Newman in dissent: The district court has greatly mischaracterized Apple’s proffered evidence.
Judge Newman's dissent in In re Apple included the text
My colleagues defend the district court’s conclusion
that it was unable to evaluate the convenience of witnesses in its transfer
analysis because Apple failed to name its witnesses. The district court has
greatly mischaracterized Apple’s proffered evidence. Apple may not have
identified specific witnesses or singled out individual
documents; however, the evidence proffered makes it clear
that all relevant Apple witnesses and documents are
located in the Northern District of California. The evi-
dence also shows that the suppliers of the accused components are located in California
is based in San Diego and Intel Corporation is based in
Santa Clara. Under a proper transfer analysis, these
facts lead to only one conclusion
this case should be
transferred to the Northern District of California.
Finally, I am struck by how heavily the local interest
factor favors the Northern District of California. Apple is
a robust company that supports the local economy of
Cupertino, California, employing over 13,000 people.
Core Wireless, on the other hand, is a non-United States
corporation with one employee that exists solely to license
its patent portfolio. To carry out this task, Core Wireless
employs 6 people through a subsidiary in Plano, Texas.
Apple’s impact on the local economy in the Northern
District of California is clearly much greater than that of
Core Wireless in the Eastern District of Texas.