Streetspace, Inc v. Google, Inc. et al
Filing
33
RESPONSE in Opposition re 23 Joint MOTION for Change Venue filed by Streetspace, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of James V. Fazio, III in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue, # 2 Exhibts A-M, # 3 Exhibits N-W)(Fazio, James) (kaj).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
DOUGLAS E. OLSON (CSB NO. 38649)
dougolson@sandiegoiplaw.com
JAMES V. FAZIO, III (CSB NO. 183353)
jamesfazio@sandiegoiplaw.com
TREVOR Q. CODDINGTON, PH.D. (CSB NO. 243042)
trevorcoddington@sandiegoiplaw.com
SAN DIEGO IP LAW GROUP LLP
12526 High Bluff Drive, Suite 300
San Diego, CA 92130
Telephone: (858) 792-3446
Facsimile: (858) 792-3447
Attorneys for Plaintiff
STREETSPACE, INC.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
STREETSPACE, INC., a Delaware
corporation,
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
vs.
GOOGLE INC., a Delaware corporation;
ADMOB, INC., a Delaware corporation;
APPLE INC., a California corporation;
QUATTRO WIRELESS, INC., a Delaware
corporation; NOKIA CORPORATION, a
foreign corporation; NOKIA INC., a
Delaware corporation; NAVTEQ
CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation;
MILLENNIAL MEDIA, INC., a Delaware
corporation; JUMPTAP, INC., a Delaware
corporation; and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive,
CASE NO. 10-CV-1757-LAB-AJB
MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
TRANSFER VENUE
Date:
Time:
Judge:
Ctrm:
March 14, 2011
11:15 a.m.
Hon. Larry A. Burns
9
Defendants.
23
24
25
26
27
28
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TRANSFER
CASE NO. 10-CV-1757-LAB-AJB
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
2
I.
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
3
II.
STATEMENT OF FACTS .................................................................................................. 3
4
B.
C.
D.
Millennial Media ............................................................................................................... 5
E.
Jumptap ............................................................................................................................. 6
8
12
The Nokia Defendants....................................................................................................... 4
7
11
Google/Admob .................................................................................................................. 4
6
10
Apple/Quattro Wireless..................................................................................................... 3
5
9
A.
III.
A.
Legal Standard................................................................................................................... 6
B.
The Private Interest Factors Do Not Strongly Favor Transfer .......................................... 7
13
3. The Convenience of the Parties and Witnesses Does Not Strongly Support Transfer.... 11
15
4. The Differences in the Costs of Litigation ...................................................................... 14
16
18
19
1. Streetspace’s Choice of Forum Weighs Against Transfer ................................................ 7
2. The Defendants’ Contacts With This District Related to Streetspace’s Causes of Action
Also Weigh Against Transfer ........................................................................................... 8
14
17
ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................................... 6
5. The Availability of Compulsory Process and Access to Sources of Proof ..................... 15
C.
IV.
The Public Interest Factors Do Not Strongly Support Transfer...................................... 16
CONCLUSION.................................................................................................................. 18
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
i
OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TRANSFER
CASE NO. 10-CV-1757-LAB-AJB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Accentra, Inc. v. Staples, Inc.,
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112183 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2008)..................................... 7, 9, 15, 16
Alcon Mfg., Ltd. v. Apotex Inc.,
2007 WL 854026 (S.D. Ind. Mar. 14, 2007)........................................................................... 8
Aloft Media, LLC v. Adobe Systems Inc.,
2008 WL 819956 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 25, 2008)........................................................................ 15
Apple Computer, Inc. v. Unova,
2003 WL 22928034 (D. Del. Nov. 25, 2003) ....................................................................... 13
Arete Power, Inc. v. Beacon Power Corp.,
2008 WL 508477 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 22, 2008) ........................................................................ 10
August Technology Corp. v. Camtek Ltd.,
2005 WL 3274667 (D. Minn. Dec. 2, 2005)......................................................................... 17
Blumenthal v. Mgmt. Assistance, Inc.,
480 F. Supp. 470 (N.D. Ill. 1979) ......................................................................................... 12
Bohara v. Backus Hosp. Medical Benefit Plan,
390 F. Supp. 2d 957 (C.D. Cal. 2005) .................................................................................. 11
Continental Cas. Co. v. American Home Assurance Co.,
61 F. Supp. 2d 128 (D. Del. 1999).......................................................................................... 7
Dealtime.com Ltd. v. McNulty,
123 F. Supp. 2d 750 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)............................................................................... 8, 15
Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co.,
805 F.2d 834 (9th Cir. 1986).................................................................................................... 7
E. & J. Gallo Winery v. F. & P.S.p.A.,
899 F. Supp. 465 (E.D. Cal. 1994).......................................................................................... 7
Everpure, LLC v. Selecto, Inc.,
2010 WL 480970 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2010)....................................................................... 9, 11
Florens Container v. Cho Yang Shipping,
245 F. Supp. 2d 1086 (N.D. Cal. 2002) .................................................................................. 7
In re Hoffman-La Roche, Inc.,
587 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2009)............................................................................................... 4
Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc.,
211 F.3d 495 (9th Cir. 2000)................................................................................................ 6, 7
Kabushiki Kaisha Stone Corp. v. Affliction, Inc.,
2009 WL 3429560 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 22, 2009)....................................................................... 14
Medien Patent Verwaltung AG v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc.,
2010 WL 4118087 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2010) ................................................................... 8, 11
Mullis v. U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Dist. of Nevada,
828 F.2d 1385 (9th Cir. 1987).................................................................................................. 5
Multimedia Patent Trust,
2009 WL 3805302 ................................................................................................................ 15
-iiOPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TRANSFER
CASE NO. 10-CV-1757-LAB-AJB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
National Presto Inds., Inc.,
347 F.3d 662 (7th Cir. 2003).................................................................................................. 14
Nokia Corp. v. Buca,
2002 WL 1461913 (N.D. Tex. Jul. 2, 2002) ..................................................................... 9, 13
Panetta v. SAP America, Inc.,
2005 WL 1774327 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 26, 2005).......................................................................... 8
Personal Audio,
2010 WL 582540 .................................................................................................................. 16
Personalized User Model LLP v. Google, Inc.,
2009 WL 3460767 (D. Del. Oct. 27, 2009) .................................................................... 12, 17
Pureterra Naturals, Inc. v. Cut-Heal Animal Care Products, Inc.,
674 F. Supp. 2d 1294 (M.D. Fla. 2009) .................................................................................. 9
Russell Corp. v. Miken Sports, LLC,
2009 WL 249707 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 2, 2009) ........................................................................... 9
Safarian v. Maserati North America, Inc.,
559 F. Supp. 2d 1068 (C.D. Cal. 2008) .............................................................................. 7, 8
Steelcase, Inc. v. Haworth,
41 U.S.P.Q.2d 1468 (C.D. Cal. 1996)................................................................................... 11
Van Slyke v. Capital One Bank,
503 F. Supp. 2d 1353, 1365 (N.D. Cal. 2007) ...................................................................... 16
Vice v. Woodline USA, Inc.,
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8014 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2011) ......................................................... 9
STATUTES
28 U.S.C. § 1404....................................................................................................... 1, 6, 7, 14, 16
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 ........................................................................................................................ 15
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-iiiOPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TRANSFER
CASE NO. 10-CV-1757-LAB-AJB
Plaintiff Streetspace, Inc. (“Streetspace”) respectfully submits the following memorandum
1
2
of points and authorities in opposition to the motion by Defendants Google, Inc., Admob, Inc.,
3
Apple, Inc., Quattro Wireless, Inc., Nokia Corporation, Nokia, Inc., Navteq Corporation,
4
Millennial Media, Inc. and Jumptap, Inc. (collectively, “Defendants”) to transfer this case to the
5
Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404.
