On
BillJCo accuses a variety of
Private Interest Factors
- The court found that the first factor, relative ease of access to sources of proof, favored transfer. While most of BillJCo's relevant documents are located in the
Eastern District ofTexas ("EDTX"), the court found that this was close enough to theWestern District ofTexas ("WDTX") to disfavor transfer.Apple made several arguments for transfer under this favor, including that the relevant source code is maintained in theNorthern District ofCalifornia ("NDCA"). However, the court found thatApple failed to explain "how transfer affects the inconvenience visited upon BillJCo's experts and counsel when source-code inspection is limited to the NDCA." The court did findApple 's argument "that the standards development organization ('SDO') overseeing the development of Bluetooth standards is inKirkland, Washington ," to favor transfer. Ultimately, the court relied on the fact that "[m]ost of the relevant evidence will come from the accused infringer," to hold that this factor favored transfer. - The court found that the second factor, the availability of compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses, disfavored transfer. The court disregarded the convenience of potential witnesses when BillJCo failed to explain "what knowledge these potential witnesses have that is relevant to any claim or defense at issue." The court similarly disregarded relevant third-party witnesses when BillJCo failed to "offer any suggestion as to what knowledge a[n] SXSW or Texas Instrument employee may have relevant to a claim or defense in this litigation." The court found that the two parties' former representatives at negotiations neutralized one another. Ultimately, the court found that BillJCo's witness—one of the inventors of the asserted patents, who lives in Waco—broke the tie and disfavored transfer.
- The court found that the cost of attendance for willing witnesses favored transfer. BillJCo's one employee is located in
Texas . However,Apple 's witnesses are primarily located inCupertino . The court disregarded BillJCo's argument thatApple historically "only presented an average of 2.33 fact witnesses in patent trials over the past two years." The court similarly disregarded BillJCo's argument to disregard a witness whomApple has identified as a likely witness in several cases involving different technologies because BillJCo failed to show that the witness was identified for the purpose of distorting the § 1404(a) analysis. However, the court did consider "Apple 's increasing footprint in this District." Therefore, the court found this factor favored transfer, but not heavily. - The court found that the fourth factor, all other practical problems that make trial easy, expeditious, and inexpensive, was neutral. The court relied on the fact that two other motions to transfer venue in the EDTX actions had been denied, and there is no assurance that the Federal Circuit will grant petitions for mandamus from those denials. The court, therefore, held that it "will not have the fate of this factor rest entirely on events outside of this Court's control that may not come to pass," and found this factor neutral.
Public Interest Factors
- The court found that the first factor, administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion, disfavored transfer. The court relied on the fact that BillJCo "cited statistics showing that the average time to trial in patent cases in the NDCA is now 45.2 months but 25.9 months in this District." Although recognizing the Federal Circuit's decision that this factor "should not alone outweigh all of [the] other factors,"
Judge Albright found that this factor favored transfer. - As to the second factor, the local interest in having localized interests decided at home, the court found that this factor slightly disfavored transfer. The court emphasized the fact that
Apple 's second-largestU.S. campus was located in this District and that BillJCo'sFlower Mound headquarters is close to the WDTX. Therefore, the court found that because "both maintain a significant presence inTexas ," this factor slightly disfavors transfer. - Both parties agreed that the third factor—the familiarity of the forum with the law that would govern the case—was neutral.
- Both parties agreed that the fourth factor—avoidance of unnecessary problems of conflict of laws or in the application of foreign law—was neutral.
Winston & Strawn Law Clerk
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
IL 60601
Tel: 3125585600
Fax: 3125585700
E-mail: awisinski@winston.com
URL: www.winston.com
© Mondaq Ltd, 2022 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com, source