Case 6:20-cv-00505-ADA Document 65 Filed 07/19/21 Page 1 of 14
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6-20-CV-00505-ADA
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
`
`
`Before the Court is Defendant Apple Inc.’s (“Apple”) Motion to Transfer venue (ECF No.
`
`NEONODE SMARTPHONE LLC,
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
` Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`27) to the Northern District of California (“NDCA”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). After careful
`
`consideration of the parties’ briefs and the applicable law, the Court DENIES Apple’s motion.
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`
`Plaintiff Neonode Smartphones LLC (“Neonode”) filed this lawsuit against Apple on June
`
`8, 2020, alleging infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 8,095,879 and 8,812,993 (the “Asserted
`
`Patents”). ECF No. 1. On the same day, Neonode filed another lawsuit against Samsung
`
`Electronics Co. Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (collectively, “Samsung), asserting
`
`the same two patents. See Neonode Smartphone LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co. Ltd., No. 6-20-cv-
`
`00507-ADA, Dkt. #1 (Jun. 8. 2020). Apple filed the instant Motion to Transfer under 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1404(a), requesting that this case be transferred from the Western District of Texas (“WDTX”)
`
`to the NDCA. ECF No. 27. The Motion has been subsequently fully briefed by the parties. ECF
`
`Nos. 52 (Response) and 59 (Reply).
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00505-ADA Document 65 Filed 07/19/21 Page 2 of 14
`
`Neonode is a Wyoming limited liability company with its principal place of business also
`
`in Wyoming. ECF No. 1 at ¶ 6. Apple is a California corporation headquartered in Cupertino,
`
`California, which is in the NDCA. ECF No. 27 at 3. Apple also has one of its largest corporate
`
`campuses in Austin, Texas, within the WDTX, “with approximately 7,000 employees in the City”
`
`as of November 20, 2019.1 See also ECF No. 1 at ¶ 7.
`
`II. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`In patent cases, motions to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) are governed by the law of
`
`the regional circuit. In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008). 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1404(a) provides that, “[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses, . . . a district court may
`
`transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to
`
`any district or division to which all parties have consented.” Id. “Section 1404(a) is intended to
`
`place discretion in the district court to adjudicate motions for transfer according to an
`
`‘individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.’” Stewart Org., Inc. v.
`
`Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988) (quoting Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 622 (1964)).
`
`The preliminary question under Section 1404(a) is whether a civil action “might have been
`
`brought” in the transfer destination venue.” In re Volkswagen, Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 312 (5th Cir.
`
`2008) (“Volkswagen II”). If the destination venue would have been a proper venue, then “[t]he
`
`determination of ‘convenience’ turns on a number of public and private interest factors, none of
`
`which can be said to be of dispositive weight.” Action Indus., Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 358
`
`F.3d 337, 340 (5th Cir. 2004). The private factors include: “(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
`
`
`1 https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/11/apple-expands-in-austin/
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00505-ADA Document 65 Filed 07/19/21 Page 3 of 14
`
`case easy, expeditious and inexpensive.” In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201, 203 (5th Cir. 2004)
`
`(“Volkswagen I”) (citing Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 241 n.6 (1982)). The public
`
`factors include: “(1) the administrative difficulties flowing from 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 of laws of the
`
`application of foreign law.” Id. Courts evaluate these factors based on the situation which existed
`
`at the time of filing, rather than relying on hindsight knowledge of the defendant’s forum
`
`preference. Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 343 (1960).
`
`The burden to prove that a case should be transferred for convenience falls squarely on the
`
`moving party. In re Vistaprint Ltd., 628 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The burden that a
`
`movant must carry is not that the alternative venue is more convenient, but that it is clearly more
`
`convenient. Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 314 n.10. Although the plaintiff’s choice of forum is not a
`
`separate factor entitled to special weight, respect for the plaintiff’s choice of forum is encompassed
`
`in the movant’s elevated burden to “clearly demonstrate” that the proposed transferee forum is
`
`“clearly more convenient” than the forum in which the case was filed. In re Vistaprint Ltd., 628
`
`F.3d at 314–15. While “clearly more convenient” is not necessarily equivalent to “clear and
`
`convincing,” the moving party “must show materially more than a mere preponderance of
`
`convenience, lest the standard have no real or practical meaning.” Quest NetTech Corp. v. Apple,
`
`Inc., No. 2:19-cv-118, 2019 WL 6344267, at *7 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 27, 2019).
