United States District Court For the Northern District of California 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 28 27 26 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Docket No. DENIES themotiontodismiss considering thepapersandarguments ofcounsel,theCourt discovery. TheCourtheldoralargument onMarch13,2014.After opposes themotionor, actions filedbyDefendantsagainstGoogle’scustomers. Texas, wheretheaction alternative, totransfertheactionEasternDistrictof (MobileStar). Defendants Consortium U.S.LP(Rockstar)andMobileStarTechnologies,LLC infringement ofsevenpatentsownedbyDefendantsRockstar ______MOBILESTAR TECHNOLOGIES,LLC ROCKSTAR CONSORTIUMU.S. GOOGLE INC. equipment manufacturers aroundtheworld. open Case4:13-cv-05933-CW Document58Filed04/17/14Page1of28 - Google Inc.filedthisdeclaratoryjudgmentactionfornon v. source Google isacorporationlocatedin MountainView,California.
Defendant Plaintiff
1 ¶2.GoogleproducestheAndroid mobileplatform , operating system
FOR THENORTHERNDISTRICTOFCALIFORNIA IN THEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT s , .
in thealternative, could LP, now ,
BACKGROUND
that isusedbymany original or transfer be consolidatedwithseveralother move todismiss /
.
Id. requests juri (Docket No. TRANSFER ALTERNATIVE, TO OR, INTHE MOTION TODISMISS ORDER DENYING No. C
or, at ¶¶1
in the 13
-
5933 - 2. sdictional 20 Google
) CW
, an -
United States District Court For the Northern District of California 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 28 27 26 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
limited partnership Rockstar Bidco owners, withatleast1,147going toApple. Ex. Bidco patent licensingoperationattheJune2011auction,butRockstar Ex. 9at34. contributed approximately$2.6milliontoRockstarBidco. Delaware jointly createdandfundedanentitycalled“RockstarBidcoLP,” a Apple, Microsoft,ResearchinMotion,Sony,andEricsson the sametime,fiveofworld’slargesttechnologycompanies telecommuni provider, semiconductors”andmanyotheraspectsof wireless 4G,datanetworking,optical,voice,internet,service including aportfolioofover6,000patents c 2009, Nortelfiledforbankruptcy. one inSantaClara,California. 1 provider
ourt orderedanauctionofNortel’spatentlicensingoperations, - 2. NortelhadofficesthroughouttheUnitedStates,including
Case4:13-cv-05933-CW Document58Filed04/17/14Page2of28 7. Nortel NetworkswasaprominentCanadiantelecom Rockstar Bidcotransferredaround 2,000patentstoits
ultimately prevailedwithabidof$4.5billion.
limited liabilitypartnership. headquartered inOttawa,Canada. cations andInternetsearch
Both GoogleandRockstarBidcobidontheNortel then
which claimsaprincipalplaceof businessin reorganized itselfintoRockstar,
See id. 2
Id. . , Exs.3 , Ex.2.OnJanuary14, Id. See id. See , Exs.4 “spanning wireless, Id.
- Madigan Decl.,Exs. 4. Thebankruptcy , Exs.7,14. , Exs.7 - 6 munications
. Around a Delaware Id. - 8. -- , Id. Apple , --
United States District Court For the Northern District of California 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 28 27 26 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
in Colorado. both Defendants of MobileStar declaration ofAfzalDean,Roc employees whoreside place Consortium” fromhisprofessionalprofile. deleted fromthewebsiteandWilsonhasremoved“Rockstar 12 “licensing executive”inseniormana and charts appearinginanewsarticle consulting services.”DeanDecl.¶34. contractor inCaliforniawhoprovides Ex. 13. portfolio ofmorethan4,000patentsdevelopedby"Nortel. operates a"patentlicensingbusinessthatownsandmanages According toitsownwebsite in Nortel'soldheadquartersOttawa,Canada. executives atNortel. Rockstar. and and currentRockstarCEOJohnVeschi, Plano, Texas Friend activities,” thus appearst its “officersdirect, control,andcoordinatethe corporation’s Exs. 10,19,23 - 13. Case4:13-cv-05933-CW Document58Filed04/17/14Page3of28 which it licensing teamofaboutfortyemployees Rockstar hasworkedwithMarkWilson,anindependent s 1
, 559U.S. 77,92 Although of business This suggestionof
Id. . featured onitsownwebsite,Wilsonwasnamedasa , identifiesofficersandboardmembers , Exs.10 See, generally Id. . Defendants and
, Exs.7,15. Rockstar’s “nerve center,”ortheplacewhere i who arealm n Texas, or workthere.Rockstar’swebsite andt Id. - - 12 93 (2010) . assert thattheybothhave o beinOttawa,Canada. an employeerelationshiphasnowbeen , Rockstarprodu Veschi and , DeanDecl Rockstar’s they have kstar V 1 ost
. 3 L
ed byformerNortelexecutive all basedinCanada,exceptone to whichRockstarcontributed
g ice President ement. MadiganDecl.,Exs. Nortel's patentportfolio Rockstar with“licensing the restof ; not namedany CFO andCTO see also In Rockstarorganization ces noproducts,but immed See id. Id. iately
Madigan Decl., his teamremain and Preside , Exs.12 , Ex.12. had Hertz Corp.v. who exe principal
also moved cutives or represen - Id. h 13, been nt e to ,
t
United States District Court For the Northern District of California 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 28 27 26 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Defendants Nexus 7,and10) declaration thatitsAndroidplatform andproducts Northern DistrictofCalifornia. those patents before filinglitigation,but and transferredther Decl. Android operatingsystem,” communication deviceshavingaversion(oradaptationthereof and Mobi Halloween actions).IneachoftheHallo 6,333,973 (the‘973patent),and6,937,572‘572patent). 5,838,551 (the‘551patent),6,128,298‘298 6,463,131 (the‘131patent), seven patents LG, Pantech,Samsung,andZTE,allegingeachcompanyinfringes suit intheEasternDistrictofTexasagainstASUS,HTC,Huawei, Decl. ¶5.Adaylater,onOctober31,2013,Defendantsfiled claiming owned subsidiaryandDelawarelimitedliabil not encompassenforcementofthepatents 37. Eve amendment to Docket No.1. Case4:13-cv-05933-CW Document58Filed04/17/14Page4of28 Defendants assertthatWilson’spatentlicensingdutiesdo , Exs.A On October30,2013,RockstarcreatedMobileStar,awholly On December31,2013, On December23,2013,Googlefiled thepresentactioninth leStar allegedinfringementby“ a principal