6
I.
INTRODUCTION
7
Defendants argue that because Streetspace is a foreign plaintiff, its choice of forum is
8
entitled to no weight, and that this Court should transfer this action to the Northern District of
9
California because that is where all of Google and Apple’s witnesses and documents are located.
10
In an age when documents are produced electronically in an instant, Defendants’ time-worn
11
argument is misguided. While Streetspace does not dispute that certain witnesses with relevant
12
testimony live in the Northern District of California, Streetspace filed suit here not only because
13
its preferred counsel is located here, but also because Defendants’ accused products and services
14
are widely available throughout the country, including in this District, and because Streetspace’s
15
claims arise at least in part out of Defendants’ connections with this District.
16
Specifically, Streetspace alleges that Defendants infringe directly and indirectly by
17
(among other things) making and selling methods and systems for providing personalized and/or
18
targeted advertising services to consumers (such as smartphone owners and computer users)
19
based on their user profiles, location, and/or usage history. Targeted advertising is a method of
20
advertising whereby an advertisement is selected for display on a smartphone or other terminal
21
based on a consumer’s user profile, location, and/or terminal usage history. As the 8th largest city
22
in the country, San Diego is home to millions of consumers who receive infringing targeted
23
advertisements supplied or delivered by the Defendants. This District, therefore, has at least as
24
much of an interest in this lawsuit as any other.
25
Indeed, Google’s accused devices such as Google’s G1 and Nexus 1 smartphones are
26
widely available throughout San Diego from AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon Wireless,
27
which operate dozens of stores in San Diego. By Apple’s own admission, Apple operates 5 retail
28
stores in San Diego. Defs’ Mem. at 3. In fact, Apple recently joined in a motion to transfer a
-1OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TRANSFER
CASE NO. 10-CV-1757-LAB-AJB
1
patent infringement case from the Eastern District of Virginia to the Southern District of
2
California. Declaration of James V. Fazio (“Fazio Decl.”), Ex. A [Defendants’ Joint Motion to
3
Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1404(a) to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
4
District of California at 1]. Clearly, then, this District is not too inconvenient for Google and
5
Apple.
6
As for the Nokia Defendants, Nokia Inc. recently stated in a declaration filed under oath in
7
another case that it “Nokia’s largest California facility is in San Diego, where it employs over
8
600 people.” Id., Ex. B [Declaration of Jari Niemela in support of Motion to Transfer Venue
9
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) by Defendant Nokia Inc., ¶ 5 (emphasis added)]. Further, Nokia’s
10
former CEO Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo stated during a May, 2009 interview that “I’ve been working
11
on this for a long time. And it’s kind of interesting, the idea that we’re in San Diego now; we
12
have about 2 or 2.5 years ago started to make U.S.-market specific products right here in San
13
Diego.” Id., Ex. C (emphasis added). Litigating in San Diego where Nokia has its largest
14
California facility and where it makes products unique to the entire U.S. market cannot be too
15
inconvenient for Nokia.
16
Jumptap calls itself the U.S. “leader in targeted mobile advertising”, and Millennial Media
17
proclaims itself the “largest and fastest-growing mobile advertising company” in the country that
18
reaches nearly 43 million Americans, at least some of whom presumably reside in San Diego.
19
Because this case is related in part to Defendants’ contacts with this forum, Streetspace’s choice
20
of forum is entitled to great deference—not none.
21
Further, the relative convenience of the parties does not strongly support transfer.
22
Whereas Streetspace is a small, private company with limited means (which is a recognized
23
factor), Defendants consist primarily of large, public companies with vast financial resources.
