Case 6:16-cv-01035-RWS-JDL Document 42 Filed 02/28/17 Page 1 of 19 PageID #: 1110
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`
`REALTIME DATA, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FUJITSU AMERICA, INC. and
`QUANTUM CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` §
` §
` §
` §
` §
` §
` §
` §
` §
` §
` §
` §
` §
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:16-CV-01035
`RWS-JDL
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`
`Before the Court is Defendant Quantum Corporation (“Quantum”) and Fujitsu America,
`
`Inc.’s (“FAI”) Motion to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404. (Doc. No. 33.) Plaintiff
`
`Realtime Data LLC (“Realtime”) has filed an Opposition (Doc. No. 39), Defendants have filed a
`
`Reply (Doc. No. 40), and Realtime has filed a Sur-Reply (Doc. No. 41).
`
`After consideration of the parties’ arguments and for the reasons stated herein, the Court
`
`GRANTS Defendants’ Motion to Transfer Venue. (Doc. No. 33.)
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`On July 21, 2016, Realtime sued Defendants for patent infringement. (Doc. No. 1.)
`
`Earlier that year, in February and June of 2016, Realtime filed four other cases also alleging
`
`infringement of a number of overlapping patents. See Realtime Data LLC v. Hewlett Packard
`
`Enterprise Co., No. 6:16-cv-86 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2016); Realtime Data LLC v. Savvis
`
`Comm’ns Corp., No. 6:16-cv-87 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2016); Realtime Data LLC v. Dell, Inc., No.
`
`6:16-cv-00089 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 26, 2016); Realtime Data LLC v. Rackspace US, Inc., No. 6:16-
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:16-cv-01035-RWS-JDL Document 42 Filed 02/28/17 Page 2 of 19 PageID #: 1111
`
`cv-00961 (E.D. Tex. Jun. 29, 2016). Each of these matters was also assigned to Judge Schroeder
`
`and referred to the undersigned.
`
`In its Complaint, Realtime alleges that Defendants have entered into a “commercial
`
`partnership” where Quantum supplies its DXi deduplication software technology to FAI for
`
`incorporation into FAI’s products, including FAI’s ETERNUS CS800 product. (Id. at ¶ 4.) In
`
`its Answer to the Complaint, FAI denies that it has a commercial partnership with Quantum, but
`
`admits that its ETERNUS CS800 product uses Quantum’s DXi deduplication software. (Doc.
`
`No. 24, ¶4.) In Quantum’s Answer, Quantum admits “that it has licensed one or more versions
`
`of Quantum DXi software to [FAI]” and denies Realtime’s remaining allegations. (Doc. No. 28,
`
`¶4.)
`
`Realtime is a New York limited liability company with its principal place of business
`
`located at 116 Croton Lake Road, Katonah, New York 10536. (Doc. No. 1, ¶ 1.) Realtime also
`
`maintains offices in Tyler, Texas and Plano, Texas, where Realtime purports to keep
`
`substantially all of its documents relevant to this case. (Id.; Doc. No.39-2 (“Tashjian Decl.”), ¶
`
`5.) Realtime asserts that one of its relevant witnesses is located in this District and four are
`
`located in the state of New York. (Tashjian Decl., ¶¶7, 9.)
`
`Quantum is a Delaware Corporation with its principal place of business located in San
`
`Jose, California. (Doc. No. 1, ¶3; Doc. No. 28, ¶3.) Quantum asserts that “[s]ubstantial portions
`
`of the technology accused of infringement in this case were developed in San Jose.” (Doc. No.
