NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In re: WESTERN DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

Petitioner

______________________

2023-115

______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States 

District Court for the Western District of Texas in No. 6:21-

cv-01230-ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright.

______________________

ON PETITION

______________________

Before DYK, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

DYK, Circuit Judge.

O R D E R

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

petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the United 

States District Court for the Western District of Texas to 

vacate its decision denying transfer and to transfer this patent infringement case to the United States District Court 

for the Northern District of California. Viasat, Inc. opposes. We deny the petition.

In its order denying transfer, the district court found 

that, while headquartered in Northern California, several 

Western Digital employees (who are potential witnesses)

Case: 23-115 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 03/06/2023
2 IN RE: WESTERN DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

work from its offices in Austin, Texas, and that eight former Western Digital employees (who are also potential witnesses) still live within the Western District of Texas. The 

district court rejected Western Digital’s argument that 

these current and former employees did not have relevant 

and material information, finding Western Digital’s supporting deponents lacked credibility and/or failed to 

properly investigate facts relevant to its Austin office and 

the accused products. In addition, none of Viasat’s employees in the transferee district had been identified as potential witnesses. The court also noted that Viasat has copending litigation involving one of the same patents in the 

Western District of Texas and that the Western District of 

Texas was likely to be faster in adjudicating the matter. 

On balance, the court concluded that Western Digital had 

failed to show that the Northern District of California was 

clearly more convenient and denied transfer. 

On mandamus, our review is limited to determining 

whether the denial of transfer 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) (citation omitted). In this case, the 

district court considered the relevant factors and found, 

based on the record before it and its credibility/inadequate 

investigation findings regarding Western Digital’s deponents, that Western Digital had failed to show the Northern District of California had a clear comparative 

advantage with regard to the witness and sources of proof 

factors. Mindful of the standard of review on mandamus, 

we are not prepared to disturb those findings, which, taken 

together with the district court’s other findings, provide a 

plausible basis for its judgment of discretion to deny the 

transfer request here. 

Accordingly,

Case: 23-115 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 03/06/2023
IN RE: WESTERN DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 3

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

The petition is denied. 

March 6, 2023

 Date

 FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

 Peter R. Marksteiner

 Clerk of Court

 

Case: 23-115 Document: 18 Page: 3 Filed: 03/06/2023