[PDF] 10-544pdf - District of Delaware

218790

INTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT

FORTHEDISTRICTOFDELAWARE

APPLEINC.,)

Plaintiff,)

v.)

HIGHTECHCOMPUTERCORP.,a/k/a)

HTCCORP.,HTC(RV.I.)CORP.,HTC)

AMERICA,INC.,andEXEDEA,INC.,)

Defendants.)

C.A.No.10-544-GMS

MEMORANDUM

I.INTRODUCTION

OnJune21,2010,AppleInc.("Apple")filedtheabove-captionedpatentinfringement actionagainstHighTechComputerCorp.,a/k/aHTCCorp.,HTC (RV.I.)Corp.,HTCAmerica, Inc.andExedea,Inc.(collectively,"HTC"),allegingthatHTC'ssmartphonetechnology infringesfourApplepatents.Presentlybeforethecourtis

HTC'smotiontotransfervenuetothe

NorthernDistrict

ofCaliforniapursuantto28U.S.C.§1404(a).(C.A.No.10-166,D.I.8;C.A. No.10-167,D.I.8.)Forthereasonsthatfollow,thecourtwilldeny

HTC'smotion.

II.BACKGROUND

AppleisaCaliforniacorporationwithitsprincipalplaceofbusinessinCupertino,

California.(D.!.

10at7.)HTCCorp.isaTaiwanesecorporationwithitsprincipalplaceof

businessinTaoyuan,Taiwan.(Id.at9.)HTCAmerica,Inc.isincorporatedinTexasandhasits principalplace ofbusinessinBellevue,Washington.(Id.)HTC(RV.I.)Corp.isafinancial holdingcompanythatisincorporatedandhasitsprincipalplaceofbusinessintheBritishVirgin Islands.(Id.)Exedea,Inc.isincorporatedinTexasandhasitsprincipalplace ofbusinessin

Texas.(Id.)

HTCmaintainsadesignfacilityinSanFrancisco,California,whichfocusesonhardware andusabilitydesignforHTCsmartphones.(Id.at8.)Most oftheengineerswhoworkedonthe allegedlyinfringinghardwareandsoftwaredesign,developmentandintegrationforHTC'ssmart phonesresideinTaiwan.(Id.) HTC'sprincipalU.S.operations,headquarteredinBellevue, Washington,includesales,marketingandproductsupportactivitiestargetedtotheU.S.market. (Id.)DocumentsandwitnessesrelevanttoHTC'sactivitiesmaybefoundinCalifornia,

WashingtonandTaiwan.(Id.)

HTCcollaborateswiththirdpartiessuchasGoogleandQualcommInc.indeveloping, designingandmanufacturingitsallegedlyinfringingmobiledevices.(Id.at7.)Googleisa DelawarecorporationthatmaintainsitsheadquartersinMountainView,California.(Id.at 6; D.1.14at17.)Android,aCalifornia-basedcompanyacquiredbyGooglein2005,developedthe targetedAndroidOperatingSysteminSiliconValley,California. (0.1.10at6.)QualcommInc., aDelawarecorporationbasedinSanDiego,California,designsandsellsthebaseband processingchipthatperformsthepower-savingfunction ofHTCdevices.(Id.at7;DJ.14at 17.)

III.STANDARDOFREVIEW

PursuanttoSection1404(a),thecourtmaytransferacivilaction"fortheconvenienceof thepartiesandwitnesses,intheinterestofjustice,...toanyotherdistrict...whereitmight havebeenbrought."28U.S.C.§1404(a).Theburdentoestablishtheneedtotransferrestson 2 themovingparty,andthe"plaintiffschoiceofvenue[will]notbelightlydisturbed."Jumarav. StateFarmIns.Co.,55F.3d873,879(3dCir.1995).Inotherwords,"unlessthebalanceof conveniencestronglyfavorsatransferinfavorof[the]defendant,theplaintiffschoiceofforum shouldprevail."Shutte v.ArmcoSteelCorp.,431F.2d22,25(3dCir.1970). Whenconsideringamotiontotransfer,thecourtmustdetermine"whetheronbalancethe litigationwouldmoreconvenientlyproceedandtheinterests ofjusticebebetterservedby transfertoadifferentforum."Jumara,

55F.3dat879.This inquiryrequires"amulti-factored

test"includingnotonlytheconvenience ofthepartiesandwitnessesandtheinterestsofjustice, butalsotheprivateandpublicinterestssetforthinJumara.