`
`34, (“Mintz Decl.”), ¶2.) Specifically, Quantum asserts that the “research, design and
`
`development activities for the accused products in this litigation are split between San Jose,
`
`California; Irvine, California; and Adelaide, Australia.” (Id. at 4.) Quantum also asserts that its
`
`marketing and sales activities are “primarily directed” from San Jose, California. (Id.) Quantum
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:16-cv-01035-RWS-JDL Document 42 Filed 02/28/17 Page 3 of 19 PageID #: 1112
`
`asserts that it has five potential witnesses located in San Jose, three in Irvine, and two in
`
`Australia. (Id. at ¶¶5-8.) It also asserts that it has three former employees with relevant
`
`knowledge who work for competitors in the Bay Area. (Id. at ¶¶5, 10.) Quantum states that
`
`source code production for this litigation will likely need to be facilitated by one of its engineers
`
`located in Irvine, California. (Id. at ¶9.)
`
`FAI is a California Corporation with its principal place of business located in Sunnyvale,
`
`California. (Doc. No. 24, ¶2.) FAI asserts that the majority of the design, manufacturing, and
`
`testing of FAI’s accused products occurs outside of the United States, but FAI maintains an
`
`engineering department in Sunnyvale, California to address customer requests and “because the
`
`United States is an important market.” (Doc. No. 33-15 (“Owens Decl.”), ¶3.) FAI further
`
`asserts that the finance and marketing of the ETERNUS products are directed from Sunnyvale,
`
`California and that documents related to those efforts are maintained in Sunnyvale. (Doc. No.
`
`33-16 (“Lam Decl.”), ¶¶3, 6; Doc. No. 33-14 (“Kalra Decl.”), ¶5, 6.) FAI does not specifically
`
`identify any witnesses with relevant information. However, two of its four declarants, each of
`
`whom is located in Sunnyvale, California, state that to the extent their knowledge of the
`
`ETERNUS products is relevant, they would be willing to testify. (Kalra Decl., ¶8; Owens Decl.,
`
`¶8.)
`
`In their Motion, Defendants state that FAI’s accused ETERNUS products that are sold in
`
`the U.S. either do not include deduplication technology or use Quantum’s deduplication
`
`technology. (Doc. No. 33, at 2; see also Doc. No. 35-1 (“Valiante Decl.”), ¶7; Owens Decl., ¶7.)
`
`Defendants also note that the “substantive infringement allegations in the Complaint are directed
`
`to Quantum’s data deduplication functionality.” (Doc. No. 33, at 2 (citing Doc. No. 1, ¶¶11-55).)
`
`Thus, according to Defendants, “this case is really about Quantum’s data deduplication
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:16-cv-01035-RWS-JDL Document 42 Filed 02/28/17 Page 4 of 19 PageID #: 1113
`
`technology and the location of Quantum’s documents and witnesses should be given more
`
`weight in the transfer analysis than FAI’s.” (Id. at 2.)
`
`
`
`
`
`II.
`
`APPLICABLE LAW
`
`Section 1404(a) provides that “[f]or the convenience of the 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). The goals of § 1404(a) are to prevent
`
`waste of time, energy, and money, and also to protect litigants, witnesses, and the public against
`
`unnecessary inconvenience and expense. Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964).
`
`Ultimately it is within a district court’s sound discretion to transfer venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1404(a), but the court must exercise its discretion in light of the particular circumstances of the
`
`case. Hanby v. Shell Oil Co., 144 F. Supp. 2d 673, 676 (E.D. Tex. 2001); Mohamed v. Mazda
`
`Corp., 90 F. Supp. 2d 757, 768 (E.D. Tex. 2000). The party seeking transfer must show good
`
`cause for the transfer. In re Volkswagen of America, Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 315 (5th Cir. 2008) (en
`
`banc) (“Volkswagen II”). To show good cause, the moving party must demonstrate the
`
`transferee venue is clearly more convenient. Id.
