Edge Networking Systems LLC v. Amazon.Com, Inc., et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MARSHALL DIVISION
EDGE NETWORKING SYSTEMS LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON.COM
SERVICES LLC, and AMAZON WEB
SERVICES, INC.,
Defendants.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
CASE NO. 2:24-CV-00887-JRG-RSP
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Amazon.com Services, LLC’s (“Amazon”) Motion to
Transfer. Dkt. No. 66. The motion is fully briefed. See Dkt. Nos. 70, 72, 73. In the Motion,
Amazon seeks transfer to the Northern District of California (“NDCA”) for convenience.
Dkt. No. 66 at 1. For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies the Motion.
I. 	LEGAL STANDARD
A federal district court may transfer a case “for the convenience of parties and
witnesses” to “any other district or division where it might have been brought.” 28 U.S.C. §
1404(a). Section 1404(a)’s threshold inquiry is whether the case could initially have been
brought in the proposed transferee forum. In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201, 202-03 (5th
Cir. 2004) (“Volkswagen I”). The question of whether a suit “might have been brought” in
the transferee forum encompasses subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and
propriety of venue. Id. at 203. Only if this statutory requirement is met should the Court
determine whether convenience warrants a transfer of the case. See id.; In re Volkswagen of
Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 312 (5th Cir. 2008) (“Volkswagen II”). The burden to prove that a
Case 2:24-cv-00887-JRG-RSP Document 117 Filed 03/09/26 Page 1 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

2
case could have been brought in the transferee forum falls on the party seeking transfer. See
Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 315; Humble Oil & Ref. Co. v. Bell Marine Serv., Inc., 321 F.2d
53, 56 (5th Cir. 1963).
Regarding the propriety of venue specifically, the Judicial Code provides that 28
U.S.C. § 1400(b) is the “sole and exclusive provision controlling venue in patent
infringement actions” and is not supplemented by the general venue statutes. TC Heartland
LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC, 581 U.S. 258, 266 (2017) (citing Fourco Glass Co.
v. Transmirra Prod. Corp., 353 U.S. 222, 229 (1957)). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b),
venue lies “in the judicial district where the defendant resides” or “where the defendant has
committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.” 28
U.S.C. § 1400(b).
Three elements must be met in order to establish that a defendant has a regular and
established place of business in the district: (1) there must be a physical place in the district;
(2) it must be a regular and established place of business; and (3) it must be the place of the
defendant. In re: Cray Inc., 871 F.3d 1355, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Once the moving party has established that the instant case could have been brought
in the transferee forum, the Court moves on to consider the private and public factors
provided in Volkswagen I. The private interest factors are “(1) the relative ease of access to
sources of proof; (2) the availability of compulsory process to secure the attendance of
witnesses; (3) the cost of attendance for willing witnesses; and (4) all other practical
problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive.” Volkswagen II, 545
F.3d at 315 (quoting Volkswagen I, 371 F.3d at 203). The public interest factors are “(1) the
Case 2:24-cv-00887-JRG-RSP Document 117 Filed 03/09/26 Page 2 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

3
administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion; (2) the local interest in having
localized interests decided at home; (3) the familiarity of the forum with the law that will
govern the case; and (4) the avoidance of unnecessary problems of conflict of laws [or in]
the application of foreign law.” Id. (quoting Volkswagen I, 371 F.3d at 203) (alterations in
original). The factors are neither exclusive nor exhaustive, and no one factor is dispositive.
Id.
In reversing a district court’s grant of a transfer motion, the Fifth Circuit recently
emphasized that “it is the movant's burden—and the movant's alone—to adduce evidence
and arguments that clearly establish good cause for transfer based on convenience and
justice.” In re Clarke, 94 F.4th 502, 508 (5th Cir. 2024) (citing Def. Distributed v. Bruck, 30
F.4th 414, 433 (5th Cir. 2022)). “[S]howing “good cause” requires the movant to “clearly
demonstrate” that its chosen venue is “clearly more convenient.” Id. (internal citations and
quotations omitted). That standard is not met if the movant merely shows that the transferee
venue is more likely than not to be more convenient. Id. (internal citations and quotations
omitted). Likewise, the fact that litigating would be more convenient for the defendant
elsewhere is not enough to justify transfer. Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted).
“[T]o establish good cause, a movant must show (1) that the marginal gain in convenience
will be significant, and (2) that its evidence makes it plainly obvious—i.e., clearly
demonstrated—that those marginal gains will actually materialize in the transferee venue.”
Id. (emphasis in original).
In considering a transfer under § 1404(a), the Court may consider undisputed facts
outside of the pleadings but must draw all reasonable inferences and resolve factual disputes
Case 2:24-cv-00887-JRG-RSP Document 117 Filed 03/09/26 Page 3 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

