NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In re: ZHEJIANG CRYSTAL-OPTECH CO. LTD.,

Petitioner

______________________

2023-111

______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States 

District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in No. 2:21-

cv-00378-JRG, Chief Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap.

______________________

ON PETITION

______________________ 

Before DYK, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

DYK, Circuit Judge.

O R D E R

Zhejiang Crystal-Optech Co. Ltd. (“Crystal”) petitions

for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District 

Court for the Eastern District of Texas to vacate its order 

denying Crystal’s motion to transfer and transfer the case 

to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Viavi Solutions Inc. (“Viavi”) opposes. 

For the following reasons, we deny the petition. 

Viavi sued Crystal in the Eastern District of Texas, alleging that Crystal was actively inducing others to infringe

three of its patents. Viavi’s complaint asserts that Crystal, 

Case: 23-111 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 03/01/2023
2 IN RE: ZHEJIANG CRYSTAL-OPTECH CO. LTD.

a foreign-based corporation, was subject to personal jurisdiction in the Eastern District of Texas because it knowingly sold the accused optical filter products with the 

expectation that they would be incorporated into mobile devices that would be sold in Texas. Appx031. 

Crystal moved to dismiss the case for lack of personal 

jurisdiction. Crystal also moved to transfer the case under 

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to the Northern District of California, 

though Crystal “dispute[d] that it is subject to personal jurisdiction by any United States District Court.” Appx183. 

The district court denied both motions. It first found that 

“Crystal, through its sales of Filters for application in Samsung Galaxy phones, knew (or should have reasonably 

known) the likely destination of the products, and their 

conduct and connections with the forum state were such 

that they should reasonably have anticipated being 

brought into court here.” Appx010. On that basis, the 

court denied Crystal’s motion to dismiss. 

As to § 1404(a), the court found that Crystal had failed 

to establish the threshold requirement that the action 

“might have been brought” in the Northern District of California, noting Crystal’s own insistence that it was not subject to personal jurisdiction there and explaining that it 

was “not necessarily true” that personal jurisdiction in 

Northern California would follow from its reasoning as to 

why jurisdiction existed in the Eastern District of Texas. 

Appx012. In the alternative, the court analyzed the private 

and public interest factors that govern transfer determinations and concluded that Crystal had failed to establish 

that the Northern District of California was clearly more 

convenient. Crystal then filed this petition challenging 

only the district court’s no-transfer determination. 

We follow regional circuit standards governing motions 

under § 1404(a). See In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 

1315, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Under Fifth Circuit law, Crystal, as the § 1404(a) movant, bore the burden of 

Case: 23-111 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 03/01/2023
IN RE: ZHEJIANG CRYSTAL-OPTECH CO. LTD. 3

demonstrating that transfer was appropriate. See In re 

Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 314 (5th Cir. 2008) 

(en banc). Our limited task here is to determine whether 

the district court clearly abused its discretion in concluding 

that Crystal failed to satisfy that burden. See In re Juniper 

Networks, Inc., 14 F.4th 1313, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

We see no such clear abuse. Crystal insists that the 

district court’s finding that it is subject to personal jurisdiction in the Eastern District of Texas also compels the 

conclusion that it is subject to personal jurisdiction in the 

Northern District of California. Pet. at 7. But the core

premise of Crystal’s petition—that the court relied on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2) to conclude that personal jurisdiction exists, Pet. at 11; Reply at 3—is wrong. 

The district court indicated that its conclusion was based

on an analysis of Crystal’s “connections with the forum 

state,” i.e., Texas, Appx010, as opposed to its contacts with 

the United States as a whole. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2) 

(establishing personal jurisdiction only where “the defendant is not subject to jurisdiction in any state’s courts of general jurisdiction”). Because Crystal has not otherwise 

clearly shown that this case “might have been brought” in

the transferee forum, we deny its mandamus petition. 

Accordingly, 

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

The petition is denied. 

March 1, 2023 

 Date

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

 

Case: 23-111 Document: 18 Page: 3 Filed: 03/01/2023