`
`
`
`When deciding whether to transfer venue, a district court balances the private interests of
`
`the parties and the public interests in the fair and efficient administration of justice. The private
`
`interest factors the court considers are: (1) the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (2) the
`
`availability of compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses; (3) the cost of
`
`attendance for willing witnesses; and (4) all other practical problems that make trial of a case
`
`easy, expeditious, and inexpensive. In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201, 203 (5th Cir. 2004)
`
`(“Volkswagen I”). The public interest factors are: (1) the administrative difficulties flowing from
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:16-cv-01035-RWS-JDL Document 42 Filed 02/28/17 Page 5 of 19 PageID #: 1114
`
`court congestion; (2) the local interest in having localized interests decided at home; (3) the
`
`familiarity of the forum with the law that will govern the case; and (4) the avoidance of
`
`unnecessary problems of conflict laws or in the application of foreign law. Id.
`
`III. DISCUSSION
`
`
`
`Realtime does not dispute that venue would be proper in the Northern District of
`
`California. The Court thus proceeds to analyze the private and public interest factors under
`
`§1404(a).
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`Private Interest Factors
`
`
`
`1.
`
`The relative ease of access to sources of proof
`
`As Defendants note, this factor remains a part of the transfer analysis despite
`
`technological advances that have lightened the inconvenience of transporting large amounts of
`
`documents. Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 316. Courts analyze this factor in light of the distance
`
`evidence must be transported from its existing location to the trial venue. See id. The accused
`
`patent infringer is presumed to have the greater volume of documents relevant to the litigation
`
`such that more weight is placed on the location of the accused infringer’s documents. See, e.g.,
`
`in re Nintendo Co., Ltd., 589 F.3d 1194, 1199 (Fed. Cir. 2009); In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d
`
`1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 314-15. Documents that have been
`
`moved to a particular venue in anticipation of litigation are not considered in this analysis. In re
`
`Hoffman-La Roche Inc., 587 F.3d 1333, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`
`To meet its burden under this factor, Defendants must identify their sources of proof with
`
`some specificity such that the Court may determine whether transfer to a particular district will
`
`increase the convenience of the parties. J2 Global Comm’ns, Inc. v. Proctus IP Solutions, Inc.,
`
`No. 6:08-cv-211, 2009 WL 440525, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 20, 2009); see also Invitrogen v. Gen.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:16-cv-01035-RWS-JDL Document 42 Filed 02/28/17 Page 6 of 19 PageID #: 1115
`
`Elec. Co., No. 6:08-cv-113, 2009 WL 331889, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 9, 2009) (finding that
`
`general statements that relevant documents were located in either England or New Jersey “fail to
`
`show that transfer would make access to sources of proof either more or less convenient for the
`
`parties.”)
`
`Realtime does not dispute Defendants’ contention that Quantum’s deduplication
`
`technology is the main focus of Realtime’s case, and thus Quantum’s documents and witnesses
`
`should be given more weight. (See Doc. No. 33, at 2.) In its declaration, Quantum states that the
`
`research, design, and development of the accused products are split between San Jose,
`
`California; Irvine, California; and Adelaide, Australia and relevant documents “concerning these
`
`aspects of the accused products will largely be found in these respective offices.” (Mintz Decl.,
`
`¶4.) Quantum further states that its marketing and sales activities are directed from San Jose,
`
`California and thus relevant documents will “largely be found” in that office. (Id.) Quantum
`
`states that “[i]f the production of source code becomes necessary in this action, it is likely that
`
`one of the engineers who work in Irvine, California will be needed to assist with the process of
`
`selecting the source code and making it available for production in a secure, reviewable format.”
`
`(Id. at ¶9.) Quantum states that it would be more convenient to have a source code inspection
`
`take place in San Jose than in this District because its Irvine employee “would be able to conduct
`
`business in the San Jose office in conjunction with the litigation-related trip.” (Id.)
`
`FAI has submitted four declarations in support of Defendants’ Motion. Mr. Kalra, FAI’s
`
`Vice President of Finance and Corporate Controller, states that the financial system of record for
`
`the accused products is located in Sunnyvale, California. (Kalra Decl., ¶6.) In addition, Mr.
