Google Inc. v. Rockstar Consortium US LP et al

Filing 57

NOTICE of Filings of Responses to Motions to Stary Or, In the Alternative, To Transfer to the Northern District of California by MobileStar Technologies LLC, Rockstar Consortium US LP. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A - Rockstar Response to Samsung Motion to Transfer, # 2 Exhibit B - Rockstar Response to ASUSTek Motion to Transfer, # 3 Exhibit C - Rockstar Response to HTC Motion to Transfer, # 4 Exhibit D - Rockstar Response to LG Motion to Transfer, # 5 Exhibit E - Rockstar Response to ZTE Motion to Transfer)(Budwin, Joshua) (Filed on 4/17/2014) Modified on 4/18/2014 (kcS, COURT STAFF).

Exhibit D

Case 2:13-cv-00898-JRG Document 37 Filed 04/14/14 Page 1 of 23 PageID #: 1063

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
ROCKSTAR CONSORTIUM US LP, AND
MOBILESTAR TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-898-JRG
Plaintiffs,
vs.
JURY TRIAL REQUESTED
LG ELECTRONICS, INC., LG ELECTRONICS
U.S.A., INC., LG ELECTRONICS
MOBILECOMM USA INC.,
Defendants.

PLAINTIFFS ROCKSTAR CONSORTIUM US LP AND MOBILESTAR
TECHNOLOGIES LLC’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STAY OR, IN
THE ALTERNATIVE, TO TRANSFER THIS ACTION TO THE NORTHERN
DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (DKT. NO. 35)

McKool 976268v3

Case 2:13-cv-00898-JRG Document 37 Filed 04/14/14 Page 2 of 23 PageID #: 1064

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.

INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1

II.

LEGAL STANDARD..........................................................................................................1

III.

STATEMENT OF FACTS ..................................................................................................1
A.
B.

LG’s Deep Ties to Texas .........................................................................................3

C.
IV.

Nortel, Rockstar, and Mobilestar’s Longstanding Ties to
the EDTX .................................................................................................................1

Rockstar Files this Action, Google Forum Shops to the
NDCA ......................................................................................................................3

DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR A STAY SHOULD BE
DENIED. ..............................................................................................................................4
A.
B.

The NDCA Action Would Not Resolve the “Major Issues”
in This Case..............................................................................................................5

C.

The Customer-Suit Exception Does Not Apply Because
Google—the Purported “Manufacturer”—Is A Party to the
First Filed Action .....................................................................................................6

D.
V.

This Action is Not a Manufacturer-Customer Suit ..................................................4

The NDCA Lacks Personal Jurisdiction Over Rockstar ..........................................6

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR TRANSFER SHOULD BE
DENIED ...............................................................................................................................6
A.

Rockstar’s Meaningful, Longstanding Connections to the
EDTX .......................................................................................................................6

B.

Each Of The Private-Interest Factors Weigh Heavily
Against Transfer.......................................................................................................8
1.

LG Cannot Show That Access to Sources of Proof
Favors Transfer ............................................................................................8

2.

The Availability of Compulsory Process Favors
Plaintiffs .......................................................................................................9

3.

The Cost of Attendance for Willing Witnesses
Favors Plaintiffs .........................................................................................12

i
MCKOOL 976268V3

Case 2:13-cv-00898-JRG Document 37 Filed 04/14/14 Page 3 of 23 PageID #: 1065

4.

The Judicial Economy Factor Favors Plaintiffs .........................................13

C.

The Public Interest Factors Slightly Favor Venue in the
EDTX .....................................................................................................................14

D.

The Facts of the Purportedly “Similar” Cases Relied on by
Defendants Differ Dramatically from this Case ....................................................15

ii
MCKOOL 976268V3

Case 2:13-cv-00898-JRG Document 37 Filed 04/14/14 Page 4 of 23 PageID #: 1066

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)
CASES
Adrain v. Genetec Inc.,
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 86855 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 22, 2009) ......................................................14
Blue Spike, LLC v. Texas Instruments, Inc.,
No. 12-558, Dkt. 16 at 5 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 13, 2014)................................................................15
Bright Response LLC v. SAS Institute, Inc.,
No. 2:12-cv-280-JRG, Dkt. 28 at 5-8 (E.D. Tex. March 26, 2013) ...........................................7
Continental Grain Co. v. Barge FBL-585,
364 U.S. 19 (1960) ...................................................................................................................14
Core Wireless Licensing, S.A.R.L. v. Apple, Inc.,
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS (E. D. Tex. Feb. 22, 2013) .................................................................10
Ctr. One v. Vonage Holdings Corp.,
2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69683 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 10, 2009) ......................................................14
Drew Techs., Inc. v. Robert Bosch, LLC,
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11489 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 31, 2012)....................................................6, 7
Eolas Techs., Inc. v. Adobe Sys., Inc.,
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104125 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 28, 2010) ......................................................8
Fractus, SA. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70443 (E.D. Tex. June 10, 2010) .........................................................9
Geotag, Inc. v. Aromatique, Inc.,
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173481 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 14, 2013) ......................................................12
Ho Keung TSE v. Google, Inc.,
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176509 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 13, 2012) .....................................................14
In re Acer Am. Corp.,
626 F.3d 1252 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................11
In re Apple Inc.,
456 F. App’x 907 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ..........................................................................................14
In re Hoffman-La Roche,
587 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2009)..........................................................................................14, 15

