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)

Download PDF
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 On October 9, 2014, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its non-precedential order in In re Google Inc., Case No. 2014-147, Dkt. 22 (the “Order”), attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Order granted Google’s petition for a writ of mandamus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 (903) 657-8540 (903) 657-6003 (fax) QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP Charles K. Verhoeven David A. Perlson 50 California Street, 22nd Floor San Francisco, California 94111-4788 Telephone: (415) 875 6600 Facsimile: (415) 875 6700 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: (415) 875 6600 Facsimile: (415) 875 6700 4

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?