that wereasserted intheHalloweenactions . - : U.S.PatentNo
H. See one ofthe Halloweenactions Rockstar ownstwoofthese
Dean Decl.¶¶5,15,24. emaining fivepatentstoMobileS place
do notinfringe
of businessinPlano,Texas.Dean Defendants which isdevelopedbyGoogle. 6,765,591 (the‘591patent), s. 6,037,937(the‘937patent), retained
4 In thisaction,Googleseeksa
responded witha New Year’s the an exclusivelicenseto - certain mobile in ween actions,Rockstar - seven patentsheldby ity corporation suit. ven patents to include
(the Nexus5, tar . - Se shortly in See e - suit ) Dean (the of - e
United States District Court For the Northern District of California 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 28 27 26 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
complaint mustbe takenastrue. 1344, 1349(Fed.Cir.2003). (Fed. Cir.2010) Nuance Commc'ns,Inc.v.AbbyySoftware House showing evidentiary hearing,aplaintiff need onlymakea based onaffidavitsandotherwrittenmaterials,withoutan 2008). Corp. v.AtenInt’lCo.,Ltd. patent laws,FederalCircuitlawapplies. jurisdictional issueisintimatelyconnectedwithsubstanceof a defendantmaymovetodismissforlackofpersonaljurisdiction. No. 13 allege thatGoogleinfringedthesefouradditionalpatents Defendants movedtoamend ‘551, ‘298,‘97 patents atissueintheHal did not,however,assertthatGoogleinfringedthefouradditional Samsung issue in allegations thatGoogleinfringesthreeoftheassertedpatentsat evidence mustbe resolved intheplaintiff’sfavor. the Case4:13-cv-05933-CW Document58Filed04/17/14Page5of28 defendant submit Where thecourtdecidespersonaljurisdictionquestion In adeclaratoryactionfornon Under Rule12(b)(2)oftheFederalRulesCivilProcedure,
- 0900 , CaseNo.13
that adefendantissub this case:the‘ , DocketNos.45 3 , and‘572patents. ; Electronics ForImaging - 0900 (E.D.Tex.) admissible evidence, conflictsinthe 937 LEGAL STANDARDS their - loween actionsandinthiscase: 46. , ‘131,and , 552F.3d1324,1328(Fed.Cir. Uncontroverted allegationsin
ject topersonaljurisdiction. complaint
5 Id.
- See id. , DocketNo.19.Defendants infringement, If boththeplaintiff and ‘591 patent
, Inc.v.Coyle in theTexascase Avocent Huntsville
, 626F.3d1222,1231 O n March10,2014, prima facie s because . Trintec
Rockstar v. , 340F.3d . the the to the Case
United States District Court For the Northern District of California 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 28 27 26 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
(1958) 552 F.3d benefits andprotectionso of conductingactivitieswithinthe forumstate,thusinvokingthe by whichthedefendant Court hasrepeatedlystressedthat theremustalwaysbe and international doctrine has 326 U.S.310,316(1945).Althoughtheapplicationofthis Rudzewicz fair p “maintenance ofthesuitdoesnotoffendtraditionalnotions established minimumcontacts”intheforumstatesuchthat jurisdiction “remainswhetherthedefendantpurposefully into oneanalysis. inquiries understatelawandfederaldueprocessstandardsmerge extensive withfederaldueprocessrequirements,jurisdictional F.3d at1349 principles ofdueprocess. applicable statepersonaljurisdictionruleandconstitutional exercise personaljurisdictionoveranon 1 Indus., Inc.v.PedrePromotionalProducts, of random,fortuitous, defendant willnot behaledintoajurisdictionsolely asaresult 282 (Fed.Cir.2005). Case4:13-cv-05933-CW Document58Filed04/17/14Page6of28 The “constitutional There aretwoindependentlimitationsonacourt’spowerto
) lay andsubstantialjustice. .
at , 471U.S.462,474(1985) “This purposeful availment requirementensuresthat a
1329 . BecauseCalifornia’sjurisdictionalstatuteisco evolved tokeeppacewiththe
(quoting nature Id.
or attenuatedcontacts, orofthe purposefully availsitselfofthe privilege
of touchstone” fortheexerciseofpersonal Hanson v.Denckla f itslaws.” Electronics ForI modern
6 ”
business ;
Int’l ShoeCo.v.Washington Burger KingCorp.v. Avocent HuntsvilleCorp - resident defendant:the , 357U.S.235,253 increasing affairs maging , 395F.3d1275, , Inc. , theSupreme ly
“ national , 340 some act . , - ,
United States District Court For the Northern District of California 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 28 27 26 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Corp. separate entitiesandarealteregos ofeachother. exception iswheretheparentand subsidiaryarenotreally Aarotech Labs.,Inc. unusual circumstancescallforan exception corporate entityshouldberecognized andupheld,unlessspecific, M contending thatRockstar’scontactsshouldbe because theyare over Rockstarand I. at 472. of orrelateto’thoseactivities.” and thelitigationresultsfromallegedinjuriesthat‘ariseout “purposefully directedhisactivitiesatresidentsoftheforum, Specific jurisdictionissatisfiedwherethedefendan Nacionales deColombia,S.A.v.Hall the causeofactionisunrelatedtothosecontacts. “continuous andsystematic” General jurisdictionexistswhenthedefendantmaintain (quoting unilateral activityofanotherpartyorathirdperson.” be imputed tothesubsidiary that manycourts have discussed Pathe Commc'nsCorp. obileS
Case4:13-cv-05933-CW Document58Filed04/17/14Page7of28 The Courtmustbeginfrom“ As apreliminarymatter,Defendantsarguethatjurisdiction Personal Jurisdict Personal jurisdictionmaybeeithergeneralorspecific. , 248F.3d915,926 (9thCir.2001) tar. Burger KingCorp.
separate MobileStar shouldbeassessedindependently , 979F.2d772,775 (9thCir.1992) , 160F.3d1373,1380(Fed.Cir. 1998) ion overRockstarthrough
, 471U.S.at475). corporate
contacts withtheforumstate,evenif and recognized thatitcan wherethe whether aparent's citizenshipcan the generalrulethat
7
, 466U.S.408,415 ent Burger KingCorp. i ; ties. Googledisagrees, see also .”
imputed 3D Sys.,Inc.v. MobileStar
Danjaq, S.A.v. t has Helicopteros Doe v.Unocal to , 471U.S. - s
16 (finding . Id. (1 One 984).
