BiTMICRO LLC v. Intel Corporation

Filing 58

Redacted Copy of 55 Sealed Order. (lad)

Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 58 Filed 06/06/23 Page 1 of 22

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
WACO DIVISION

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

BITMICRO LLC,
Plaintiff

-vsINTEL CORPORATION,
Defendant

W-22-CV-00335-ADA

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
TO THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Before the Court is Defendant Intel Corporation’s (“Intel”) Motion to Transfer Venue to
the Northern District of California or, in the Alternative, to the District of Oregon. ECF No. 22.
Plaintiff BiTMICRO, LLC (“BiTMICRO”) opposes the motion. ECF No. 34. Intel filed a reply to
further support its motion. ECF No. 37. After careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the
applicable law, the Court GRANTS Intel’s motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of
California.
I.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In its complaint, BiTMICRO claims Intel infringes on U.S. Patent Nos. 7,826,243 (“’243
patent”), 9,135,190 (“’190 patent”), 8,010,740 (“’740 patent”), 9,858,084 (“’084 patent”),
10,120,694 (“’694 patent”), and 6,496,939 (“’939 patent”) (collectively, the “asserted patents”),
which relate to solid state drive and integrated circuit technology. ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 2, 72, 91, 126,
141, 158, 172. BiTMICRO, the owner of the asserted patents, is a limited liability company
organized under the laws of the state of Delaware. Id. ¶ 5. BiTMICRO’s principal place of business
is in Reston, Virginia. Id. Intel is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware with its
principal place of business in Santa Clara, California. Id. ¶ 6. According to BiTMICRO, Intel’s
1

Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 58 Filed 06/06/23 Page 2 of 22

NAND Solid State Drive (“SSD”), Optane SSD, Optane Persistent Memory, RAID Controller,
Stratix 10, and Lakefield products infringe upon the asserted patents. ECF No. 22 at 3−4. The
Court will refer to these products collectively as the “accused products.”
After responding to BiTMICRO’s amended complaint, Intel filed the instant motion to
transfer. ECF No. 22. Intel does not argue that the Western District of Texas (“WDTX”) is an
improper venue for this case; instead, it argues that the Northern District of California (“NDCA”)
or the District of Oregon (DOR) is a more convenient forum, pointing to the location of potential
witnesses and the location of relevant records. Id. at 1. BiTMICRO contends that the case should
remain in the WDTX, pointing to, among other factors, the co-pending action in this Court, speed
to trial in this District, and Intel’s presence in Austin. ECF No. 34 at 1.
II.

LEGAL STANDARD

In patent cases, motions to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) are governed by the law of
the regional circuit—here, the Fifth Circuit. In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315, 1319 (Fed.
Cir. 2008). 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) provides in part that “[f]or the convenience of parties and
witnesses, . . . a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where
it might have been brought . . .” Id. “Section 1404(a) is intended to place discretion in the district
court to adjudicate motions for transfer according to an ‘individualized, case-by-case consideration
of convenience and fairness.’” Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988) (quoting
Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 622 (1964)).
The preliminary question under § 1404(a) is whether a civil action “‘might have been
brought’ in the destination venue.” In re Volkswagen, Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 312 (5th Cir. 2008)
[hereinafter Volkswagen II]. If the destination venue would have been a proper venue, then “[t]he
determination of ‘convenience’ turns on a number of public and private interest factors, none of
which can be said to be of dispositive weight.” Action Indus., Inc. v. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co., 358
2

Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 58 Filed 06/06/23 Page 3 of 22

F.3d 337, 340 (5th Cir. 2004) (footnote omitted). The private interest factors include: “(1) the
relative ease of access to sources of proof; (2) the availability of compulsory process to secure the
attendance of witnesses; (3) the cost of attendance for willing witnesses; and (4) all other practical
problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive.” In re Volkswagen AG, 371
F.3d 201, 203 (5th Cir. 2004) [hereinafter Volkswagen I] (citing Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454
U.S. 235, 241 n.6 (1982)). The public factors include: “(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 of the application of foreign law.” Id. Courts evaluate
these factors based on the situation which existed at the time of filing, rather than relying on
hindsight knowledge of the defendant’s forum preference. Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 343
(1960).
The moving party has the burden to prove that a case should be transferred for convenience.
Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 314. The burden is not simply that the alternative venue is more
convenient, but that it is clearly more convenient. Id. at 314–15. While “clearly more convenient”
is not the same as the “clear and convincing” standard, the moving party must still show more than
a mere preponderance. Quest NetTech Corp. v. Apple, Inc., No. 2:19-cv-118, 2019 WL 6344267,
at *7 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 27, 2019). Yet, the Federal Circuit has clarified that, for a court to hold that
a factor favors transfer, the movant need not show an individual factor clearly favors transfer. In
re Apple Inc., 979 F.3d 1332, 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
III.

