Worlds Inc (WDDD)

[rolvram]

ACTIVISION’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO WORLDS’ MOTION TO TRANSFER VENU


43876740_10
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
WORLDS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC., BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT, INC. and ACTIVISION PUBLISHING, INC.,
Defendants.
) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Civil Action No. 1:12-CV-10576 (DJC)
ACTIVISION’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO WORLDS’ MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 136 Filed 05/28/14 Page 1 of 17

1 43876740_10
Activision Blizzard, Inc.; Blizzard Entertainment, Inc.; and Activision Publishing, Inc.,
(collectively “Activision”) submit this memorandum in opposition to plaintiff Worlds, Inc.’s,
Motion To Transfer Venue (D.I. 132).
I. INTRODUCTION Worlds’ request that this action be transferred to California more than two years after
Worlds chose to sue Activision in this Court is a transparent attempt at forum shopping.
Activision respectfully requests that Worlds’ motion be denied. It would be unfair to give
Worlds a chance to repudiate its original choice of venue, in order to advance its new interest in
securing what it considers a more advantageous forum.
Worlds’ motion is predicated substantially on two incorrect assertions: (1) there is
significant overlap between this action and a patent lawsuit that defendant Activision Publishing
filed against Worlds and its affiliate Worlds Online in the Central District of California, and
(2) if this Massachusetts action is transferred to California, the California Court will consolidate
the two actions.
But this action and the California lawsuit are unrelated. They involve different patents,
different accused products, and non-identical parties. In this Massachusetts action, the primary
issue is whether Activision’s accused Call of Duty and Worlds of Warcraft videogames infringe
Worlds’ asserted patents. In the California action, the primary issue is whether Worlds’ and
Worlds Online’s accused WorldsPlayer product infringes Activision Publishing’s unrelated
patents. Simply because the two lawsuits involve some of the same parties does not mean that
the cases should be litigated in the same Court. In fact, the lack of substantial overlap between
the cases shows that consolidation would not promote judicial economy and, therefore, the cases
are not likely to be consolidated.
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 136 Filed 05/28/14 Page 2 of 17

2 43876740_10
Activision has chosen to enforce its unrelated patents against Worlds’ unrelated products
in California. That choice plays no role in the venue transfer analysis here. Worlds has not
otherwise shown that convenience and judicial efficiency strongly favor litigating this action in
California, as required by the authorities in this Circuit. For these reasons, and to prevent
Worlds from engaging in forum shopping, Worlds motion should be denied.
II. LAW “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court
may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.”
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The moving party “must bear the burden of proving both the availability of
an adequate alternative forum and that considerations of convenience and judicial efficiency
strongly favor litigating the claim in the alternative forum.” Champion Exposition Servs., Inc. v.
Hi-Tech Elec., LLC, 273 F. Supp. 2d 172, 180 (D. Mass. 2003) (citing Nowak v. Tak How
Investments, Ltd., 94 F.3d 708, 719 (1st Cir. 1996)) (emphasis added). The decision of whether
or not to transfer a case under Section 1404 lies solely within the discretion of the Court.
Holmes Grp Inc. v. Hamilton Beach Proctor Silex Inc., 249 F. Supp. 2d 12, 15 (D. Mass. 2002).
III. ARGUMENT Worlds incorrectly argues that the “legal standard [under Section 1404(a)] is the same
irrespective of which party is seeking transfer.” (D.I. 132 at 8.) In the case cited by Worlds for
this proposition, Schoendorf v. RTH Mech. Contractors, Inc., Civil No. 11–cv–566–JL, 2012 WL
1986508 (D.N.H. May 31, 2012), the Court assessed the Section 1404(a) convenience factors
only after determining that the movant-plaintiff (1) chose the original forum by “mistake,”
(2) was not engaged in “improper forum shopping,” and (3) did not delay in bringing the motion.
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 136 Filed 05/28/14 Page 3 of 17