iii
MCKOOL 976268V3

Case 2:13-cv-00898-JRG Document 37 Filed 04/14/14 Page 5 of 23 PageID #: 1067

In re Microsoft Corp.,
630 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..................................................................................................7
In re Toyota Motor Corp.,
No. 2014-113, slip op. (Fed. Cir. April 3, 2014) .......................................................................7
In re Toyota,
No. 2014-113, slip op...............................................................................................................10
In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc.,
566 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................14
In re Zimmer Holdings, Inc.,
609 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2010)..................................................................................................7
InMotion Imagery Techs., LLC v. Imation Corp.,
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41830 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 26, 2013) (Gilstrap, J.) ...............................7, 9
Internet Machs. LLC v. Alienware Corp.,
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66207 (E.D. Tex. Jun. 7, 2011)..........................................................10
Invensense, Inc. v. STMicroelectronics, Inc.,
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3311 (E.D. Tex. Jan 1, 2010) ...............................................................7
Kahn v. Gen. Motors Corp.,
889 F.2d 1078 (Fed. Cir. 1989)..................................................................................................5
Lodsys v. Brother Int’l Corp.,
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51336 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 14, 2013) ..........................................................5
Microsoft Corp. v. Commonwealth Sci. & Indus. Res. Org.,
2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91550 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 13, 2007) .........................................................4
My Health, Inc. v. Click4Care, Inc.,
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36850 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 20, 2014).........................................................8
MYPort IP Inc. v. HTC,
6:11-cv-00246-LED, Dkt. 108 at 7 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 26, 2012) .................................................3
Personal Audio LLC v. CBS Corp.,
No. 2:13-CV-270-JRG-RSP, Dkt. 41 at 13 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 20, 2014).....................................8
PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. NEC Corp.,
No. 6:11-cv-655, Dkt. 74 at 16 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 21, 2013) .....................................................11
Pragmatus Telecom, LLC v. Neiman Marcus Group, Inc.,
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189149 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 20, 2012) ......................................................5

iv
MCKOOL 976268V3

Case 2:13-cv-00898-JRG Document 37 Filed 04/14/14 Page 6 of 23 PageID #: 1068

Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly & Co.,
119 F.3d 1559 (Fed. Cir. 1997)................................................................................................14
RPost Holdings, Inc. v. StrongMail Sys.,
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116894 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2013) ................................................7, 11
Secure Axcess, LLC v. Nintendo of Am., Inc.,
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS30115 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 7, 2014) (Gilstrap, J.) ..................................5, 6
Solid State Solutions, Inc. v. Stec, Inc.,
2:11-cv-391-JRG-RSP, at 115:3-6 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 18, 2013) .................................................11
Spread Spectrum Screening LLC v. Eastman Kodak,
657 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..............................................................................................4, 5
Tex. Data Co., LLC v. Target Brands, Inc.,
771 F. Supp. 2d 630 (E.D. Tex. 2011) ...............................................................................10, 13
Thomas Swan & Co. v. Finisar Corp.,
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 773 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 6, 2014) ...................................................... passim
Touchscreen Gestures v. HTC,
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3308 ...................................................................................................15
U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47384 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 2, 2013) .......................................................8, 9
Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.,
632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011)..................................................................................................6
Virtualagility, Inc. v. Salesforce.com, Inc.,
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12015 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 31, 2014) (Gilstrap, J.) ........................... passim
Wi-Lan Inc. v. HTC Corp.,
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99635 (E.D. Tex. July 17, 2013) (Gilstrap, J.) ..................................10

v
MCKOOL 976268V3

Case 2:13-cv-00898-JRG Document 37 Filed 04/14/14 Page 7 of 23 PageID #: 1069

I.

INTRODUCTION
Defendants LG Electronics, Inc. (“LKEKR”), LG Electronics U.S.A., Inc. (“LGEUS”),

and LG Electronics MobileComm USA Inc. (“LGEMU”) (collectively, “LG”) makes incorrect
and derogatory allegations that Plaintiffs Rockstar Consortium US LP (“Rockstar”) and
MobileStar Technologies LLC are “shell entities” created for the purpose of “manipulating
venue.” Dkt. 35 at 17. As explained herein, Rockstar and MobileStar are not “shell” entities—
they are real operating companies that are the successors to intellectual property created by the
former Nortel Networks. LG’s Motion to Stay or Transfer (the “Motion”) ignores Rockstar’s
deep ties to the Eastern District of Texas (“EDTX”), instead misleadingly focusing on the
Canadian location of a different entity, Rockstar Consortium Inc. Moreover, this is not a
manufacturer/customer suit. One of the patents-in-suit is a hardware patent with no relation to
Google or the Android system. And the other six patents-in-suit read on the combination of LG’s
hardware and the LG’s modifications to the Android operating system. For these reasons and
those discussed below, this is not a manufacturer/customer suit and the EDTX is the most
convenient venue.
II.

LEGAL STANDARD
This Court is well acquainted with the legal standards governing the transfer analysis. See

Virtualagility, Inc. v. Salesforce.com, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12015, at *4-6 (E.D. Tex. Jan.
31, 2014) (Gilstrap, J.).
III.

STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. Nortel, Rockstar, and Mobilestar’s Longstanding Ties to the EDTX
Nortel, Rockstar, and the Patents-in-Suit. Plaintiffs are the assignees of intellectual

property that resulted from research and development performed by Nortel. For twenty years,
Nortel’s U.S. headquarters was in Richardson, Texas and Nortel’s licensing activities were
conducted out of Richardson. Powers Dec. ¶ 8. When Nortel confronted bankruptcy in 2011, it
held an auction for its patents. Google made an initial $900 million bid. Hearn Dec. ¶ 7. Google
ultimately lost the auction to Rockstar Bidco LP, which paid $4.5 billion. Id. ¶ 7.
1
MCKOOL 976268V3

Case 2:13-cv-00898-JRG Document 37 Filed 04/14/14 Page 8 of 23 PageID #: 1070

Rockstar 1 owns two of the patents-in-suit and previously owned the other five patents-insuit, before assigning them to MobileStar. Powers Dec. ¶ 5. Rockstar is MobileStar’s parent
entity and maintains its principal place of business in Plano, Texas. Id. ¶ 7. MobileStar owns five
of the patents-in-suit and is the exclusive licensee (from Rockstar) of the other two patents. Ex.
1. MobileStar maintains its place of business in at the same Plano address. Id.
Rockstar and MobileStar’s Roots in the EDTX. When Rockstar Bidco LP acquired the
patents-in-suit from Nortel in 2011, the Rockstar entities also acquired many former Nortel
employees responsible for licensing and prosecuting the Nortel patents. Powers Dec. ¶ 19.
Rockstar leased Nortel’s Richardson office space where many of Nortel’s patent files were
already located, including files relevant to the patents-in-suit. Id. ¶ 29. In August 2012, after
Nortel sold its Richardson campus during its bankruptcy proceedings, Rockstar signed a sevenyear lease for its current offices in nearby Plano, within the EDTX. Id. ¶ 20. Rockstar’s Plano
office is the company’s only U.S. office, although some employees also work out of their homes.
Id. ¶ 23. The office contains 8,125 square feet, with 10 assigned offices, 2 guest offices, 4
conference rooms, 7 work areas, and storage space. Id. ¶ 21. Rockstar has 15 full-time employees
in the U.S., including five full-time employees in Plano and others who spend significant time
there. Id. ¶ 22. No employees live or work in California. Id. ¶ 25. Eight of the U.S.-based
employees likely have relevant information about the patents-in-suit; three of them work fulltime out of the Plano office, one lives in Pennsylvania, one lives in Colorado, one lives in
Massachusetts, one lives in North Carolina, and one lives in Florida. 2 Id. ¶ 26-28.
LG misleadingly focuses on the Canadian office, employees, and licensing letters of
Rockstar Consortium Inc.—the wrong entity. See Dkt. 35 at 10-11. Rockstar Consortium Inc.,
1