DISCUSSION

The threshold determination in the § 1404(a) analysis is whether this case could initially
have been brought in the destination venue—the NDCA. Neither party disputes that venue could
be proper in the NDCA. ECF No. 22 at 6; ECF No. 34. Intel’s headquarters are located in the
3

Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 58 Filed 06/06/23 Page 4 of 22

NDCA. ECF No. 22 at 6. This Court therefore finds that venue would have been proper in the
NDCA had the suit originally been filed there. Thus, the Court now analyzes the private and public
interest factors to determine whether the NDCA is a clearly more convenient forum than the
WDTX.
The Private Interest Factors
The Cost of Attendance and Convenience for Willing Witnesses
The most important factor in the transfer analysis is the convenience of the witnesses. In
re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1388, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2009). According to Fifth Circuit law, if the
distance between a current venue and a proposed venue is more than 100 miles, the inconvenience
to witnesses increases in direct relationship to the additional distance they must travel if the matter
is transferred. Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 317. But it is unclear when the 100-mile rule applies, as
the Federal Circuit has stated that courts should not apply the rule “rigidly” when witnesses would
be required to travel a significant distance no matter what venue they testify in. In re Apple, 979
F.3d at 1342 (discussing witnesses traveling from New York) (citing Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at
317). “[T]he inquiry should focus on the cost and inconvenience imposed on the witnesses by
requiring them to travel to a distant forum and to be away from their homes and work for an
extended period of time.” In re Google, LLC, No. 2021-170, 2021 WL 4427899, at *4 (Fed. Cir.
Sept. 27, 2021). According to the Federal Circuit, time is a more important metric than distance.
Id. However, the Federal Circuit has also held that when willing witnesses will have to travel a
significant distance to either forum, the slight inconvenience of one forum in comparison to the
other should not weigh heavily on the outcome of this factor. In re Apple, 979 F.3d at 1342. When
analyzing this factor, the Court should consider all potential witnesses. Alacritech Inc. v.
CenturyLink, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-00693, 2017 WL 4155236, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 19, 2017).

4

Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 58 Filed 06/06/23 Page 5 of 22

According to Intel, its relevant employees are located in California, Oregon, Arizona,
Texas, Mexico, England, Poland, India, and Malaysia. ECF No. 22 at 7−10. According to
BiTMICRO, its witnesses are located in Texas, South Carolina, and Southern California. ECF No.
34 at 11. Each group of witnesses will be considered below.
1. Intel Employees in California, Oregon, and Arizona
Intel claims that the accused NAND SSD product was based in Intel’s facilities in Folsom,
California. ECF No. 22 at 7. Intel has transferred the NAND SSD business to Solidigm. Id.
However, three current employees, Wilson Fang and Allison Goodman in California and Rick
Mangold in Oregon, are knowledgeable about the accused NAND SSD product. Id. Intel claims
that Annie Foong, Sowmiya Jayachandran, and Rich Mangold in Oregon and Wilson Fang in
California possess knowledge of the design and operation of the accused Optane SSD product. Id.
Intel alleges that Muthukumar Swaminathan, Kunal Khochare, and Sreenivas Mandava in
California and Rajat Agarwal, Patrick Ndouniama, Wei Chen, Philip Hillier, and Rick Mangold in
Oregon possess knowledge of the accused Optane Persistent Memory features. Id. at 8. Intel claims
that Pao-heng Huang in Oregon and Steve Gillaspy in California have knowledge of the accused
RAID product. Id. Intel asserts that Alfredo de la Cruz Nogueiras in California knows about the
Stratix 10 SDM hardware. Id. at 9. Lastly, Intel argues that Wilfred Gomes, Doug Ingerly, Manoj
Lal, and James Shehadi in Oregon, Girish Ramanathan and Priya Walimbe in California, and Pat
Stover in Arizona were involved in the development of the accused Lakefield product. Id. at 10.
In its response, BiTMICRO complains that Intel’s declarants lack credibility because they
did not review or understand BiTMICRO’s allegations before they identified relevant employees.
ECF No. 34 at 13. The Court notes that BiTMICRO only provides evidence to show that one of
Intel’s six declarants testified that they did not review BiTMICRO’s complaint. ECF No. 34-7 at

5

Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 58 Filed 06/06/23 Page 6 of 22

13:6−14:21. And that declarant mentions other sources for their understanding of BiTMICRO’s
allegations. ECF No. 34-7 at 14:3-11. BiTMICRO further argues that Intel’s employees in
California, Oregon, and Arizona would not find the WDTX an inconvenient forum because Intel
has discounted rates at hotels in this District and Intel owns private planes that could be used to
shuttle its employees to Waco. ECF No. 34 at 2.
The Court agrees with Intel that its identified employees based in California, Oregon, and
Arizona are relevant and would find the NDCA a more convenient forum. Intel’s identified
witnesses were involved in the design and development of the accused products. Further, Intel’s
identified witnesses in California, Oregon, and Arizona would be able to travel to the NDCA more
quickly than to the WDTX. ECF No. 22 at 4−5; In re Google, LLC, 2021 WL 4427899, at *4. The
Court rejects BiTMICRO’s argument that the declarants are all unreliable because one declarant
did not review BiTMICRO’s complaint. Intel’s position is supported by five other declarations.
Further, the declarant that did not review the complaint mentioned other sources for their
understanding of BiTMICRO’s allegations against Intel. The Court also rejects BiTMICRO’s
argument that these witnesses will not be inconvenienced because Intel has hotel discounts in this
District and private planes available to transport its employees. The relevant consideration here is
“the cost and inconvenience imposed on the witnesses by requiring them to travel to a distant
forum and to be away from their homes and work for an extended period of time.” In re Google,
LLC, 2021 WL 4427899, at * 4. Regardless of whether hotel discounts and convenient
transportation is made available to Intel’s willing witnesses from California, Oregon, and Arizona,