24
Transfer to the Northern District would greatly inconvenience Streetspace, whose counsel has
25
only one office (San Diego). By contrast, the Defendants are already involved in hundreds of
26
cases all over the country without objection as to venue. For example, Google is currently a party
27
to approximately 169 federal cases pending in such far-ranging districts as the Western District of
28
Louisiana, Northern District of Illinois, Western District of Arkansas, Eastern District of Texas,
-2OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TRANSFER
CASE NO. 10-CV-1757-LAB-AJB
1
District of Delaware, District of Maryland, Eastern District of Virginia, and Southern District of
2
New York (to name just a few). Fazio Decl., Ex. D. Likewise, Apple is a party to approximately
3
82 federal cases in districts around the country, including the Eastern District of Texas, Southern
4
District of Illinois, Southern District of Florida, Northern District of Georgia, Southern District of
5
New York, Eastern District of Virginia, Western District of Wisconsin, and 3 cases in the
6
Southern District of California (Case Nos. 09-cv-2535, 10-cv-404, and 10-cv-2403), one of
7
which is still pending. Id., Ex. F. Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc. are currently parties to
8
approximately 85 federal cases across the country. Id., Exs. V, W. Having litigated and
9
continuing to litigate in dozens of districts far from home, neither Google nor Apple (nor their
10
wholly-owned subsidiary Defendants Admob, Inc. and Quattro Wireless, Inc.) can credibly argue
11
they are woefully inconvenienced by having to litigate in this District, which is, after all, in their
12
home state. Finally, witnesses from Millennial Media and Jumptap must fly across the country
13
for trial anyway regardless of whether this case is transferred, so they cannot strongly show that
14
transfer would serve their convenience and interests.
In short, Streetspace chose this forum not only because its preferred counsel is located
15
16
here, but also because Defendants’ accused products and services are widely sold here, and
17
because hundreds of thousands if not more San Diegans receive infringing targeted
18
advertisements delivered by the Defendants. In light of their comparatively vast financial
19
resources, Defendants cannot make such a strong showing of inconvenience that Streetspace’s
20
legitimate choice of forum should be disregarded. For these reasons, Defendants’ motion to
21
transfer should be denied.
22
II.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
23
A. Apple/Quattro Wireless
24
By its own admission, Apple operates 5 retail stores in San Diego. Defs’ Mem. at 3.
25
Defendants’ suggestion that the retail stores themselves are not implicated by Streetspace’s
26
infringement allegations is misleading. To the contrary, Apple is alleged to infringe by (among
27
other things) “making, using, selling, importing, exporting, and/or offering for sale a system
28
and/or method that employs a terminal, a database, and a program as recited in one or more
-3OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TRANSFER
CASE NO. 10-CV-1757-LAB-AJB
1
claims of the ‘969 patent,” including without limitation “the iPhone, iPad, iPod Touch, and
2
Macintosh computers.” D.E. No. 30 [First Amended Cmplt. at ¶¶ 98-99]. Apple’s accused
3
products are widely sold in stores across the country, including the 5 Apple retail stores located
4
throughout San Diego. Fazio Decl. Ex. H. In fact, Apple recently joined in a motion to transfer
5
a patent infringement case from the Eastern District of Virginia to the Southern District of
6
California. Id., Ex. A [Defendants’ Joint Motion to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
7
1404(a) to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California at 1]. Clearly, then, this
8
District is not too inconvenient for Apple and its wholly-owned subsidiary Quattro Wireless, Inc.
9
B. Google/Admob
10
Google ignores the fact that its smartphones—which are a component of the infringing
11
system--including without limitation Google’s G1 and Nexus 1 cellular telephones, are widely
12
available throughout San Diego. According to Google’s website, cellular telephones pre-installed
13
with Google products and services are available from AT&T, Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon
14
Wireless (among others). Fazio Decl., Ex. I. According to their respective websites, AT&T
15
operates at least 10 stores in San Diego; Sprint operates at least 6 stores in San Diego; T-Mobile
16
operates at least 7 stores in San Diego; and Verizon Wireless operates at least 9 stores in San
17
Diego. Id., Ex. J. Moreover, Google has two Southern California offices in Irvine and Santa
18
Monica, California. Id., Ex. K.
19
Streetspace does not dispute Google and Admob’s representation that confidential
20
information related to this case can be found in the Northern District of California, but in an age
21
when documents are created and stored in electronic format, the assertion that these are Northern
22
District of California documents “is a fiction which appears to . . . have been created to
23
manipulate the propriety of venue.” In re Hoffman-La Roche, Inc., 587 F.3d 1333, 1337 (Fed.
24
Cir. 2009). Indeed, confidential materials are going to leave the Northern District of California
25
when they are produced in discovery whether this case is transferred or not. Thus, Google and
26
Admob’s suggestion that shipping confidential materials outside of the Northern District would
27
impose an unreasonable hardship on them is absurd.
28
C. The Nokia Defendants
-4OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TRANSFER
CASE NO. 10-CV-1757-LAB-AJB
1
Tellingly, Nokia Corporation, Nokia Inc. and wholly-owned subsidiary Navteq
2
Corporation do not advance any argument or facts strongly showing that this forum is
3
inconvenient for them. In fact, available evidence points directly to the contrary. In a publicly-
4
available declaration filed under oath on January 14, 2010 in another federal district court case,
5
Nokia Inc. stated that it “operates numerous facilities in California and employs over 1,000
6
people in the state. Nokia’s largest California facility is in San Diego, where it employs over
7
600 people.” Fazio Decl., Ex. B [Declaration of Jari Niemela in support of Motion to Transfer
8
Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1404(a) by Defendant Nokia Inc., ¶ 5 (emphasis added)].1
Indeed, in Nokia’s Form 20-F filing with the Securities & Exchange Commission, Nokia
9
10
identified San Diego as its only “strong . . . R&D presence” in the United States. Id., Ex. L
11
[3/12/10 Form 20-F at 40]. Further, Nokia’s former CEO Olli-Pekka Kallasvuo stated in a 2009
12
interview that “I’ve been working on this for a long time. And it’s kind of interesting, the idea
13
that we’re in San Diego now; we have about 2 or 2.5 years ago started to make U.S.-market
14
specific products right here in San Diego.” Id., Ex. C [5/28/09 xconomy article (emphasis
15
added)]. Litigating in San Diego where Nokia has its largest California facility and where it
16
makes products specific for the entire U.S. market is not inconvenient for Nokia.
17
D. Millennial Media
18
According to its website, Millennial Media has seven offices in the United States located
19
in Baltimore, New York, Chicago, Detroit, Atlanta, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. Fazio Decl.,
20
Ex. M. Assuming any relevant witnesses reside in Los Angeles, their travel to San Diego is more
21
convenient than travel to the Northern District of California, and any witnesses traveling from the
22
other offices must fly across the country for trial anyway, so litigation in the Northern District of
23
California is not significantly more convenient for Millennial Media than litigation in this
24
District.