The equity owners of Rockstar include: Apple, BlackBerry, Ericsson, Microsoft, and Sony. Powers Dec. ¶ 10.
Ericsson’s U.S. headquarters are located within the EDTX; BlackBerry is in the Dallas-area, within just miles of the
EDTX; Microsoft is in Seattle; Apple is in the NDCA; and Sony is in New Jersey. See Exs. 12-13.
2

Additionally, two Rockstar board members live and work in EDTX or nearby. Kasim Alfalahi, a Rockstar Board
member and Chief IP officer at Ericsson, works in the EDTX, across the street from Rockstar’s Plano office. Powers
Dec. ¶ 27. Randy Mishler, another Rockstar Board member and Senior Director of IP Licensing at BlackBerry,
works in nearby Irving, Texas. Id. ¶ 28. Mr. Mishler is also a former Nortel patent attorney. Id.
2
MCKOOL 976268V3

Case 2:13-cv-00898-JRG Document 37 Filed 04/14/14 Page 9 of 23 PageID #: 1071

which is not a party to this litigation, is a different (although affiliated) entity from Rockstar .
Powers Dec. ¶ 6. Rockstar Consortium Inc. is a British Columbia corporation. Id. ¶ 6. Rockstar is
a Delaware limited partnership. Id. ¶ 6. When Rockstar acquired Nortel’s patent portfolio in
2011, in many ways Rockstar simply continued the work of Nortel’s well-established patent
licensing division. Similarly, in many ways Rockstar Consortium Inc. stepped into the shoes of
Nortel’s Canada division. See Id. ¶ 19. Accordingly, Rockstar and Rockstar Consortium Inc.
have entered into a services agreement for Rockstar Consortium Inc. to provide various support
services to Rockstar. Id. ¶ 19. When Rockstar initially formed, for example, for a transitional
period Rockstar would send licensing correspondence using Rockstar Consortium Inc.’s Ottawa
address. Id. ¶ 24. Once Rockstar relocated and settled into its current Plano location, it began
sending licensing correspondence and entering into agreements from its Plano office. Id. ¶ 24.
Thus, although LG notes that Rockstar’s initial correspondence originated from Canada, it makes
no mention of subsequent correspondence and agreements—which originated from Plano. Id. ¶
24. For example, since March 2012, Rockstar employees have signed non-disclosure agreements
and other agreements with a number of companies from Rockstar’s Plano office. Id. ¶ 24.
B. LG’s Deep Ties to Texas
LG neglects to mention its own deep ties to Texas. “The North Texas distribution hub is
LG Electronics’ largest single distribution point” in the United States.” Ex. 2. LG also maintains
“two other facilities at AllianceTexas, which include a 450,000-square-foot facility at 501
Henrietta Creek Road in Roanoke and its 500,000-square-foot facility at 13700 Independence
Pkwy. in Fort Worth.” Id. John Taylor, a vice president with LG Electronics USA, recently
stated: “We love the Dallas-Forth Worth area and expect to maintain a long-term alliance.” Id.
LG Has Not Challenged Venue in the EDTX Forum. Given LG’s ties to Texas, it
should be no surprise that it has not challenged venue in the EDTX in other litigation. 3
C. Rockstar Files this Action, Google Forum Shops to the NDCA
3

See, e.g., Ex. 6, MYPort IP Inc. v. HTC, 6:11-cv-00246-LED, Dkt. 108 at 7 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 26, 2012) (“LG
Defendants do not contest whether venue properly lies in this district”).
3
MCKOOL 976268V3

Case 2:13-cv-00898-JRG Document 37 Filed 04/14/14 Page 10 of 23 PageID #: 1072

On October 31, 2013, Plaintiffs filed patent infringement lawsuits in the EDTX against
Asus, HTC, Huawei, LG, Pantech, Samsung, and ZTE. See Dkt. 1. On December 23, 2014,
rather than intervene in this case, Google filed its action for declaratory judgment in the NDCA
(the “NDCA Action”). Ex. 3. On December 31, 2013, Plaintiffs added Google as a defendant to
the Samsung case in the EDTX. See Case No. 2:13-cv-00900, Dkt. 19.
IV.

DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR A STAY SHOULD BE DENIED.
A. This Action is Not a Manufacturer-Customer Suit
LG misleadingly asserts that the NDCA Action will answer “major issues” regarding this

Action. Dkt. 35 at 6. But while the accused devices each run different versions of the Android
operating system, this case is not about Android. 4 Of the seven patents at-issue in this case, none
is alleged by Plaintiffs to read solely on functions or features found in Android software. See,
e.g., Ex. 4. In fact, the ’551 patent covers only the hardware implementation within LG’s
accused products—it has no tie to Android. Exs. 4, 5. As to the other six patents at-issue, each
covers the combination of hardware (designed solely by the original equipment manufacturers,
like LG) with software. These patents require “sending,” 5 “receiving,” 6 “displaying,” 7 and
“storing” 8—functionality that occurs within hardware. See Microsoft Corp. v. Commonwealth
Sci. & Indus. Res. Org., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91550, at *10 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 13, 2007).
Even if Plaintiffs’ infringement allegations were focused on Android, as LG asserts, its
invocation of the “customer suit exception” to the first-to-file rule is still misplaced. While, as a
general matter, litigation against the manufacturer of infringing goods takes precedence over a
suit against that manufacturer’s customers, see Spread Spectrum Screening LLC v. Eastman
Kodak, 657 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011), a stay is inappropriate when co-defendants are
4