3 43876740_10
Id at *3. Worlds, however, cannot meet any of these criteria. Therefore, Worlds’ motion should
be denied in the interest of justice alone.
Furthermore, Worlds has not shown that “the convenience of the parties, the convenience
of witnesses and location of documents, any connection between the forum and the issues, the
law to be applied, and the state or public interest at stake” together strongly favor transfer.
Kleinerman v. Luxtron Corp., 107 F. Supp. 2d 122, 125 (D. Mass. 2000).
A. Transfer Is Not In The Interest Of Justice 1. Worlds’ Motion Is An Attempt To Forum Shop “‘[A] motion to transfer venue is not ordinarily granted at the request of the party who
chose the forum in the first place.’” Wang v. Phoenix Satellite Television US, Inc., No. 13 Civ.
218, 2014 WL 116220 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 13, 2014). Worlds chose to sue Activision in
Massachusetts, where Worlds resides, and Activision did not challenge Worlds’ choice of venue.
At the time that Worlds filed suit, it knew that Activision’s primary place of business was in
California and it knew the locations of the third-parties listed in its initial disclosures.
Nevertheless, Worlds chose Massachusetts because, among other things, it was convenient for
Worlds’ CEO, Thom Kidrin, who resides in Massachusetts. None of these circumstances, which
existed at the time Worlds filed its complaint, has changed.
The most significant change since the filing of this action is that the Court found Worlds’
patents to be invalid from the dates of their issuance to September 24, 2013, the date the Patent
Office issued Certificates of Correction for Worlds’ patents. D.I. 124. This Court made this
ruling on March 13, 2014, almost two years after Worlds filed its complaint and five months
after Activision sued Worlds for patent infringement in California. Yet Worlds waited until after
the Court’s Order issued to decide to request transfer to California.
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 136 Filed 05/28/14 Page 4 of 17

4 43876740_10
Worlds’ belated decision to seek transfer is nothing more than an effort to move this case
to what Worlds now perceives to be a more advantageous forum, and perhaps to reopen the
Summary Judgment determination. Where plaintiffs, rather than defendants, seek transfer,
prejudice from “forum shopping” is the “principal” concern. Al Shimari v. CACI Intern., Inc.,
933 F. Supp. 2d 793, 799 (E.D.V.A. 2013) (citing Ferens v. John Deere Co., 494 U.S. 516 (1990)); see Cohen v. Waxman, 421 Fed. Appx. 801, 803 (10th Cir. 2010) (affirming refusal to
grant plaintiff transfer for “two bites at the apple”); see, e.g., Wang, 2014 WL 116220, at *4
(“Because Ms. Wang waited for the Court to decide the motion, portions of which were decided
adversely to her, before requesting this venue transfer, the Court views the instant motion as a
belated attempt at securing a judge perceived to be more favorable to her claims-in essence,
judge shopping.”).
The First Circuit has warned that a court asked to transfer a patent litigation must be
particularly alert for forum shopping. See Codex Corp. v. Milgo Elec. Corp., 553 F. 2d 735, 738,
740 (1st Cir. 1977) (noting that “special principles” are necessary to diminish forum shopping
made “particularly appealing” by the “one-strike-and-you’re-out” doctrine of patent invalidity);
Davox v. Digital Sys. Int’l, 846 F. Supp. 144, 148 (D. Mass. 1993) (transferring declaratory
judgment action “filed [by the accused patent infringer] in an evident effort to obtain a forum
more convenient to it”). To this end, although a plaintiff’s initial choice of forum is favored in a
venue transfer analysis, its subsequent choices for a change of venue are not given deference for
fear that “a motion to transfer venue could become an unchecked tool for the plaintiff to shop
among forums and between judges.” Leiker v. Jarvis Products Corp., No. 90–1179–C, 1990 WL
112974, at *2 (D. Kan. July 10, 1990); see Health Discovery Corp. v. Ciphergen Biosystems,
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 136 Filed 05/28/14 Page 5 of 17

5 43876740_10
Inc., 2:06-CV-260, 2007 WL 128283, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Jan 11, 2007); Tiffany v. Hometown
Buffet, Inc., C 06-2524 SBA, 2006 WL 2792868, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2006).
2. This Action Is Unlikely To Be Consolidated With the California Action Worlds seeks to justify its change of heart by arguing that there are efficiencies to be
gained by transferring this case to California. But the California case involves different patents,
different accused products, and non-identical parties. Specifically, in the present action Worlds,
Inc., asserts five related Worlds patents against Activision Blizzard’s Call of Duty franchise and
Blizzard Entertainment’s World of Warcraft franchise. In contrast, in California, Activision
Publishing, Inc., asserts two unrelated patents owned by Activision against the Worlds Player
product. See Decl. of Ryan V. Caughey In Support Of Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer Venue (D.I.
132-1), Exs. 2–4. Even the patents relate to different subject matter: the Worlds patents relate to
communications between network and client computers, while Activision’s patents relate to user
interface technology. Thus, Activision Blizzard and Blizzard Entertainment are not parties to the
California case, and there is no overlap in the accused products or the asserted patents.
Worlds’ assertion that “[l]itigation over . . . the same products is now pending in
California” is, at best, a mischaracterization. D.I. 132 at 2. As noted above, the accused
products in this action are Activision’s Call of Duty and World of Warcraft video games. The
parties are not litigating over either of these products in California – indeed, those Activision
products will have no role in the California case. Likewise, the accused product in California is
Worlds Player – obviously not an accused Activision product, and not a product that the parties
are litigating here. Worlds’ software such as Worlds Player or Worlds Chat are potentially
relevant in this case to just two issues: (1) the invalidity of Worlds’ patents in view of Worlds’
own prior art products, and (2) Worlds’ assertion that its products embody its asserted patents,
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 136 Filed 05/28/14 Page 6 of 17

