N OTE : This order is nonprecedential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 D YK , R EYNA , and C HEN , Circuit Judges

. D YK , 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 Distri ct of California. Viasat, Inc. oppose s

. We deny the petition.
In its order denying transfer, the district court found that, while headquartered in Northern California, several Western Digital employee s (who are potential witnesses ) Case: 23-115 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 03/06/2023IN RE : WESTERN DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES , INC

. 2

work from its offices in Austin , Texas, and that eight former Western Digital employees (who are also potential witnesses ) still live within the West ern District of Texas . The district court rejected Western Digital’s argument that these current and former employees did not h ave relevant and material information, finding Western Digital’s supporting deponent s lacked credibility and /or failed to properly investigate facts relevant to its Austin office and the accused products . In addition, none of Vias a t ’s employees in the transferee district had been identified as potential witnesses . The court also noted that Vias a t ha s co

pending litigation involving one of the same patents in the Western District of Texas and that the Western District of Texas was like ly 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 den ied transfer.

On mandamus

, our review is limited to determinin g whether the denial of transfer 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) (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 finding s regarding Western Digital’s deponents , that Western Digital had failed to show the Northern District of California had a cl ear 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 plau sible basis for its judgment of discretion to deny the transfer request here.
Accordingly, Case: 23-115 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 03/06/2023IN RE : WESTERN DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES , INC

. 3

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

March 6 , 2023 Date F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court Case: 23-115 Document: 18 Page: 3 Filed: 03/06/2023