4
in favor of the non-movant. See Vocalife LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:19-CV-123, 2019
WL 6345191, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 27, 2019); cf. Trois v. Apple Tree Auction Cent. Inc.,
882 F.3d 485, 492-93 (5th Cir. 2018) (reviewing a transfer under § 1406); Ambraco, Inc. v.
Bossclip B.V., 570 F.3d 233, 238 (5th Cir. 2009) (reviewing enforcement of a forum-
selection clause).
In balancing the public and private interest factors, the Fifth Circuit directs courts to
avoid a mere tallying of the factors. See In re Radmax, Ltd., 720 F.3d 285, 290 n.8 (5th Cir.
2013) (“We do not suggest—nor has this court held—that a raw counting of the factors in
each side, weighing each the same and deciding transfer only on the resulting ‘score,’ is the
proper methodology.”). To that end, the Court considers not only each factor’s outcome but
also its weight to determine whether the actual convenience of the proposed transferee forum
is “clearly more convenient” than that of this district. In re Chamber of Commerce of United
States of Am., 105 F.4th 297, 310 (5th Cir. 2024) (quoting In re Clarke, 94 F.4th at 508). In
re Clarke shows that a motion to transfer under 1404(a) carries a substantial burden. See
generally 94 F.4th 502. Here, Defendants have failed to meet that burden, as explained
below.
II. 	DISCUSSION
Amazon argues for the propriety of venue in NDCA, and Plaintiff does not contest
it. See Dkt. No. 66 at 6; Dkt. No. 70 at 4. Having considered Amazon’s arguments, the Court
is satisfied that the case could have originally been brought in NDCA. The Court now moves
on to consideration of the public and private interest factors that inform convenience.
Case 2:24-cv-00887-JRG-RSP Document 117 Filed 03/09/26 Page 4 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

5
A. Private Interest Factors
i. 	Relative Ease of Access to Sources of Proof
Amazon argues that “the relevant sources of proof . . . are concentrated in or near
NDCA.” Dkt. No. 66 at 6 (emphasis added). Amazon identifies two categories of “sources
of proof” “belong[ing] to non-parties . . . located in or around NDCA”: (1) the two inventors,
Vivek Ramanna and Pouya Taaghol, who both reside in NDCA, and their employers, Intel
and Cisco, who are located in NDCA, and who are allegedly relevant to standing,
inventorship, inequitable conduct, and prior art (of Intel and Cisco), and (2) other relied on
prior art systems from Google (Borg) and Arista (SDCN). Id. at 7–8. Amazon also identifies
the accused products as being “concentrated in or near Seattle . . . where AWS is
headquartered,” including marketing and finance employees, and source code that is
“accessible from NDCA.” Id. at 8.
Plaintiff counters that its own documents and records are maintained in offices in
Plano and Austin, which include the file histories of the asserted patents, as well as research
and development information. Dkt. No. 70 at 5; Dkt. No. 73 at 3 (citing Dkt. No. 70-1 ¶ 6).
Quoting the Bala declaration, Plaintiff argues that the accused products (EKS and ECS) and
information related thereto are mostly in Seattle: “the marketing, finance, and legal team
members associated with EKS are in Seattle,” “two members of the marketing team
responsible for ECS are located in the Bay Area, and one is located in Seattle,” and “the
person in charge of finance for ECS is in Seattle.” Dkt. No. 70 at 6 (citing Dkt. No. 66-1 ¶¶
5–6, 8). Plaintiff also evidences, using, inter alia, an interrogatory response by Amazon, that
the source code “accessible” in NDCA is also accessible and used by AWS employees and
Case 2:24-cv-00887-JRG-RSP Document 117 Filed 03/09/26 Page 5 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