6

Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 58 Filed 06/06/23 Page 7 of 22

these witnesses will still be required to travel to a distant forum and will be away from their homes
and work for an extended period of time if this case remains in the WDTX.
2. Intel Employees in Texas
Intel admits that it has 13 relevant employees within the WDTX that are responsible for
maintaining the accused Stratix 10 product. ECF No. 22 at 4; ECF No. 22-35 ¶ 7. Intel alleges that
two of its employees in Austin, Kyle Durant and Biun Zhou, are knowledgeable about the accused
Stratix 10 product. ECF No. 22 at 9. Further, Intel admits that one employee that implements the
accused Persistent Memory features resides in Austin. Id. at 8. Intel agrees that the WDTX is a
more convenient forum for its employees in Austin. Id. But Intel notes that it has more relevant
employees in California and Oregon. Id. In response, BiTMICRO claims that Intel has 85
engineers in Austin that work on the Stratix 10 product. ECF No. 34 at 13. In its reply, Intel argues
that the group of engineers identified by BiTMICRO works on products other than Stratix 10. ECF
No. 37 at 3.
The Court concludes that the 13 employees in Austin that work on the accused Stratix 10
product will find the WDTX a more convenient forum. The Court also concludes that the one
employee in Austin that implements the accused Persistent Memory feature will also find this
Court a more convenient forum. The Court rejects BiTMICRO’s argument that Intel has 85
employees in this District working on the accused products. As Intel’s declarant’s testified, the
group of 85 engineers identified by BiTMICRO also work on other Intel products that are not
accused in this case. ECF No. 34-7 at 76:24−77:11.
3. Intel Employees Abroad
Intel alleges that its employees in Guadalajara, Mexico, Jorge Caamano Pichardo and Arial
Bello Tapia, have relevant knowledge of the accused power loss protection feature in the RAID

7

Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 58 Filed 06/06/23 Page 8 of 22

product. ECF No. 22 at 8. Intel also claims that a “key” architect of Stratix 10, Andrew Draper, is
located in London. Id. at 9. Further, Intel asserts that teams responsible for maintaining the accused
Optane SSD features and implementing the accused Persistent Memory features are located in
Poland. Id. at 8. Additionally, Intel claims that a team of 25 engineers responsible for maintaining
Stratix 10 is located in Bangladore, India. Id. at 9; ECF No. 22-35 ¶ 7. Lastly, Intel alleges that a
team of 10−12 engineers responsible for maintaining Stratix 10 is located in Penang, Malaysia.
ECF No. 22 at 9; ECF No. 22-35 ¶ 7. Intel claims that its employees abroad will find the NDCA a
more convenient forum because direct flights are available. ECF No. 22 at 8−9. In response,
BiTMICRO argues that travel to Texas is equally convenient. ECF No. 34 at 14.
The Court agrees with BiTMICRO. Intel’s international employees will have to travel a
significant distance to either venue and would incur travel, lodging, and related costs in both
locations. Even if one venue may be slightly more convenient than the other for Intel’s
international employees, this difference should not weigh heavily in the analysis of this factor. In
re Apple, 979 F.3d at 1342. The Court finds that the presence of any relevant Intel employees
outside of the United States does not affect the outcome of this factor.
4. BiTMICRO Willing Witnesses
BiTMICRO identifies one willing witness in the WDTX: its prosecution counsel, Joseph
Lally, based in Austin. ECF No. 34 at 4−5. BiTMICRO argues that this District is a more
convenient forum for this witness. Id. BiTMICRO’s other witnesses are located in South Carolina
and Southern California. Id. In its reply, Intel argues that Joseph Lally is not a relevant witness
because he did not prosecute any patent-in-suit. Id.
With respect to BiTMICRO’s Austin-based prosecution counsel, the Court agrees with
Intel that this witness is not relevant. Other than claiming that Joseph Lally is based in Austin,

8

Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 58 Filed 06/06/23 Page 9 of 22

BiTMICRO has not explained his relevancy to this case. The asserted patents were prosecuted by
other attorneys. ECF Nos. 1-1, 1-2, 1-3, 1-6. BiTMICRO has not alleged that Mr. Lally is currently
engaged in any prosecution matters related to this case. Thus, the Court concludes that Mr. Lally’s
presence in the WDTX does not weigh against transfer.
As for BiTMICRO’s witness in South Carolina, both forums are inconvenient. Even if one
venue may be slightly more convenient than the other for this witness, the difference should not
weigh heavily in the analysis of this factor. In re Apple, 979 F.3d at 1342. Thus, the presence of a
BiTMICRO employee in South Carolina does not weigh against transfer. Additionally, the
presence of a BiTMICRO employee, Jeff Ronaldi, in Southern California weighs in favor of
transfer. While Mr. Ronaldi claims that Waco is not an inconvenient forum, “the Court will not
weigh the convenience of a plaintiff’s witnesses against transfer under this factor merely because
the plaintiff attests that travel to this District would not represent an inconvenience upon witnesses
with no apparent connection to this District.” XR Communications, LLC v. Google LLC, No. 6:21cv-00625-ADA, 2022 WL 3702271, at *4 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 26, 2022).
5. Conclusion
Because more relevant witnesses would find the NDCA a more convenient forum, the
Court finds this factor weighs in favor of transfer.
The Relative Ease of Access to Sources of Proof
“In considering the relative ease of access to proof, a court looks to where documentary
evidence, such as documents and physical evidence, is stored.” Fintiv Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:18cv-00372, 2019 WL 4743678, at *2 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 10, 2019). “[T]he question is relative ease
of access, not absolute ease of access.” In re Radmax, 720 F.3d 285, 288 (5th Cir. 2013) (emphases
in original). “In patent infringement cases, the bulk of the relevant evidence usually comes from
the accused infringer. Consequently, the place where the defendant’s documents are kept weighs
9

Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 58 Filed 06/06/23 Page 10 of 22

in favor of transfer to that location.” In re Apple Inc., 979 F.3d at 1340 (citing In re Genentech,
566 F.3d at 1345).
Intel argues that this factor favors transfer because the technical design and development
work of the accused products primarily took place in California, Oregon, and Arizona. ECF No.
22 at 13. Intel argues that the majority of the identified witnesses are located in California, Oregon,
and Arizona and those witnesses control relevant documents related to the accused products. Id.
In response, BiTMICRO argues that this factor is neutral because Intel’s relevant documents are
electronic, making them equally accessible in either forum. ECF No. 34 at 10−11. BiTMICRO
also notes that Intel’s has facilities in the WDTX and Intel’s counsel is located in this District. Id.
at 10. BiTMICRO argues that its documents are also generally electronic. Id. at 11. BiTMICRO
also claims that its physical prosecution files for the asserted patents are located in the Austin
office of its prosecution counsel. Id.
The Court acknowledges that the Fifth Circuit’s decision in In re Planned Parenthood
indicates a shift in the analysis of this factor. The Fifth Circuit has recently agreed with a district
court that concluded that this factor is neutral because electronic evidence is equally accessible in
either forum. In re Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc., 52 F.4th 625, 630 (5th Cir. 2022). The
Fifth Circuit held that “[t]he location of evidence bears much more strongly on the transfer analysis
when . . . the evidence is physical in nature.” Id. But the Federal Circuit has held that it is an error
to conclude this factor is neutral because electronic documents are easily accessible in both forums.
In re Apple, Inc., No., 2022 WL 1196768, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 22, 2022). To the extent that these
two holdings can be reconciled, the Court concludes that the location of physical evidence is more
important to this analysis than the location of where electronic documents are typically accessed.
However, the Court still considers the location of document custodians of electronic documents in

10

Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 58 Filed 06/06/23 Page 11 of 22

its analysis of this factor. In re Google LLC, No. 2021-178, 2021 WL 5292267, at *2 (Fed. Cir.
Nov. 15, 2021).
The Court agrees with Intel that the majority of its relevant document custodians are
located in and near the NDCA. While BiTMICRO complains that electronic documents are
accessible in both districts, the location of Intel’s document custodians is particularly relevant
because Intel’s documents are only accessible by authorized Intel employees. ECF No. 37; In re
Apple Inc., 2022 WL 1196768, at *4 (rejecting the argument that this factor is neutral where access
to electronic documents is restricted to certain employees in the transferee forum). Thus, the Court
finds that Intel’s electronic evidence weighs in favor of transfer.
The Court concludes that BiTMICRO’s electronic evidence does not weigh against
transfer. While BiTMICRO alleges that its electronic evidence is equally accessible in both
forums, BiTMICRO’s electronic document custodians are located in South Carolina and Southern
California. Only BiTMICRO’s document custodian in Southern California is near either forum.
Lastly, with respect to BiTMICRO’s physical prosecution files located in Austin, the Court finds
that these files weigh against transfer. As the Fifth Circuit has stated, the presence of physical
evidence bears more strongly in this analysis. In re Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc., 52
F.4th 625, 630 (5th Cir. 2022).
Because the Court finds that more relevant document custodians likely reside in or near the
NDCA rather than the WDTX, the Court concludes that this factor weighs in favor of transfer.
However, because BiTMICRO’s physical prosecution documents are stored in this District, the
Court only finds that this factor weighs slightly in favor of transfer.
The Availability of Compulsory Process to Secure the Attendance of Witnesses
Under the Federal Rules, a court may subpoena a witness to attend trial only (a) “within
100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person”; or
11

Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 58 Filed 06/06/23 Page 12 of 22

(b) “within the state where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in
person, if the person . . . is commanded to attend a trial and would not incur substantial expense.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1)(A), (B)(ii). Under this factor, the Court focuses on non-party witnesses
whose attendance may need to be secured by a court order.” Fintiv Inc., 2019 WL 4743678, at *14
(citing Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 316). This factor “weigh[s] heavily in favor of transfer when
more third-party witnesses reside within the transferee venue than reside in the transferor venue.”
In re Apple, 581 F. App’x 886, 889 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (citing In re Genentech, 566 F.3d at 1345).
The Federal Circuit has held that “when there is no indication that a non-party witness is willing,
the witness is presumed to be unwilling and considered under the compulsory process factor.” In
re HP Inc., No. 2018-149, 2018 WL 4692486, at *3 n.1 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 25, 2018).
Intel argues that this factor favors transfer because more non-party witnesses are located in
the NDCA than in the WDTX. ECF No. 22 at 11. Intel points to inventors of the asserted patents
who allegedly reside in the NDCA: (1) Ricardo Bruce, named inventor on the ’939, ’243, and ’190
patents, (2) Rey Bruce, named inventor on the ’243 patent, (3) Roland Portman, named inventor
on the ’939 patent, and (4) Marlon Verdan, named inventor on the ’190 patent. Id. at 11−12. Intel
also notes that directors and officers of BitMicro Networks, the predecessor to BiTMICRO, are
located in the NDCA. Id. at 12. Intel also argues that third parties with knowledge of the accused
product features are located in the NDCA. Id. Intel notes that three “key architects” of Stratix 10
Secure Device Manager are no longer employed by Intel and are located in the NDCA. Id. And
Intel identifies former Intel employees with knowledge of Intel’s NAND SSD products who are
employed at Solidigm, an NDCA-based company that now owns Intel’s NAND SSD business. Id.;
ECF No. 22-32 ¶ 5. Further, Intel claims that Broadcom employees in the NDCA possess

