RESONANT SYSTEMS, INC., d/b/a RevelHMI v. Apple, Inc.
7:23-cv-00077
| W.D. Tex. | Apr 18, 2024Background
- Resonant Systems, Inc. (RevelHMI), a Washington corporation, sued Apple, Inc. for infringing four patents related to haptic feedback devices used in various Apple products (iPhones, MacBooks, Apple Watches).
- Resonant alleges Apple uses amplifier components from Cirrus Logic (Austin-based) that contribute to the alleged infringement.
- Apple, headquartered in Cupertino, CA with an office in Austin, moved to transfer venue to the Northern District of California (NDCA), arguing it is a more convenient forum.
- Both parties agree NDCA is a proper venue, but Resonant insists the case should remain in the Western District of Texas (WDTX) or, alternatively, be transferred to the Austin Division of WDTX if a transfer is granted.
- The decision turns on whether Apple met its burden proving NDCA is "clearly more convenient" than WDTX under the Section 1404(a) transfer analysis using established private and public interest factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer under §1404(a): Is NDCA clearly more convenient? | WDTX is at least as convenient; Apple failed to provide specific comparative evidence of inconvenience. | NDCA is more convenient: most witnesses, evidence, and Apple’s operations are centered there. | Denied transfer: Apple did not clearly establish NDCA is more convenient. |
| Access to evidence/sources of proof | Cirrus Logic and some evidence are in TX; Apple did not specify WDTX has no evidence. | Most relevant evidence and documents are in NDCA; none unique to WDTX. | Neutral/slightly against transfer; Apple’s proof too vague, didn’t show clear advantage for NDCA. |
| Compulsory process for witnesses | Cirrus Logic witnesses in Austin can be compelled in WDTX; Apple’s witnesses likely willing. | NDCA has more relevant third-party witnesses under subpoena power. | Neutral; Apple didn’t show unwilling witnesses or that NDCA's process was needed. |
| Cost of attendance for willing witnesses | Cirrus Logic witnesses face less burden in TX; most evidence is portable. | NDCA-based witnesses would be less inconvenienced by trial in NDCA. | Slightly against transfer; while some NDCA witnesses benefit, Austin witnesses favor WDTX. |
| Administrative/public interest factors | WDTX faster to trial, local interest due to Cirrus Logic, no conflict of law. | NDCA is neutral or slightly faster; all events central to NDCA. | Neutral; case on track in WDTX, local interest not clearly greater for either. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (transfer decisions should focus on individualized convenience and fairness)
- In re Volkswagen, Inc., 545 F.3d 304 (en banc) (sets the private and public interest factors for § 1404 analysis)
- Def. Distributed v. Bruck, 30 F.4th 414 (5th Cir. 2022) (movant has the burden to clearly establish good cause for transfer)
- In re Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am., Inc., 52 F.4th 625 (5th Cir. 2022) (clarifies the “clearly more convenient” and significant marginal gain test for transfers)
- Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (1964) (lays foundation for §1404(a) transfer standard)
- Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981) (forum non conveniens standards)