6 43876740_10
which is potentially relevant to any “commercial success” of Worlds’ patents (a secondary issue
relating to Worlds’ contention that its patents are not obvious in view of prior art). The first of
these issues has already been decided by the Court’s ruling that Worlds’ asserted patents are
invalid in view of Worlds Chat and AlphaWorld prior to their correction by the USPTO in
September 2013. And the second of these issues is separate from and unrelated to Activision’s
infringement claims in California, so discovery concerning Worlds’ products will have little or
no overlap between the two lawsuits.
Because the California case involves different patents, different accused products, and
non-identical parties, there is no basis on which the California Court could consolidate the
actions for purposes of trial. 35 U.S.C. § 299, codified in 2011 and applicable to both the
California and Massachusetts actions, states that patent actions may be consolidated for trial
“only if any right to relief is asserted against the parties jointly, severally, or in the alternative
with respect to or arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or
occurrences relating to the making, using, importing into the United States, offering for sale, or
selling of the same accused product or process.” See Digitech Image Techs., LLC v. Agfaphoto
Holding GmbH, No. 8:12–cv–1153–ODW, 2012 WL 4513805, at *1 (“Newly enacted statute, 35
U.S.C. § 299, requires a higher standard for joinder, and prohibits joinder unless the relief arises
out of the same transactions relating to infringement of the patent-in-suit by the same accused
product.” (emphasis added)). As between the California and Massachusetts actions, there are no
common allegations of infringement involving the same accused product or process, so
consolidation would be improper.
Further, the differences in subject matter make it unlikely that these cases would even be
consolidated under Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a) for purposes of discovery. Joinder may be refused “in
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 136 Filed 05/28/14 Page 7 of 17

7 43876740_10
the interest of avoiding prejudice and delay” or to “safeguard[] principles of fundamental
fairness.” See In re EMC Corp., 677 F. 3d 1351, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (noting that a district
court is “justified in exercising its discretion to deny joinder when different witnesses and
documentary proof would be required”); Wang Labs., Inc. v. Mistubishi Elecs. Am., Inc., No. CV
92 4698 JGD, 1993 WL 645934, at *2-3 (C.D. Cal. 1993) (declining to consolidate infringement
claims brought by accused infringer in separate action because the patents-in-suit were neither
“factually related” nor “related per se”). Here, allowing common discovery across unrelated
patents and products serves no purpose and, conversely, could unfairly prejudice both Worlds’
and Activision’s cases. Not surprisingly, Worlds does not cite a single case where two unrelated
suits such as those under consideration here were “cross-consolidated” for discovery or for trial.
3. Worlds’ Description Of Itself As A Small Company With “Meek Resources” Is Disingenuous Worlds argues that transfer and consolidation would alleviate the purported hardship it
faces as a “small,” “tiny” company with “meek resources” forced to litigate in two venues.
(D.I. 132 at 3, 6, 11.) As noted above, the cases will likely not be consolidated, and Worlds will
continue to face two separate litigations whether or not this case is transferred. But even more
important, Worlds’ descriptions of itself and the circumstances of this lawsuit are quite
misleading.
Worlds has made sophisticated and substantial financial arrangements to pay for the cost
of this litigation. Worlds is represented by experienced and accomplished counsel who represent
Worlds on a contingency basis. Shortly after Worlds filed this lawsuit, its CEO, Mr. Kidrin, was
interviewed for an article in Forbes in which he stated:
We were fortunate that Max L. Tribble, lead counsel for Susman Godfrey LLP who has a stellar record for patent infringement wins against large organizations, was eager to be lead counsel on this case on a contingency basis following
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 136 Filed 05/28/14 Page 8 of 17

