N OTE : This order is nonprecedential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 PETI TION

______________________
Before P ROST , Chief Judge

, O’M ALLEY and W ALLACH , Circuit Judges

. P ROST , Chief Judge

. O R D E R
Western Digital Technologies, Inc

. (“WDT”) petition s for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas to transfer the caseto the United States District Court for the Northern District of California

. Martin Kuster opposes. WDT replies.

Mr. Kuster is a re sident of Sw itzerland . He owns U nited S tates patents relating to external storage devices that are compliant with the Universal Serial Bus (“USB”) 3.0 standard . W DT is a Delaware corporation with Case: 21-137 Document: 15 Page: 1 Filed: 05/10/2021IN RE : WESTERN DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES , INC

. 2

headquarters in San Jose, California . WDT also has two of

fices 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 th e underlying suit in the Western District of Texas

, a lleging that WDT infringes his USB

- related patents

. WDT subsequently mo ved to transfer the case to the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

On February 9 , 202 1 , the district court denied WD T’s motion to transfer

, conclud ing that W DT had not shown that the Northern District of California was clearly more convenient than the Western District of Texas. A ppx029. In support, the district court found that W D T had not “point[ed] with particularit y to any relevant physical documents” n or “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. Appx 021

– 24. The district court further found that the Western District of Texas was likely to be faster in adjudicating the matter than the Nort hern District of California

. Appx027. In addition, the district court found that the W estern 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. W e ask only whether the d istrict 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 WD T, challenging the validity of the asserted patent claims

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

. 3

was such a “‘clear’ abuse of discretion” that refusing transfer produce d 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, 31 0 (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, Appx 029; 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 f ound that the W estern 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 ha s a local interest , and that the Northern District of California ha s a more congested docket

. A lthough 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

, I T I S O RDERED T HAT : The petition is denied

.

May 10 , 2021 Date F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court

s32 Case: 21-137 Document: 15 Page: 3 Filed: 05/10/2021