6
ASL teams and operations in this District (including by ASL’s Business Technologies and
Ads Division, and in Amazon Fulfillment Centers). Dkt. No. 73 at 3 (quoting Dkt. No. 70-
26 at 8) (citing Dkt. No. 35-2 ¶¶ 7–9, 14–19, 23–24).
The Court finds that the relative ease of access to sources of proof factor is at most
neutral. Despite Amazon’s argument that “the bulk of relevant evidence usually comes from
the accused infringer,” Dkt. No. 66 at 6 (quoting In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1345
(Fed. Cir. 2009)), most of the evidence that it persuasively argues is in NDCA is generally
related to its standing defense, as it admits in Reply, Dkt. No. 72 at 1–2, and not the
underlying questions of infringement or invalidity. Even so, Amazon has not shown that
travel and transportation from Seattle to NDCA would be any less costly or burdensome than
the same to this District, especially considering that significant interstate travel would
already be required. See In re Clarke, 94 F.4th at 508 (requiring clear evidence of a
significant gain in convenience to cause transfer); Vocalife LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No.
2:19-CV_123, 2019 WL 6345191, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 27, 2019). Additionally, Plaintiff
has shown that many of the relevant sources of proof, including source code, witnesses, and
documentation of the asserted patents and prior art, are equally accessible here, and indeed
are often accessed in this state.
ii. 	Availability of Compulsory Process to Secure Attendance of Witnesses
Amazon argues that this factor weighs strongly in favor of transfer because “many
third parties are within the subpoena power of NDCA but not of this District.” Amazon refers
to the two inventors and the prosecuting attorney, who reside in NDCA, as well as, generally,
“witnesses knowledgeable about key prior art (who work for Google, Cisco, Intel, and
Case 2:24-cv-00887-JRG-RSP Document 117 Filed 03/09/26 Page 6 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

7
Arista),” and the former assignees of the asserted patents, who are also located in NDCA.
Dkt. No. 66 at 10–11. Amazon argues that the two university researchers in Dallas are not
relevant given that Plaintiff “only acquired the patents in April 2023,” Plaintiff does not have
any commercial products, and the researchers are likely to be willing witnesses as they are
associated with Plaintiff. Id. at 11.
Plaintiff counters that this factor weighs against transfer for several reasons. Plaintiff
identifies “five former AWS employees whose work pertained to the cloud computing
technology at issue in this case and reside in this District.” Dkt. No. 70 at 8. Plaintiff also
argues that the inventors should not be considered under this factor because one is willing,
and testimony of the other would be duplicative. Id. at 9. Similarly, Plaintiff argues that
Amazon has failed to identify why the former assignees would have relevant information,
id. at 10, and has failed to identify with specificity who are the witnesses allegedly
knowledgeable about prior art who work for Google, Cisco, Intel, and Arista. Id. at 10–11.
The Court finds that Amazon has not shown that the availability of compulsory
process to secure attendance of witnesses favors transfer to NDCA. At best to Amazon, this
factor is neutral. Plaintiff is correct that at least one of the inventors is willing and should
thus not be considered under this factor; Plaintiff is also correct that several former (and
unwilling) employees of AWS in this District would be subject to the subpoena power of
this Court. However, Amazon is correct that the other inventor’s testimony may be relevant,
considering that he worked for a different company during the relevant time. Additionally,
that inventor resides in NDCA and has not been shown to be willing. Amazon is also correct
that the university researchers associated with Plaintiff are likely to be willing, so their
Case 2:24-cv-00887-JRG-RSP Document 117 Filed 03/09/26 Page 7 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

