Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al

Filing 214

MOTION to Change Venue to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) by Apple Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Teague I. Donahey, # 2 Exhibit 1, # 3 Exhibit 2, # 4 Exhibit 3, # 5 Exhibit 4, # 6 Exhibit 5, # 7 Exhibit 6, # 8 Exhibit 7, # 9 Exhibit 8, # 10 Exhibit 9, # 11 Exhibit 10, # 12 Exhibit 11, # 13 Exhibit 12, # 14 Exhibit 13, # 15 Exhibit 14, # 16 Exhibit 15, # 17 Exhibit 16, # 18 Exhibit 17, # 19 Exhibit 18, # 20 Exhibit 19, # 21 Exhibit 20, # 22 Exhibit 21, # 23 Exhibit 22, # 24 Exhibit 23, # 25 Exhibit 24, # 26 Exhibit 25, # 27 Exhibit 26, # 28 Exhibit 27, # 29 Exhibit 28, # 30 Exhibit 29, # 31 Exhibit 30, # 32 Exhibit 31, # 33 Exhibit 32, # 34 Exhibit 33, # 35 Exhibit 34, # 36 Exhibit 35, # 37 Exhibit 36, # 38 Exhibit 37, # 39 Exhibit 38, # 40 Exhibit 39, # 41 Exhibit 40, # 42 Exhibit 41, # 43 Exhibit 42, # 44 Exhibit 43, # 45 Exhibit 44, # 46 Exhibit 45, # 47 Exhibit 46, # 48 Exhibit 47, # 49 Exhibit 48, # 50 Exhibit 49, # 51 Exhibit 50, # 52 Exhibit 51, # 53 Exhibit 52, # 54 Exhibit 53, # 55 Exhibit 54, # 56 Exhibit 55, # 57 Exhibit 56, # 58 Exhibit 57, # 59 Exhibit 58, # 60 Exhibit 59, # 61 Exhibit 60, # 62 Exhibit 61, # 63 Exhibit 62, # 64 Exhibit 63, # 65 Exhibit 64, # 66 Exhibit 65, # 67 Exhibit 66, # 68 Exhibit 67, # 69 Exhibit 68, # 70 Exhibit 69, # 71 Exhibit 70, # 72 Exhibit 71, # 73 Exhibit 72, # 74 Exhibit 73, # 75 Exhibit 74, # 76 Exhibit 75, # 77 Affidavit Darin Adler, # 78 Exhibit A, # 79 Exhibit B, # 80 Affidavit Marc D. Callipari, # 81 Affidavit Jeetendra Kaul, # 82 Affidavit Steven Mansour, # 83 Affidavit Mark Risher, # 84 Affidavit Sean Scott, # 85 Affidavit Prasad Setty, # 86 Affidavit Jason W. Wolff, # 87 Text of Proposed Order)(Cederoth, Richard) (Additional attachment(s) added on 2/11/2010: # 88 Corrected Proposed Order) (mjc, ).

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EOLAS TECHNOLOGIES INCORPORATED, Plaintiff, vs. ADOBE SYSTEMS INC., et aI., Defendants.

§ § § § § § § § § § § §

Civil Action No. 6:09-cv-00446 Judge Leonard Davis Jury Trial Demanded

DECLARATION OF GOOGLE INC. AND YOUTUBE,LLC IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

I, Prasad Setty, do state and declare as follows: 1. I am the Director of People Analytics and Compensation at Google Inc.

("Google") in Mountain View, California. I have been employed by Google since 2007. I make this declaration in support of Defendants' Motion to Transfer, filed herewith. Unless otherwise stated, the matters contained in this declaration are of my own personal knowledge and, if called as a witness, I could and would testify competently to the matters set forth herein. 2. 3. Google is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Mountain View, California. Y ouTube, LLC ("YouTube") is a Delaware corporation headquartered in San

Bruno,. California, and is a subsidiary of Google Inc.

II II

4.

I understand that Plaintiff Eolas Technologies Inc. ("EOLAS") alleges that

Google has directly andlor indirectly infringed (by inducement andlor contributory infringement), and is continuing to infringe, directly andlor indirectly, United States Patent No. 5,838,906 andlor United States Patent No. 7,599,985 by making, using, selling, offering to sell, andlor importing in or into the United States, without authority: (i) web pages and content to be interactively presented in browsers, including, without limitation, the web pages and content accessible via www.google.com and maintained on servers located in andlor accessible from the United States under the control of Google; (ii) software, including without limitation, browser software and software that allows content to be interactively presented in andlor served to browsers, including, without limitation, Chrome for Windows and Chrome for the Mac; andlor (iii) computer equipment, including, without limitation, computer equipment that stores, serves, andlor runs any of the foregoing ("Google accused products"). I also understand that EOLAS has generally accused YouTube's website at www.youtube.com of infringement. 5. Google was founded in Northern California and is headquartered in Mountain

View, California, where many of whom are involved on projects related to the Google accused products, specifically the Google Chrome Browser ("Chrome"). The teams responsible for research, design, and development for Chrome are led by personnel that have been, and are, located at Google's facilities in Mountain View, California. Google's business documents and records relating to the research, design, and development of Chrome are either physically present or electronically acces~ible in Mountain View, California. While Chrome is made available for free, the teams responsible for marketing and distribution of Chrome are led by personnel that have been, and are, located in Google's facilities in Mountain View, California.

2

6.

YouTube was founded in Northern California and is headquartered in San Bruno,

California, where the majority of its employees work and are involved on projects related to YouTube. The teams responsible for research, design, and development for YouTube are led by personnel that have be~n, and are, located in San Bruno, California (or elsewhere in the Northern District of California). YouTube's business documents and records relating to the research, design, and development of Y ouTube are either physically present or electronically accessible in San Bruno, California. The teams responsible for marketing for YouTube are led by personnel that have been, and are, located primarily in San Bruno, California (or elsewhere in the Northern District of California). 7. Based on information that Google and YouTube have gathered to date and their

current understanding of the case, I understand that at least the following employees in Northern California have relevant knowledge about the development, operation, and marketin