Moreover, Millennial Media considers itself “the largest and fastest-growing mobile
25
26
advertising networks company in the U.S” and, according to its own press releases, Millennial
27
1
28
As an admission by a party-opponent, this declaration by Nokia, Inc. is not hearsay, and this
Court may take judicial notice of public records on file in other district court cases. Mullis v. U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Dist. of Nevada, 828 F.2d 1385, 1388 n.9 (9th Cir. 1987).
-5OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TRANSFER
CASE NO. 10-CV-1757-LAB-AJB
1
Media “reaches approximately 43M or 73% of U.S. Mobile Internet users” in the United States, at
2
least some of whom presumably reside in San Diego (the 8th largest city in the country). Fazio
3
Decl., Ex. N. Indeed, 10 of the top 20 DMAs (Demographic Market Areas) by advertising
4
requests are in California, Texas and Florida. Id. Having actively cultivated a nationwide
5
customer base and enjoying the benefits of nationwide sales efforts, Millennial Media cannot
6
reasonably complain about the supposed inconvenience of litigating here.
7
E. Jumptap
8
Likewise, Jumptap witnesses must fly across the country for trial regardless of whether
9
this case is transferred, so the Northern District of California is not significantly more convenient
10
for Jumptap. In fact, one of Jumptap’s mobile operators is Boost Mobile located in Irvine,
11
California, which is closer to this District than the Northern District of California. Fazio Decl.,
12
Ex. O.
Further, Jumptap proclaims itself the U.S. “leader in targeted mobile advertising” and
13
14
claimed at the end of 2008 to be reaching over 170 million mobile subscribers across the United
15
States. Id., Ex. O. Moreover, Jumptap executives regularly appear and speak in districts far from
16
their home in Massachusetts, including Los Angeles, Atlanta, New York, and San Francisco. Id.,
17
Ex. P. Thus, Jumptap cannot show that litigation in the Northern District of California is
18
significantly more convenient than litigation here.
19
III.
ARGUMENT
20
A. Legal Standard
21
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404, district courts have discretion to transfer an action when
22
another venue would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and the interests of
23
justice. Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498 (9th Cir. 2000). The stature requires
24
that the proposed transferee court be one where the action “might have been brought” and that
25
transfer be for the “convenience of parties and witnesses” and “in the interest of justice.” 28
26
U.S.C. § 1404(a). Streetspace does not dispute that this action might have been brought in the
27
Northern District of California. The relevant questions, therefore, are whether Defendants have
28
strongly shown that transfer would serve the convenience of parties and witnesses and serve the
-6OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TRANSFER
CASE NO. 10-CV-1757-LAB-AJB
1
interests of justice.
2
In answering these questions, courts consider (1) the plaintiff’s choice of forum; (2) the
3
contacts in the chosen forum relating to the plaintiff’s cause of action; (3) the parties’ contacts
4
with the chosen forum; (4) the differences in the costs of litigation between the two fora; (5) the
5
availability of compulsory process; and (6) the ease of access to sources of proof. Jones, 221
6
F.3d at 498-99. Importantly, in assessing the convenience of the parties, courts also consider the
7
relative means of the parties. Accentra, Inc. v. Staples, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112183, at
8
*15 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 27, 2008).
9
10
B. The Private Interest Factors Do Not Strongly Favor Transfer
1.
Streetspace’s Choice of Forum Weighs Against Transfer
11
The plaintiff’s choice of forum is accorded “substantial weight” in proceedings under 28
12
U.S.C. § 1404(a). Safarian v. Maserati North America, Inc., 559 F. Supp. 2d 1068, 1071 (C.D.
13
Cal. 2008). See also, Florens Container v. Cho Yang Shipping, 245 F. Supp. 2d 1086, 1092
14
(N.D. Cal. 2002) (“[U]nder Ninth Circuit law, a plaintiff’s choice of forum is accorded substantial
15
weight . . .”) (citing Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Vigman, 764 F.2d 1309, 1317 (9th Cir.
16
1985)); E. & J. Gallo Winery v. F. & P.S.p.A., 899 F. Supp. 465, 466 (E.D. Cal. 1994) (the
17
“plaintiff’s choice of forum should rarely be disturbed”). Accordingly, the movant must “make a
18
strong showing of inconvenience to warrant upsetting the plaintiff’s choice of forum.” Accentra,
19
2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112183, at *14 (citing Decker Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co.,
20
805 F.2d 834, 842 (9th Cir. 1986)) (emphasis added). Indeed, transfer should be denied if the
21
factors are evenly balanced or weigh only slightly in favor of transfer. Continental Cas. Co. v.
22
American Home Assurance Co., 61 F. Supp. 2d 128, 131 (D. Del. 1999).
23
Defendants argue that because Streetspace is a foreign plaintiff, its choice of forum is
24
entitled to no weight. Not true at all. While in some cases a foreign plaintiff’s chosen forum in
25
the United States may not be any more discernibly convenient than alternative fora, there are
26
legitimate reasons why Streetspace selected the Southern District of California in this case,
27
including the ease and expense of travel from Malaysia and “the location of its preferred
28
-7OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TRANSFER
CASE NO. 10-CV-1757-LAB-AJB
1
counsel.” Medien Patent Verwaltung AG v. Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc., 2010 WL
2
4118087, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 20, 2010) (acknowledging that “legitimate reasons” weighing
3
against transfer were “the ease and expense of travel from Europe and the location of its preferred
4
counsel”); cf. Dealtime.com Ltd. v. McNulty, 123 F. Supp. 2d 750, 758 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) (denying
5
motion to transfer despite “the lower standard that may be applicable to foreign plaintiffs”).
