Case 2:24-cv-00484-JRG-RSP Document 55 Filed 03/21/25 Page 1 of 22 PagelD #:
`4763
`
`> MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
`
`SCT Exhibit 2015
`IPR2026-00098
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-00484-JRG-RSP Document 55 Filed 03/21/25 Page 2 of 22 PagelD #:
`4764
`
`Samsung’s Relevant Witnesses and
`
`Party Google’s Witnesses and Documents are Primarily in the NDCA
`
`SCT Exhibit 2015
`IPR2026-00098
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-00484-JRG-RSP Document 55 Filed 03/21/25 Page 3 of 22 PagelD #:
`4765
`
`CASES
`
`Auto. Body Parts Ass’n v. Ford Glob. Techs., LLC
`
`SCT Exhibit 2015
`IPR2026-00098
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-00484-JRG-RSP Document 55 Filed 03/21/25 Page 4 of 22 PagelD #:
`4766
`
`STATUTES
`
`RULES
`
`SCT Exhibit 2015
`IPR2026-00098
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-00484-JRG-RSP Document 55 Filed 03/21/25 Page 5 of 22 PagelD #:
`4767
`
`I. INTRODUCTION
`
`Defendants Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (“SEC”) and Samsung Electronics America,
`Inc. (“SEA”) (collectively “Samsung”) respectfully move to transfer this action filed by
`
`(“ ) to the Northern District of California (“NDCA”)
`
`SCT’s infringement
`
`party Google: (1) Google Fast Pairing Service (“GFPS”)
`
`SmartThings Find (formerly “Find My Mobile”),
`
`Samsung’s
`
`Conversely, SCT’s ties to Texas ar
`
`SCT’s
`
`SCT’s
`
`relevant here for Samsung’s inequitable conduct defense), and a prior licensee ~ SCT’s patents
`
`SCT Exhibit 2015
`IPR2026-00098
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-00484-JRG-RSP Document 55 Filed 03/21/25 Page 6 of 22 PagelD #:
`4768
`
`transferred from this District to the NDCA. As in these past cases, because the events that gave
`rise to this lawsuit depend substantially on evidence and witnesses located in the NDCA, this case
`should be transferred to that district.
`
`II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`A. SCT Accuses Samsung and Google Functionality
`
`SCT filed this case on July 3, 2024, asserting three patents against Samsung: U.S. Patent
`Nos. 11,334,918 (“’918 Patent™), 11,443,344 (“’344 Patent”), and 11,687,971 (*’971 Patent”)
`(collectively, “Asserted Patents”). Dkt. 1 (Compl.) at 1. The Asserted Patents are generally
`directed to a method for establishing a connection between nearby mobile devices using both long-
`range and short-range wireless communications. SCT alleges that Samsung smartphone, tablet,
`and laptop devices infringe the Asserted Patents based on Google and Samsung software
`applications or features running on those devices. In particular, across all three Asserted Patents,
`SCT accuses (1) GFPS, based on its device pairing features; (2) Nearby Share and (3) Quick Share,
`based on their device pairing and data transfer features;! and (4) Find My Mobile, based on its
`ability to locate a user’s other mobile devices and registered SmartTags. Exs. A-C (Infringement
`
`Contentions, Exs. 1-27). The table below summarizes SCT’s allegations.
`
`Accused Feature Developer Accused Devices
`
`GFPS Google Samsung phones and tablets
`Nearby Share Google Samsung phones and tablets
`Quick Share Samsung Samsung laptops
`SmartThings Find (formerly [ Samsung Samsung phones and tablets
`Find My Mobile)
`
`SmartTags Samsung Samsung phones and tablets
`
`B. SCT Has Minimal Ties to this District
`
`! In 2024, Google’s Nearby Share application merged with Samsung’s Quick Share application on
`Samsung Android devices. The merged application keeps Samsung’s “Quick Share” name, but
`includes Google’s Nearby Share functionality.
`
`SCT Exhibit 2015
`IPR2026-00098
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-00484-JRG-RSP Document 55 Filed 03/21/25 Page 7 of 22 PagelD #:
`4769
`
`shares the same address as Mr. Albritton’s firm, the
`
`. SCT’s asserted
`
`C. Samsung’s Relevant Witnesses and Documents are Primarily in Korea
`
`Declaration of ||l (hereinafter “Quick Share Decl.”)