8 43876740_10
Susman Godfrey’s review of the patents, our history as an operating company since 1994 and other details. (Moffa Decl. Ex. B.) Furthermore, in March 2013, Worlds announced that it had secured $2.3
million in debt financing to fund its patent assertion efforts, including this litigation. (Moffa
Decl. Ex. C.) And in 2012 and 2013, Worlds completed private placements that raised additional
hundreds of thousands of dollars. (Moffa Decl. Ex. H.)
In reality, Worlds is a publicly traded patent assertion entity (stock symbol WDDD)
whose primary purpose and goal is to assert and monetize its patent portfolio.
On May 16, 2011, the Company transferred, through a spin-off to its then wholly owned subsidiary, Worlds Online Inc., the majority of its operations and related operational assets. The Company retained its patent portfolio which it intends to continue to increase and to more aggressively enforce against alleged infringers. The Company also entered into a License Agreement with Worlds Online Inc. to sublicense its patented technologies. (Id. (emphasis added); accord Ex. D (“The Company’s principle [sic] goal will be to continue to
grow its IP portfolio, while protecting and monetizing it through patent infringement
litigation.”).)
Worlds had its sights set on Activision years before filing this action. Worlds previously
asserted its patents in litigation against a videogame developer called NCsoft. (Moffa Decl.
Ex. A.) During that lawsuit, Mr. Kidrin publicly proclaimed as early as 2009 his intention to sue
Activision Blizzard (and other companies) if Worlds is successful against NCsoft. (Id.) Mr.
Kidrin also publicly stated that its litigation counsel spent nine months evaluating Worlds’ case
before agreeing to be engaged for this action. (Moffa Decl. Ex. E.)
Whatever its size, Worlds is in the business of filing lawsuits, and it has made
considerable financial arrangements to pursue its business plans. After choosing to sue
Activision in Massachusetts with the assistance of well-financed contingent fee counsel, Worlds
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 136 Filed 05/28/14 Page 9 of 17

9 43876740_10
should not be heard to complain about the burden of litigation in the forum it originally chose or
Activision’s decision to enforce its own patents.
With no serious prospect of consolidation and no actual financial concern, the real
explanation for Worlds’ motion is that Worlds seeks to flee an unfavorable Summary Judgment
ruling in favor of a different forum that it rejected two years ago. Permitting such forum
shopping is not in the interest of justice.
B. California Is Not A Clearly More Convenient Venue For This Case 1. The Circumstances Do Not “Strongly” Favor California Worlds concedes that, at the time it filed this suit, Massachusetts was the most convenient
venue for Worlds. That fact has not changed. Instead, Worlds argues that now the
circumstances strongly favor California because there is another litigation between the parties in
California, and Activision’s employees and documents are located there.
Preliminarily, we note that Worlds’ discussion of transfer-related factors includes those
that affect Activision’s convenience. But Activision has not complained that it will be
inconvenienced by litigating this action in Massachusetts. Indeed, if Activision had believed that
Massachusetts was inconvenient for this action, it would have sought transfer at the outset of this
case, two years ago. Worlds should not be permitted to rely on any supposed inconvenience to
Activision to force transfer of a case that Worlds chose to file in Massachusetts.
(a) There Is No Duplicative Litigation As noted above, the California and Massachusetts cases involve non-identical parties,
different accused products and different patents. Further contrary to Worlds’ assertions, the
cases will also involve different witnesses and different documents. The vast majority of
Activision’s documents produced in this case, including its source code, relates to the Activision
products accused here and are not relevant to the California action. Likewise, none of the
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 136 Filed 05/28/14 Page 10 of 17