12

Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 58 Filed 06/06/23 Page 13 of 22

knowledge of the accused RAID features because
. ECF No. 22 at 8, 13.
In its response, BiTMICRO argues that this factor disfavors transfer because more nonparty witnesses are located in the WDTX. ECF No. 34 at 15. BiTMICRO argues that two of the
named inventors—Rey Bruce and Ricardo Bruce—reside in this District. Id. BiTMICRO provides
Texas Department of Public Safety records that show that Rey Bruce and Ricardo Bruce both have
a Texas driver’s license. ECF Nos. 34-13, 34-14. BiTMICRO also argues that Intel has failed to
explain why BitMicro Networks’ officers and directors would be relevant to this case. ECF No.
34 at 15. And BiTMICRO claims that witnesses from Solidigm are irrelevant because
BiTMICRO’s claims are aimed at Intel’s infringing activities that took place before Intel sold its
NAND SSD business to Solidigm. Id. With respect to Broadcom employees, BiTMICRO claims
that Intel has failed to identify any relevant Broadcom employees in the NDCA. Id. Lastly,
BiTMICRO argues that this factor weighs against transfer because some of Intel’s “tier one”
customers are located in or near this District. Id. In its reply, Intel notes that Rey Bruce’s last
known addresses as of July 29, 2022, includes two addresses in the NDCA and one in the WDTX.
ECF No. 37 at 4; ECF No. 37-3.
The Court concludes that inventors of the asserted patents likely reside in both districts.
BiTMICRO does not dispute that two inventors, Roland Portman and Marlon Verdan, reside
within the NDCA’s subpoena power. ECF No. 34. As for Rey Bruce and Ricardo Bruce, it is
unclear which district these inventors reside in. Under this factor, the relevant inquiry is where the
non-party witness “resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
45(c)(1)(A), (B)(ii). Here, BiTMICRO has provided evidence showing that Rey Bruce and Ricardo
Bruce maintain driver’s licenses in Texas. ECF Nos. 34-13, 34-14. But Intel has also shown that

13

Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 58 Filed 06/06/23 Page 14 of 22

Rey Bruce may maintain a residence in the NDCA. ECF No. 37-3. Intel has also provided LinkedIn
profile for Rey Bruce that suggests he reside in the NDCA. ECF Nos. 22-5. Based on the evidence
available, the Court concludes that Ricardo Bruce likely resides within the WDTX’s subpoena
power. But the Court concludes that Rey Bruce may reside within the subpoena power of either
forum.
As for BitMicro Networks’ officers and directors in the NDCA, the Court concludes that
the presence of these individuals within the NDCA’s subpoena power weighs in favor of transfer.
While BiTMICRO complains that Intel fails to explain how these individuals would be relevant,
the Court disagrees. Intel has explained that “[t]hese individuals are likely to have information
regarding, at least, the design and commercial success of products embodying the patents-in-suit;
marketing, sales, and industry information relevant to alleged indicia of obviousness; and the
patentee’s economic status and licensing history.” ECF No. 22 at 12. BiTMICRO acquired rights
in the asserted patents from BitMicro Networks in 2017. ECF No. 34 at 4. At least a few of the
individuals named by Intel worked at BitMicro Networks at the time that BiTMICRO acquired its
rights. ECF Nos. 22-16, 22-17. One individual named by Intel, Stephen Uriarte, is the former
President and General Counsel of BitMicro Networks. ECF No. 22 at 12. Another, Zophar Sante,
is the former Vice President of Product Marketing. Id. The Court agrees with Intel that these
NDCA-based witnesses may possess relevant knowledge regarding BiTMICRO’s patents and past
commercialization efforts.
With respect to the NDCA-based witnesses with knowledge of Stratix 10 Secure Device
Manager, the Court finds that these non-party witnesses weigh in favor of transfer. BiTMICRO
does not dispute that these non-party witnesses with knowledge of the Stratix 10 product are
relevant. ECF No. 34 at 15. Because the Court agrees with Intel that these individuals likely

