NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In re: CLOUDFLARE, INC.,

Petitioner

______________________

2022-167

______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States 

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

cv-00261-ADA-DTG, Judge Alan D. Albright.

______________________

ON PETITION AND MOTION

______________________

Before DYK, REYNA, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.

REYNA, Circuit Judge.

O R D E R

Cloudflare, Inc. petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Texas to transfer this patent infringement case 

to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Sable Networks, Inc. and Sable IP, LLC 

(collectively, “Sable”) oppose the petition. 

Sable filed the present action against Cloudflare alleging infringement of patents associated with routers managing computer network data flows. Cloudflare moved 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer the action to the 

Case: 22-167 Document: 23 Page: 1 Filed: 11/18/2022
2 IN RE: CLOUDFLARE, INC.

Northern District of California, where Cloudflare maintains its principal place of business. In support of its motion, Cloudflare relied on a declaration from its Director of 

Product, Mr. Rustam Lalkaka, which identified only one 

employee who worked from Cloudflare’s offices within the 

Western District of Texas in Austin as having relevant 

knowledge concerning the accused products.* 

The district court, adopting the recommendation of the 

magistrate judge, denied Cloudflare’s motion. The court 

began by finding Mr. Lalkaka lacked credibility and admitted to not investigating facts relevant to Cloudflare’s Austin office. Appx4. The court then analyzed the traditional 

factors bearing on a § 1404(a) motion. It concluded that 

Cloudflare had failed to demonstrate the Northern District 

of California was clearly more convenient. Appx26. In 

reaching that conclusion, the court determined that numerous Cloudflare employees in Austin have relevant information that was not disclosed in Mr. Lalkaka’s 

declaration, Appx12–13; that Cloudflare employees in Austin helped research, test, and market the accused products, 

Appx13, 25; that physical documentary evidence is located

in both forums, Appx7; that potential electronic evidence 

is being stored outside both districts and accessible from 

Cloudflare’s offices in both districts, id.; and that, while the 

compulsory process factor favored transfer, that factor was 

entitled to less weight because Cloudflare had failed to offer evidence or an adequate explanation as to why many of 

the potential witnesses have relevant information, Appx11.

On mandamus review of a § 1404(a) decision, we apply 

regional circuit law, here the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, where our review is limited to 

determining whether the denial of transfer was such a 

* While Mr. Lalkaka’s declaration stated that this 

employee was planning on moving to London, it is undisputed that the employee no longer plans on moving. 

Case: 22-167 Document: 23 Page: 2 Filed: 11/18/2022
IN RE: CLOUDFLARE, INC. 3

“‘clear’ abuse of discretion” that refusing transfer would 

produce a “patently erroneous result,” In re TS Tech USA 

Corp., 551 F.3d 1315, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008), (citation omitted). Under Fifth Circuit law, we will deny mandamus unless “the facts and circumstances are without any basis for 

a judgment of discretion.” In re Volkswagen of Am, Inc., 

545 F.3d 304, 312 n.7 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (citation 

omitted). Cloudflare has not met that standard with its 

petition.

We see no clear abuse of discretion in the court’s denial 

of transfer. The district court explained that the Western 

District of Texas, a district in which Cloudflare itself stated 

that its employees helped research, design, develop, implement, test, and market the accused products, had a localized interest and would be convenient for potential sources 

of proof and party witnesses. The court further explained

that Mr. Lalkaka, who Cloudflare relied on in identifying 

which of its employees are potential witnesses, had failed 

to adequately investigate the responsibilities and duties of

its employees in Austin, admitted that he did not look into 

whether there are engineers in Austin that worked on the 

accused products, and had been unable to explain what criteria he used to determine how certain employees, largely 

residing in the transferee forum, were subject matter experts, while other employees in Austin were not. Appx13–

14. Mindful of the standard of review, we are not prepared 

to disturb these findings, which plausibly support the conclusion that Cloudflare failed to show that the transferee 

forum was clearly more convenient. 

Accordingly,

Case: 22-167 Document: 23 Page: 3 Filed: 11/18/2022
4 IN RE: CLOUDFLARE, INC. 

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

The petition is denied. 

November 18, 2022

Date

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

 

 

Case: 22-167 Document: 23 Page: 4 Filed: 11/18/2022