Google Wins Patent Lawsuit Transfer Despite 5th Century Case Law

A patent licensing company accusing Google SARL The violation cannot sweep the Federal Circuit’s precedent to beat the tech giant’s place transfer bid, Texas federal judge Alan Albright has ruled, moving the case to the Northern District of California.

Motion Offense LLC attempted to argue that Fifth Circuit precedent regarding subpoenas, evidence locations and hometown advantage should govern the case — and tip the scales against the transfer — but Albright argued. said it would be inappropriate.

“Our Court cannot and does not overrule the Federal Circuit’s reasoning in a patent case,” he said. wroteTuesday. “Although the Federal Circuit issues unpublished and unprecedented transfer notices, the Federal Circuit often cites these opinions as if they were interpreting precedents in Fifth Circuit law. »

– Advertising –

He also noted that the Federal Circuit rejected his reasoning for keeping a trio of cases in November based on his accelerated case schedules when the Northern District of California would otherwise have been more convenient.

Motion Offense hit Google and cloud storage company Dropbox Inc. with patent infringement lawsuits last year, claiming the companies’ products — such as Google Drive and Google Sheets — infringe data management patents, including US Patent Nos. 10,303,353, 10,613,737 and 11,044,215.

In January, Albright shot down Dropbox’s attempt to evade certain claims in the consolidated pair of cases against it, ruling that the Motion Offense patents did in fact predate Dropbox’s allegedly infringing activities. The case is due for trial in early January.

The Google case is due for trial in September 2023. Google has three Motion Offense patent invalidity inquiries pending before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, where the institution’s rulings are expected in February.

Albright previously reprimanded Apple Inc. for the “evasive” behavior of its expert during the discovery of the place and wrote on Tuesday that “the Court has grown tired of the declarants of the place who only investigate the facts which support the transfer and who, after having failed to d ‘investigate the adverse facts, simply state that they have no personal knowledge of the facts against the transfer’.

In this case, Albright found that Google’s expert conducted a “credible but limited” investigation that revealed at least some evidence against the transfer. Still, “on the whole, private interest factors clearly favor transfer,” he wrote.

Devlin Law Firm LLC represents Motion Offense. Paul Hastings LLP and Potter Minton PC represent Google.

This is Motion Offense, LLC v. Google LLC, WD Tex., No. 21-cv-00514, transfer granted 4/10/22.

—With assistance from Laurel Brubaker Calkins

Leave a Comment