`
`I (hereinafter )
`
`maintains corporate offices throughout the United States, including in Plano, Texas. SEA’s
`
`The accused “Find My Mobile” application is now called SmartThings Find, and was
`Declaration of |l (‘hereinafter SmartThings
`
`Decl.”)
`
`SCT Exhibit 2015
`IPR2026-00098
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-00484-JRG-RSP Document 55 Filed 03/21/25 Page 8 of 22 PagelD #:
`4770
`
`(“STI”), which is based in Mountain View, California
`
`D. Third-Party Google’s Witnesses and Documents are Primarily in the NDCA
`
`I
`of Google’s Mountain View headquarters. of Il (hereinafter )
`] ’s most knowledgeable members I
`I |
`N .
`working from Google’s offices in Mountain View, C ]
`working from Google’s offices in Irvine, C ] [ ]
`
`working from Google’s offices in Taiwan.
`
`Google’s technical documents and sourc
`
`SCT Exhibit 2015
`IPR2026-00098
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-00484-JRG-RSP Document 55 Filed 03/21/25 Page 9 of 22 PagelD #:
`4771
`
`by the engineers who work on that feature in Mountain View, Irvine, and Taiwan. /d. § 4.
`
`Also . the Nearby Share engineering team’s most knowledgeable members
`are (1) . 2 Staff Software Engineer and Technical Lead Manager for Nearby Share;
`and (2) I 2 Software Engineer for Nearby Share. /d. § 3. The Nearby Share team
`has | 2cmbers. most of whom work from Google’s offices in Mountain View
`(including Mr. Kwan) or San Francisco. /d. The team also includes engineers working from
`offices in Cambridge, Massachusetts; Kirkland, Washington; New York ([ ) :
`and Taiwan. /d. No team members live or work in Texas. /d. Google’s technical documents and
`source code for Nearby Share are created and maintained by the engineers who work on that feature
`in Mountain View, San Francisco, Cambridge, Kirkland, New York, and Taiwan. 7d. § 4.
`
`SCT’s infringement contentions include allegations involving the ability to back up and
`synchronize users’ Google Contacts to their devices, and use of Nearby Share to share content
`with those Google Contacts. See, e.g., Ex. A at 0047-48. The engineers responsible for
`synchronization and management of Google Contacts for Android (“Contact Sync”) are led by
`B @ Software Engineering Manager who works from Google’s offices in Sunnyvale,
`California. Google Decl. § 3. |l team responsible for Contact Sync consists of
`I cicincers, with ijengineers in Sunnyvale, and JJjjjjj engineers in Kirkland,
`Washington. /d. No members of |Jjjili] team live or work in Texas. Id. Google’s technical
`documents and source code for synchronization and management of Google Contacts for Android
`are maintained by the engineers who work on that feature in Sunnyvale and Kirkland. 7d. § 4.
`
`To summarize, the names and locations of most relevant Google employees and potential
`
`trial witnesses are as follows:
`
`Google Employee | Location Role at Google
`I Mountain View, CA | Engineering Manager leading teams responsible
`5
`
`SCT Exhibit 2015
`IPR2026-00098
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-00484-JRG-RSP Document 55 Filed 03/21/25 Page 10 of 22 PagelD #:
`4772
`
`for GFPS and Nearby Share
`
`Mountain View, CA | Technical Lead Manager for GFPS
`Irvine, CA Engineering Manager for GFPS
`New York, NY Staff Software Engineer and Technical Lead
`
`Manager for Nearby Share
`
`Mountain View, CA | Software Engineer for Nearby Share
`
`Sunnyvale, CA Software Engineering Manager responsible for
`synchronization and management of Google
`Contacts for Android-based mobile devices.