`
`III. ANALYSIS
`
`The threshold determination under the Section 1404 analysis is whether this case could
`
`initially have been brought in the transferee venue—here, the NDCA. Neither party contests that
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00505-ADA Document 65 Filed 07/19/21 Page 4 of 14
`
`venue is proper in the NDCA and that this case could have been brought there. Thus, the Court
`
`proceeds with its analysis of the private and public interest factors as provided in Volkswagen I.
`
`A. Private Interest Factors
`
`i. The Relative Ease of Access to Sources of Proof
`
`“In considering the relative ease of access to proof, a court looks to where documentary
`
`evidence, such as documents and physical evidence, is stored.” Fintiv Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:18-
`
`cv-00372, 2019 WL 4743678, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 10, 2019). “[T]he question is relative ease
`
`of access, not absolute ease of access.” In re Radmax, 720 F.3d 285, 288 (5th Cir. 2013) (emphases
`
`in original). Witnesses are not sources of proof to be analyzed under this factor; rather, analyses
`
`pertaining to witnesses are assessed under the second or third private factors. In re Apple Inc., 979
`
`F.3d 1332, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“This factor relates to the ease of access to non-witness
`
`evidence, such as documents and other physical evidence.”); Netlist, Inc. v. SK hynix Inc. et al,
`
`No. 6:20-cv-00194-ADA, Dkt. #87 at 11 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 2, 2021) (“The first private factor, ease
`
`of access to sources of proof, considers ‘documents and physical evidence’ as opposed to
`
`witnesses.”) (emphasis added).
`
`Although the physical location of electronic documents does affect the outcome of this
`
`factor under current Fifth Circuit precedent (see Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 316), this Court has
`
`stressed that the focus on physical location of electronic documents is out of touch with modern
`
`patent litigation. Fintiv, 2019 WL 4743678, at *8; Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Apple Inc., 6-19-CV-00532-
`
`ADA, 2020 WL 3415880, at *9 (W.D. Tex. June 22, 2020) (“[A]ll (or nearly all) produced
`
`documents exist as electronic documents on a party’s server. Then, with a click of a mouse or a
`
`few keystrokes, the party [can] produce[] these documents” and make them available at almost
`
`any location.). Other courts in the Fifth Circuit similarly found that access to documents that are
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00505-ADA Document 65 Filed 07/19/21 Page 5 of 14
`
`available electronically provides little benefit in determining whether a particular venue is more
`
`convenient than another. See, e.g., Uniloc USA Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Am., No. 2:16-cv-642-JRG,
`
`2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 229560, at *17 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 19, 2017) (“Despite the absence of newer
`
`cases acknowledging that in today’s digital world computer stored documents are readily
`
`moveable to almost anywhere at the click of a mouse, the Court finds it odd to ignore this reality
`
`in favor of a fictional analysis that has more to do with early Xerox machines than modern server
`
`forms.”); see also LBS Innov'ns LLC v. Apple Inc., 2020 WL 923887, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 26,
`
`2020).
`
`Apple contends that the research, design, and development of the accused technology in
`
`the accused products took place in the NDCA and the relevant key documents were generated in
`
`the NDCA. ECF No. 27 at 9-10. Apple does not contend that those documents are electronically
`
`stored and can be accessed outside the NDCA, including in the WDTX. Instead, Apple contends
`
`that its “electronically-stored information is only accessible to employees ‘with the proper
`
`credentials’ on a need-to-know basis.” ECF No. 59 at 1. However, Apple does not show that the
`
`“proper credentials” have not been or cannot be given to Apple employees located in Austin, Texas
`
`for the purpose of this litigation or in general. If anything, cooperating in discovery in a litigation
`
`would be a good “need-to-know” basis to provide the proper credentials to Apple’s employees
`
`located in this District.
`
`Apple further contends that its relevant employees are all based in the NDCA and “likely
`
`witnesses . . . concerning the marking, sales and financial information for the Accused Products”
`
`are located there. ECF No. 27 at 10. However, Courts have made it clear that analyses related to
`
`witnesses are not proper under this factor and should instead be considered in the second and third
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00505-ADA Document 65 Filed 07/19/21 Page 6 of 14
`
`private factors. See, e.g., In re Apple Inc., 979 F.3d at 1339. In view of the above, the Court finds
`
`that this factor is neutral.