8
presence 	does 	not 	weigh 	heavily. 	Finally, 	while 	Amazon 	argues 	that 	witnesses
knowledgeable about key prior art, who work for Google, Cisco, Intel, and Arista, and
witnesses at predecessors in interest, are located in NDCA, the Court does not find that fact
persuasive where Amazon has not identified a single witness at any of those companies
(regardless of whether they will testify at trial) or explained how the predecessors in interest
to the asserted patents will have relevant testimony. Consequently, this factor is also neutral.
iii. Cost of Attendance for Willing Witnesses
Amazon argues that NDCA offers a lower cost of attendance for willing witnesses
because of its proximity to Seattle and the West Coast generally (for Amazon employees),
and Korea (for Plaintiff’s CEO). Dkt. No. 66 at 11–13. It argues that there are direct flights
to NDCA, whereas arrival to Marshall would include a “170-mile drive” in addition to a
longer flight. Id. at 12. Amazon also argues that some of its employees with relevant
knowledge of the accused products are at home in NDCA. Id. Amazon finally argues that
“the potential lower cost of attendance for” the two researchers in Dallas associated with
Plaintiff, “would not outweigh the greater cost incurred by the . . . larger number of willing
witnesses located outside this District.” Id. at 13.
In response, Plaintiff argues that the witnesses are not just in Seattle or the West
Coast, but “would need to travel from Seattle, Chicago, Jersey City, and Vancouver”
regardless. Dkt. No. 70 at 10. Plaintiff also produces the identities of sixteen witnesses who
work on the accused functionality for AWS, and who reside in this District. Id. at 10–12.
Plaintiff also points out that the inventor would not assert any inconvenience in traveling to
this District, and its own CEO would prefer to travel here versus NDCA given Plaintiff’s
Case 2:24-cv-00887-JRG-RSP Document 117 Filed 03/09/26 Page 8 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

9
nearby offices. Id. at 12. Plaintiff also argues that meals and lodging would add to the cost
of a trial in NDCA, compared to Marshall. Id.
The Court agrees with Plaintiff that this factor does not support transfer. Many
willing witnesses do not reside in this District, but in Seattle, Chicago, Jersey City,
Vancouver, Korea, and in other locations, and Plaintiff is likely correct that the cost of travel
to, lodging and food in Marshall, especially across a week of trial, is lower compared to
NDCA. Additionally, Plaintiff has shown that several willing witnesses, including sixteen
Amazon witnesses, and two researchers associated with Plaintiff, are already at home in this
District. The Court does not give too much weight to the willingness of one of the inventors
and Plaintiff’s CEO to travel here, which does not account for the costs for them to attend.
But given these facts, it is difficult for the Court to see how the cost of attendance for willing
witnesses would be significantly lower with trial in NDCA than in this District.
iv. All 	other 	Practical 	Problems 	That 	Make 	Trial 	Easy, 	Expeditious, 	and
Inexpensive
Amazon argues this factor is neutral, and Plaintiff concedes it. Dkt. No. 66 at 13;
Dkt. No. 70 at 13. The Court agrees and finds that this factor is neutral.
B. Public Interest Factors
v. 	Administrative Difficulties Flowing from Court Congestion
Amazon argues this factor is neutral, given the Federal Circuit’s instruction in In re
Google LLC, 58 F.4th 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Dkt. No. 66 at 14. As this Court has
stated before, while it is “perplexing to consider the marketplace status of the parties in
assessing this public interest factor related to court congestion, it is bound by the Federal
Circuit’s decision in [Google] to afford this factor no weight based on time-to-trial
Case 2:24-cv-00887-JRG-RSP Document 117 Filed 03/09/26 Page 9 of 12 PageID #:
<pageID>