6
Indeed, transfer to the Northern District would greatly inconvenience Streetspace’s chosen
7
counsel, whose only office is in San Diego, whereas counsel for many of the Defendants has
8
offices in multiple locations, including San Diego.2
Moreover, Defendants have proffered no evidence that Streetspace had an “improper
9
10
motive” in choosing this forum, nor any evidence that Streetspace is forum-shopping. Id. To the
11
contrary, Streetspace filed suit in this District not only because its preferred counsel is located
12
here, but also because Defendants’ accused products and services are widely available throughout
13
the country, including in San Diego, and because hundreds of thousands if not more smartphone
14
and other terminal users who receive targeted advertisements delivered by Defendants live here.
15
Thus, Streetspace’s choice of forum should be given “substantial deference” and weighs strongly
16
against transfer. Safarian, 559 F. Supp. 2d at 1071 (denying motion to transfer because plaintiff
17
was not forum-shopping and instead brought suit in the chosen forum in part because its
18
“counsel’s offices are here”); Alcon Mfg., Ltd. v. Apotex Inc., 2007 WL 854026, at *2 (S.D. Ind.
19
Mar. 14, 2007) (denying transfer even though plaintiff was not a resident of the chosen forum, in
20
part because the “parties are spread throughout the United States”) (emphasis added).3
21
2.
22
Defendants argue that the mere fact they are alleged to be selling their accused products
23
24
25
26
27
28
The Defendants’ Contacts With This District Related to Streetspace’s
Causes of Action Also Weigh Against Transfer
2
Defendants’ reliance on Panetta v. SAP America, Inc., 2005 WL 1774327 (N.D. Cal. Jul. 26,
2005), is misplaced. There, the court considered the parties’ forum-selection clauses in their
agreements, which required any dispute to be adjudicated in the transferee forum, to be
“significant factors” in deciding to transfer the case. Id., at *6. No similar forum-selection
clauses favoring transfer exist in this case.
3
Likewise here, the parties are spread throughout the United States. Google, Admob, Apple, and
Quattro Wireless are located in the Bay Area. Nokia Inc. is located in White Plains, New York;
Navteq Corporation is located in Chicago, Illinois; Millennial Media is located in Baltimore,
Maryland, and Jumptap is located in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Defs.’ Mem. at 4-5.
-8OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TRANSFER
CASE NO. 10-CV-1757-LAB-AJB
1
and services in this District is insufficient to show that this District has an interest in this case.
2
Not true. In patent cases, venue is perfectly appropriate where the accused products are sold or
3
distributed – not just where they are designed and developed. See, e.g., See, Nokia Corp. v. Buca,
4
2002 WL 1461913, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Jul. 2, 2002) (denying motion to transfer a patent case
5
involving mobile phones to the District of New Jersey because “although defendant distributes
6
and sells products from its headquarters in New Jersey, those products are sold and offered for
7
sale to Texas [chosen forum] residents”) (emphasis added); Accentra, at *16 (denying motion to
8
transfer in part because “many allegedly infringing [products]” were sold in the forum);
9
Everpure, LLC v. Selecto, Inc., 2010 WL 480970, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 3, 2010) (denying motion
10
to transfer in part because the defendant “markets and distributes the accused devices throughout
11
the United States, including the [chosen forum]”); Vice v. Woodline USA, Inc., 2011 U.S. Dist.
12
LEXIS 8014, at *8, 15 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 21, 2011) (denying motion for transfer to Tennessee in part
13
because defendant “sold and shipped the allegedly infringing” product to California residents,
14
notwithstanding that defendant’s products were designed in Tennessee). Cf. Pureterra Naturals,
15
Inc. v. Cut-Heal Animal Care Products, Inc., 674 F. Supp. 2d 1294, 1300 (M.D. Fla. 2009)
16
(denying motion to transfer because the plaintiff’s claim arose in part out of the defendant’s “sale
17
of infringing products to distributors in the [chosen forum]”); Russell Corp. v. Miken Sports, LLC,
18
2009 WL 249707, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 2, 2009) (denying transfer because while the chosen
19
forum was not plaintiff’s home, “operative facts giving rise to the Plaintiff’s complaint” occurred
20
in the chosen forum, including sales of the accused devices).
21
Here, Streetspace’s claims are related to Defendants’ contacts with this District.
22
Streetspace alleges that Defendants infringe directly and indirectly by (among other things)
23
making, using and selling a method and/or system for providing personalized information and/or
24
targeted online advertising services based on location, consumers’ profiles and/or usage history,
25
and/or by making, using and selling products and/or services that deliver or are capable of
26
delivering personalized information and/or targeted online advertising services to consumers
27
based on their location, profiles and/or usage history. D.E. No. 30 [First Amended Cmplt., ¶¶ 57,
28
79, 97, 116, 130, 145, 159, 174 & 188].
-9OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TRANSFER
CASE NO. 10-CV-1757-LAB-AJB
These allegations implicate Defendants’ nationwide conduct, including Defendants’
1
2
contacts with this forum. Google’s accused products, including without limitation Google’s G1
3
and Nexus 1 smartphones, are widely sold throughout San Diego. According to Google’s
4
website, smartphones pre-installed with Google products and services are available from AT&T,
5
Sprint, T-Mobile, and Verizon Wireless (among others). Fazio Decl., Ex. I. AT&T operates at
6
least 10 stores in San Diego; Sprint operates at least 6 stores in San Diego; T-Mobile operates at
7
least 7 stores in San Diego; and Verizon Wireless operates at least 9 stores in San Diego. Id., Ex.
8
J.
Likewise, Apple’s accused products are widely sold in stores throughout the country,
9
10
including the 5 Apple retail stores located throughout San Diego. Id., Ex. H.4
As for the Nokia Defendants, Nokia Inc. stated in a publicly-available declaration filed
11
12
under oath in another case on January 24, 2010 that it “operates numerous facilities in California
13
and employs over 1,000 people in the state. Nokia’s largest California facility is in San Diego,
14
where it employs over 600 people.” Id., Ex. B [Declaration of Jari Niemela in support of Motion
15
to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) by Defendant Nokia Inc., ¶ 5 (emphasis
16
added)].