`
`E. Other Relevant Third-Parties Are Located In California
`
`Samsung has identified numerous other third-party witnesses located in California. For
`instance, Samsung’s invalidity contentions include publication and system prior art developed by
`
`inventors, authors, and/or companies located in California, as summarized in the chart below:
`
`Reference Author / Inventor / Assignee Location
`
`US 7,545,784 Man-Ho Lawrence Lee San Jose, CA
`
`US 2009/0245142 Roy Want Los Altos, CA
`Trever Pering San El Granada, CA
`Shivani Sud Mountain View, CA
`
`US 8.,239.286 Ryan A. Haveson Pasadena, CA
`
`802.11 Mesh Mesh Dynamics Santa Clara, CA
`
`See Exs. I-K; see also Ex. L (invalidity contention cover pleading identifying the foregoing prior
`art references). This includes the 802.11 Mesh mobile device developed by Mesh Dynamics, a
`small company located solely in Santa Clara, California, which is in the NDCA. Ex. K. Physical
`evidence, such as samples, related to 802.11 Mesh is thus likely to be located in the NDCA.
`
`The law firm that prosecuted the Asserted Patents, VLP Law Group LLP, is also located in
`the NDCA. Ex. M; Exs. N-P. VLP and its attorneys are especially relevant because, as detailed
`in the Answer, Samsung has alleged that all claims of the Asserted Patents are unenforceable due
`to inequitable conduct based on intentionally false claims of priority and continuation status, and
`improper changes to the specification of an application in the priority chain. Dkt. 19 at §995-117.
`VLP prosecuted that application as well as the Asserted Patents. Ex. Q; Exs. N-P.
`
`6
`
`SCT Exhibit 2015
`IPR2026-00098
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-00484-JRG-RSP Document 55 Filed 03/21/25 Page 11 of 22 PagelD #:
`4773
`
`s
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`requires the moving party to first show that the claims “might have been
`brought” in the proposed transferee district.
`demonstrate that the “transferee venue is clearly more
`
`convenient” under private and public factors, which are: 1) the relative ease of access to sources
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`A. This Case Could Have Been Brought in the NDCA
`
`A patent infringement case may be brought in “the judicial district where the defendant
`
`established place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § [
`
`SCT Exhibit 2015
`IPR2026-00098
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-00484-JRG-RSP Document 55 Filed 03/21/25 Page 12 of 22 PagelD #:
`4774
`
`B. The Private Interest Factors Favor Transfer to the NDCA
`
`1. The Availability of Compulsory Process Strongly Favors Transfer
`
`extends to either within 100 miles from the court or “within the state where the person
`resides” if the person “would not incur substantial expense” to attend trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c
`“Transfer is favored when a transferee district has absolute subpoena power over a greater number
`party witnesses.”
`Here, SCT’s infringement theories are based in substantial part on the operation of
`— at Google’s NDCA
`
`employees are subject to the NDCA’s subpoena power
`
`Google’s presence in the NDCA
`plaintiff’s infringement allegations were based in substantial p
`
`was “no reason to doubt that employees of Google ... [would] have relevant
`
`7 _
`
`art identified in Samsung’s invalidity contentions reside in California.
`
`SCT Exhibit 2015
`IPR2026-00098
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-00484-JRG-RSP Document 55 Filed 03/21/25 Page 13 of 22 PagelD #:
`4775
`
`On the other hand, SCT’s likely third
`
`invalidity, and certain of Samsung’s defenses will
`
`type of “categorical assumption that defendants are likely to call few if any of the proposed party
`
`” and has instead directed
`
`where Samsung was the named defendant but the plaintiff’s infringement contentions
`
`SCT Exhibit 2015
`IPR2026-00098
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-00484-JRG-RSP Document 55 Filed 03/21/25 Page 14 of 22 PagelD #:
`4776
`
`applications running on Samsung devices, and the NDCA was where “over a
`
`individuals” reside
`
`2. Access to Sources of Proof Favors Transfer
`
`party Google. “In patent infringement cases, the bulk of the relevant
`evidence usually comes from the accused infringer,” so “the place where the defendant’s
`documents are kept weighs in favor of transfer to that location.”
`. Where, as here, “third
`
`functionality for the accused products,” then sources of proof from those third parties also matter.