`
`ii. The Availability of Compulsory Process to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses
`
`For this factor, the Court considers particularly non-party witnesses whose attendance may
`
`need to be secured by a court order. Fintiv, 2019 WL 4743678, at *5 (citing Volkswagen II, 545
`
`F.3d at 316); Uniloc, 2020 WL 3415880, at *10. This factor “weigh[s] 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 F. App’x. 886, 889 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Under the Federal Rules, a
`
`court may subpoena a witness to attend trial only (a) “within 100 miles of where the person resides,
`
`is employed, or regularly transacts business in person”; or (b) “within the state where the person
`
`resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person, if the person . . . is commanded to
`
`attend a trial and would not incur substantial expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1)(A), (B)(ii);
`
`Gemalto S.A. v. CPI Card Grp. Inc., No. 15-CA-0910, 2015 WL 10818740, at *4 (W.D. Tex. Dec.
`
`16, 2015). As party witnesses almost invariably attend trial willingly, “[w]hen no party has alleged
`
`or shown any witness’s unwillingness, a court should not attach much weight to the compulsory
`
`process factor.” CloudofChange, LLC v. NCR Corp., No. 6-19-cv-00513 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 17,
`
`2020) (citation omitted).
`
`Apple generally contends that “most of the key relevant third parties” are located in NDCA,
`
`including those from Neonode’s parent company Aequitas Technologies, its prosecution counsel
`
`Soquel Group, and Neonode Inc., the original assignee of the Asserted Patents. ECF No. 27 at 10.
`
`Neonode counters that none of the pertinent personnel associated with these entities works or
`
`resides in NDCA—they all reside outside of the United States, with the only exception of Anuj
`
`Arora, Aequitas’ Director of Engineering, who resides in the Central District of California
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00505-ADA Document 65 Filed 07/19/21 Page 7 of 14
`
`(“CDCA”) and is willing to travel to WDTX for this case. ECF No. 52 at 5. Further, the sole
`
`inventor of the Asserted Patents, Magnus Goertz, resides in Sweden and is outside of the subpoena
`
`power of either the NDCA or WDTX. Id. at 6. Apple does not dispute these facts. Instead, Apple
`
`further asserts that GBoard and Swype, the two third-party apps name in Neonode’s Complaint,
`
`are offered by Google Inc. (which is headquartered in the Mountain View, California, in the
`
`NDCA) and Nuance Communications (which is based in Boston, Massachusetts but has offices in
`
`the CDCA and NDCA), respectively, and that “Neonode will be required to subpoena Google and
`
`Nuance.” ECF No. 27 at 6 and 11; No. 59 at 3. First, just as the convenience of a plaintiff’s willing
`
`witnesses should be given little weight, the plaintiff’s choice of seeking evidence from third parties
`
`should also be given little weight. See Netlist, No. 6:20-cv-00194-ADA, Dkt. #87 at 13. When
`
`Neonode chose to file this case in the WDTX, it has already taken into consideration that it would
`
`need to seek evidence from third parties outside of this District, such as Google and Nuance.
`
`Second, Apple identifies no specific Google or Nuance witnesses other than making a
`
`general allegation that “compulsory process over Google and Nuance is available in NDCA, but
`
`not in WDTX.” ECF No. 59 at 3. However, such general allegations are not enough. See, e.g.,
`
`Core Wireless Licensing, S.A.R.L. v. Apple, Inc., No. 6:12-cv-100 LED-JDL, 2013 WL 682849, at
`
`*3 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 22, 2013) (“The Court gives more weight to those specifically identified
`
`witnesses and affords less weight to vague assertions that witnesses are likely located in a
`
`particular forum.”); ADS Sec. L.P. v. Advanced Detection Sec. Servs., Inc., 2010 WL 1170976, at
`
`*3 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 23, 2010) (“A party seeking a transfer of venue must do more than make
`
`general allegations that key witnesses are unavailable or are inconveniently located.”); 15 Wright,
`
`A. Miller & E. Cooper, Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 3851 (3d ed. 2007) (“If the moving party merely has
`
`made a general allegation that necessary witnesses are located in the transferee forum, without
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00505-ADA Document 65 Filed 07/19/21 Page 8 of 14
`
`identifying them and providing sufficient information to permit the district court to determine what
`
`and how important their testimony will be, the application for transferring the case should be
`
`denied.”). Therefore, the Court finds that this factor is also neutral.