Millennial Media considers itself “the largest and fastest-growing mobile advertising
17
18
networks company in the U.S” and, according to its June, 2009 press release, Millennial Media
19
“reaches approximately 43M or 73% of U.S. Mobile Internet users” in the United States, many of
20
whom presumably reside in California (as the most populous state in the nation) and some of
21
whom presumably reside in San Diego (as the 8th largest city in the country). Id., Ex. N. Indeed,
22
according to Millennial Media, 10 of the top 20 DMAs (Demographic Market Areas) by
23
4
24
25
26
27
28
Defendants’ reliance on Arete Power, Inc. v. Beacon Power Corp., 2008 WL 508477 (N.D. Cal.
Feb. 22, 2008), for the proposition that the proper venue in a patent case is solely the district
where the accused products are designed and developed is unavailing. True, the court there found
that the locus of the case was in Massachusetts where the accused products were designed and
developed. But that was only because the central issues in the case were not how extensively the
accused products operated in the field or “how much economic harm they caused plaintiff to
suffer.” Indeed, the defendant had “never sold an accused product.” Id. at 5 (emphasis added).
In sharp contrast, the central issues in this case have very much to do with how extensively
Defendants’ targeted advertising products and services have penetrated the market, how many
products and services they have sold, and how much in damages they owe for infringing
Streetspace’s patent.
-10OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TRANSFER
CASE NO. 10-CV-1757-LAB-AJB
1
advertising requests are in California, Texas and Florida. Id. Similarly, Jumptap proclaims itself
2
the U.S. “leader in targeted mobile advertising,” and Jumptap executives regularly appear and
3
market themselves far from their home in Massachusetts, including Los Angeles, New York,
4
Atlanta, and San Francisco. Id., Exs. O, P.
5
In short, because Streetspace’s claims are related to Defendants’ contacts with this
6
District, this factor weighs in favor of keeping the case in this District; regardless, it certainly
7
does not weigh strongly in favor of transfer to the Northern District of California.
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3.
The Convenience of the Parties and Witnesses Does Not Strongly
Support Transfer
Defendants argue that transfer would serve the convenience of their numerous witnesses.
In evaluating this factor, however, courts look beyond the quantity of witnesses and assess the
nature and quality of their testimony. Everpure, 2010 WL 480970, at *3 (citing Steelcase, Inc. v.
Haworth, 41 U.S.P.Q.2d 1468, 1470 (C.D. Cal. 1996)). Moreover, defendants must specify “the
identity and location of the witnesses, the content of their testimony, and why such testimony is
relevant to the action.” Id.; see also, Bohara v. Backus Hosp. Medical Benefit Plan, 390 F. Supp.
2d 957, 963 (C.D. Cal. 2005) (“[I]f the transfer is for the convenience of witnesses, defendant
must name the witnesses it wishes to call, the anticipated areas of their testimony and its
relevance, and the reasons why the present forum would present a hardship to them.”).
Defendants have not, however, specified the identity or location of any witnesses, or the content
of any anticipated testimony.
Even if Defendants’ vague representation that virtually all potential witnesses reside in the
Northern District were sufficient, Defendants cannot show that these employee witnesses would
be seriously inconvenienced by having to attend trial in this Court because party-employees are
available in any venue by virtue of their employment relationship. The alleged inconvenience of
unspecified employee witnesses, therefore, does not strongly support transfer of this case to the
Northern District. Medien Patent Verwaltung AG, 2010 WL 4118087, at *2. See also, Container
Navigation Corp. v. New Holland Tire, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 123021, at *6-7 (N.D. Cal. Nov.
3, 2010) (dismissing as “purely speculative” a defendant’s claim of inconvenience before an
-11OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TRANSFER
CASE NO. 10-CV-1757-LAB-AJB
1
answer has been filed).
Streetspace, on the other hand, would be seriously inconvenienced if this case were
2
3
transferred to the Northern District of California because Streetspace’s counsel has only one
4
office (San Diego). While some courts have declined to consider the location of counsel as a
5
factor, others have recognized the reality that counsel’s inconvenience often leads to increased
6
costs to the client. See, Blumenthal v. Mgmt. Assistance, Inc., 480 F. Supp. 470, 474 (N.D. Ill.
7
1979). If this case were transferred to the Northern District, Streetspace’s counsel would have to
8
establish a temporary office for trial there at exorbitant cost, whereas many Defendants are
9
represented by national law firms with local offices in San Diego.
Google/Admob. In fact, the same reasons Google advances here for why this case should
10
11
be transferred to the Northern District of California were recently rejected by the District of
12
Delaware in Personalized User Model LLP v. Google, Inc., 2009 WL 3460767 (D. Del. Oct. 27,
13
2009). In denying Google’s transfer motion, the Court there observed: (1) the plaintiff filed its
14
case in the chosen forum for legitimate reasons; (2) “because of the national scope of the
15
technology in question, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s claim arose in Delaware to the same
16
extent as in any other district”; (3) Google did “not convincingly establish that witnesses would
17
refuse or be physically unable to attend trial in Delaware; and (4) Google had not “demonstrated
18
that maintaining confidentiality of records and technology will be more difficult in Delaware than
19
in California.” Id., at *2 (emphasis added). Likewise here, Streetspace filed suit in this District
20
for legitimate reasons; Google and Admob’s alleged infringement occurs nationwide over the
21
Internet and by other means, and Streetspace’s claims arise in this District to the same extent as
22
anywhere else. Google should therefore fare no better in this case than in Personalized User
23
Model.
24
Apple/Quattro Wireless. Similarly, Apple’s argument that transfer to the Northern
25
District of California is significantly more convenient is belied by its past conduct. In Apple, Inc.