United States District Court For the Northern District of California 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 28 27 26 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
these observations jurisdiction becauseofCFMT, Id. Cir. 1998). Screen parent company’sCaliforniacontactstothesubsidiary. wholly parent fraud orinjustice.” (2) separate personalitiesofthetwoentities (1) thereisaunityofinterestandownershipsuchthatthe this exceptionwheretheplaintiffmakesaprima subsidiary isthealteregoofparent).Courtshaveinvoked The court reasonedthat and CFMT would be“reasonable andfair”to
failure todisregardtheseparateidentities“wouldresultin Case4:13-cv-05933-CW Document58Filed04/17/14Page8of28 (reversing districtcourt’sfinding thatitlackedpersonal 1048 n. Int'l TradeComm'n 1671 (Fed. Ltd. v.LotusDev.Corp. qualifies foroneofour“chutzpah”awards. incorporation of declaratory judgmentdefendant,saveperhapsinthestateof competitors withinfringementwithoutfearofbeinga complete controlovertheholdingcompany,andthreatenits those patentslicensedbacktoitselfbyvirtueofits transfer itspatentstotheholdingcompany,arrang company canincorporateaholdinginanotherstate, Stripped toitsessentials,CFMcontendsthataparent In a for thecourt'smercyonground ofbeinganorphan”). “the behaviorofapersonwhokills hisparentsandpleads - - Mfg. Co.,Ltd.v owned subsidiaryholdingcompany subsidiary relationshipbetweenaparentcompanyandits because oftheir parent similar situation,theFederalCircuitfoundthat
7 (Fed. The courtobserved:
Cir.
in mind Cir. 1996); the holdingcompany. Doe , , . CFMT,Inc.
, 248F.3dat926. while a“patent holdingsubsidi 1995) (notingthat“chutzpah”describes 54 F.3d756, , theFederalCircuit Checkpoint Sys.,Inc.v.UnitedStates , the 81 F.3d1576,1584,38USPQ2d1665, -
subsidiary relationship 8 find newly
, 142F.3d1266,1271(Fed.
76
jurisdiction over - justified imputingthe formed subsidiary). 3 n.7,35USPQ2d1042, no longerexistand
This argument
determined thatit facie casethat
See
Refac Int'l, ary isa . e tohave D both ainippon Id. With CFM
United States District Court For the Northern District of California 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 28 27 26 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Dainippon italics omitted).However, dicta. Defendants’Replyat3(internal quotation imposition ofpersonaljurisdiction,” insinuatingtherestwas those contacts(nottheparent’s contacts) justifiedthe the holdin minted initiated litigationagainstGoogle’scustomers, principal MobileStar’s stateofincorporation sole purposeofavoidingjurisdictioninallother suggest thatRockstarformedMobileStar fundamentally, as strengthen CFMT’scontactswiththatstate.”) negotiation asublicensewithDainipponinCaliforniafurther negotiate alicense the forumstate:itmetwithGoogleinCaliforniatoattempt Dainippon and decla engages inactivitiessufficienttocreatepersonaljurisdiction fora whereitsparentcompanyoperatesunderthepatentand patent ownersfromdefendingdeclaratoryjudgmentactions legitimate creature. jurisdiction.” defendants engaged in“adeliberateattempt interests offair playandsubstantialjusticewas ifthe setting asidecorporate formalitiesforpurposes of assessingthe Case4:13-cv-05933-CW Document58Filed04/17/14Page9of28 subsidiary itself The factsinthiscaseareatleastasstrong 2
g wasbased“firstandforemost Defendants initiallyattemptedto arguethat MobileStar, . ratory judgmentjurisdiction.” place ofbusiness stood fortheproposition thatonevalidgroundfor As
i n Id.
in Dainippon with noCaliforniacontacts .
at 4. Dainippon
had minimumcontactswiththeforum, and See id. .
.
,
, MobileStarherehad
it cannotfairlybeusedtoinsulate Defen (Texas)
(“Moreover, CFMT’sattemptsto , thecircumstancesherestrongly
dants laterconcededthat 9
. Ameredaybeforeit
(Delaware) ” onitsdetermination“that as a Id. 2 to manipulate
sham entityforthe . More ,
and and assignedthe some contactwith Rockst
mark claimed fora Dainippon
those s and ar except freshly in those
in ’s
United States District Court For the Northern District of California 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 28 27 26 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
2011) (forpurposes ofamotiontotransfer,ignoring theimpact Mobi jurisdiction andimputes if theCourtconsiders traditional notionsoffairplayandjustice Rockstar Because theevidencepresentedsupportsGoogle’sallegationthat any evidence do withpersonaljurisdiction,”Rockstardoesnot “MobileStar “there isnohintwhatsoeverof Rockstar. DeanDecl.¶¶5,15. purportedly operatesoutofthesameofficesuitelistedfor Rockstar’s boardaswell. one boardmember(Dir President ChadHilyard,andCorporateSecretaryMikeDunleavy) MobileStar hasthreeoffic is thefactthatall evidence suggestingMobileStarmaintainsnoindependent asserted patentstothatsubsidiary ephemeral, and Inc. occurred sixteen days befor of
litigation Case4:13-cv-05933-CW Document58Filed04/17/14Page10of28 , 609F.3dat1381 (rejectingconnectionstoTexas as“recent, leStar 3
Cf.
created MobileStarsolelytododgejurisdiction
. In reMicrosoft 3
was createdforlegitimatereasonshavingnothingto supporting thispoint -
driven incorporation underthelawsofTexas,which
an artifact oflitigation”).
ector oftheBoardJohnVeschi); MobileStar employeesalsowork
the twoentitiesjointlyforpurposesof
Rockstar’s contactstotheforum state to , 630F.3d1361,1364 ers (PresidentAfzalDean,Vice Dean Decl.¶ e filingsuit);
any 10 Although Rockstarassertsthat . Defendants’Replyat4.