`
`iii. The Cost of Attendance for Willing Witnesses
`
`“The convenience of witnesses is the single most important factor in the transfer analysis.”
`
`Fintiv, 2019 WL 4743678, at *6. “Courts properly give more weight to the convenience of non-
`
`party witnesses than to party witnesses.” Netlist, No. 6:20-cv-00194-ADA, Dkt. #87 at 13; see also
`
`Moskowitz Family LLC v. Globus Med., Inc., No. 6:19-cv-00672-ADA, 2020 WL 4577710, at *4
`
`(W.D. Tex. Jul. 2, 2020).
`
`As a preliminary matter, given typical time limits at trial, the Court does not assume that
`
`all of the party and third-party witnesses listed in Section 1404(a) briefing will testify at trial.
`
`Fintiv, 2019 WL 4743678, at *6. Rather, in addition to the party’s experts, the Court assumes that
`
`no more than a few party witnesses—and even fewer third-party witnesses, if any—will testify
`
`live at trial. Id. Therefore, long lists of potential party and third-party witnesses do not affect the
`
`Court’s analysis for this factor. Id.
`
`Apple’s main argument for this factor is that its employee witnesses are located in NDCA
`
`and provides a list of its employees as potential witnesses who might testify at trial. ECF No. 27
`
`at 3-4 and 11-12. In response, Neonode provides a competing list of Apple employees located in
`
`WDTX that might testify at trial for the same aspects of the accused products at a trial. ECF No.
`
`52. As this Court has made clear, “the convenience of party witnesses is given little weight.”
`
`SynKloud Techs., LLC v. Dropbox, Inc., No. 6:19-CV-00526-ADA, 2020 WL 2528545, at *5
`
`(W.D. Tex. May 18, 2020); see also Turner v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2020 WL 210809, at *4 (W.D.
`
`Tex. Jan. 14, 2020) (“[Defendant] cannot cite inconvenience of its employee witnesses as the basis
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00505-ADA Document 65 Filed 07/19/21 Page 9 of 14
`
`for transfer.”). Further, when party witnesses located in this District are equally qualified and
`
`available to testify as witnesses located in a different district, the party cannot say that this District
`
`is inconvenient for its employee witnesses simply because it “choses” to call those witnesses
`
`outside of this District.
`
`As for non-party witnesses, whose convenience should be given relatively more weight
`
`than party witnesses, Apple does not dispute that potential third-party witnesses from Aequitas,
`
`Neonode Inc, and Soquel Group all reside outside of the Unites States, with the sole exception of
`
`Mr. Arora, who resides in the CDCA. See ECF No. 52 at 5-6 and 10. Among those, the sole
`
`inventor of the Asserted Patents, Mr. Goertz, resides in Sweden, and the patent agent who
`
`prosecuted the Asserted Patent, Marc Berger, resides in Israel. Id. Apple contends that NDCA
`
`would be “more or equally convenient” for third-party witnesses since at least flights from
`
`Stockholm to San Francisco are fasters than Stockholm to Waco. ECF No. 27 at 12. The Court is
`
`not persuaded that traveling from Sweden or Israel to San Francisco would be cheaper or more
`
`convenient than to Waco, Texas. Any differences between the travel time and costs to the two
`
`destinations would be insignificant compared to the actual time and effort required for the
`
`international travels. If anything, hotels in Waco are significantly cheaper on average than those
`
`in San Francisco. See Netlist, No. 6:20-cv-00194-ADA, Dkt. #87 at 13 (finding no significant
`
`difference between traveling from South Korea to Santa Ana, California and from South Korea to
`
`Waco, Texas). Accordingly, this Court finds that this factor is also neutral.
`
`iv. All Other Practical Problems That Make Trial of a Case Easy, Expeditious and
`Inexpensive
`
`When considering the private interest factors, courts must consider “all other practical
`
`problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive.” Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at
`
`314. “Particularly, the existence of duplicative suits involving the same or similar issues may
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00505-ADA Document 65 Filed 07/19/21 Page 10 of 14
`
`create practical difficulties that will weigh heavily in favor or against transfer.” PersonalWeb
`
`Techs., LLC v. NEC Corp. of Am., Inc., No. 6:11-cv-655, 2013 WL 9600333, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Mar.