`
`Kalra states that his team “maintains some hard copy documents, also located in Sunnyvale,
`
`California.” (Id.) Mr. Owens, FAI’s Senior Director of Engineering for Enterprise Products and
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:16-cv-01035-RWS-JDL Document 42 Filed 02/28/17 Page 7 of 19 PageID #: 1116
`
`Solutions, states that the design, manufacturing and testing of the ETERNUS products is
`
`performed outside the United States. (Owens Decl., ¶3.) Mr. Owens states that FAI’s
`
`engineering department in the United States “maintains some electronic and hard copy
`
`documents relating to the ETERNUS line of storage systems. These documents are located in
`
`Sunnyvale.” (Id. at ¶6.) Mr. Lam, Vice President of Enterprise Business and Strategy for Fujitsu
`
`Technology and Business of America, states that information relating to FAI’s U.S. marketing
`
`“is contained in computer databases that reside in our multi-building campus in Sunnyvale.”
`
`(Lam Decl., ¶6.) Mr. Lam states that his team also maintains hard copy documents relating to
`
`marketing of the accused products in Sunnyvale. (Id.) Mr. Lam notes that he also oversees field
`
`System Engineers, two of whom are based in Texas, but “[e]xcept for the personal records that
`
`might be maintained by the two field System Engineers based in Texas,” marketing documents
`
`relating to the field teams’ work are “maintained” in Sunnyvale. (Id. at ¶¶7-8.) Mr. Valiante,
`
`FAI’s Vice President of Sales and Channels, likewise states that “much of FAI’s information
`
`relating to U.S. sales is contained in computer databases which reside in our multi-building
`
`campus in Sunnyvale.” (Valiante Decl., ¶6.) Mr. Valiante states that FAI also maintains hard
`
`copy documents relating to sales in Sunnyvale. (Id.) Mr. Valiante oversees two sales persons
`
`located in this District but states that “[e]xcept for the personal records that might be maintained
`
`by the two sales persons based in the Eastern District of Texas, [sales] documents are not located
`
`in the Eastern District of Texas.” (Id.)
`
`Realtime emphasizes that all of its relevant documents are housed in this district.
`
`(Tashjian Decl., ¶5.) Realtime argues that Defendants’ electronic documents minimize any
`
`inconvenience on the parties to transport documents to this District. (Doc. No. 39, at 6.)
`
`Realtime also argues that FAI has not clearly identified its documents and also “clearly has at
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:16-cv-01035-RWS-JDL Document 42 Filed 02/28/17 Page 8 of 19 PageID #: 1117
`
`least some relevant documents in Texas.” (Id. at 7.) Realtime argues that many of Quantum’s
`
`sources of proof are located outside of the Northern District of California in either Irvine or
`
`Australia. (Id.) Realtime further notes that “there is no requirement that source code production
`
`must occur physically in the district where this case is pending” and is thus irrelevant to the
`
`analysis. (Id. at 7-8.)
`
`Although Realtime’s relevant documents and evidence are housed in this district, the
`
`location of Realtime’s documents and witnesses is afforded less weight than the location of
`
`Defendants’ documents and witnesses. See Genentech, 566 F.3d at 1345 (“[T]he bulk of the
`
`relevant evidence usually comes from the accused infringer.”) On the other hand, Quantum has
`
`indicated that many of its relevant categories of documents are housed in San Jose or Irvine,
`
`California. Likewise, FAI has indicated that to the extent it has documents located in the United
`
`States, almost all of its relevant documents are located in Sunnyvale. The fact that some of
`
`Defendants’ sources of proof are located in Australia or elsewhere overseas does not weigh
`
`heavily in the Court’s analysis because that evidence will need to be transported regardless of
`
`whether the case is transferred or remains in this district. Id. at 1346. Meanwhile, the burden of
`
`transporting documents from Quantum’s Irvine office would be significantly lighter than would
`
`be if the case were to proceed in this district. This factor weighs in favor of transfer.
