Google Inc. v. Rockstar Consortium US LP et al

Filing 78

REPLY (re 67 MOTION to Transfer Case or, in the Alternative to Stay ) filed byMobileStar Technologies LLC, Rockstar Consortium US LP. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration (Supplemental) of Joshua Budwin, # 2 Exhibit 36, # 3 Exhibit 37, # 4 Exhibit 38, # 5 Exhibit 39, # 6 Exhibit 40, # 7 Exhibit 41, # 8 Exhibit 42, # 9 Exhibit 43, # 10 Declaration (Supplemental) of Donald Powers, # 11 Declaration (Supplemental) of John Veschi)(Budwin, Joshua) (Filed on 5/30/2014)

Download PDF
HIGHLIGHTING ADDED EXHIBIT 42 Case 2:14-cv-00061-JRG Document 15 Filed 02/20/14 Page 1 of 17 PageID #: 418 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION ContentGuard Holdings, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Google, Inc., Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-61 GOOGLE INC.’S MOTION TO STAY, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE TO TRANSFER VENUE, BASED ON A FIRST-FILED ACTION PENDING IN THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Case 2:14-cv-00061-JRG Document 15 Filed 02/20/14 Page 15 of 17 PageID #: 432 favor of transfer). In addition, this case is in its infancy; nothing has happened beyond the filing of the Complaint. Thus, this Court has not expended a great deal of time or resources on this case. See Lone Star, 2013 WL 5496816, at *5 (considering amount of court resources spent on case to point of transfer decision). C. The Interests of Justice Favor Transfer to the Northern District of California. In considering the interests of justice, courts consider (1) the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion; (2) the local interest in having localized interests decided at home; (3) the familiarity of the forum with the law that will govern the case; and (4) the avoidance of unnecessary problems of conflict of laws or in the application of foreign law. VirtualAgility, 2014 WL 459719, at *1. These considerations also weigh strongly in favor of transfer to the Northern District of California. 1. Administrative Difficulties From Court Congestion is Neutral. The PriceWaterhouseCoopers 2013 Patent Litigation Study indicates that the median time to trial for patent cases in this Court is 2.19 years, compared to 2.72 years in the Northern District of California. (Ex. 9, 2013 Patent Litigation Study at 22.) This factor is neutral, as the difference in median time is only about six months. See Affinity Labs of Tex. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., __ F. Supp. 2d __, 2013 WL 5508122, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 18, 2013) (court congestion factor neutral as between the Eastern District of Texas and the Northern District of California). 2. The Local Interest in Having Localized Interests Decided at Home Favors Transfer. The Federal Circuit has directed that in patent actions, the locale where the alleged infringing product was designed and developed be considered to have a “significant interest” in the controversy. TOA Techs., 2013 WL 5486763, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 3, 2013). The place where the product accused of infringement was developed has a “strong” local interest in the 14

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?