Id.at875.Theprivateinterests

includethe plaintiffsforumpreferenceasmanifestedintheoriginalchoice,thedefendant's forumpreference,whethertheclaimaroseelsewhere,theconvenience ofthepartiesasindicated bytheirphysicalandfinancialcondition,theconvenience oftheexpectedwitnesses,butonlyto theextentthatthewitnessesmayactuallybeunavailablefortrialinone ofthefora,andthe location ofbooksandrecords,butonlytotheextentthattheycouldnotbeproducedinthe alternativeforum. l Id.at879.Therelevantpublicinterestsincludetheenforceabilityofthe judgment,practicalconsiderationsthatcouldmakethetrialeasy,expeditiousorinexpensive,the relativeadministrativedifficultyinthetwoforaresultingfromcourtcongestion,andthelocal interestindecidinglocalcontroversiesathomeaccordingtothepublicpolicies ofthefora.Id.at

879-80.

1ThefirstthreeoftheseprivateinterestfactorscollapseintootherportionsoftheJumara

analysis.Thus,thecourtwillconsidertheminthecontext oftheentireinquiryonly.See

Afymetrix,

Inc.v.Synteni,Inc.,28F.Supp.2d192(D.Del.1998).

3

IV.DISCUSSION

Insupportofitsmotiontotransfer,HTCcontendsthatApple'schoiceofvenueshouldbe givenlittledeferencebecauseDelawareisneitherApple's"home turf'norisitmeaningfully connectedtothefacts ofthiscase.(D.1.10at12-13.)AccordingtoHTC,noneofthewitnesses ordocumentsrelevanttothecasesarelocatedin Delaware,whereasscores ofpotentialwitnesses andrelevantdocumentsmaybefoundintheNorthernDistrict ofCalifornia.(ld.at13-15.)HTC contendsthattheNorthernDistrict ofCaliforniahasastronginterestinresolvingthelitigation andwouldbeamoreconvenientforumforApplebecauseAppleisaCalifornia-basedplaintiff claiminginfringement ofinventionsthatwereconceivedofanddevelopedinCaliforniaby Californiaresidents.(ld.at15-19.)Moreover,HTCcontendsthattheamount

INTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT

FORTHEDISTRICTOFDELAWARE

APPLEINC.,)

Plaintiff,)

v.)

HIGHTECHCOMPUTERCORP.,a/k/a)

HTCCORP.,HTC(RV.I.)CORP.,HTC)

AMERICA,INC.,andEXEDEA,INC.,)

Defendants.)

C.A.No.10-544-GMS

MEMORANDUM

I.INTRODUCTION

OnJune21,2010,AppleInc.("Apple")filedtheabove-captionedpatentinfringement actionagainstHighTechComputerCorp.,a/k/aHTCCorp.,HTC (RV.I.)Corp.,HTCAmerica, Inc.andExedea,Inc.(collectively,"HTC"),allegingthatHTC'ssmartphonetechnology infringesfourApplepatents.Presentlybeforethecourtis

HTC'smotiontotransfervenuetothe

NorthernDistrict

ofCaliforniapursuantto28U.S.C.§1404(a).(C.A.No.10-166,D.I.8;C.A. No.10-167,D.I.8.)Forthereasonsthatfollow,thecourtwilldeny

HTC'smotion.

II.BACKGROUND

AppleisaCaliforniacorporationwithitsprincipalplaceofbusinessinCupertino,

California.(D.!.

10at7.)HTCCorp.isaTaiwanesecorporationwithitsprincipalplaceof

businessinTaoyuan,Taiwan.(Id.at9.)HTCAmerica,Inc.isincorporatedinTexasandhasits principalplace ofbusinessinBellevue,Washington.(Id.)HTC(RV.I.)Corp.isafinancial holdingcompanythatisincorporatedandhasitsprincipalplaceofbusinessintheBritishVirgin Islands.(Id.)Exedea,Inc.isincorporatedinTexasandhasitsprincipalplace ofbusinessin

Texas.(Id.)

HTCmaintainsadesignfacilityinSanFrancisco,California,whichfocusesonhardware andusabilitydesignforHTCsmartphones.(Id.at8.)Most oftheengineerswhoworkedonthe allegedlyinfringinghardwareandsoftwaredesign,developmentandintegrationforHTC'ssmart phonesresideinTaiwan.(Id.) HTC'sprincipalU.S.operations,headquarteredinBellevue, Washington,includesales,marketingandproductsupportactivitiestargetedtotheU.S.market. (Id.)DocumentsandwitnessesrelevanttoHTC'sactivitiesmaybefoundinCalifornia,

WashingtonandTaiwan.(Id.)