. DeanDecl.¶15.
manipulation” and
10. In reZimmerHoldings, Mobi would - 65 (Fed.Cir. leStar
actually not beoffended for Rockstar.
that all serveon
identity Other , the
provide
United States District Court For the Northern District of California 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 28 27 26 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
general ruleofsuccessor liabilityisthatacorporation that Inc. v.M corporation toanother). ego theoryandagencyfor imputing co position. shoes ofitspredecessor,Nortel, andassumeditsjurisdictional ¶¶ maintain offices,orfilelawsuit California, nordotheyownrealorpersonalproperty,paytaxes, Decl. ¶5,15.NeitherDefendantislicensedtodobusinessin claim tohaveprincipal at 760. its placeofincorporationandprincipalbusiness. “paradigm basesforgeneraljurisdiction”acorporationare Operations, S.A.v.Brown Bauman them essentiallyathomeinthefor with defendant tosuitinaforumonlywheredefendant’scontacts II. selling corporation theories, thepurchasing corporationisamerecontinuation ofthe for theformercorporation's liabilitiesunless, among other purchases allof the assetsofanothercorporation is
6 Case4:13-cv-05933-CW Document58Filed04/17/14Page11of28 - General J Google neverthelessc 9, 16,22 Both RockstarandMobileStarare that forum“aresocontinuousandsystematicastorender General, or“all 4
, 134S.Ct.746,754(2014) See
- 4
MLS.com Doe Although NortelwasaCanadiancompany, itmaintained urisdiction , 248F.3dat926(explainingrequirements foralter - 24, 29
, 394F.3d1143,1150(9thCir.2004) .”).
- - 33. purpose” personaljurisdiction,subjectsa
places ofbusinessinPlano , 131S.Ct.2846,2851(2011) See also ontends thatRockstarhassteppedinthe
11 s inCalifornia.DeanDecl.
(quoting um State.” Katzir's Floor&HomeDesign,
incorporated in
Goodyear DunlopTires ntacts ofone Daimler AGv. , Texas.Dean
not liable Delaware ) (“ .
The The Id. and
United States District Court For the Northern District of California 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 28 27 26 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
to comeintocon as acknowledgedbyRockstar’sCEO, the SiliconValleytechnologyindustry isRockstar’smaintarget, of itssignificantpatentportfolio isitsonlybusiness. Rockstar doesnotcurre purchase market and business” andoperatesbyreverse press andothers,Rockstar in business Rockstar neve although thebulkofRockstar’semployeesoperateoutCanada, Santa ClarapresenceinCalifornia.Googlecontendsinsteadthat (2011). Networks Inc.v.State Nortel NetworksCorp. defended them Madigan Decl.,Exs.3,27 registered agentfo its pri and hassince approachedmany more. had “startednegotiations withasmany100potential licensees” Decl., Exs.16,35. California. Case4:13-cv-05933-CW Document58Filed04/17/14Page12of28 Google doesnotallegethatRockstarmaintainedNortel’s
mary
licenses. MadiganDecl.,Ex.7,13;DeanDecl.¶¶18 aimed at proposing thatthecompanieswhichoffer United States rtheless in California. As Rockstarhasstatedonmanyoccasionstothe stant contactwiththeforumstate.
the technologyindustry r s
, CaseNo.06 Rockstar pursues ervice ofprocessinCalifornia. Bd. ofEqualization ntly sellanyproducts;commercialization . Nortelroutinelybroughtsuitsand campus inSantaClaraand
is exclusively“apatentlicensing
See, e.g. confirmed that a significantpatentlicensing
12 - - engineering productsonthe
00532 (N.D.Cal.)and Rockstar
Id. ,
, Exs.7, 17. Times Networks,Inc.v.
, 191Cal.App.4th1259 in
, naturally wouldhave the as ofMay2012,it
Silicon Valley,
designated a those products Madigan At least a See Nortel Because - 21. ,
United States District Court For the Northern District of California 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 28 27 26 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
jurisdiction exists:“w developed athree to anattenuatedaffiliation.” as itcreatesa“substantialconnection withtheforum,asopposed single actmaysupportafinding of per 1998) (citing v. Hockerson those contactsareisolatedandsporadic. out ofthedefendant’scontactswith II. from thoseactivities suit “oncausesofactionarisingfromdealingsentirelydistinct forum stateissosubstantialthatit forum state,that Defendants engagein“continuousandsystematic”businessthe “essentially athome”inCalifornia Madigan Decl.Ex. Wilson, whocontactspo Rockstar hasoneemployeeorindependentcontractorinCalifornia, couple ofthe the forum state,and(3) assertion ofpersonal jurisdiction is claim arisesout of orrelatestothedefendant's activitieswith directed itsactivities atresidentsoftheforum state,(2)the
Case4:13-cv-05933-CW Document58Filed04/17/14Page13of28 Specific jurisdictionexistswherethecauseofactionarises Specific J Google’s showing
- Halberstadt, Inc. se meetingswereinCalifornia. Burger KingCorp. urisdiction - does notmeanthatDefendants’ 17. factor testtodeterminewhether specific . ” is insufficienttorenderDefend tential licenseesinCalifornia hether (1)thedefendantpurposefully
Daimler , 148F.3d1355,1359(Fed.Cir. , 471U.S.at
Id. 13 AG
. Evenifitistruethat , 134S.Ct.
The FederalCircuithas the forumstate,evenif should fairlybe sonal jurisdictionsolong Red WingShoeCo.,Inc.
See
- at presence inthe 77) Dean Decl.¶18.