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`The availability of compulsory process
`
`This factor will weigh more heavily in favor of transfer when more third-party witnesses
`
`reside within the transferee venue. See Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 316. The Court gives more
`
`weight to specifically-identified witnesses and affords less weight to vague assertions that
`
`witnesses are likely located in a particular forum. See Novelpoint Learning v. Leapfrog Enter.,
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:16-cv-01035-RWS-JDL Document 42 Filed 02/28/17 Page 9 of 19 PageID #: 1118
`
`No. 6:10-cv-229, 2010 WL 5068146, at *6 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 6, 2010); West Coast Trends, Inc. v.
`
`Ogio Int’l, Inc., No. 6:10-cv-688, 2011 WL 5117850, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 27, 2011).
`
`Quantum identifies three former employee witnesses who reside in the Northern District
`
`of California: Mr. Jeffrey Tofano, Quantum’s former Chief Technology Officer; Mr. Brian
`
`DeForest, a former Quantum engineering manager; and Mr. Jim Kahn, a former Quantum
`
`software engineer. (Mintz Decl., ¶¶10-11.) Quantum states that Mr. Tofano led Quantum’s
`
`advanced development team for five years and was responsible for the development of
`
`Quantum’s accused product. (Id. at ¶10.) Meanwhile, Mr. DeForest and Mr. Kahn worked on
`
`the development of the accused product from 2011 through 2014 and “may have information
`
`concerning the accused instrumentalities’ functionality during that time that current employees
`
`may not possess.” (Id. at ¶11.) Quantum notes that each of these individuals is now employed
`
`by a Quantum competitor and thus Quantum believes that they would not “voluntarily appear at
`
`the trial in this matter, especially if trial is held in a remote location.” (Id. at ¶¶10-11.)
`
`Defendants also identify several authors of prior art patents and publications who reside in the
`
`San Francisco Bay Area. (Doc. No. 33, Exs. A-L.) Defendants note that the patents and
`
`publications written by these authors are highly relevant to their claims and defenses. (See Doc.
`
`No. 33, at 6-7.) Neither FAI nor Realtime identify any additional potential third party witnesses.
`
`Realtime argues that “Defendants fail to show that any of these alleged third-party witnesses
`
`have any unique knowledge of relevant facts not already held by party-controlled witnesses.”
`
`(Doc. No. 39, at 8.) Realtime also asserts that Mr. DeForest and Mr. Kahn have duplicative
`
`knowledge. (Id.) Realtime also challenges Quantum’s assertion that these two witnesses would
`
`be hostile, stating that their current employer “is not a competitor with respect to the products
`
`accused in this case.” (Id. at 8-9 (emphasis in original).) Realtime argues that Defendants’
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:16-cv-01035-RWS-JDL Document 42 Filed 02/28/17 Page 10 of 19 PageID #: 1119
`
`alleged prior art witnesses should not be considered in the analysis. (Id.) Realtime also
`
`emphasizes that witnesses can easily appear at trial via videotaped deposition. (Id. at 9.)
`
`Realtime argues that Defendants fail to demonstrate the likelihood of their identified third party
`
`witnesses actually testifying at trial. (Id. at 10.)
`
`Although Quantum does not explicitly say that it plans to call its three proposed third-
`
`party witnesses at trial, it has identified the nature of the information these individuals possess
`
`and explained why they might serve as important witnesses in this matter. Further, Quantum has
`
`indicated that it believes these witnesses may be hostile because they work for Quantum
`
`competitors. Realtime’s argument that two of the witnesses would not be hostile because their
`
`current employer is not a competitor of Quantum specifically with respect to the accused
`
`products draws too thin of a distinction. Realtime has not provided any other argument or
`
`evidence to rebut Quantum’s understanding that these witnesses are hostile This identification
`
`enables the Court to give proper weight to each of these witnesses. The Court is particularly
`
`persuaded that Mr. Tofano, Quantum’s former Chief Technical Officer, may have important
`
`knowledge related to this case given that, according to Quantum’s declarant Ms. Mintz, he “was
`
`responsible for the development of the DXi product.” (Mintz Decl., ¶10.)