14

Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 58 Filed 06/06/23 Page 15 of 22

possess relevant knowledge, the Court concludes that their presence within the NDCA’s subpoena
power weighs in favor of transfer.
The Court rejects BiTMICRO’s argument that witnesses from Solidigm are irrelevant
because they do not possess knowledge of Intel’s allegedly infringing activities. The identified
witnesses from Solidigm are all previous Intel employees. David Plester is a former Intel Principal
Engineer who now works at Solidigm. ECF No. 22-32 ¶ 5. David Plester possesses knowledge of
“the design and operation of the NAND SSD address indirection table and power loss protection
features.” Id. Further, Ning Wu is a former Intel Principal Engineer who also works at Solidigm.
Id. And Xin Guo is a former Intel Senior Principal Engineer who now works at Solidigm. Id. Ning
Wu and Xin Gou possess knowledge of “the design and operation of the NAND SSD SLC caching
feature.” Id. Because all three of these Solidigm employees named by Intel were former Intel
employees, they likely possess knowledge of Intel’s allegedly infringing conduct.
The Court agrees with BiTMICRO that Broadcom’s presence in the NDCA does not weigh
in favor of transfer because Intel failed to identify any relevant witnesses from Broadcom. See
Smarter Agent, LLC v. Redfin Corp., No. 6:21-cv-01172-ADA, 2022 WL 2835861, at *5 (W.D.
Tex. July 20, 2022) (concluding that alleged witnesses from third-party entities did not weigh
against transfer because the plaintiff failed to identify any specific witnesses with relevant
knowledge). Intel only claims that Broadcom is based in San Jose, California. ECF No. 22-34 ¶ 4.
However, Intel fails to identify any specific individuals in San Jose that possess relevant
knowledge of the accused products. Further, Intel’s declarant stated in a deposition that the two
Broadcom employees he works with are based in Georgia and Oregon. ECF No. 34-25 at
10:22−11:17. Thus, the Court concludes that Broadcom’s presence in the NDCA does not weigh
in favor of transfer.

15

Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 58 Filed 06/06/23 Page 16 of 22

For a similar reason, the Court rejects BiTMICRO’s argument that this factor weighs
against transfer because Intel’s “tier one” customers reside or have facilities in this District. ECF
No. 34 at 15. BiTMICRO fails to identify any witnesses from any of Intel’s customers in this
District. Smarter Agent, LLC, 2022 WL 2835861, at *5. Further BiTMICRO fails to explain why
witnesses from Intel’s customers in this District would be relevant.
Because a greater number of relevant third-party witnesses reside within the subpoena
power of the NDCA, the Court finds that this factor weighs in favor of transfer.
All Other Practical Problems That Make Trial of a Case Easy, Expeditious, and
Inexpensive
When considering the private interest factors, courts must also consider “all other practical
problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive.” Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at
314. “Particularly, the existence of duplicative suits involving the same or similar issues may
create practical difficulties that will weigh heavily in favor or against transfer.” PersonalWeb
Techs., LLC v. NEC Corp. of Am., Inc., No. 6:11-cv-655, 2013 WL 9600333, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Mar.
21, 2013). “[W]here there is a co-pending litigation before the trial court involving the same patentin-suit, and pertaining to the same underlying technology and accusing similar services, [the
Federal Circuit] cannot say the trial court clearly [abuses] its discretion in denying transfer.” In re
Vistaprint Ltd., 628 F.3d 1342, 1346 n.3 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
In addition to this case, BiTMICRO has filed another case involving three of the six
asserted patents in this District: BiTMICRO LLC v. KIOXIA America, Inc., No. 6:22-cv-00331ADA (W.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2022) (“KIOXIA Litigation”). Despite this co-pending case, Intel
argues that this factor is neutral because the KIOXIA Litigation has not yet reached an advanced
stage. ECF No. 22 at 14. Intel also argues that the NDCA has some familiarity with two of the
asserted patents—the ’243 and ’190 patents—from two prior declaratory judgment actions in that

16

Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 58 Filed 06/06/23 Page 17 of 22

district. ECF No. 22 (citing SK hynix Inc. v. BiTMICRO LLC, No. 3:19-cv-03505-EMC (N.D. Cal.)
and Samsung Semiconductor, Inc. v. BiTMICRO, LLC, No. 3:18-cv-0502-EMC (N.D. Cal.)). In its
response, BiTMICRO argues that this factor disfavors transfer because this Court will become
familiar with and will resolve issues related to three of the asserted patents through the KIOXIA
Litigation. ECF No. 34 at 5. BiTMICRO argues that the NDCA does not have any familiarity with
the asserted patents through the two prior declaratory judgment actions in that district because both
cases were stayed pending resolution of an ITC investigation and dismissed before the court
resolved any substantive issues. Id. at 7.
Because of the co-pending KIOXIA Litigation, the Court finds that this factor weighs
against transfer. While the KIOXIA Litigation involves different defendants and different accused
products, the two cases will likely involve overlapping issues of claim construction and patent
validity. The Court concludes that judicial resources may be conserved if one court were able to
resolve the common issues in both cases. In re Intel Corp., Nos. 2021-168, 2021-169, 2021 WL
4427875, at * (Fed. Cir. Sept. 27, 2021) (“The district court also reasonably found that keeping
the cases against Samsung and Intel before one court could preserve judicial economy and
minimize the potential for inconsistent judgments.”). With respect to the two prior declaratory
judgment actions in the NDCA, the Court finds that the NDCA’s past experience with the asserted
patents does not weigh in favor of transfer. Because both cases have been dismissed, there is no
opportunity for a court in the NDCA to resolve common issues in this case and the declaratory
judgment actions together. Further, the NDCA did not resolve any substantive issues before the
actions were dismissed.
Thus, the Court finds that this factor weighs against transfer.