26
v. High Tech Computer Corp., 2011 WL 143909 (D. Del. Jan. 18, 2011), Apple filed suit for
27
patent infringement in the District of Delaware and opposed transfer to its headquarters in the
28
Northern District of California, arguing (successfully) that “HTC’s infringing activity took place
-12OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TRANSFER
CASE NO. 10-CV-1757-LAB-AJB
1
across the entire country, including in Delaware, and therefore does not weigh in favor of
2
transfer.” Id., at 2 (emphasis added). That is precisely what Streetspace is arguing here. When,
3
as here, Defendants’ infringement is alleged to be occurring nationwide, and when Defendants’
4
accused products and services are widely available in this District, Streetspace’s choice of forum
5
in the Southern District of California is entitled to great deference and should not be upset. See,
6
Nokia Corp. v. Buca, 2002 WL 1461913, at *2 (N.D. Tex. Jul. 2, 2002) (denying motion to
7
transfer a patent case involving mobile phones to the District of New Jersey because “although
8
defendant distributes and sells products from its headquarters in New Jersey, those products are
9
sold and offered for sale to [chosen forum] residents”) (emphasis added).
10
In fact, in Apple Computer, Inc. v. Unova, 2003 WL 22928034 (D. Del. Nov. 25, 2003),
11
Apple filed suit for patent infringement in the District of Delaware, where none of the defendants
12
were located. Instead, the defendants resided in California, Washington, Ohio and Michigan. Id.,
13
at *1. Despite the fact that none of the defendants resided in the chosen forum, and despite the
14
fact that neither the parties nor the case had “strong ties” to Delaware, the court still denied the
15
motion for transfer because “all of the parties are sophisticated and substantial enough to litigate
16
in Delaware” and because as the plaintiff, “Apple is entitled to deference on its choice of forum.”
17
Id., at *5. The same should hold true here. Despite the fact that no Defendant may reside in this
18
District, all Defendants are “sophisticated and substantial enough” to shoulder the supposed
19
inconvenience of litigating here. In view of its substantial means, Apple should not be permitted
20
in one patent case to file suit in a chosen forum that is far from where any defendant is located
21
and far from its own home, and yet prevail on a motion to transfer in another case for precisely
22
the same reasons.
23
Indeed, Apple recently joined in a motion to transfer a patent infringement case from the
24
Eastern District of Virginia to the Southern District of California. Fazio Decl., Ex. A
25
[Defendants’ Joint Motion to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1404(a) to the U.S. District
26
Court for the Southern District of California at 1]. Clearly, then, this District is not too
27
inconvenient for Apple and Quattro Wireless.
28
The Nokia Defendants. Nokia has a significant presence in San Diego. Indeed, Nokia
-13OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TRANSFER
CASE NO. 10-CV-1757-LAB-AJB
1
Inc. stated in a publicly-available declaration filed in another case on January 24, 2010 that it
2
“operates numerous facilities in California and employs over 1,000 people in the state. Nokia’s
3
largest California facility is in San Diego, where it employs over 600 people.” Fazio Decl., Ex.
4
B [Declaration of Jari Niemela in support of Motion to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
5
1404(a) by Defendant Nokia Inc., ¶ 5 (emphasis added)]. Further, Nokia’s former CEO Olli-
6
Pekka Kallasvuo stated during a May, 2009 interview that “I’ve been working on this for a long
7
time. And it’s kind of interesting, the idea that we’re in San Diego now; we have about 2 or 2.5
8
years ago started to make U.S.-market specific products right here in San Diego.” Id., Ex. C
9
(emphasis added). Litigating in San Diego where Nokia has its largest California facility and
10
where Nokia makes handsets unique to the entire U.S. market is clearly not inconvenient for
11
Nokia.
12
Millennial Media/Jumptap. Millennial Media and Jumptap both argue that the Northern
13
District of California would be a more convenient forum than this District, but neither is
14
headquartered in the Northern District. Instead, Millennial Media is headquartered in Baltimore,
15
Maryland and Jumptap is headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts. As such, the Northern
16
District is no more or less convenient for Millennial Media and Jumptap than this District.
17
Transfer to a forum that is “equally convenient or inconvenient” is not appropriate under 28
18
U.S.C. § 1404. Kabushiki Kaisha Stone Corp. v. Affliction, Inc., 2009 WL 3429560, at *2 (N.D.
19
Cal. Oct. 22, 2009) (citing Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 646 (1964)); see also, In re
20
National Presto Inds., Inc., 347 F.3d 662, 665 (7th Cir. 2003) (“when the inconvenience of
21
alternative venues is comparable there is no basis for a change of venue; the tie is awarded to the
22
plaintiff . . .”).
23
24
25
In short, the Defendants have not overcome the “strong presumption” in favor of
Streetspace’s choice of forum. This factor, therefore, weighs against transfer.
4.
The Differences in the Costs of Litigation
26
Whereas Streetspace is a relatively small, private company with limited means, the
27
Defendants consist primarily of large, public companies with vast financial resources. According
28
-14OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TRANSFER
CASE NO. 10-CV-1757-LAB-AJB
1
to its 2009 Annual Report, Google earned over $23 billion in 2009. Fazio Decl., Ex. Q. Apple
2
reportedly earned nearly $43 billion in net sales in 2009. Id., Ex. R. According to its Form 20-F
3
filed with the SEC, Nokia Corporation had over $80 billion in net sales in 2009 at current
4
exchange rates. Id., Ex. L. Millennial Media reported that it tripled revenues in 2010 and raised
5
an additional $27.5 million from equity investors. Id., Ex. S. In September, 2010, Jumptap’s
6
CEO George Bell stated that Jumptap’s expected 2010 revenue (initially estimated to be “around
7
$25 million”) was low and was “off in a pretty significant fashion.” Id., Ex. T. As such, the
8
Defendants are much “better positioned to bear any financial inconvenience that might be
9
incurred” and cannot credibly argue that litigating in this District would cause “undue financial
10
hardship.” Dealtime.com Ltd., 123 F. Supp. 2d at 756, 775. See also, Accentra, 2008 U.S. Dist.
11
LEXIS 112183, at *17 (denying transfer in part because given defendant’s “much more
12
substantial means,” defendant is “in a much better position to absorb the burden of this allegedly
13
inconvenient forum”); Aloft Media, LLC v. Adobe Systems Inc., 2008 WL 819956, at *6 (E.D.
14
Tex. Mar. 25, 2008) (denying transfer on the ground that “the additional burden placed on
15
[defendant’s] employee witnesses is not heavy enough to be given substantial weight”).