`
`21, 2013). “[W]here there is a co-pending litigation . . . involving the same patent-in-suit, . . .
`
`pertaining to the same underlying technology and accusing similar services, . . . the Federal Circuit
`
`cannot say the trial court clearly abuses its discretion in denying transfer.” In re Vistaprint Ltd.,
`
`628 F.3d 1342, 1346 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
`
`Neonode contends that this factor weighs heavily against transfer because of the co-
`
`pending Samsung case involves the same two asserted patents and very similar accused
`
`technologies. ECF No. 52 at 10-11. Neonode also points out that while Apple has moved to transfer
`
`this case to the NDCA, Samsung has not.2 Apple counters that this case and the Samsung case are
`
`separate cases and “the only issue that can truly be jointly decided is claim construction.” ECF No.
`
`27 at 13 and No. 59 at 3-4. The Court’s disagrees with Apple’s downplay of how much judicial
`
`resources could have been saved if this case and the Samsung cases are decided together in this
`
`Court. First, claim construction is one of the most important issues in a patent infringement case
`
`and can potentially determine the outcome of a case and guide the parties in determining whether
`
`to settle or bring the case to trial. Both the parties and the Court would spend a significant amount
`
`of time and money on the claim construction briefing, hearing, and order. For the claim
`
`construction issue alone, a significant amount of judicial resources can be saved if the two cases
`
`are decided together. Further, if the Apple case is transferred to NDCA and the Samsung case
`
`remains in this Court, the parties would face the risk of inconsistent constructions of the same
`
`claim terms from two district courts, which could unfairly prejudice the parties. Second, since the
`
`
`2 The Court notes that while Samsung has not filed a motion to transfer the Samsung case out of the WDTX, it filed a
`notice on May 4, 2021 in the Samsung case that it does not oppose to Apple’s Motion to Transfer in this case. Neonode
`Smartphone LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co. Ltd., No. 20-cv-00507-ADA at Dkt. #47. The Court does not think the notice
`filed in the Samsung case affects the Section 1404(a) analysis in this case.
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00505-ADA Document 65 Filed 07/19/21 Page 11 of 14
`
`same two patents are asserted, the invalidity issue of the two patents will significantly overlap, if
`
`not identical, in the Apple and Samsung cases. Lastly, as a general practice, this Court customarily
`
`requires parties in related cases to coordinate all aspects of the cases until pre-trial, which would
`
`further save judicial resources and facilitate expeditious resolution of both cases. See ECF No. 52
`
`at 12.
`
`Therefore, the Court finds that this factor strongly weighs against transfer. This is in
`
`accordance with the Supreme Court’s observation that “[t]o permit a situation in which two cases
`
`involving precisely the same issues are simultaneously pending in different District Courts leads
`
`to the wastefulness of time, energy, and money that § 1404(a) was designed to prevent.” Cont’l
`
`Grain Co. v. The FBL-585, 364 U.S. 19, 26 (1960); see also In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 566
`
`F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (“Judicial economy is served by having the same district court
`
`try … cases involving the same patents.”); In re Vistaprint, 628 F.3d at 1346 (noting that “co-
`
`pending litigation before the trial court involving the same patent and underlying technology”
`
`provides “substantial justification” for denying transfer).
`
`B. Public Interest Factors
`
`i. Administrative Difficulties Flowing from Court Congestion
`
`The relevant inquiry under this factor is “[t]he speed with which a case can come to trial
`
`and be resolved[.]” In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2009). A faster average
`
`time to trial means a more efficient and economical resolutions of the claims at issue. Thus, this
`
`factor “generally favors a district that can bring a case to trial faster.” Found. Med., Inc. v.
`
`Guardant Health, Inc., 2017 WL 590297, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 14, 2017).
`
`Apple alleges that patent cases in the NDCA “have a slightly shorter time to trial than W.D.