Android is an open-source software project managed by Google, but contributed to by many other entities and
individuals, including LG, the defendants in the other cases, and members of the public. See Exs. 7, 8, 25, 26.
5
Claims 14, 15, 19, 23, 24, 27, 28, and 31 of the ’298; claims 1, and 5 of the ’131.
6
Claims 1, 2, 13 and 14 of the ’937; claims 11, 14, 15, 16, 19, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 31, and 32 of the ’298; claims
1, 4, 8, 21, and 33 of the ’973; claims 1 and 5 of the ’131; claim 17 of the ’572; claim 1 of the ’591.
7
Claims 1-3, 8-11, 13-15, 19, and 20-23 of the ’937; claims 1-6, 8-12, 21, and 24-26 of the ’973; claim 1 of the
’591; claim 17 of the ’572.
8
Claims 17, 19, 23, and 30 of the ’298; claim 20 of the ’572.
4
MCKOOL 976268V3

Case 2:13-cv-00898-JRG Document 37 Filed 04/14/14 Page 11 of 23 PageID #: 1073

more than ordinary end users or resellers of the accused products. 9 As in Virtualagility, here LG
is “far more than just an ‘ordinary user’ of the accused products.” Id. While LG argues that
Android “exclusively originates with Google” (Dkt. 35 at 13), the reality is that each of the
defendants, including LG, develops and contributes to the source code to create its own, unique
version of the Android platform. See, e.g., Exs. 7, 8, 25-27. Rockstar’s infringement contentions
(without having received discovery on the issue) reflect that each defendant makes proprietary,
extensive modifications to the Android code for implementation in its own mobile devices—and
those changes are material to the claims of infringement in this case. 10
B. The NDCA Action Would Not Resolve the “Major Issues” in This Case
LG does not attempt to show how the NDCA Action (to which LG is not a party) would
resolve the “major issues” in this case. Spread Spectrum, 657 F.3d at 1358; see Dkt. 35 at 15.
Nor can it—LG has not agreed to be bound by the resolution of the NDCA Action (i.e.
infringement and invalidity). 11 In any event, the NDCA Action cannot resolve the major,
hardware-specific issues raised by Rockstar’s infringement claims against LG. Secure Axcess,
LLC v. Nintendo of Am., Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS30115, at *19-20 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 7, 2014)
(Gilstrap, J.).
Even if resolution of the claims against Google would resolve the issues of infringement
and invalidity against LG and the other hardware manufacturers (which it would not), it would
not resolve the individualized questions of damages with respect to Asus, Samsung, HTC, ZTE,

9

In Virtualagility, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12015, at *6-8, this Court rejected the argument “that because
[Defendant] is the sole maker of the accused . . . applications, [Defendant’s] ‘development, manufacturing and
marketing’ of these products are ‘key evidence’ in this litigation and should be the sole focus of this Court’s venue
analysis.” Instead, this Court found that the co-defendant was “far more than just an ‘ordinary user’ of the accused
products” based on the extent of the collaboration between the alleged customer and manufacturer. See also Lodsys
v. Brother Int’l Corp., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51336, 43 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 14, 2013); Pragmatus Telecom, LLC v.
Neiman Marcus Group, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189149, at *7 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 20, 2012).
10
Rockstar’s infringement contentions reflect considerable differences between each defendants’ implementation of
the Android platform, suggesting that each defendant significantly customizes the Android platform for use in its
own products. See, e.g., Ex. 9.
11
See, e.g., Kahn v. Gen. Motors Corp., 889 F.2d 1078, 1082 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (noting that GM had “not agreed to be
bound by the Illinois decision or any injunction against Motorola”); Pragmatus, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 189149, at
*8 (observing that “it appears there is still some indecision regarding agreements to be bound by the Defendants”).
5
MCKOOL 976268V3

Case 2:13-cv-00898-JRG Document 37 Filed 04/14/14 Page 12 of 23 PageID #: 1074

and Pantech. See Secure Axcess, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS30115, at *19-20. “Damages is no less a
core issue in a patent infringement case than the issues of infringement and validity.” Id. at *21.
As required by the Federal Circuit, Rockstar’s damages model against each defendant will
necessarily be distinct, grounded in the specific facts relating to each defendant and based on an
individualized analysis of the sales of the different accused products. See Uniloc USA, Inc. v.
Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292, 1317-18 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Here, as in Secure Axcess, “as to the
issue of damages, the claims against [LG] are not peripheral to those of” Google. Id.
C. The Customer-Suit Exception Does Not Apply Because Google—the
Purported “Manufacturer”—Is A Party to the First Filed Action
LG relies heavily on one unreported case from Michigan. See Dkt. 35 at 13 (citing Delphi
Corp. v. Auto. Techs. Int’l, Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56463, at *15 (E.D. Mich. July 25,
2008)). But the same Michigan court has clarified that the customer-suit exception is
inapplicable when, as is the case here, “the manufacturer not only can be, but is a party to the
first-filed litigation[.]” Drew Techs., Inc. v. Robert Bosch, LLC, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11489, at
*12-16 (E.D. Mich. Jan. 31, 2012). Here a stay is inappropriate because Google is a party to the
first-filed action. Id. at *12-16.
D. The NDCA Lacks Personal Jurisdiction Over Rockstar
Finally, the Court should deny a stay because the NDCA lacks personal jurisdiction over
Plaintiffs. Exs. 23, 24. 12
V.