16
Further, witnesses from Millennial Media and Jumptap have to travel across the country
17
for trial regardless of whether it proceeds in this District or the Northern District of California, so
18
their litigation costs as between the Northern and Southern Districts are not appreciably different.
19
Accordingly, this factor weighs against transfer.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5.
The Availability of Compulsory Process and Access to Sources of
Proof
Defendants argue that most relevant documents are located in the Northern District of
California, but as Defendants’ own cases acknowledge, “with the availability of modern
photocopying and electronic transmittal technology, this factor is less relevant. As the parties are
large technology companies, they should have no difficulty conducting discovery regardless of
document location.” Multimedia Patent Trust, 2009 WL 3805302, at *5 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 12,
2009), at *5. See also Aloft Media, 2008 WL 819956, at *4 (“it is presumed that the parties will
exchange discovery electronically,” so any “inconvenience or burden associated with
-15OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TRANSFER
CASE NO. 10-CV-1757-LAB-AJB
1
electronically bears little, if any, relation to the physical location of the underlying document.”).
2
Indeed, the location of the parties’ ultimate sources of proof are far from clear at this early stage
3
of the litigation.
4
Moreover, this Court’s subpoena power extends to any witness residing anywhere “within
5
the state where the trial is held.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A)(ii). Thus, the unspecified third party
6
witnesses from the assorted bookstores and cafes in Berkeley, California whom Defendants
7
apparently may want to testify can be compelled to attend trial in San Diego. Even if this Court
8
cannot compel a witness’s attendance at trial, no party is precluded from using the videotaped
9
deposition testimony of any witness who is beyond subpoena power. Personal Audio, LLC v.
10
Apple, Inc., 2010 WL 582540, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 11, 2010) (noting that few modern patent
11
cases involve witnesses from only one state or region). These factors, therefore, weigh against
12
transfer.
13
C. The Public Interest Factors Do Not Strongly Support Transfer
14
Defendants completely ignore the final consideration in the analysis -- whether transfer
15
will serve the interests of justice. A § 1404(a) transfer serves to “prevent the waste of time,
16
energy, and money” and “to protect litigants, witnesses, and the public against unnecessary
17
inconvenience and expense.” Accentra, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 112183, at *19 (citing Van
18
Dusen, 376 U.S. at 616)). In considering whether a requested transfer would serve the interests of
19
justice, courts consider such factors as the relative degrees of court congestion, the local interest
20
in deciding local controversies, the burden on citizens of an unrelated forum with jury duty, and
21
potential conflicts of laws issues. Van Slyke v. Capital One Bank, 503 F. Supp. 2d 1353, 1365
22
(N.D. Cal. 2007). Not surprisingly, Defendants advance no argument on any of these points
23
because none favors transfer.
24
First, this District is significantly less congested than the Northern District of California.
25
According to the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, there were 2,450 total civil cases pending
26
in the Southern District of California as of March 31, 2010, compared with 6,587 in the Northern
27
District. Fazio Decl., Ex. U. Moreover, transfer is not necessary to avoid duplicative litigation,
28
-16OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TRANSFER
CASE NO. 10-CV-1757-LAB-AJB
1
and there are no related cases between the parties. See, August Technology Corp. v. Camtek Ltd.,
2
2005 WL 3274667, at *4 (D. Minn. Dec. 2, 2005) (denying transfer in part for these reasons).
3
Judicial economy therefore does not strongly support transfer.
4
Next, because Defendants’ accused products and services are available nationwide,
5
including in this District, this Court has as much of an interest in deciding this case as any other,
6
so citizens of this forum would not be unduly burdened by jury duty. See, Personalized User
7
Model, 2009 WL 3460767, at *2. Thus, the second and third public interest factors do not
8
strongly support transfer. Further, there can be no conflict of laws between courts in the same
9
district.
10
Finally, according to PACER, Defendant Google is currently a party to approximately169
11
federal cases pending all over the country in such far-ranging districts as the Western District of
12
Louisiana, Northern District of Illinois, Western District of Arkansas, Eastern District of Texas,
13
District of Delaware, District of Maryland, Eastern District of Virginia, and Southern District of
14
New York (to name just a few). Fazio Decl., Ex. D. Even if restricted to patent infringement
15
cases (Nature of Case No. 830), which presumably implicate Google technology developed in the
16
Northern District of California just as here, Google is currently a party to approximately 83 cases
17
pending in equally far-flung districts. Id., Ex. E.
18
Likewise, Apple, Inc. is a party to approximately 82 federal cases in districts around the
19
country, including the Eastern District of Texas, Southern District of Illinois, Southern District of
20
Florida, Northern District of Georgia, Southern District of New York, Eastern District of
21
Virginia, Western District of Wisconsin, and 3 cases in the Southern District of California
22
(Case Nos. 09-cv-2535, 10-cv-404, and 10-cv-2403), one of which is still pending. Id., Ex. F.
23
Even if restricted to patent infringement cases (Nature of Case No. 830), Apple, Inc. is currently a
24
party to approximately 52 cases across the nation. Id., Ex. G. Nokia Corporation and Nokia Inc.
25
are parties to 50 and 35 federal cases, respectively, across the country. Id., Exs. V, W. Having
26
litigated and continuing to litigate in dozens of districts far from home, Defendants Google and
27
Apple (and their wholly-owned subsidiary Defendants Admob, Inc. and Quattro Wireless, Inc.)
28
cannot credibly argue they are woefully inconvenienced or unduly burdened by having to litigate
-17OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TRANSFER
CASE NO. 10-CV-1757-LAB-AJB
1
2
3
in this District, which is, after all, in their home state.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For all the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ motion to transfer this action to the Northern
4
District of California should be denied.
5
Dated: February 28, 2011
SAN DIEGO IP LAW GROUP LLP
6
7
8
9
10
By:/s/James V. Fazio, III
DOUGLAS E. OLSON
JAMES V. FAZIO, III
TREVOR Q. CODDINGTON, PH.D.
Attorneys for Plaintiff
STREETSPACE, INC.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-18OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO TRANSFER
CASE NO. 10-CV-1757-LAB-AJB
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?