17

Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 58 Filed 06/06/23 Page 18 of 22

B. The Public Interest Factors
i.

Administrative Difficulties Flowing from Court Congestion
This factor concerns “whether there is an appreciable difference in docket congestion

between the two forums.” In re Adobe Inc., 823 Fed. App’x 929, 932 (Fed. Cir. 2020). It considers
the “[t]he speed with which a case can come to trial and be resolved.” In re Genentech, Inc., 566
F.3d at 1347. In this analysis, court congestion is considered “the most speculative” factor, and
when “relevant factors weigh in favor of transfer and others are neutral, then the speed of the
transferee district court should not alone outweigh all those other factors.” Id.
Intel argues that this factor is neutral because there are no significant differences in timeto-trial statistics between the two forums. ECF No. 22 at 15. Intel claims that the time to trial in
the NDCA is only a few months longer than this District. Id.; ECF No. 22-31 (median time to trial
is 28.3 months in the WDTX and 34.7 months in the NDCA). In response, BiTMICRO argues that
this factor weighs against transfer because Intel has failed to show that the NDCA would reach
trial faster than this Court. ECF No. 34 at 7. BiTMICRO argues that this Court has historically
been able to reach trial faster than the NDCA. Id.
While the Federal Circuit has previously held that there are “no significant differences in
caseload or time-to-trial statistics” between the WDTX and the NDCA, In re Juniper Networks,
Inc., 14 F.4th 1313, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2021), recent statistics show that this Court has been able to
bring cases to trial within two years. 1 Both parties agree that time to trial in this District is faster

See, e.g., MV3 Partners v. Roku, Inc., 6:18-cv-00308-ADA (W.D. Tex., filed Oct. 16, 2018) (23.7 months from
case filing to trial); CloudofChange, LLC, v. NCR Corp., No. 6:19-cv-00513-ADA (W.D. Tex., filed August 30,
2019) (20.3 months from case filing to trial); VLSI Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp., No. 6:21-cv-00057-ADA (W.D. Tex.,
filed Apr. 11, 2019) (22.4 months from case filing to trial); Freshub, Inc. v. Amazon.Com Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00511ADA (W.D. Tex., filed Jun. 24, 2019) (23.7 months from case filing to trial); ESW Holdings, Inc. v. Roku, Inc., No.
6:19-cv-00044-ADA (W.D. Tex., filed Feb. 8, 2019) (25.9 months from case filing to trial); Profectus Tech. LLC v.
Google LLC, 6:20-cv-00101-ADA (W.D. Tex., filed Feb. 10, 2020) (19.6 months from case filing to trial); Jiaxing
Super Lighting v. CH Lighting Tech., 6:20-cv-00018-ADA (W.D. Tex., filed Jan. 10, 2020) (21.7 months from case
filing to trial); VideoShare LLC v. Google LLC, 6:19-cv-663-ADA (W.D. Tex., filed Nov. 15, 2019) (23.8 months
1

18

Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 58 Filed 06/06/23 Page 19 of 22

than the NDCA. ECF No. 22 at 15; ECF No. 37 at 5. The Federal Circuit has underscored the
importance of rapid disposition of patent cases. Kahn v. Gen. Motors Corp., 889 F.2d 1078, 1080
(Fed. Cir. 1989). It has even acknowledged Congress’s interest in the “quick” resolution of patent
disputes. See, e.g., Ethicon Endo-Surgery, Inc. v. Covidien LP, 826 F.3d 1366, 1367 (Fed. Cir.
2016). In view of Federal Circuit law and the available time-to-trial statistics, the Court finds this
factor weighs slightly against transfer.
ii.

Local Interest in Having Localized Interests Decided at Home

Under this factor, the Court must evaluate whether there is a local interest in deciding local
issues at home. Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 317. Local interests in patent cases “are not a fiction.”
In re Samsung Elecs. Co., 2 F.4th 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2021). “A local interest is demonstrated
by a relevant factual connection between the events and the venue.” Word to Info, Inc. v. Facebook,
Inc., No. 3:14-CV-04387-K, 2015 WL 13870507, at *4 (N.D. Tex. Jul. 23, 2015). “[T]he sale of
an accused product offered nationwide does not give rise to a substantial interest in any single
venue.” In re Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., 587 F.3d 1333, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009). “This factor most
notably regards not merely the parties’ significant connections to each forum writ large, but rather
the ‘significant connections between a particular venue and the events that gave rise to a suit.’” In
re Apple, 979 F.3d at 1344 (emphasis in original) (quoting In re Acer Am. Corp., 626 F.3d 1252,
1256 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). Courts should not heavily weigh a party’s general contacts with a forum

from case filing to trial); NCS Multistage Inc. v. Nine Energy Serv.’s, Inc., No. 6:20-cv-00277-ADA (W.D. Tex.,
filed Mar. 24, 2020) (21.8 months from case filing to trial); EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 6:20-cv-00075ADA (W.D. Tex., filed Jan. 31, 2020) (24 months from case filing to trial); Densys Ltd. v. 3Shape Trio A/S, 6:19-cv00680-ADA (W.D. Tex., filed Nov. 26, 2019) (28.3 months from case filing to trial); Appliance Computing III, Inc.
v. Redfin Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00376-ADA (W.D. Tex., filed May 11, 2020) (24 months from case filing to trial);
Caddo Sys. Inc., v. Microchip Tech. Inc., No. 6:20-cv-00245-ADA (W.D. Tex., filed March 27, 2020) (26.5 months
from case filing to trial); SunStone Information Def., Inc. v. International Bus. Machines Corp., No. 6:20-cv-1033ADA (W.D. Tex., filed Nov. 9, 2020) (21.0 months from case filing to trial); NCS Multistage Inc. v. TCO Products
Inc., No. 6:20-cv-00622-ADA (W.D. Tex., filed Sept. 9, 2020) (23.4 months from case filing to trial); Ravgen, Inc.
v. Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings, No. 6:20-cv-00969-ADA (W.D. Tex. filed Nov. 16, 2020) (23.1 months from case
filing to trial).