`
`Tex. – since 2008, a median of 2.39 versus 2.59 years,” and that “this Court has a large (and rapidly
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00505-ADA Document 65 Filed 07/19/21 Page 12 of 14
`
`increasing) number of patent cases currently pending in Waco,” while judges in the NDCA have
`
`far fewer. ECF No. 27 at 14. However, more recent data shows that “for patent cases since 2016,
`
`the average time to trial in NDCA was 34.1 months.” Demaray LLC v Samsung Electronics Co.,
`
`et al., No. 6-20-cv-636-ADA, Dkt. #115 at 11 (W.D. Tex. Jul. 1, 2021). By contrast, this Court’s
`
`Order Governing Proceedings – Patent Case (“OGP”) sets patent cases for trial at 52 weeks after
`
`Markman hearings. Despite the large number of cases pending before this Court, the Court has
`
`been able to bring patent cases to trial approximately in accordance with its guidance in the OGP.
`
`See, e.g., CloudofChange, LLC v. NCR Corporation, No. 6-19-cv-00513 (W.D. Tex., filed Aug.
`
`30, 2019) (20.3 months from case filing to trial); VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation, No.
`
`6-21-cv-00057 (W.D. Tex., filed Apr. 11, 2019) (22.4 months from case filing to trial); Freshub,
`
`Inc. et al v. Amazon.Com Inc. et al, No. 6-21-cv-00511 (W.D. Tex., filed Jun. 24, 2019) (23.7
`
`months from case filing to trial); ESW Holdings, Inc. v. Roku, Inc. No. 6-19-cv-00044 (W.D. Tex.,
`
`filed Feb. 8, 2019) (25.9 months from case filing to trial). Therefore, the time to trial for patent
`
`cases in the Waco Division is almost 12 months shorter on average than in the NDCA.
`
`Further, the trial backlog in NDCA caused by courthouse closures due to the COVID-19
`
`pandemic beginning in March 2020 would make the time to trial for patent cases, and all cases in
`
`general, even longer. As Apple points out, civil trials have been temporarily suspended in NDCA
`
`due to COVID-19, and jury trials would not resume until at least June 3, 2021—after more than
`
`one year since the COVID-19 pandemic began. ECF No. 59 at 5. By contract, this Court conducted
`
`its first patent jury trial during the COVID-19 pandemic in October 2020, and has since conducted
`
`at least seven jury trials, six of which are patent jury trials. In the first half of 2021 alone, this Court
`
`has already conducted five patent jury trials in the Waco courthouse. Taken these into
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00505-ADA Document 65 Filed 07/19/21 Page 13 of 14
`
`consideration, the differences in average time to trial in this Court and the NDCA could be much
`
`longer than 12 months.
`
`Considering the relative court congestion in NDCA and in the Waco Division, the Court
`
`finds that this factor weighs strongly against transfer.
`
`ii. Local Interest in Having Localized Interests Decided at Home
`
`Under this factor, the Court must evaluate whether there is a local interest in deciding local
`
`issues at home. Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 317. “A local interest is demonstrated by a relevant
`
`factual connection between the events and the venue.” Word to Info, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., No.
`
`3:14-cv-04387-K, 2015 WL 13870507, at *4 (N.D. Tex. Jul. 23, 2015).
`
`Apple argues that NDCA has a strong local interest in this matter because the research,
`
`design, development, and operation of the accused technology took place there, Apple is
`
`headquartered there, and all of its likely witnesses are there. ECF No. 27 at 15. On the other hand,
`
`Neonode points out that Apple also has significant presence in the WDTX, with over 6,000
`
`employees in the Austin area and five retail stores located in this District. ECF No. 52 at 14.
`
`Although both districts have a significant interest in this matter, the Court finds that this factor
`
`slight favors transfer given Apple’s relatively bigger presence in the NDCA.
`
`iii. Remaining Public Factors are Neutral
`
`Both parties agree that the remaining two public factors are neutral. ECF No. 27 at 15; ECF
`
`No. 52 at 15. The Court also finds that these two factors are neutral.
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00505-ADA Document 65 Filed 07/19/21 Page 14 of 14
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`Having considered the Section 1404(a) factors, the Court finds that Apple has not met its
`
`significant burden to demonstrate that the NDCA is “clearly more convenient” than this District.
`
`Therefore, the Court DENIES Apple’s Motion to Transfer.
`
`
`
`SIGNED this 19th day of July, 2021.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ALAN D ALBRIGHT
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`14
`
`