761 . Evena ants . . subject to See
United States District Court For the Northern District of California 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 28 27 26 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
of fairplayandsubstantialjustice. of partially giverisetotheplaintiff’s action”). desist lettersarethe Wing ShoeCo.,Inc. out oforrelateto” infringement charges”targetingGoogle’sAndroidplatform, non platform. a cloudofpatentinfringementchargesoverGoogle’sAndroid These contactswithGoogleanditscustomersinCaliforniacreated Halloween actions California discuss licensing Exs. A operating system devices havingaversion(oradaptationther they infringedby 1350 reasonable andfair. would be unfair underthe seco patentee based has explainedthat exercisingpersonaljurisdiction overa - sending Case4:13-cv-05933-CW Document58Filed04/17/14Page14of28 infringement, wh . Here, Defendants arguethatimposing - H.
cease Google’s causesofactionfordeclaratoryjudgment with afew Both Defendants Defendants suedsevenGooglecustomers,allegingthat solely ” - and to of thepatents which isdevelopedbyGoogle. making , 148F.3d ” - ich areintendedto“cleartheairof Defendants’ contactswiththeforum. discuss licensingofthepatents desist on thesendingof cease of the E cause oftheentanglementandat least lectronics ForImaging and selling met withGoogle letters aloneviolatestheprinciples Google customers nd prong of thetra at
-
14 in 1360 (holdingthat“cease
-
suit. jurisdiction basedon “ certain mobilecommunication Id.
Rockstar alsomet in California eof The FederalCircuit
- sued , Inc. and )
See of Android ditional due -
desist letters in the , 340F.3d - Dean Decl. in - suit to
the act - and See “arise . in - Red , at
United States District Court For the Northern District of California 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 28 27 26 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
judicial orextra activities enforcement ofthe forming Corp be relatedinsomewaytot need notbelimitedtothosedirectedatGoogleitself Id. activities” intheforumstaterelatedtoactionathand has requiredthata Accordingly, tofindspecificjurisdiction,theFederalCircuit insufficient tojustifyexercisingspecificjurisdiction. continuing businessrelationship,”and than anarms closely akintoanofferforsettlementofadisputedclaimrather foreign forum.” its patentrightswithoutsubjectingitselftojurisdictionina “afford[s] 1361 (quotationmarks would comportwithfairplayandsubstantialjustice.” process inquiry: which imposesenforcement obligationswithaparty residingor entering intoan exclusive licenseagreementorother undertaking ; Case4:13-cv-05933-CW Document58Filed04/17/14Page15of28 , 552F.3d Courts haveheldthat Avocent HuntsvilleCorp.
obligations
” the patenteesufficien that courtshaverecognizedinclude - length negotiat at 1334.
- Id. “whether themaintenanceofpersonaljurisdiction judicial patentenforcementwithin theforum,or
asserted patent with forumresidentsthatrelate to showing t
An offertolicensemaysometimesbe“more omitted).
such he patents ion inanticipationofalong , 552F.3d hat a
“other activities”mayinclude 15 t latitudetoinformothersof This isbecause s
. defendant engage
- , Some exam in
if so - at suit
1334. These , .
by itselfmaybe ples of“other
“ Avocent Huntsville d initiating ue process d
in “other , butmust Id. activities - term Id. . at
United States District Court For the Northern District of California 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 28 27 26 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Sunrace RootsEnter. Co.,Ltd. the patent,specificjurisdiction wasproper); “obligations . alleged infringer’scompetitors, which meant had enteredintoanexclusivelicensing agreementwithoneofthe Luker created obligationstosuethird relationship “analogoustoagrant ofapaten a productcoveredbytheasserted patent,whichwasabusiness patentee becauseithadappointed anin Cir. 1997)(holdingthatspecific jurisdictionexistedover Implant Sys forum toremovedefendant’sproductsfromatradeshow); judicial patentenforcementbyenlistingathirdpartyinthe 2008) (findingjurisdictionov well defendants actions suchthatitwouldnotbe“ connection” thatproximatelyresultsfrom themselves 2006) Inc. v.MetaboliteLabs., licensee's salesormarketingactivities. or as grantingbothpartiestherighttolitigateinfringementcases the merepaymentofroyaltiesorcross Circuit caselawrevealsthat regularly d infringer). by marketingaproduct thatdirectlycompetedwith thealleged “purposefully directed itsactivities”atresidents oftheforum Ill. 2005) granting thelicensorrighttoexercisecontrolover Case4:13-cv-05933-CW Document58Filed04/17/14Page16of28 . 5 ” . Thedefendants , 45F.3d1541,1548
See Electronics ForImaging
Campbell PetCo.v.Miale (specific jurisdiction wasproperw ., Inc.v.Core to submittheburdensoflitigationinthatforumas and residentsoftheforum,”forminga“substantial oing businessintheforum.”
.
. todefendandpursueanyinfringement” against
must create - 49 (Fed.Cir.1995)(becausedefendant - Vent Corp. , 444F.3d1356,1366(Fed.Cir. the , 390F.Supp.2d 781,787(N.D. er apatenteewhoconductedextra , Inc.
- 16
party infringers); relationship
“ un , 542F.3d879,886(Fed.Cir.
continuing obligationsbetween , 123 , 340F.3dat1350 re - licensing payments, - asonable torequire state distributortosell ” Id. the defendants’ F.3d 1455,1458(Fed. Breckenridge Pharm., 5
that defendanthad t license”and
here defendanthad A must extend SRAM Corp.v.
review ofFederal Akro Corp.v. .
