Rockstar Consortium US LP et al v. Google Inc

Filing 207

NOTICE by Google Inc Notice of Supplemental Authority (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Perlson, David)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
ROCKSTAR CONSORTIUM US LP
AND NETSTAR TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
Plaintiffs,
v.
GOOGLE INC.
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 13-cv-00893-JRG-RSP
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

GOOGLE INC.’S NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY
Currently pending before the Court is Google Inc.’s Objections to the Magistrate’s
Memorandum Opinion and Order Denying Google’s Motion to Transfer (Dkt. 188), filed
October 3, 2014. Plaintiffs Rockstar Consortium US LP and Netstar Technologies LLC have not
yet responded. Google files this notice to bring to the Court’s attention subsequent authority that
is relevant to Google’s Objections.
On October 9, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its
non-precedential order in In re Google Inc., Case No. 2014-147, Dkt. 22 (the “Order”), attached
hereto as Exhibit A. The Order granted Google’s petition for a writ of mandamus to this Court
in a series of cases filed by Rockstar Consortium US LP and Mobilestar Technologies LLC (the
“Respondents”), Nos. 2:13-cv-00894-JRG, 2:13-cv-00895-JRG, 2:13-cv-00898-JRG, 2:13-cv00900-JRG, and 2:13-cv-00901-JRG. The Federal Circuit vacated orders denying motions to
stay in these cases, and ordered the cases stayed pending the outcome of a declaratory judgment
action filed by Google in the United States Court for the Northern District of California. While
the specific posture of that case raised issues of comity (Order at 5), in granting the writ, the

1

Federal Circuit further concluded that the convenience factors support venue in the Northern
District of California, rather than this District. (Order at 7-8.) The Federal Circuit’s findings are
directly relevant to Google’s Objections.
Specifically, the Federal Circuit analyzed “the comparative convenience of both venues
for resolving the matter.” (Order at 7.) The court concluded “those considerations point firmly
in the direction of the Northern District of California,” in part because (1) Google’s products at
issue (its Android platform) were “designed and created” in the Northern District, (2) “[m]any of
the witnesses who can testify to the design and development” of the products “reside near
Google’s headquarters in Mountain View,” and (3) the Respondents “do not name any witnesses
in Texas essential to the suit.” (Id.) Each of these points is relevant to Google’s Objections
concerning the similar facts in this case.

(See Dkt. 188, 3.)

The Federal Circuit further

explained that Google filed a declaration that its records regarding the accused products “are
predominantly based in its headquarters in the Northern District of California,” a fact that weighs
in favor of venue in the Northern District. (Order at 7-8 (citing In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d
1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2009).) This point is relevant to Google’s Objections as well. (See Dkt.
188, 4-5.) Finally, the Federal Circuit addressed Respondents’ evidence of an office in Plano,
Texas, finding that “they do not dispute that their primary operations are run out of Canada.
Moreover, the only prospective employee witnesses that Respondents name from Plano work as
counsel for Respondents, and are thus entitled to little consideration in a convenience calculus.”
(Id. at 8.) This too is relevant to Google’s Objections. (See Dkt. 188, 2-4.)

2

DATED: October 17, 2014

QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
By

/s/ David Perlson
J. Mark Mann
State Bar No. 12926150
G. Blake Thompson
State Bar No. 24042033
MANN | TINDEL | THOMPSON
300 West Main Street
Henderson, Texas 75652
[phone]
[phone] (fax)
QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &
SULLIVAN, LLP
Charles K. Verhoeven
[e-mail]
David A. Perlson
[e-mail]
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, California 94111-4788
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for Google Inc.

3

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that all counsel of record who are deemed to have
consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s
CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3) on October 17, 2014.

/s/ Sam Stake
Sam Stake
50 California Street, 22nd Floor
San Francisco, California 94111-4788
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]

4