`
`travel an additional 1,500 miles to this District. Id. For their own party witnesses, Defendants
`
`indicate that there are 10 individuals who have overall responsibility for market research, sales,
`
`and product planning with respect to the accused semiconductor products, nearly all of which are
`
`based in San Jose, California, and that there are additional individuals knowledgeable about the
`
`technical aspects of the accused products who are primarily located in California, with some of
`
`them located in Colorado and Pennsylvania. Id. Furthermore, out of the nearly 8,300 U.S.
`
`employees of the Defendants, nearly two-thirds of them (over 5,100) are located in California,
`
`with more than a third of them (over 2,800) being in San Jose or offices nearby, whereas
`
`- 11 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 188 Filed 02/27/17 Page 12 of 21 PageID #:
` 10138
`
`Defendants collectively have no employees in this District and as for their 130 employees that do
`
`reside in Texas, these individuals allegedly do not have specific information or documentation
`
`relevant to the current litigation, either because their work is entirely unrelated to the accused
`
`processes and accused ARM Cortex technology (e.g. their work deals with sales and customer
`
`support), or because any knowledge they do have would be redundant of the knowledge of
`
`witnesses located elsewhere, primarily in the Northern District of California. Id. at 7-8.
`
`Defendants further contend that specifically, the Broadcom employees located in its Austin,
`
`Texas facility do not have relevant information because their work is focused on circuit design,
`
`not layout of the accused semiconductor products; the layout of these accused products being
`
`performed by Broadcom employees located in California, not Texas. Id. at 8.
`
` For non-party witnesses, Defendants argue that the Northern District of California
`
`would be more convenient because the accused technology in this case is not that of Defendants,
`
`but rather third party foundries such as GlobalFoundries, TSMC, SMIC and UMC, which – as
`
`GK acknowledges in its Initial Disclosures, have knowledge of the “[i]nformation relating to
`
`manufacture and design of the accused products.” Id. Defendants assert that these foundries are
`
`the only ones who know the specific details of their manufacturing processes for the accused
`
`semiconductor products and because these processes are highly sensitive, proprietary trade
`
`secrets for the foundries, even Defendants (the foundries’ customers) are not provided access to
`
`the specific details of the fabrication processes used to make their devices. Id. Also,
`
`GlobalFoundries (who manufactures two of the three Broadcom products charted in GK’s
`
`Infringement Contentions) is headquartered in Santa Clara, California (located in the Northern
`
`District of California) while TSMC, SMIC and UMC are headquartered in China, but have a
`
`U.S. subsidiary or U.S. office located in or near San Jose, California (also in the Northern
`
`- 12 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 188 Filed 02/27/17 Page 13 of 21 PageID #:
` 10139
`
`District of California) and ARM (the supplier for the accused technology involving the ’729
`
`patent) is headquartered in the UK while the headquarters of its U.S. subsidiary, ARM Inc., is
`
`located in San Jose, California. Id. at 8-9. Defendants finally note that GK’s Initial Disclosures
`
`do not identify a single witness or any evidence that is located in this District, GK is located in
`
`Tokyo, Japan and to the best of Defendants’ knowledge, the named inventors all reside in Japan,
`
`and Defendants are not aware of any relevant witnesses who reside in this District. Id. at 9.
`
`In response, GK argues that because the convenience of party witnesses and U.S.