Genetic own “ beyond such -
United States District Court For the Northern District of California 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 28 27 26 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
that makesitreasonabletoimpose specificjurisdiction. substantial obligationtoApplerelated totheassertedpatents state, butinsteadarguesthatDefend not seektoimputeDefendants Apple’s contacts at forum cannotbeimputedtoDefendants. ego oragencytheoriesapply,and thus at 34. billion Apple contributed$2.6billion York asgeneralpartner. partnership which Rockstar Bidco. on Apple’s that AppleisindeedthemajorityshareholderofDefendantsbased Apple’s behalf over majority shareholderofDefendantsand Akro Corp. “ obligations solely for litigationpurposes. jurisdiction because itislikelythatMobileStar wascreated the Courtconsiders thetwoentitiesjointlyfor pur to defe
11. DefendantsmisunderstandGoogle’s argument.Googledoes Case4:13-cv-05933-CW Document58Filed04/17/14Page17of28 Google contendsthatDefendantshave In supportoft them 7 6
As previouslynoted, Defendants contendthatGooglehas notproventhatalter
Although RockstarBidcoreorganizeditselftobecome total investmentinRockstarBidco.MadiganDecl.,Ex.9 nd andpursueanyinfringementagainst”theirpatents , , 45 majority investmentinRockstar’spre and asaresultDefendantsareobligedto to
7 in F.3d at Apple
Currently, RockstarisaDelawarelimited lists “RockstarConsortiumLLC”locatedinNew a
his allegation,Googlesubmits campaign to , aforumresident,
1543. Id. Rockstar whollyowns Mobile
, Exs.32 Google , orfifty
attack 17
alleges that ants have
- Google’s exerts substantialcontrol Apple’s contactswiththe 33; DeanDecl.¶15.But which requireDefendants See - eight percent accepted
Defendants’ Reply undertaken Android platf decessor entity, Apple isa with strong evidence substantial poses of act on
Star and the forum of the$4.5
a orm . . 6
United States District Court For the Northern District of California 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 28 27 26 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Defendants’ actionsagainstGoogle anditscustomers. business interests,separateand apart frommereprofitmaking,and departments todemonstratethat“work isbeingdone.” directly andperiodicallywiththe owners’intellectualproperty about details,itdoesappearatleast together.” departments, andVeschiacknowledgesthatthey“workwell with theowners,primarilytheirintellectualproperty Decl., Ex. to showthem“progressandthatrealw licensing partnersorinfringementsuits,butadmittedthathehas stated that extends beyondthemerereceiptofprofits. Pharm., Inc. sufficient toupholdspecificjurisdiction. the relationshipbetweenAppleandDefendants shareholder andtakesnopartinpatentassertionstrategy,then Defendants wereabletodemonstratethatA nor d Rockstar, itdoesnotappearthatanyownershipinterestschanged,
Case4:13-cv-05933-CW Document58Filed04/17/14Page18of28 Even ifAppleisamajorityshareholderofRockstar, o Defendantsassertotherwise. Google demonstratesadirectlink 12 at4 Id. he ,
444 F.3dat does nottalktoitsshareholdersaboutpotential at 5. - 5. Veschiholdsperiodiccallsandmeetings
Although Veschistates
1366 .
18 Google alleges
ork isbeingdone.”Madigan between Apple’sunique telling pple isamerepassive
Rockstar’s CEOVeschi Cf.
might they avoidtalking
that Veschispeaks that Apple’srole Breckenridge
not be
Google and Id.
if at 4 - 5.
United States District Court For the Northern District of California 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 28 27 26 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
experts expected those patentswouldreartheirugly headsometime Android smartphoneecosystemand it wouldbefairtosaythatmost Andro used for finally usedforwhatprettymuch everyonesuspecteditwouldbe unreasonable torequireDefendants tosubmittheburdensof resident tomarshaltheasserted patents suchthatitwouldnotbe Defendants resolved plaintiff’ jurisdiction wherethepatentee“tookstepstointerferewith Android business. tactic advancesApple’sinterest Ex. they assertedahardware infringement claimstoAndroid the Halloweenactiondefendants,Defendants consistent withApple’spar strategy ofsuingGoogle’scustomersintheHalloweenactionsis “thermonuclear war.” iPhone features Apple’s Apple’s rivalryinthesmartphoneindustryiswell ( competitors toAndroid areteamingupagainstit”); “largely because it givestheappearancethatthree leading in thefuture”); Ex. 2 further
Case4:13-cv-05933-CW Document58Filed04/17/14Page19of28 A andthe‘551patent. In sum, id”); Ex.25(“Thisisanall 8
See, e.g. founder detailing Apple’santi -- in s have launching ana its business with
, created continuingobligationswithaforum favor, Googlehasshownthatitislikely and intendedto“destroy”Androidbylaunchinga stated
Madigan Decl., conflict See ”). 6 (newattention focused onRockstar Id. that heview Campbell - based patent. , Ex.31. ll s inthe ticular bus - This “sca out patentattackonGoogleand - operating devicesonly,evenwhere - ,
Android litigation campaign). Ex. 24(Rockstar’s“stockpilewas 19 542 F.3dat in interferingwithGoogle’s
ed Androidasa“ripoff”of out assaultonGoogleandthe allegations and
Defendants’ litigation re thecustomerandru iness interests.Insuing See, e.g. here
887
, DeanDecl., limited their (finding - documented. evidence Ex. 27
n” 8
United States District Court For the Northern District of California 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 28 27 26 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
continue anaggressivelitigation strategy”) on threateninglettersandpublic statementsshowingan“intentto (holding thattherewasarealand substantialcontroversybased MedImmune, Inc.v.Genentech, Technologies, Inc. issuance ofadeclaratoryjudgment.” interests ofsufficientimmediacyandrealitytowarrantthe substantial controversybetweenparties alleged underallthecircumstancesshowthatthereisa declaratory judgmentplaintiffmustestablishthatthe“ further reliefisor any interestedpartyseekin States . controversy withinitsjurisdiction,anycourtoftheUnited III. F.3d at establish specificjurisdiction. enforcement ordefenseofthepatent,whichissufficientto residents of at 1350. litigation inthisforum. defendant existswherever thereispersonal jurisdiction”). F.3d at1280(“Venue inapatentactionagainst corporate Defendants isproper, venueisalsoproper. Case4:13-cv-05933-CW Document58Filed04/17/14Page20of28
The DeclaratoryJudgmentActprovides J 9
urisdiction underDeclaratoryJudgmentAct Because theCourt findspersonalj
1338. Defe . maydeclaretherightsandotherlegalrelationsof 9 this foruminawaywhichrelatesmateriallytothe
ndants
, 518F.3d897,901(Fed.Cir.2008)
could besought.”28U.S.C.§ have purposefullydirectedactivitiesto Electronics ForImaging g suchdeclaration,whetherornot
20 Avocent HuntsvilleCorp. , 549U.S.118,126
Micron Tech.,Inc.v.Mosaid
having adverselegal urisdiction over ,
“In acaseofactual ) Trintech Indus. .
, Inc.
