NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In re: WESTERN DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Petitioner

______________________

2021-137

______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States 

District Court for the Western District of Texas in No. 6:20-

cv-00563-ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright.

______________________

ON PETITION

______________________

Before PROST, Chief Judge, O’MALLEY and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.

PROST, Chief Judge.

O R D E R

Western Digital Technologies, Inc. (“WDT”) petitions

for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District 

Court for the Western District of Texas to transfer the case 

to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Martin Kuster opposes. WDT replies.

Mr. Kuster is a resident of Switzerland. He owns 

United States patents relating to external storage devices 

that are compliant with the Universal Serial Bus (“USB”) 

3.0 standard. WDT is a Delaware corporation with 

Case: 21-137 Document: 15 Page: 1 Filed: 05/10/2021
2 IN RE: WESTERN DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

headquarters in San Jose, California. WDT also has two

offices within the Western District of Texas in Austin,

Texas, as well as an office in Addison, Texas that is within 

100 miles of the federal courthouse in Waco. In June 2020, 

Mr. Kuster filed the underlying suit in the Western District 

of Texas, alleging that WDT infringes his USB-related patents. WDT subsequently moved to transfer the case to the 

Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1404(a). 

On February 9, 2021, the district court denied WDT’s

motion to transfer, concluding that WDT had not shown 

that the Northern District of California was clearly more 

convenient than the Western District of Texas. Appx029. 

In support, the district court found that WDT had not 

“point[ed] with particularity to any relevant physical documents” nor “confirm[ed] the existence of any physical documents located in the NDCA.” Appx017. The district court 

added that three non-parties (a former employee of WDT, 

a sales representative of WDT, and a distributor of WDT), 

who are potential witnesses, reside in or close to the Western District of Texas. Appx021–24. The district court further found that the Western District of Texas was likely to 

be faster in adjudicating the matter than the Northern District of California. Appx027. In addition, the district court 

found that the Western District was “home to [WDT] facilities [and] employees,” and was a “significant market[] for 

the allegedly infringing products.” Appx028.* 

The legal standard for mandamus relief is demanding. 

We ask only whether the district court’s transfer ruling

* Following its transfer ruling and before this petition was filed, the district court agreed to stay the district 

court litigation pending the Patent Trial and Appeal 

Board’s recently-instituted inter partes review brought by 

WDT, challenging the validity of the asserted patent 

claims.

Case: 21-137 Document: 15 Page: 2 Filed: 05/10/2021
IN RE: WESTERN DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 3

was such a “‘clear’ abuse of discretion” that refusing transfer produced a “‘patently erroneous result.’” In re TS Tech 

USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting 

In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 310 (5th Cir. 

2008) (en banc)). WDT has not satisfied that standard 

here. To be sure, the district court incorrectly overstated 

the burden on WDT as “heavy” and “significant.” See

Appx014, Appx029; but see Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 314–

15 (explaining that Congress intended to grant transfer under section 1404(a) upon a lesser showing of inconvenience 

than the “heavy burden” traditionally required under the 

forum non conveniens doctrine). Nonetheless, the district 

court here found that the Western District of Texas would 

be more convenient for, and could compel the testimony of, 

more likely non-party witnesses, that the Western District 

of Texas has a local interest, and that the Northern District 

of California has a more congested docket. Although we

may have evaluated some of the factors differently, we are 

not prepared to say that the district court’s ultimate conclusion that the transferee venue was not clearly more convenient amounted to a clear abuse of discretion. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The petition is denied.

May 10, 2021

Date

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

s32

Case: 21-137 Document: 15 Page: 3 Filed: 05/10/2021