10
differences.” Emerging Auto. LLC v. Kia Corp., No. 2:23-CV-434, 2024 WL 3170398, at
*13 (E.D. Tex. June 25, 2024). Therefore, despite Plaintiff’s convincing argument that
“NDCA is far more congested than EDTX,” Dkt. No. 70 at 13, and Plaintiff’s speculation
that it may be affected in its future commercialization efforts, Dkt. No. 73 at 5, because
Plaintiff “is not engaged in product competition in the marketplace and is not threatened in
the market in a way that . . . might add urgency to case resolution,” Google, 58 F.4th at 1383,
this Court is bound to afford this factor neutral status.
vi. Local Interest in Having Localized Interests Decided at Home
As the Federal Circuit explained in In re Apple, “this factor most notably regards not
merely the parties’ significant connections to each forum . . . but rather the significant
connections between a particular venue and the events that gave rise to a suit.” In re Juniper
Networks, Inc., 14 F.4th 1313, 1320 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (quotations omitted) (quoting In re
Apple, 979 F.3d 1332, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citation omitted)). Amazon relies on Juniper
to argue that its “general presence in the [Eastern] District of Texas is not enough.” Dkt. No.
66 at 14 (quoting Juniper, 14 F.4th at 1320); Dkt. No. 72 at 5. However, Juniper is materially
distinguishable. In Juniper, the defendant showed that the “accused products were primarily
designed, developed, marketed, and sold from [its] headquarters within” the transferee
district. See Juniper, 14 F.4th at 1316. Additionally, the plaintiff had only established an
office in the transferor district months before filing, only two employees worked there, one
of whom was an in-house attorney, and plaintiff’s own officers resided in the state of the
transferee forum. See Juniper, 14 F.4th at 1320.
Case 2:24-cv-00887-JRG-RSP Document 117 Filed 03/09/26 Page 10 of 12 PageID
#: <pageID>

11
Here, in contrast to Juniper, Amazon’s “headquarters, as well as the leadership team
and majority of engineers that work on both Accused Products, are located in Seattle,
Washington,” Dkt. No. 66 at 5, two states removed from the transferee forum. Amazon’s
marketing team for the accused products is also located primarily in Seattle. Dkt. No. 66-1
¶¶ 5–6, 8. Also, Amazon has several distribution centers and employees (unrelated to the
subject matter of this action) in both the NDCA and this District, and while some employees
in California allegedly contributed to the accused products, Dkt. No. 66 at 13, so too did
employees in Seattle, Jersey City, Vancouver, and
Chicago, Dkt. No. 70 at 10. The Court therefore finds that Amazon and the accused products
have no greater connection to the NDCA than to this District.
Additionally, Plaintiff’s contacts in this forum are far greater than Amazon
characterizes. Plaintiff is incorporated in Texas, has its principal office in Austin, and an
office in this District where it maintains documents related to this action, has partnered with
UT-Dallas, and its CEO travels to this District regularly for research. Dkt. No. 70-1 ¶¶ 1, 3,
5. One of the inventors “meets virtually with UT Dallas professors on at least a weekly basis”
to check in on research. Dkt. No. 70 at 13–14. Also, Plaintiff has no connection to the NDCA.
Dkt. No. 70-1 ¶ 7. While the “asserted patents were allegedly invented in California by two
individuals who continue to reside in California,” Dkt. No. 66 at 13, which may dictate the
law applied to the standing defense Amazon has raised, Dkt. No. 72 at 5, this is insubstantial
in comparison to Plaintiff’s ongoing connection to this District. Accordingly, the Court finds
that this factor weighs slightly against transfer.
Case 2:24-cv-00887-JRG-RSP Document 117 Filed 03/09/26 Page 11 of 12 PageID
#: <pageID>

12
vii. Remaining Factors
The remaining public interest factors are (1) the familiarity of this District with the
governing law of the case, and (2) the avoidance of unnecessary problems of conflict of laws.
Volkswagen II, 545 F.3d at 315 (quoting Volkswagen I, 371 F.3d at 203). Amazon has
conceded that both factors are neutral, which Plaintiff acknowledged in lieu of arguing them.
See Dkt. No. 66 at 14–15; Dkt. No. 70 at 15. The Court thus accepts that these factors are
neutral for the purposes of resolving Amazon’s Motion.
III. 	CONCLUSION
Having reviewed each factor, on balance, the Court finds that Amazon has not carried
its burden to show that NDCA is clearly more convenient than this District. Accordingly,
Amazon’s Motion is DENIED.
.
____________________________________
ROY S. PAYNE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
SIGNED this 3rd day of January, 2012.
SIGNED this 8th day of March, 2026.
Case 2:24-cv-00887-JRG-RSP Document 117 Filed 03/09/26 Page 12 of 12 PageID
#: <pageID>