Rockstar Consortium US LP et al v. Google Inc

Filing 49

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-RG
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

GOOGLE INC.’S NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY
Currently pending before the Court is Google Inc.’s (“Google”) Motion To Transfer
Venue to the Northern District of California (Dkt. 18). Briefing closed on the motion on March
27, 2014. Google files this notice to bring to the Court's attention subsequent authority that is
relevant to Google's motion to transfer.
Specifically, on April 17, 2014, in Google Inc. v. Rockstar Consortium U.S. LP,
MobileStar Techs., LLC, Case No. 13-cv-5933, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California (“Northern District”) denied Rockstar and MobileStar’s (collectively,
“Rockstar”) motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to transfer Google’s declaratory judgment
action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. A copy of the order is
attached as Exhibit A.
On October 31, 2013, Rockstar filed patent infringement suits in this Court against
Samsung, ASUS, HTC, Huawei, LG, Pantech, and ZTE. (Ex. A at 4.) Rockstar alleges
infringement by smartphones that use Google’s Android operating system. (Id.) On December
23, 2013, Google filed suit in the Northern District against Rockstar, seeking a declaratory

01980.00010/5884013.1

1

judgment that it does not infringe the patents asserted in the Android suits. (Id. at 4.) Rockstar
responded by moving to dismiss Google’s suit for lack of personal jurisdiction or to transfer to
this District. (Id. at 1.)
In denying Rockstar’s motion to transfer to this District, the Northern District concluded
that the convenience factors and interests of justice support venue in the Northern District, rather
than this District. (Id. at 24-28.) Specifically, the Northern District found that Rockstar did “not
name any witnesses in Texas essential to the suit.” (Id. at 25.) It further found that Rockstar’s
“primary operations and headquarters are in Canada.” (Id. at 27.) As to the inventors of the
patents-in-suit, the Northern District observed, “many of the inventors of the patents-in-suit were
listed at least years ago as being from Canada.” (Id.) The Northern District also held that “the
Northern District of California has the greater interest in this litigation because the claims here
will ‘call into question the work and reputation of several individuals residing in or conducting
business in this community.’” (Ex. A at 27-28.)
These findings are relevant to Google’s Motion To Transfer. Specifically, here, Rockstar
argued that transfer should be denied because it has a satellite office and licensing attorneys in
Plano. (Dkt. 33 at 4-5, 13.) The Northern District concluded, however, that Rockstar’s “primary
operations and headquarters are in Canada” and that the witnesses in Plano are not “essential to
the suit.” (Ex. A at 25, 27.) And just as the Northern District found that many of the inventors
of the patents-in-suit were from Canada (Id. at 27), here the only two inventors are located in
Canada. (Dkt. 33 at 13.) Rockstar further argued that considerations of judicial economy weigh
against transfer of this case to the Northern District because Rockstar’s Android-related actions
are also in this Court. (Id. at 14.) This factor is now neutral, at worst, because Google’s
declaratory judgment action will remain in the Northern District. Finally, Rockstar argued that

01980.00010/5884013.1

2

the local interests in this litigation are neutral. (Id. at 15.) The Northern District rejected this
argument because Rockstar is headquartered in Canada and because the declaratory judgment
action will “call into question the work and reputation of several individuals” in the Northern
District. (Ex. A at 27-28.) The same is true here; Google employees that developed the accused
products are in the Northern District. (Dkt. 18 at 2-3.)

01980.00010/5884013.1

3

DATED: April 24, 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.

01980.00010/5884013.1

4

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 April 24, 2014.

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

01980.00010/5884013.1

5