19

Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 58 Filed 06/06/23 Page 20 of 22

that are untethered from the lawsuit, such as a general presence. Id. Moreover, “little or no weight
should be accorded to a party’s ‘recent and ephemeral’ presence in the transferor forum, such as
by establishing an office in order to claim a presence in the district for purposes of litigation.” In
re Juniper Networks, Inc., 14 F.4th at 1320 (quoting In re Microsoft Corp., 630 F.3d 1361, 1365
(Fed. Cir. 2011)). To determine which district has the stronger local interest, the Court looks to
where the events forming the basis for infringement occurred. Id. at 1319.
Intel argues that this factor favors transfer because many of the named inventors and former
BitMicro Networks employees reside in the NDCA. ECF No. 22 at 14. Further, Intel argues that
Intel employees in the NDCA were involved in designing, developing, maintaining, and managing
the accused features. Id. In response, BiTMICRO argues that this factor weighs against transfer
because of Intel’s significant presence in the WDTX. ECF No. 34 at 9. BiTMICRO further argues
that Intel’s “top tier” customers are located in this District. Id. And while it admits that two of the
named inventors are in the NDCA, BiTMICRO notes that two others are likely located in the
WDTX. Id.
Since the inventors of the asserted patents likely reside in both districts, the Court
concludes that the presence of inventors in either forum does not weigh heavily in the analysis of
this factor. See supra Section III(A)(iii). Intel’s general presence in this District also does not
weigh in the analysis of this factor. In re Apple, 979 F.3d at 1344. As for Intel’s local interest,
because some development of the accused products took place in the NDCA, the Court concludes
that this factor weighs at least slightly in favor of transfer. Intel explains that teams involved in the
development of the accused Optane SSD product, Optane Persistent Memory feature, RAID
product, and Stratix 10 functionality are located in the NDCA. ECF No. 22 at 7−9. However, the
Court notes that Intel has admitted that relevant employees that work on the accused Stratix 10

20

Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 58 Filed 06/06/23 Page 21 of 22

functionality reside in this District. ECF No. 22 at 9. This case “calls into question the work and
reputation” of Intel’s employees in the NDCA and the WDTX. In re Hoffman-La Roche Inc., 587
F.3d at 1336. But the Court concludes that this factor weighs at least slightly in favor of transfer
because a greater number of relevant Intel employees appear to reside in the NDCA.
Because the NDCA likely has a greater local interest in this litigation than the WDTX, the
Court finds that this factor weighs slightly in favor of transfer.
iii.

Familiarity of the Forum with the Law That will Govern the Case

BiTMICRO argues that this factor weighs against transfer based on this Court’s experience
with patent cases. ECF No. 34 at 8. In its reply, Intel argues that this factor is neutral. ECF No. 37
at 5. The Court agrees with Intel. As this Court has previously stated, “[b]oth districts are familiar
with the uniform body of federal patent law.” VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 6:20-cv00269-ADA, 2022 WL 4546553, at *8 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 28, 2022). The Court finds that this factor
is neutral.
iv.

Avoidance of Unnecessary Problems of Conflict of Laws or in the Application of
Foreign Law

Intel and BiTMICRO agree that this factor is neutral—there are no potential conflicts here.
ECF No. 22 at 15; ECF No. 34. The Court agrees.
IV.

CONCLUSION

Having considered the private and public interest factors, the Court finds that four of the
factors favor transfer, two disfavor transfer, and two factors are neutral. A decision to uproot
litigation and transfer is not the consequence of a simple math problem. Instead, a moving party
must show that the transferee forum is a clearly more convenient forum. Here, the practical
problems and court congestion factors weigh against transfer. The sources of proof, willing
witness, compulsory process, and local interest factors weigh in favor of transfer to the NDCA.

21

Case 6:22-cv-00335-ADA Document 58 Filed 06/06/23 Page 22 of 22

The Court finds that Intel has met its burden of showing that the NDCA is a clearly more
convenient forum. The Court’s conclusions for each factor are summarized in the following table:
Factor

The Court’s Finding

Cost of attendance for willing witnesses

Favors transfer

Relative ease of access to sources of proof

Slightly favors transfer

Availability of compulsory process to secure the Favors transfer
attendance of witnesses
All other practical problems that make trial of a case Weighs against transfer
easy, expeditious and inexpensive
Administrative difficulties flowing from court Slightly against transfer
congestion
Local interest

Slightly favors transfer

Familiarity of the forum with law that will govern Neutral
case
Problems associated with conflict of law

Neutral

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Intel’s Motion to Transfer Venue to the Northern
District of California is GRANTED (ECF No. 22).

SIGNED this 10th day of February, 2023.

22