`
`With respect to Defendant’s identified prior art inventors, as this court has previously
`
`noted, “inventors of prior art rarely, if ever, actually testify at trial.” PersonalWeb Techs. LLC v.
`
`NEC Corp. of Am., Inc., No. 6:11-cv-655, 2013 WL 9600333, at *8 n. 13 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 21,
`
`2013). Because Defendants have not specifically stated whether they intend to depose some or
`
`all of these witnesses, let alone whether they are expected to be called at trial, the Court does not
`
`weigh them in the convenience analysis.
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:16-cv-01035-RWS-JDL Document 42 Filed 02/28/17 Page 11 of 19 PageID #: 1120
`
`On the other side of the scale, Realtime has not identified any non-party witnesses.
`
`While the Court recognizes Realtime’s suggestion of playing videotaped depositions at trial may
`
`be a viable option under Rule 45, such a suggestion does not address the potential value to be
`
`added by having a witness testify in person at trial. As in previous cases, the Court will not
`
`speculate as to whether the videotaped testimony of any of Defendants’ proposed witnesses
`
`would be sufficient if played at trial in comparison to live testimony.
`
`Given Defendants’
`
`representation—unchallenged by Realtime—that Quantum’s
`
`technology will be the focal point of this action, the Court is not concerned that FAI has not
`
`identified any additional potential third party witnesses on Defendants’ side of the scale.
`
`Weighing Quantum’s three former employees located in the Northern District of California
`
`against Realtime’s zero witnesses within this Court’s subpoena power, this factor weighs in favor
`
`of transfer.
`
`
`
`
`
`3.
`
`The cost of attendance for willing witnesses
`
`This factor gives broad “consideration [to] the parties and witnesses in all claims and
`
`controversies properly joined in a proceeding.” Volkswagen I, 371 F.3d at 204. All potential
`
`material and relevant witnesses must be taken into account. See id.
`
`Quantum identifies five San Jose-based employees, three Irvine-based employees, and
`
`two Australia-based employees as potential witnesses with knowledge relevant to this case.
`
`(Mintz Decl., ¶¶6-8.) Quantum admits that it has a small office in Richardson, Texas, but states
`
`that “its employees do not work on deduplication or the line of products that appears to be
`
`accused in the Complaint in.” (Id. at ¶3.) FAI does not specifically identify any willing
`
`witnesses, although two of its declarants state that to the extent the operation or sales of FAI’s
`
`ETERNUS products are “relevant to this case, I or others . . . might be potential witnesses at
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:16-cv-01035-RWS-JDL Document 42 Filed 02/28/17 Page 12 of 19 PageID #: 1121
`
`trial.” (Kalra Decl., ¶8; Owens Decl., ¶8.) Each of FAI’s declarants note that they are located in
`
`Sunnyvale, much closer to courthouses in the Northern District of California than to the
`
`courthouse in this district. (Id.; see also Lam Decl., ¶9; Valiante Decl., ¶8.) FAI acknowledges
`
`that it has an office in the Dallas area; that two members of the Fujitsu Technology and Business
`
`of America, Inc. field System Engineering team are located in Dallas and Houston, respectively;
`
`and that two sales representatives are located in this District. (Lam Decl., ¶7; Valiente Decl., ¶3,
`
`5.) FAI does not state in its declaration whether or not the two field system engineers or two
`
`sales representatives might have knowledge relevant to this matter. (See generally, Lam Decl.;
`
`Valiente Decl.) FAI does note that it does not believe that “any sales employees in [the Dallas
`
`office] would have any unique information regarding the ETERNUS line of storage systems.”
`
`(Kalra Decl., ¶7.) Further, Defendants assert in their motion that “none of FAI’s witnesses or
`
`documents that are likely to have unique discoverable information are located within the Eastern
`
`District of Texas.” (Doc. No. 33, at 9.)