HTCcollaborateswiththirdpartiessuchasGoogleandQualcommInc.indeveloping, designingandmanufacturingitsallegedlyinfringingmobiledevices.(Id.at7.)Googleisa DelawarecorporationthatmaintainsitsheadquartersinMountainView,California.(Id.at 6; D.1.14at17.)Android,aCalifornia-basedcompanyacquiredbyGooglein2005,developedthe targetedAndroidOperatingSysteminSiliconValley,California. (0.1.10at6.)QualcommInc., aDelawarecorporationbasedinSanDiego,California,designsandsellsthebaseband processingchipthatperformsthepower-savingfunction ofHTCdevices.(Id.at7;DJ.14at 17.)

III.STANDARDOFREVIEW

PursuanttoSection1404(a),thecourtmaytransferacivilaction"fortheconvenienceof thepartiesandwitnesses,intheinterestofjustice,...toanyotherdistrict...whereitmight havebeenbrought."28U.S.C.§1404(a).Theburdentoestablishtheneedtotransferrestson 2 themovingparty,andthe"plaintiffschoiceofvenue[will]notbelightlydisturbed."Jumarav. StateFarmIns.Co.,55F.3d873,879(3dCir.1995).Inotherwords,"unlessthebalanceof conveniencestronglyfavorsatransferinfavorof[the]defendant,theplaintiffschoiceofforum shouldprevail."Shutte v.ArmcoSteelCorp.,431F.2d22,25(3dCir.1970). Whenconsideringamotiontotransfer,thecourtmustdetermine"whetheronbalancethe litigationwouldmoreconvenientlyproceedandtheinterests ofjusticebebetterservedby transfertoadifferentforum."Jumara,

55F.3dat879.This inquiryrequires"amulti-factored

test"includingnotonlytheconvenience ofthepartiesandwitnessesandtheinterestsofjustice, butalsotheprivateandpublicinterestssetforthinJumara.

Id.at875.Theprivateinterests

includethe plaintiffsforumpreferenceasmanifestedintheoriginalchoice,thedefendant's forumpreference,whethertheclaimaroseelsewhere,theconvenience ofthepartiesasindicated bytheirphysicalandfinancialcondition,theconvenience oftheexpectedwitnesses,butonlyto theextentthatthewitnessesmayactuallybeunavailablefortrialinone ofthefora,andthe location ofbooksandrecords,butonlytotheextentthattheycouldnotbeproducedinthe alternativeforum. l Id.at879.Therelevantpublicinterestsincludetheenforceabilityofthe judgment,practicalconsiderationsthatcouldmakethetrialeasy,expeditiousorinexpensive,the relativeadministrativedifficultyinthetwoforaresultingfromcourtcongestion,andthelocal interestindecidinglocalcontroversiesathomeaccordingtothepublicpolicies ofthefora.Id.at

879-80.

1ThefirstthreeoftheseprivateinterestfactorscollapseintootherportionsoftheJumara

analysis.Thus,thecourtwillconsidertheminthecontext oftheentireinquiryonly.See

Afymetrix,

Inc.v.Synteni,Inc.,28F.Supp.2d192(D.Del.1998).

3

IV.DISCUSSION

Insupportofitsmotiontotransfer,HTCcontendsthatApple'schoiceofvenueshouldbe givenlittledeferencebecauseDelawareisneitherApple's"home turf'norisitmeaningfully connectedtothefacts ofthiscase.(D.1.10at12-13.)AccordingtoHTC,noneofthewitnesses ordocumentsrelevanttothecasesarelocatedin Delaware,whereasscores ofpotentialwitnesses andrelevantdocumentsmaybefoundintheNorthernDistrict ofCalifornia.(ld.at13-15.)HTC contendsthattheNorthernDistrict ofCaliforniahasastronginterestinresolvingthelitigation andwouldbeamoreconvenientforumforApplebecauseAppleisaCalifornia-basedplaintiff claiminginfringement ofinventionsthatwereconceivedofanddevelopedinCaliforniaby Californiaresidents.(ld.at15-19.)Moreover,HTCcontendsthattheamount