`
`SCT Exhibit 2015
`IPR2026-00098
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-00484-JRG-RSP Document 55 Filed 03/21/25 Page 15 of 22 PagelD #:
`4777
`
`SEC in Korea, which developed the “Find My Mobile” application
`
`Google’s possession and were created and maintained by Google engineers who are primarily
`
`(favoring transfer where “source code and technical documents relating
`to the accused activities” were “created and are maintained in the Northern District of California™)
`
`As to Samsung’s evidence in Korea
`
`[T
`
`transferee forum does not weigh against transfer.”).
`
`are likely to be found at Mesh Dynamics’s sole office,
`
`SCT Exhibit 2015
`IPR2026-00098
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-00484-JRG-RSP Document 55 Filed 03/21/25 Page 16 of 22 PagelD #:
`4778
`
`evidence related to Samsung’s inequitable conduct defense is
`
`contrast, the majority of SCT’s evidence is likely located in Florida, not in Texas.
`
`“recent and ephemeral” presence should
`
`be accorded “little or no weight.”
`
`weight to the presence of plaintiff’s office in the transferor forum, since “[plaintiff] leased [it] just
`
`prior to commencing litigation.”
`
`Albritton’s law firm office, such documents
`
`3. Cost of Attendance for Willing Witnesses Favors Transfer
`
`“the inquiry
`
`away from their homes and work for an extended period of time.”
`
`SCT Exhibit 2015
`IPR2026-00098
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-00484-JRG-RSP Document 55 Filed 03/21/25 Page 17 of 22 PagelD #:
`4779
`
`The NDCA is more convenient for Samsung’s Korea
`
`The Fifth Circuit has held that California is “clearly more convenient” than Texas for employee
`
`, directing transfer in a case where it found that Samsung’s
`
`The Federal Circuit’s reasoning is supported here by a comparison of travel times,
`
`Although named defendant SEA has offices and employees in Texas, SEA’s activities are
`
`witnesses from SEA’s Texas offices do not outweigh the far greater number of technical witnesses
`
`SCT’s likely main
`
`SCT Exhibit 2015
`IPR2026-00098
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-00484-JRG-RSP Document 55 Filed 03/21/25 Page 18 of 22 PagelD #:
`4780
`
`(considering “[t]ravel time” under this factor);
`
`stating “courts do not just consider how long and far a witness must travel”).
`
`4. Other Practical Problems is Neutral
`
`, fact discovery doesn’t close for another
`“early
`
`stages” in discovery and there was “no improper delay.” Auto. Body Parts Ass 'nv. Ford
`
`C. The Public Interest Factors Favor Transfer to the NDCA
`1. The NDCA Has a Strong Local Interest
`
`A district has a strong local interest if “the cause of action calls into question the work and
`
`reputation of several individuals residing in or near that district.”
`
`functionality is “research[ed], design[ed], and develop[ed].”
`
`SCT Exhibit 2015
`IPR2026-00098
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-00484-JRG-RSP Document 55 Filed 03/21/25 Page 19 of 22 PagelD #:
`4781
`
`(finding a local interest in the case where “third parties [including Google]
`
`researched, designed, and developed most of [the accused] applications in Northern California”).
`
`> Florida company.
`
`practicing plaintiff’s office in the transferor forum, where the “activities of
`
`the office are largely tied to bringing lawsuits” and the office had only two employees, one of
`
`whom was an “attorney responsible for litigation.” 14 F.4th at 1320. Likewise here, SCT’s
`
`SEA’s “general presence in [this] district does not give
`
`a special interest in the case.”
`
`2. The Remaining Public Interest Factors are Neutral
`
`The Federal Circuit has long regarded the court congestion factor as “the most speculative.”
`
`(recognizing such statistics are not “particularly relevant” in assessing court congestion). This
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`
`SCT Exhibit 2015
`IPR2026-00098
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-00484-JRG-RSP Document 55 Filed 03/21/25 Page 20 of 22 PagelD #:
`4782
`
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`
`SCT Exhibit 2015
`IPR2026-00098
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-00484-JRG-RSP Document 55 Filed 03/21/25 Page 21 of 22 PagelD #:
`4783
`
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`
`O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP
`
`SCT Exhibit 2015
`IPR2026-00098
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:24-cv-00484-JRG-RSP Document 55 Filed 03/21/25 Page 22 of 22 PagelD #:
`4784
`
`SCT Exhibit 2015
`IPR2026-00098
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`