10 43876740_10
Activision employees who are relevant to this case is likely to be a witness in the California case.
Those witnesses are only relevant in this case because they have knowledge of technical or
financial aspects of Activision’s accused Call of Duty and Worlds of Warcraft products, which
are not at issue in California.
In view of the differences in subject matter between this case and the California case, the
existence of a co-pending suit between the parties is irrelevant to the transfer analysis. See
NETGEAR, Inc. v. Ruckus Wireless, Inc., Civ. No. 10–999–SLR2011 WL 3236043, at *3 (D.
Del. July 28, 2011) (denying transfer despite pending suit brought by accused infringer in the
transferee forum) (“The patents at issue in the pending litigation in the Northern District of
California originated from different companies, have different inventors, and are of different
patent families from the patents-in-suit. The fact that the pending California actions involve the
same basic wireless router technology as that at issue in this lawsuit is not compelling.” (citations
omitted)); World Energy Alts., LLC v. Settlemyre Indus., Inc., 671 F. Supp. 2d 215 (D. Mass.
2009) (disregarding existence of pending suit between the parties for liability under a separate
contract, because “the two actions do not arise from the ‘same common nucleus of operative
facts’”).
Indeed, in the cases cited by Worlds regarding the relevance of litigation pending in
another forum, the same defendant was facing the same or similar claims for the same acts. See
Johnson v. New York Life Ins., C.A. No. 12–11026–MLW, 2013 WL 1003432 at *1 (D. Mass.
Mar. 14, 2013); Wiley v. Gerber Prods. Co., 667 F. Supp. 2d 171 (D. Mass. 2009). No such facts
exist here. Worlds also ignores that neither Johnson nor Wiley resulted in consolidation after
transfer. (See Moffa Decl. Ex. F (noting that the judge overseeing the pending case in the
transferee forum declined the transferred case as “not similar”); Ex. G (noting that transferred
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 136 Filed 05/28/14 Page 11 of 17

11 43876740_10
plaintiff ultimately dismissed the case without moving for consolidation)). Johnson and Wiley
thus highlight the danger of basing a transfer decision on any expectation of consolidation.
2. The Remaining Factors Are Neutral Or Disfavor Transfer (a) California Is Not Clearly More Convenient For The Witnesses Because Activision contests transfer, Worlds should not be able to support its motion by
pointing to the convenience of Activision’s own employee witnesses. See Campbell v.
Mitsubishi Aircraft Intern., Inc., 416 F. Supp. 1225, 1226 (W.D. Pa. 1976).
With respect to non-party witnesses, Activision acknowledges that seven of twelve reside in California.1 However, all seven of those witnesses are not likely to testify in court. All seven
(Thomas Adler, Philip Albert, S. Mitra Ardron, Judith Challinger, David Leahy, Daniel
Tagliaferri, and Anatoly Weiser) reside more than 100 miles from the Los Angeles Courthouse,
and would incur substantial expense to testify at trial. Thus, most will likely testify only by
deposition, which can be taken at Activision’s Counsel’s offices in California. Moreover, the
remaining four non-party witnesses reside on the East coast (Neil Cohen is in Virginia, Paul
Lerner is in Connecticut, Alexander Poltorak is in New York and Jean-Marc Zimmerman is in
New Jersey); if significant court testimony is required in this case, these witnesses will be
inconvenienced by any transfer.
Therefore, California is not clearly more convenient for the witnesses and this factor does
not support transfer.
1 Worlds also identifies Ron Britvich as a “non-party witness” whose “last known location” is Sacramento, California. (D.I. 132 at 16.) Mr. Britvich was already deposed by Activision in this case. At Worlds’ request, that deposition took place in Houston. And Worlds’ own Initial Disclosures identify him as a “Developer” employed by Worlds Online. (D.I. 132-8 at 2.) It is, therefore, overstatement for Worlds to suggest that he is a non-party or that his location in California matters in the transfer analysis.
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 136 Filed 05/28/14 Page 12 of 17

12 43876740_10
(b) Worlds Sued Activision In Massachusetts On The Basis Of Activision’s Alleged Activities There Worlds’ complaint in this case goes to great lengths to demonstrate the purported ties
between Activision’s alleged acts of infringement and the state of Massachusetts. For example:
18. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Activision because Activision has committed acts of infringement in violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271 and has offered and provided to customers in Massachusetts subscription to and use of Activision’s World of Warcraft and Call of Duty video games. Additionally, Activision regularly does business or solicits business, engages in other persistent courses of conduct, and/or derives substantial revenue from products and/or services provided to individuals in this district and has purposefully established substantial, systematic, and continuous contacts with this district and expects, or should reasonably expect, to be haled into court here…. 19. These acts cause injury to Worlds within the district. On information and belief, Activision’s products continue to be offered in channels of commerce with the intent that customers located in this district make use of Activision’s World of Warcraft and Call of Duty Video games within this district. 20. On information and belief, Activision will derive substantial revenue from the use of Activision’s World of Warcraft and Call of Duty video games within this district, and/or expects or should reasonably expect its actions to have consequences within the district, and derives substantial revenue from interstate and international commerce. (D.I. 1 at ¶¶ 18–20; D.I. 32 at ¶¶ 18–20.)
Having trumpeted these allegations to establish this Court’s jurisdiction over Activision,
it is remarkable that Worlds now seeks transfer on the grounds that the accused products were
developed in California. That fact existed equally at the time this suit was filed but obviously
did not deter Worlds from filing its complaint in Massachusetts.
Moreover, Worlds seeks to recover for Activision’s allegedly infringing sales, and
Worlds concedes that Activision’s sales activities “are nationwide and worldwide in scope.”
(D.I. 132 at 19.) While “there is nothing unique about [Activision’s] sales and marketing activity
in Massachusetts,” id., there is likewise nothing unique about its sales and marketing activity in
California. Thus, this factor does not “strongly” favor transfer.
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 136 Filed 05/28/14 Page 13 of 17