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR TRANSFER SHOULD BE DENIED
Because Plaintiffs could have filed suit in the NDCA, the transfer analysis depends on the

private and public interest factors with which this Court is familiar. 13
A. Rockstar’s Meaningful, Longstanding Connections to the EDTX
Plaintiffs’ principal place of business is in Plano. Contrary to LG’s unsupported
allegations, see Dkt. 35 at 17, the Plano office is not recent, ephemeral, or an artifact of

12
13

For all the reasons stated herein, Rockstar likewise opposes a temporary stay. See Dkt. 35 at 15 n.12.
See, e.g., Thomas Swan & Co. v. Finisar Corp., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 773, at *4-6 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 6, 2014).
6

MCKOOL 976268V3

Case 2:13-cv-00898-JRG Document 37 Filed 04/14/14 Page 13 of 23 PageID #: 1075

litigation. It is a fully operational office with full-time employees doing substantial patent
prosecution, licensing, and litigation support work. Powers Dec. at ¶ 23. For over a decade,
Nortel prosecuted patents and ran programs to monetize patents (including the patents-in-suit)
out of Richardson, less than a mile from the EDTX. 14 Today, Rockstar employs five full-time
employees in the Plano office, including three patent attorneys and an office administrator. Id. ¶
22. Rockstar’s licensing and litigation activities conducted in the Plano office are within
Rockstar’s normal course of business. Id. Additionally, Rockstar’s board meetings are held at the
Plano office, as are its annual strategy sessions. 15 Id. ¶ 23.
Rockstar’s meaningful ties to the EDTX are a far cry from the type of presence that
courts consider ephemeral or an artifact of litigation. 16 Unlike the venue manipulation facts of In
re Zimmer and In re Microsoft, here Rockstar has employees in the EDTX and it conducts its
ordinary business in the EDTX. 17 Powers Dec. ¶ 20; see In re Microsoft Corp., 630 F.3d 1361,
1364-65 (Fed. Cir. 2011); In re Zimmer, 609 F.3d at 1381. Rather, Rockstar’s situation resembles
cases where this Court has found that the plaintiff’s ties to the EDTX to be part of a legitimate
pursuit of business within the EDTX. 18 In RPost Holdings, the Court found that the Texas office
of a Delaware company was not an artifact of litigation where the Vice President of Marketing
worked in the office, and the office had relevant documents related to marketing and sales. RPost
14

LG attempts to make too much of the fact that Nortel’s former office was not located in the EDTX—when it was
located less than one mile from the EDTX. See Dkt. 35 at 19; Powers Dec. ¶ 8. But as the Court explained in
Invensense, Inc. v. STMicroelectronics, Inc., it may consider “evidence extremely close by” the EDTX in the venue
analysis. 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3311, at *6, 23 (E.D. Tex. Jan 1, 2010); see also Thomas Swan, 2014 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 773, at *9 (considering companies “within or immediately adjacent to EDTX”).
15
LG highlights the Canadian office, employees, and licensing letters for Rockstar Consortium Inc. See Dkt. 35 at
17. But Rockstar Consortium Inc.—which is not a party to this litigation—is a different (although affiliated) entity
from Rockstar Consortium US LP, a plaintiff in this case. Powers Dec. ¶ 6.
16
See In re Zimmer Holdings, Inc., 609 F.3d 1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (suggesting that the record will reveal
attempts at venue manipulation where a plaintiff’s alleged place of business for purposes of the litigation “is nothing
more than a mail drop box, a bare office with a computer, or the location of an annual executive retreat . . .”).
17
This case also differs from the recent In re Toyota decision, where the plaintiff brought suit in the EDTX just five
months after opening an office in the EDTX for venue purposes; here Rockstar moved to the EDTX from nearby
Richardson after Nortel sold its office buildings as part of its bankruptcy proceedings. Powers Dec. ¶ 20; see In re
Toyota Motor Corp., No. 2014-113, slip op. at 2-3 (Fed. Cir. April 3, 2014).
18
See InMotion Imagery Techs., LLC v. Imation Corp., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41830, at *5-14 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 26,
2013) (Gilstrap, J.); Ex. 10, Bright Response LLC v. SAS Institute, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-280-JRG, Dkt. 28 at 5-8 (E.D.
Tex. March 26, 2013).
7
MCKOOL 976268V3

Case 2:13-cv-00898-JRG Document 37 Filed 04/14/14 Page 14 of 23 PageID #: 1076

Holdings, Inc. v. StrongMail Sys., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116894, at *8-9 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 19,
2013). Similarly, in Eolas Technologies the Court refused to consider a plaintiff’s EDTX
presence “recent and insubstantial” where its Chief Legal Officer lived and worked in the EDTX,
most of the company’s files were located in the EDTX, and the company conducted research in
the EDTX. Eolas Techs., Inc. v. Adobe Sys., Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 104125, at *20-21
(E.D. Tex. Sept. 28, 2010).
B. Each Of The Private-Interest Factors Weigh Heavily Against Transfer
1.

LG Cannot Show That Access to Sources of Proof Favors Transfer

LG Fails to Describe its Sources of Proof with Specificity. LG fails to meet its burden to
“identify its sources of proof with some specificity such that the Court may determine whether
transfer will increase the convenience of the parties.” U.S. Ethernet Innovations, LLC v. Samsung
Elecs. Co., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47384, at *7 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 2, 2013). LG makes no mention
of its own substantial presence in Texas. Instead, LG relies heavily on Google’s assertion that
Google’s documents are “managed and maintained” and are “accessible” from California. Dkt.
35 at 12 (citing Samsung Action, Dkt. 52-29 at ¶ 3 (emphasis added)). Google’s Dubey
Declaration, also relied on by LG, is likewise circumspect, stating that documents “are available
in Mountain View . . . or are stored on Google’s various secure servers, which are accessible
and ultimately managed from Mountain View.” Dubey Dec. ¶ 12 (emphasis added). Google
never describes what those documents are, where it stores the documents, or whether other
Google offices (including the ones in Texas) can “access” these documents. A casual reading of
these statements “suggests more than is actually true.” Ex. 11, Personal Audio LLC v. CBS
Corp., No. 2:13-CV-270-JRG-RSP, Dkt. 41 at 13 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 20, 2014). LG relies on
Google’s “artful wording to avoid disclosing the actual location of relevant documents” and
therefore fails to carry its burden with respect to the sources of proof. 19 As in U.S. Ethernet
Innovations, “[p]roblematically, the Court is asked to presume the bulk of relevant evidence would
19

My Health, Inc. v. Click4Care, Inc., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36850, at *6 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 20, 2014) (“This Court
routinely observes movants utilizing carefully worded statements to avoid disclosing key facts that disfavor their
positions, especially in the context of a Motion to Transfer.”).
8
MCKOOL 976268V3

Case 2:13-cv-00898-JRG Document 37 Filed 04/14/14 Page 15 of 23 PageID #: 1077

come from the accused infringer, yet it has not been given the full picture as to the location of
relevant sources of proof.” 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47384, at *9.