2201. (2007) (citing , 340F.3d facts , 552 The , 395
United States District Court For the Northern District of California 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 28 27 26 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Defendants substantial controversyexistedwhenGooglefiledsuit legal rights.” infringing partyrelieffromuncertaintyanddelayregardingits Judgment Act,which“inpatentcasesistoprovidethealle action.” founded reasonsfordecliningtoentertainadeclaratoryjudgment act the Med. Products,Inc. Declaratory JudgmentActwascreated.” hearing thecasewouldserveobjectivesforwhich the DeclaratoryJudgmentAct,court“mustdeterminewhethe (1995). jurisdiction c
ourts have ion Case4:13-cv-05933-CW Document58Filed04/17/14Page21of28 objectives Even whendeclaratoryjudgmentjurisdictionisp The presentsuitservesthepurposesofDeclaratory
, dismissalisrarelyproper In ordertodecidewhetherexercisejurisdictionunder Id. had . some
sued anumberofGoogle’scustomers, basedinpart of theDeclaratoryJudgmentAct Wilton v.SevenFallsCo. Micron Tech.,Inc. discretion todecline , 387F.3d1352,1355(Fed.Cir.2004)
21 . , 518F.3dat902.
Id. to exercisethat Capo, Inc.v.Dioptics , 515U.S.277,289 “There mustbewell are served resent, . A realand . When by the gedly - 90 - r
United States District Court For the Northern District of California 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 28 27 26 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
cle is notclearifAndroidspecifically involved.Itisalsonot Android features;theexceptionis the‘551patent,withwhichit in theHalloweenactionsappearto betargetedspecificallyat customers based ontheallegedactsofdirect infringementbyits supplier’s liabilityforinduced or contributoryinfringement controversy betweenthepatentee and thesupplierasto infringement,” the give risetoacaseorcontroversy regarding noted that,al 2014 WL1327923(Fed.Cir.Apr.4,2014) Court’s attentionto four otherpatentsintheTexascase,leavetoamendhasnotyet No. sev directly, later uncertaint charges.” declaratory judgme the uncertaintycausedbyDefendants’actions v. Coyle with uncertaintya “infects tactic oftargeting Defendants on theiruseof at alater date. theor claim chartstodiscern thedetailsofpatentee’s infringement See id. en ofthepatentsatissuehere. ar ifDefendants approached Googletolicensethe ‘551patent. Case4:13-cv-05933-CW Document58Filed04/17/14Page22of28 19. AlthoughDefendantsrecentlysoughttoincludethefinal 10 ies, theCourtmay revisittheinclusionof‘551 paten amended
Defendants filedaStatementofRecentDecisionca , 394F.3d1341,1346(Fed.Cir.2005) at *2 .” the compet they y stillexistsinpartbecause, Avocent HuntsvilleCorp. did not,however, . Becausethe Id. though suitsagainstcustomers one oftheHalloweenactionstoimplicateGoogle accused the
at nt actionto“cleartheairofinfringement nd insecurity re isacaseorcontroversyif“ itive environmentofthebusinesscommunity Android platformdevelopedbyGoogle. *2 the custom Microsoft Corp.v.DataTern,Inc. - 3 Google ofinfringing . Thevastmajorityoftheclaims brought DataTern name ers insteadofthemanufacturer .
” 22
, 552F.3dat1329. Electronics forImaging,Inc.
court hadthebenefit of Case No.13
. as adefendant
although Defendants The FederalCircuit only threeofthe , Googlefiledthis induced do not .
- In response 0900, there isa “ automatically , 2013 . This Docket That 10 lling the
- 1184, to t
United States District Court For the Northern District of California 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 28 27 26 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Google becausetheyinvolved contend thattheyshouldbeconsidered first Halloween actionsdidnotnameGoogle specifically,Defendant suits the to Defendants’NewYear’ before GooglefacedchargesintheEasternDistrictofTexasdue that thefirst parties dispute first rule onmotionsto 518 F.3dat904. whether itisadeclaratoryjudgmentaction. to favortheforumoffirst are pendingintwoormorefederaldistricts,the IV. Imaging, Inc. justified inbringingthepresentaction. patent owner been granted However, the presentsituation isnotequivalent to Acacia ResearchCorp tho
se implica Case4:13-cv-05933-CW Document58Filed04/17/14Page23of28 Halloween actions - When casesbetween A. Motion toTransfer . to
- Defenda file ruleorontheconveniencefactors. First . s , 394F.3d ted here - failed to“graspthenettleandsue,”Googlewas - Case No. nts’ filed to which - The courtoftheactualfirst File Rule dismiss , 737F.3d704,706 (F Motion to action .
themselves is thefirst the samepartiesraisingissues at 13 Id. s Eveamendment -
1346 0900, or
(citing is thepresentsuit,whichwasfiled “substantially thesame”parties as Dismiss transfer - .
filed action,regardlessof
23 Docket Nos.45 constituted thefirst -
filed action.
Futurewei Techs., Inc.v.
at 5,19 . Defendantsarguethat based onexceptionstothe ed. Cir.2013)). Electronics for - filed suitsagainst Micron Tech.,Inc. - - 24. - 46. filed caseshould
general ruleis Google argues
See i the Although the Because the - filed d.
The s
,
United States District Court For the Northern District of California 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 28 27 26 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
ContentGuard Motors Corp. the customers interest indefendingagainstcharges ofpatentinfringement other of manufacturer oftheaccuseddevices”) later suitisadeclaratoryjudgmentactionbroughtbythe action isan filed rulehasdevelopedinpatentlitigationwheretheearlier 553 F.2d first Halloween (“similar” partieswereparent v. UnitedModuleCorp. Hallow defendants isoneofmanufacturerandcustomer contrast, therelationshipbetweenGoogleandHalloween licensee’s wholly which wereapatentowner,itsexclusivelicensee,andthe “substantially similar”partiesthatwereimplicatedin (E.D. Tex.) the infringement Case4:13-cv-05933-CW Document58Filed04/17/14Page24of28 - Even ifthepartiesweresubstantiallysimilarin The B. cases to een d
- C 735, 737 file rule actio ourt Convenience Factors , , a efendants , 889F.2d1078,1081(Fed.Cir. 1989) infringement suitagainstamerecustomerandthe Docket No.37, Holdings, Inc.v.Google, , thepresentsuittakesprecedence. nd themanufacturerpresumablyhas agreater could ns - (1st Cir.1977)(“anexceptiontothefirst and thisone owned subsidiary/assignee. would apply. issues herewouldlikelybedispositiveofthe are notinprivity make , 2011WL2669627 an exception
at 6 , thecustomer and itswholly
. 24 Codex Corpv.MilgoElec.