`
`employees of Defendants located in California is entitled to less weight than the convenience of
`
`identified relevant non-party witnesses, such as third-party foundries and Defendants’ third-party
`
`customers of the accused products that have offices in and near this District, Defendants have not
`
`shown that the Northern District of California is “clearly more convenient” to willing witnesses
`
`than this District. (Dkt. No. 97 at 12-13). GK then points to the existence of various potential
`
`third-party witnesses that are in fact likely to be located in this District, including individuals
`
`from: (1) ARM’s two offices in Texas (Plano and Austin), which have over 300 employees that
`
`perform engineering activities, among others; (2) GlobalFoundries’ Texas facilities (Richardson
`
`and Austin) and TSMC’s Texas facilities (Austin), which have employees whose responsibilities
`
`include integrated-circuit engineering; and (3) Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. (“Huawei”)’s
`
`headquarters in Plano (in this District), which has employees that sell or manufacture products
`
`that contain the BCM4334 accused component. Id. at 13. Moreover, at least 17 named inventors
`
`of prior art cited or produced by Defendants who are likely knowledgeable about alleged prior
`
`art and the differences between it and the claimed inventions currently reside in or near this
`
`District (who would be more inconvenienced traveling to the Northern District of California than
`
`this District), and of the “five potential witnesses in connection with this litigation” LSI
`
`- 13 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 188 Filed 02/27/17 Page 14 of 21 PageID #:
` 10140
`
`employee Dan Fisher cites in his Declaration, two are located in Colorado (Colorado Springs and
`
`Fort Collins), and one is located in Pennsylvania (Allentown), all of which are closer to this
`
`District than the Northern District of California. Id. at 13-14; see also Id. at 13, n. 23.
`
`On balance, the Court finds that this factor is neutral as to transfer. Considering the
`
`potential non-party witnesses of both parties, which should be given more weight in the analysis,
`
`it appears that the inconvenience incurred by Defendants’ potential non-party witnesses
`
`(individuals from any of the foundries – TSMC, SMC and UMC – based in China or San
`
`Jose/Milpitas, from GlobalFoundries based in Santa Clara, and from Arm in the UK or San Jose)
`
`in traveling from their respective locations to this District is more or less counterbalanced by the
`
`inconvenience incurred by GK’s potential non-party witnesses (individuals who work in the
`
`Texas offices of ARM, GlobalFoundries, TSMC and Huawei, prior art inventors that live in or
`
`near this District and potential third party witnesses located in Colorado and Pennsylvania) in
`
`traveling from their respective locations to the Northern District of California. The calculus does
`
`not differ by much if the party witnesses from both sides are added to the equation. Therefore,
`
`the Court finds that this factor is neutral as to transfer.
`
`
`
`4.
`
`All Other Practical Problems that Make Trial of a Case Easy, Expeditious,
`and Inexpensive
`
`Defendants argue that there are no practical problems that are so significant as to weigh
`
`against transfer because this case is in its early stages; therefore, there is no expectation of
`
`judicial economy by keeping this suit in this venue. (Dkt. No. 64 at 13).
`
`In response, GK asserts that the purpose of 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) “is to prevent the waste
`
`of time, energy and money and to protect litigants, witnesses and the public against unnecessary
`
`inconvenience and expense.” Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964) (internal
`
`quotations and citation omitted). Therefore, GK argues that during Defendants’ long delay in
`
`- 14 -
`
`

`

`Case 2:16-cv-00134-JRG-RSP Document 188 Filed 02/27/17 Page 15 of 21 PageID #:
` 10141
`
`filing their motion (which will be discussed next), the Court became familiar with the issues
`
`relating to this case and significant delay as well as waste of judicial resources would further
`
`result from the redundancy of the transferee Court having to learn about the technology, parties,
`
`contentions, discovery disputes and Court orders to date, not to mention the transferee Court
`
`having to set a new date for trial. (Dkt. No. 97 at 14). GK also avers that patent trials in this
`
`District are likely to be shorter and less burdensome than in the Northern District of California,
`
`which also counsels against transfer. Id.
`
`However, GK’s main argument with respect to judicial efficiency is Defendant’s delay in
`
`filing the present Motion to Transfer (Dkt. No. 64), specifically, filing it on August 19, 2016,
`
`which is more than six months after this case was filed (February 14, 2016), a week after the
`
`close of claim construction discovery (August 12, 2016), and just one week before the deadline
`
`for the substantial completion of document production and submission of opening claim
`
`construction briefs (August 26, 2016). (Dkt. No. 97 at 1);