Rockstar, LG, and Third-Parties’ Sources of Proof Weigh Against Transfer. Even
wrongly assuming that almost all of Google’s documents are in the NDCA, this factor still
weighs against transfer. First, LG’s Motion makes little mention of LG’s sources of proof—
which will be far more relevant to this action than Google’s documents. LG’s sources of proof
will likely be found at its distribution hub in North Texas. 20 Second, “significant sources of proof
exist within EDTX at least as relates to the Plaintiff,” because the documents related to the
patents-in-suit are stored at Plaintiffs’ Plano headquarters. 21 InMotion Imagery Techs., 2013 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 41830, at *9. Third, courts also routinely look to third parties’ documents. Here
those may include documents from Rockstar equity owners BlackBerry and Ericsson, who reside
in the Dallas area; the patents-in-suits’ prosecuting attorneys who reside in Richardson and
Irving; LG’s customers, including Verizon and AT&T, with facilities in Dallas; and third parties
related to the Nortel auction in New York. See Exs. 12, 13.
2.

The Availability of Compulsory Process Favors Plaintiffs

This factor examines the availability of compulsory process to secure the attendance of
third-party witnesses. Virtualagility, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12015, at *13. The third-party
witnesses identified by LG should be accorded little weight because either they are likely within
LG’s control or not identified with adequate specificity, their testimony has little or no relevance
to issues in the case, or their testimony will be available via deposition. 22 On the other hand, the
most important third-party witnesses will likely be located in the EDTX, on the East Coast, or in
20

See Fractus, SA. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70443, at *24 (E.D. Tex. June 10, 2010).
Relevant documents in Plano include historical Nortel files relating to patent licenses, patent licensing efforts, and
payment of royalties. Powers Dec. ¶ 29.
22
LG argues that transfer is appropriate because Apple witnesses are “very likely” necessary witnesses. See Dkt. 35
at 13. But, if necessary, LG could present evidence regarding Apples’ valuation of the Nortel patent portfolio
through video deposition. LG fails to explain how it would be inconvenienced by presenting any Apple witnesses’
deposition testimony at trial. Indeed, this Court recently rejected a similar argument. Virtualagility, 2014 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 12015, at *18-19. Moreover, to the extent Apple’s testimony is relevant, it is just as relevant as the testimony
of Dallas-area resident BlackBerry and EDTX resident Ericsson, who also bid on the Nortel portfolio as part of the
Rockstar Consortium US. See Exs. 12, 13.
21

9
MCKOOL 976268V3

Case 2:13-cv-00898-JRG Document 37 Filed 04/14/14 Page 16 of 23 PageID #: 1078

Canada. On balance, the analysis cuts decisively in Plaintiffs’ favor.
Allegations As To Google Witnesses Lack Specificity or Showing of Unwillingness.
LG’s vague reference to unidentified former Google and Android “witnesses with knowledge”
(Dkt. 35 at 9) allegedly “concentrated” in California warrants no weight because it lacks the
required level of specificity. 23 “Defendants are asking the Court to attribute more weight based
on this assertion of a potential likelihood that an un-named and otherwise unidentified third-party
witness may or may not be used for trial sometime in the future.” Wi-Lan Inc. v. HTC Corp.,
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99635, at *30 (E.D. Tex. July 17, 2013) (Gilstrap, J.); see also In re
Toyota, No. 2014-113, slip op. at 4 n.1. Moreover, LG has not even attempted to make any
showing that the Google witnesses would be “unwilling” witnesses that require compulsory
process. See Tex. Data Co., LLC v. Target Brands, Inc., 771 F. Supp. 2d 630, 643 (E.D. Tex.
2011). Indeed, LG first lists Google witnesses under the “willing witnesses” factor, recognizing
that compulsory process will not be necessary for Google’s employee witnesses. See Dkt. 35 at
15.
Prior Artists. At the outset, LG has again failed to meet its burden of proof: it offers no
evidence that these prior art witnesses would be unwilling to testify in the EDTX. See Tex. Data
Co., LLC v. Target Brands, Inc., 771 F. Supp. 2d 630, 643 (E.D. Tex. 2011). Additionally, LG
implies that prior art authors are concentrated in the NDCA. See Dkt. 35 at 13. But of the
hundreds of inventors on the prior art patents, only 39 reside in the NDCA. See Dkt. 35 at 13.
The remainder are scattered throughout the world, including at least 12 in Texas, 91 on the East
Coast, and 24 outside the U.S. Budwin Dec. ¶¶ 3-5. Of the prior art inventors residing in Texas,
three appear to reside in the Dallas area—within the “absolute subpoena power” of the Court. Id.
And importantly, “inventors of prior art rarely, if ever, actually testify at trial,” and therefore it is
23

See Internet Machs. LLC v. Alienware Corp., 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66207, at *22 (E.D. Tex. Jun. 7, 2011)
(finding that a party must at least identify witnesses who would require compulsory process); Core Wireless
Licensing, S.A.R.L. v. Apple, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS, at *9-10 (E. D. Tex. Feb. 22, 2013) (finding assertions
that “the alleged infringing products were designed and developed in Cupertino, CA and the employees responsible
for that development are based in the Cupertino area” to be “vague” such that “weighing [them in the analysis] …
would be merely speculative”).
10
MCKOOL 976268V3

Case 2:13-cv-00898-JRG Document 37 Filed 04/14/14 Page 17 of 23 PageID #: 1079

more important to examine other categories of witnesses. 24
Rockstar Equity Owners and Nortel Bidders Will Be Irrelevant. LG’s focus on Apple is
inapposite: the parties do not dispute the bids placed for the Nortel patent portfolio. Additionally,
Rockstar’s equity owners do not direct or control Rockstar’s licensing efforts. Powers Dec. ¶ 15.
However, to the extent that testimony from Apple is relevant, testimony from the other Nortel
bidders and Rockstar equity investors would be equally relevant, including Microsoft,
Blackberry, Ericsson, Sony, and Google. 25 Ericsson maintains its headquarters in the EDTX and
Blackberry is headquartered in the Dallas area, just a few miles from the EDTX. Exs. 12, 13.
Inventors Across the Country. The majority of the inventors of the patents-in-suit reside
in Canada or the East Coast (New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, North Carolina). See
Budwin Dec. ¶ 4. Five named inventors on the patents-in-suit (two from Canada and therefore
subject to the Hague Convention) have agreed to travel to EDTX to provide testimony. 26 See
Wooten Dec., Poisson Dec., St. George Dec., Egan Dec., and Colvin Dec.
Prosecuting Attorneys. The attorneys who prosecuted the patents-in-suit are likely to
have material information related to this case. 27 Two of the attorneys responsible for prosecuting
the patents-in-suit live and work in Texas (one in Richardson, within the EDTX); three live in
North Carolina; one lives in New Jersey, and none live in California. Budwin Dec. ¶ 6.
Former Nortel Employees. Several former Nortel employees who possess material
information and are not employed by Plaintiffs reside in or near the EDTX. Art Fisher, Nortel’s
VP for IP Law 1998–2004, resides in the Dallas area. Powers Dec. ¶ 31. Rich Weiss served as
Nortel’s Deputy IP Counsel from 1997–2008 and works in McKinney, in the EDTX. Id. ¶ 31.
Mr. Fisher and Mr. Weiss possess knowledge related to Nortel’s licensing practices and policies