`
`Realtime argues that since FAI has not provided full information for the four Texas
`
`employees it has identified, “Plaintiff—and this Court—can only assume that they do have
`
`relevant knowledge.” (Doc. No. 39, at 4.) Realtime also asserts that FAI has a second office in
`
`Texas, and asserts that there are “numerous other employees in Texas who appear to have
`
`relevant information regarding the accused products.” (Id.) With respect to Quantum’s
`
`witnesses, Realtime argues that the Australian-based witnesses should not weigh in the transfer
`
`analysis because they will need to travel a significant distance no matter where they testify. (Id.
`
`at 5 (citing Genentech, 566 F.3d 1338, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2009)).) Realtime further argues that
`
`Quantum’s California witnesses appear to have overlapping, duplicative knowledge and that the
`
`“vague, generalized” statements used to describe their potential testimony “are insufficient to
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 6:16-cv-01035-RWS-JDL Document 42 Filed 02/28/17 Page 13 of 19 PageID #: 1122
`
`satisfy the significant burden on Defendant’s transfer motion.” (Id. at 5.) Realtime also argues
`
`that Quantum would not be inconvenienced by litigating in Texas because it has a significant
`
`customer in Richardson, Texas as well as an office there. (Id.) As to its own willing witnesses,
`
`Realtime identifies Deepika Pagala, an electrical engineer employee located in Plano, Texas
`
`(Tashjian Decl., ¶7) and four potential party witnesses in New York. (Id. at ¶¶2, 9.) Realtime
`
`argues that if this case is transferred to the Northern District of California, its New York
`
`witnesses will be required to travel twice as far as they would if trial is held in this District.
`
`(Doc. No. 39, at 6.)
`
`In reply, Defendants argue that the fact Quantum has a significant customer with an
`
`office in Texas is inconsequential to the transfer analysis. (Doc. No. 40, at 1.) Defendants also
`
`deny that FAI has a second office in Texas. (Id. at 2.) Defendants assert that the two FAI
`
`employees in Texas “have no unique knowledge relevant to this case, and . . . have no reason to
`
`be witnesses in this action.” (Id.) Defendants argue that their offices in Texas are the “sort of
`
`regional office that this Court has held do not weigh significantly in the transfer analysis.” (Id.)
`
`Defendants argue that Quantum has sufficiently identified the relevant knowledge possessed by
`
`its proposed witnesses and emphasizes the shorter travel time from Irvine to San Jose than from
`
`Irvine to Tyler. (Id. at 3.) Defendants argue that Realtime does not explain how its employee,
`
`Ms. Pagala, has knowledge necessary to this case. (Id. at 3-4.)
`
`As this Court has stated in previous cases, the fact that Realtime’s New York witnesses
`
`have indicated that proceeding in this District will be more convenient for them is entitled to
`
`little weight. Because Realtime’s named witnesses reside in New York, they “will be required to
`
`travel a significant distance no matter where they testify.” Genentech, 566 F.3d at 1345.
`
`Accordingly, any added inconvenience to Realtime’s witnesses of traveling to California, rather
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 6:16-cv-01035-RWS-JDL Document 42 Filed 02/28/17 Page 14 of 19 PageID #: 1123
`
`than to Texas, should not be overemphasized. With respect to Realtime’s electrical engineer
`
`employee, Ms. Pagala, who resides in this District, Realtime has not responded to Defendants’
`
`challenges regarding whether Ms. Pagala has relevant testimony. Indeed, beyond stating that
`
`Ms. Pagala “assists in the development and licensing of Realtime’s intellectual property
`
`portfolio,” Realtime has not indicated whether Ms. Pagala is expected to offer any relevant
`
`testimony in this case. (Tashjian Decl., ¶7.) The Court does not afford great weight to this
`
`potential Realtime witness, either.
`
`It is troubling that FAI has not identified even a single potential party witness by name.