13 43876740_10
(c) At This Point In The Case, The Location Of Documents Is Irrelevant Again, because Activision does not seek transfer, Worlds should not be permitted to rely
on the location of Activision’s own documents to support its motion. See Campbell, 416 F.
Supp. at 1226. In any event, because this action is two years old, both parties have largely
completed their document productions in this case. Worlds has also inspected the source code
for each of the accused products, and provided infringement contentions (see D.I. 119) based on that source code.2 The location of documents should no longer bear on the transfer analysis.
Indeed, relevant documents are now located in the offices of the parties’ outside counsel. At this
point, any future documents will likely be produced electronically, so “their location is entitled to
little weight.” Boateng v. Gen, Dynamics Corp., 460 F.Supp.2d 270, 276 (D. Mass. 2006). This
factor is therefore neutral – it certainly does not strongly favor transfer.
(d) The Law To Be Applied Is Uniform Because Federal patent law is uniform, any difference that exists in the application of the
patent laws across courts would only underscore the need to vigilantly guard against forum-
shopping. This factor disfavors transfer at this late date.
(e) Public Interests Favor No Party Finally, although Worlds identifies that Activision employs over 3,000 Californians, it is
Worlds—not Activision—that seeks transfer to California. Worlds demonstrated its lack of
concern for Activision’s California employees when it chose to sue here two years ago. Worlds
cites no precedent that a plaintiff should be able to invoke the defendant’s interest in its home
2 Worlds’ argument that its outside counsel and expert have had to travel to California many times to inspect source code has no bearing on this motion because Worlds is not trying to transfer this case to the location of its expert or outside counsel. Worlds’ counsel is located in Texas and their experts, Thomas Rhyne III and Thomas Rhyne IV, reside in Texas. (See Moffa Decl. Exs. I, J). In any event, Worlds cites no authority for the proposition that convenience to outside counsel or experts is relevant to a transfer analysis.
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 136 Filed 05/28/14 Page 14 of 17

14 43876740_10
forum as creating a “public interest” favoring transfer, where defendant has not invoked its
supposed interest and transfer to defendant’s home forum would be against defendant’s wishes.
Thus, under the facts of this case, this factor does not strongly favor transfer.
IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, Worlds has not met its burden under Section 1404(a).
Neither its two-year delay nor its transparent forum shopping should be rewarded by transfer to a
district it plainly rejected at the outset of this action. The facts and circumstances at the time the
complaint was filed, and now, do not strongly favor transfer. Activision respectfully submits
that Worlds’ Request for Transfer should be denied.
Dated: May 28, 2014
Respectfully submitted,
By: /s/ Samuel Brenner Samuel L. Brenner (BBO #677812) [e-mail] ROPES & GRAY LLP Prudential Tower 800 Boylston Street Boston, Massachusetts 02199-3600 T: [phone] F: [phone]
Jesse J. Jenner (pro hac vice) [e-mail] Gene W. Lee (pro hac vice) [e-mail] Brian P. Biddinger (pro hac vice) [e-mail] Matthew J. Moffa (pro hac vice) [e-mail] ROPES & GRAY LLP 1211 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10036-8704 T: [phone] F: [phone]
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 136 Filed 05/28/14 Page 15 of 17

15 43876740_10
Kathryn N. Hong (pro hac vice) [e-mail] ROPES & GRAY LLP 1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2284 T: [phone] F: [phone]
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS, ACTIVISION BLIZZARD, INC., BLIZZARD ENTERTAINMENT, INC. AND ACTIVISION PUBLISHING, INC.
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 136 Filed 05/28/14 Page 16 of 17

16 43876740_10
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing document filed through the ECF system will be sent
electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)
this 28th day of May, 2014.
By: /s/ Samuel Brenner Sam Brenner
Case 1:12-cv-10576-DJC Document 136 Filed 05/28/14 Page 17 of 17