24

PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. NEC Corp., No. 6:11-cv-655, Dkt. 74 at 16 n.13 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 21, 2013); see also
RPost Holdings, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 116894, at *10-11.
25
The former head of patent strategy for Google, who likely has relevant knowledge regarding Google’s bidding for
the patents-in-suit, now lives on the East Coast. Exs. 14, 15.
26
See Ex. 16, Tr. of Motion to Transfer Hr’g, Solid State Solutions, Inc. v. Stec, Inc., 2:11-cv-391-JRG-RSP, at
115:3-6 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 18, 2013).
27
See In re Acer Am. Corp., 626 F.3d 1252, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (prosecuting attorneys are likely witnesses).
11
MCKOOL 976268V3

Case 2:13-cv-00898-JRG Document 37 Filed 04/14/14 Page 18 of 23 PageID #: 1080

during the years of their employment.
LG’s Customers in EDTX. LG’s customers represent a key link in the supply chain for
the infringing hardware, and will provide important evidence regarding damages and demand for
the features afforded by the patents-in-suit. Several of those providers have significant facilities
in North Texas. For instance, AT&T Service, Inc. and AT&T Mobility are headquartered in
Dallas, and Verizon has a Richardson facility with 2,250 employees. 28 See Geotag, Inc. v.
Aromatique, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173481, at *20-21 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 14, 2013); Thomas
Swan & Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 773, at *9.
Using Third-Party Witness Depositions Will Not Result in “Serious Inconvenience.”
LG argues that it would be “inconvenienced” and it would be “prejudicial” to LG if at trial it can
present evidence regarding Apples’ valuation of the Nortel patent portfolio only through video
deposition. Dkt. 35 at 14. But this Court recently rejected a similar assertion in Virtualagility,
2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12015, at *18-19. Moreover, to the extent Apple’s testimony is relevant,
it is just as relevant as the testimony of Dallas-area resident BlackBerry and EDTX resident
Ericsson, who also bid on the Nortel portfolio as part of the Rockstar Bidco. See Exs. 12, 13.
3.

The Cost of Attendance for Willing Witnesses Favors Plaintiffs

LG Fails to Carry its Burden of Proof. LG fails to meet its burden of proof with respect
to the allegations regarding LG and Google witnesses. Mostly Google and LG use vague
assertions, such as stating that operations for the products are “predominantly based” at its
headquarters, and “most employees” familiar with the business aspects of the products and “key
engineers” on the products work from its headquarters. Case No. 2:13-cv-894, Dkt. 52-29 at ¶ 6.
Contrary to such vague assertions, publicly available information suggests that Google’s Texas
employees work on the development of the Android platforms. Specifically, Jeff Hamilton, a
software engineer on Google’s Android team who specializes in “[o]perating systems
28

Although evidence from these customers would likely be sought via Rule 30(b)(6) requests, individuals with this
knowledge include: Brad Bridges, Kevin Jeffries, John Stephens, Joe Tesson, Mark Madere, Kelly Haltom, and
David Pluss. See Exs. 17-21.
12
MCKOOL 976268V3

Case 2:13-cv-00898-JRG Document 37 Filed 04/14/14 Page 19 of 23 PageID #: 1081

development for mobile devices,” lives in Austin, Texas. Ex. 22. Thus, Google’s Californiabased witnesses should not be factored into the transfer analysis. 29
Rockstar Witnesses. Rockstar has no ties to the NDCA. Rockstar employees with
relevant knowledge live and work in the EDTX, and the EDTX is also more convenient for those
employees who are home-based (primarily on the East Coast) and regularly commute to Plano.
Rockstar employees with relevant knowledge include Donald Powers, who works full-time in the
Plano headquarters and has material information related to this suit, including knowledge of
Nortel and Rockstar’s corporate organization and structure, documents investigated for purposes
of this suit, and employees and other parties with knowledge about the patents-in-suit. Powers
Decl. ¶¶ 1–2. Bernard Tiegerman, Rockstar’s Senior Patent Counsel, possesses material
information related to Plaintiffs’ licensing efforts and was involved in the prosecution of U.S.
Patent No. 6,463,131. Id. ¶ 26; Tiegerman Decl. ¶¶ 3-4. Mr. Tiegerman works full-time out of
Rockstar’s Plano headquarters and he lives in Dallas. Id. Eric Fako, Rockstar’s Lead Patent
Counsel, was involved in the prosecution of U.S. Patent No. 6,128,298. Fako Decl. ¶¶ 3-4. Like
Mr. Tiegerman, Mr. Fako routinely works out of Rockstar’s Plano, Texas headquarters. Id. Mark
Hearn is Senior Licensing Counsel for Rockstar, and previously worked for Nortel for over 13
years (in its Richardson office) as Senior Counsel. Hearn Decl ¶ 1. He currently works full-time
out of Rockstar’s Plano office and lives in Dallas. Id. “Where a transfer will only shift the
inconvenience from one district to another, the movant has not met its burden of persuasion.” See
Thomas Swan & Co., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 773, at *13. See also, McColgan Decl.; Veschi
Decl.
4.