.
, at*3 . to the Because thedetermination Cf. , - suit exception - Case No.14 owned subsidiary Microchip Tech,Inc. . Id. general rule (N.D. Cal.)
Google andthe at 705 ; Kahn v.Gen. Cf. the
- Futurewei - 06. 0061 giving to the than - ). By ,
,
United States District Court For the Northern District of California 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 28 27 26 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Google’s headquartersinMountain View,California.DubeyDecl. development oftheaccusedAndroid here. Manyofthewitnesseswho can testifytothedesignand targe factor favorsCaliforniabecause Google’s Android Genentech, Inc. the singlemostimportantfactor”intransferanalysis. factors WL 5568345 05 considerations relatingtotheinterestsof possibility ofconsolidationwithrelatedlitigation jurisdiction overallnecessaryordesirableparties,the convenience andavailabilityofwitnesses,theabsence under thet patent holders, of “competingforuminterests”betweenaccusedinfringersand forum interest ofjusticeorexpedie preference thefirst witnesses suit, arelikely to beinCanada. ¶¶ 3 .
Case4:13-cv-05933-CW Document58Filed04/17/14Page25of28 - The convenienceandavailabilityofwitnessesis“probably See .” 8. Otherwitnesses, suchastheinventorsof patents t ofthisinfringementaction,were designedandcreated ).
Reflex Packaging,Inc.v.AudioVideoColorCorp. Micron Tech.,Inc. 1. , at*2 in Texas ransfer analysis
, Convenience andavailabilityofwitnesses the court 566 F.3d1338,1343 (N.D. Cal.) essential tothesuit. - filed caseifdoingsowouldbe“
may , 518F.3d of 28U.S.C.§
consider the“conveniencefactors” ncy, asinanyissueofchoice (listing
25
Defendants do platform’s
(Fed. Cir.2009) at additional
904
1404(a
justice . features residenear To
) not nameany , including resolve disputes products, the transfer . , and
. This Id in the .
, 2013 at 902 In re : - in the - -
United States District Court For the Northern District of California 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 28 27 26 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
applicable law, access totheevidence, choice offorum, pretrial purposes. here, theycanbeconsolidatedwiththiscaseatleastfor infringement issuesthere. completion ofthis here. issue isanindis It cannotbesaidthatanycustomerwhousesthetechnologyat e the patents indispensable partiestothislitigationbecausetheirrightsin Defendants contendthosecustomersnecessarilywouldbe of thecustomerdefendantstoHalloweenactionsinTexas. case tothis district. has filedamotion tostayor,inthealternative, totransferthe ssential toresolutionofclaimsbetween Case4:13-cv-05933-CW Document58Filed04/17/14Page26of28 Other factorsthatmaybeconsidered include:theplaintiff’s 11 The Defendants arguethatthisCourtlacksjurisdiction 11
In eachof
They Halloween actionsmightnotand 2. 3. -
in might - Jurisdiction overpartiestothisaction Other fac suit areatplay.However,thosepartiesnot l possibility ofconsolidationwithrelated itigation the localinterestincontroversy,
the pensable party.
the remainingHalloween actions, suit, whichlikelywillresolvesomeofthe be stayedinTexasandreopenedupon
convenience oftheparties, tors See the
Docket Nos. 46,48,50 familiarity ofeachforumwiththe If theTexasactionsaretransferred
26
need notbetransferred Defendants the - 51, 55. the defendant
and Google. ease of
the and over
some
United States District Court For the Northern District of California 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 28 27 26 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
WL 5508122,at*3(E.D.Tex.).Although Valley.” property rightsthatstemfromresearch anddevelopmentinSilicon District ofCaliforniahasaninterest inprotectingintellectual Eastern DistrictofTexashaverecognized thatthe“ Roche in orconductingbusinessthiscommunity. question theworkandreputationofseveralindividualsresidin in again, argument listed atleastyearsagoasbeingfromCanada.Defend admit their Defendants have because Court findsthisfactoratbesttofa accordingly, their Packaging, Inc. relati Canada. substantial ties to this Case4:13-cv-05933-CW Document58Filed04/17/14Page27of28 , The NorthernDistrictofCaliforniahasthegreaterinterest Defendants arguethattheyare
that manyoftheinventors primary operationsandheadquartersareinCanada, ve courtcongestion,andtheinterestsofjustice. 587 F.3d1333,1336(Fed.Cir.2009). their litigation becausetheclaimsherewill“callinto each side The interestofthe EasternDistrictofTexasin this of Affinity LabsofTexasv.Samsung Elecs.Co.,Ltd. their operations appeartobebased , 2013WL5568345 not
own convenience accuse choice offorumshouldtakeprecedence.The
Texas, identified an s
the otherofforumshopping.Indeed, their
, at*2.
27 of thepatents y witnessesresidinginTexas, headquarters appear tobein is similarly
the trueplaintiff vor Defendantsonlyslightly
Defendants claimtohave in ”
Courts Canada, notTexas. - In reHoffman attenuated because, in - suit were Northern in the s ants’ and Reflex , 2013 - La they g
United States District Court For the Northern District of California 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 28 27 26 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Dated: the actiontoEasternDistrictofTexas cases both havesimilarcourtcongestionandtimetotrial. convenient forum. other states;however,thatdoesnotmakeTexasthemore of theevidence Because Google,theaccusedinfringer,residesinCalifornia,much California controv
Case4:13-cv-05933-CW Document58Filed04/17/14Page28of28 IT ISSOORDERED. The motiontodismiss On balance,thefactorsdonotwei The remainingfactorsareeitherneutralorfavorGoogle.
are inearlystages. ersy is
04/17/2014 .
therefore outweighedbythecompellinginterest is
Each forumisfamiliarwithpatentlaw,and here.
Some oftheevidencemaybeinC or transfer CONCLUSION
28 United StatesDistrictJudge CLAUDIA WILKEN
gh infavorof is DENIED. .
transferring All ofthe anada or s
in