`
`Likewise, Defendants have not completely rebutted Realtime’s challenge that FAI employees in
`
`Texas may have relevant knowledge. Although Defendants state in their motion that “none of
`
`FAI’s witnesses or documents likely to have unique discoverable information are located” in this
`
`District (Doc. No. 33, at 9), FAI’s declarations are unclear as to who may or may not be involved
`
`in testifying in this matter on behalf of FAI. However, again, Realtime has not challenged
`
`Defendants’ assertion that “this case is really about Quantum’s data deduplication technology
`
`and the location of Quantum’s documents and witnesses should be given more weight in the
`
`transfer analysis than FAI’s.” (Doc. No. 33, at 2.) Given this unrebutted representation that
`
`Quantum’s technology is the focal point of this litigation, the Court places more weight on
`
`Quantum’s witnesses.
`
`Quantum has identified five potential witnesses in San Jose, three in Irvine, and two in
`
`Australia. (Mintz Decl., ¶¶6-8.) While the Court does not factor the Australian witnesses in the
`
`analysis, Genentech, 566 F.3d at 1345, the Court does agree that it will be significantly less
`
`burdensome for Quantum’s Irvine witnesses to travel to San Jose compared to this District. The
`
`Court further finds that Quantum has sufficiently identified the basis for the proposed testimony
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 6:16-cv-01035-RWS-JDL Document 42 Filed 02/28/17 Page 15 of 19 PageID #: 1124
`
`of each of its potential witnesses. Even though some of these witnesses may ultimately have
`
`overlapping knowledge, Quantum has provided enough information to demonstrate at this stage
`
`that each of its named individuals may have relevant testimony in this case. (See Mintz Decl.,
`
`¶¶6-8.)
`
`Realtime has one employee who resides in this District, but it is unclear whether she has
`
`any relevant knowledge related to this litigation. (See Tashjian Decl., ¶7.) Meanwhile, Quantum
`
`has submitted five willing witnesses who work in San Jose, California (Mintz Decl., ¶6) and
`
`would be “unnecessarily inconvenienced by having to travel away from home to testify” in this
`
`district. PersonalWeb Technolgies, LLC v. NEC Corp. of Am., Inc., No. 6:11-CV-655, 2013 WL
`
`9600333, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 21, 2013). In addition, Quantum has identified three individuals
`
`in Irvine, California (Mintz Decl., ¶7) who would be less burdened if this matter were to proceed
`
`in the Northern District of California. This factor weighs in favor of transfer.
`
`
`
`
`
`4.
`
`Other practical problems
`
`Practical problems include those that are rationally based on judicial economy. The
`
`existence of duplicative suits involving the same or similar issues may create practical
`
`difficulties that will effect transfer. In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 566 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2009) (“Volkswagen III”). Further, “the existence of multiple lawsuits involving the same
`
`issues ‘is a paramount consideration when determining whether a transfer is in the interest of
`
`justice.’” In re Vicor Corp., 493 F. App’x 59, 61 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (quoting Volkswagen III, 566
`
`F.3d at 1351). The Court weighs this factor according to the situation that existed at the time the
`
`action was initiated. See Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 343 (1960) (indicating motions to
`
`transfer venue are to be decided based on “the situation which existed when the suit was
`
`instituted.”); In re EMC Corp., 501 F. App'x 973, 975-76 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 29, 2013).
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 6:16-cv-01035-RWS-JDL Document 42 Filed 02/28/17 Page 16 of 19 PageID #: 1125
`
`Defendants argue that this factor does not weigh strongly against transfer for two reasons.
`
`(Doc. No. 33, at 13.) First, Defendants argue that there is at least one patent in this case, U.S.
`
`Patent No. 9,054,728, with claims that have not yet been construed by this Court. (Id.) Second,
`
`Defendants note that there is a Realtime case pending against Apple in the Northern District of
`
`California with an overlapping patent. Defendants assert that “[g]iven the very early stage of the
`
`Apple case, that Court could hold one joint claim construction hearing for both cases.” (Id. at
`
`14.) Realtime notes that there are eight other cases