The Judicial Economy Factor Favors Plaintiffs

The “Federal Circuit has emphatically instructed” that the “existence of duplicative suits
involving the same or similar issues creates practical difficulties that will weigh heavily in favor
29

LG has not even attempted to make any showing that the Google witnesses would be “unwilling” witnesses that
require compulsory process. See Tex. Data Co., LLC v. Target Brands, Inc., 771 F. Supp. 2d 630, 643 (E.D. Tex.
2011). Accordingly, Google is addressed here within the “willing witnesses” factor of the transfer analysis.
13
MCKOOL 976268V3

Case 2:13-cv-00898-JRG Document 37 Filed 04/14/14 Page 20 of 23 PageID #: 1082

or against transfer (in order to try duplicative suits in the same venue).” 30 Indeed, the Supreme
Court has made clear that transferring an overlapping suit to another district “leads to the
wastefulness of time, energy, and money that § 1404(a) was designed to prevent.” Continental
Grain Co. v. Barge FBL-585, 364 U.S. 19, 26 (1960); see also Adrain v. Genetec Inc., 2009 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 86855, at *9 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 22, 2009).
LG takes the position that “there are no practical problems with transferring [this] case.”
Dkt. 35 at 11. Yet this case is one of six filed by Rockstar in the EDTX involving the same
patents and technologies, which this Court has already consolidated for pre-trial purposes. Dkt.
32. At a minimum, the cases will call for common information regarding claim construction, the
Nortel auction, as well as Nortel’s and Rockstar’s history and corporate structure. Powers Dec. ¶
32. And the defendants will almost certainly file counterclaims with similar or identical
invalidity counterclaims. If transfer were granted in this case, five other defendants would
continue to litigate duplicative claims in this Court. 31 The existence of overlapping suits
“involving the same or similar issues creates practical difficulties that will weigh heavily …
against” transferring one of those suits to another venue. 32 Virtualagility, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
12015, at *22.
C. The Public Interest Factors Slightly Favor Venue in the EDTX
“Local interest arises when a district is home to a party because the suit may call into
question the reputation of individuals that work in the community.” In re Hoffman-La Roche,
587 F.3d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Here that standard is met: Plaintiffs run their business

30

Ctr. One v. Vonage Holdings Corp., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69683, at *22 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 10, 2009); see In re
Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 566 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (describing this issue as “a paramount consideration”
in the transfer analysis); Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 119 F.3d 1559, 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (noting
that considerations such as these “may be determinative to a particular transfer motion”).
31
More of the Defendants are closer to the EDTX. See Budwin Dec. ¶ 2. Here, as in In re Apple, “[a]s compared to
those cases in which this court granted mandamus, here there are fewer defendants in the [NDCA] and potential
evidence identified in the [EDTX], along with defendants and witnesses that will find it easier and more convenient
to try this case in the Eastern District of Texas.” In re Apple Inc., 456 F. App’x 907, 909 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
32
See also Ho Keung TSE v. Google, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176509, at *10 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 13, 2012)
(transferring case from EDTX to district where claims involving the same patent were already pending).
14
MCKOOL 976268V3

Case 2:13-cv-00898-JRG Document 37 Filed 04/14/14 Page 21 of 23 PageID #: 1083

from the EDTX. Powers Dec. ¶ 20. In addition, the patents-in-suit are the result of research
undertaken by Nortel, which maintained its U.S. location in Richardson for two decades. Id.
Accordingly, this factor either favors Plaintiffs or is neutral. 33
Plaintiffs agree that the remaining public interest factors—court congestion, familiarity of
the forum with the governing law, and the avoidance of conflicts of laws—are neutral.
D. The Facts of the Purportedly “Similar” Cases Relied on by Defendants Differ
Dramatically from this Case
LG attempts to twist this Court’s precedent to suggest that transfer is appropriate. See
Dkt. 35 at 21. First, in Touchscreen Gestures v. HTC, neither party had headquarters, documents,
or party witnesses located in the EDTX. No. 12-0261, Dkt. 17 at 1, 6, 9 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 27,
2013). In contrast, here Rockstar’s headquarters, documents, and party witnesses are located in
the EDTX (as are those of Samsung and ZTE, defendants in the related actions). Second, in
Ingeniador, “[n]o party contend[ed] that relevant evidence exists in the Eastern District.” 2014
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3308 at *4-5. But here, Rockstar has relevant evidence that exists within the
EDTX (as do Samsung and ZTE, in the related actions). Moreover, in Ingeniador, “none of
Plaintiff’s witnesses reside or work in the Eastern District of Texas.” 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
3308 at *8. In contrast, Rockstar is headquartered here and many of its witnesses reside and work
in the EDTX. Powers Dec. ¶ 31. Finally, in Blue Spike, LLC v. Texas Instruments, Inc., the
plaintiff could point to “no third-party witnesses that this Court would have absolute subpoena

power over.” No. 12-558, Dkt. 16 at 5 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 13, 2014). Rockstar, however, has
identified many third-party witnesses within this Court’s subpoena power.

33

See Thomas Swan, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 773, at *16; Virtualagility, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12015, at *23.
15

MCKOOL 976268V3

Case 2:13-cv-00898-JRG Document 37 Filed 04/14/14 Page 22 of 23 PageID #: 1084

Dated: April 14, 2014.

MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
/s/ Ted Stevenson III
Mike McKool
Texas State Bar No. 13732100
[e-mail]
Douglas A. Cawley
Texas State Bar No. 04035500
[e-mail]
Ted Stevenson III
LEAD ATTORNEY
Texas State Bar No. 19196650
[e-mail]
David Sochia
Texas State Bar No. 00797470
[e-mail]
Ryan A. Hargrave
Texas State Bar No. 24071516
[e-mail]
MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
300 Crescent Court Suite 1500
Dallas, TX 75201
Telephone: [phone]
Telecopier: [phone]
Joshua W. Budwin
Texas State Bar No. 24050347
[e-mail]
MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
300 W. 6th Street, Suite 1700
Austin, TX 78701
Telephone: [phone]
Telecopier: [phone]
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
ROCKSTAR CONSORTIUM US LP,
AND MOBILESTAR TECHNOLOGIES
LLC

MCKOOL 976268V3

Case 2:13-cv-00898-JRG Document 37 Filed 04/14/14 Page 23 of 23 PageID #: 1085

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was filed electronically in
compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a) on April 14, 2014. As such, this document was served on
all counsel who are deemed to have consented to electronic service. Local Rule CV-5(a)(3)(A).
/s/ Joshua W. Budwin
Joshua W. Budwin

MCKOOL 976268V3