NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In re: META PLATFORMS, INC., fka Facebook, 

Inc.,

Petitioner

______________________

2023-143

______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States 

District Court for the Western District of Texas in No. 1:23-

cv-00623-ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright.

______________________

ON PETITION

______________________

Before LOURIE, MAYER, and STARK, Circuit Judges.

STARK, Circuit Judge.

O R D E R

The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (“WDTX”) denied the motion of Meta Platforms, Inc. (“Meta”) to transfer to the United States 

District Court for the Northern District of California 

(“NDCA”) while also granting alternative relief requested 

by Meta, transferring the case within the District from 

Waco to Austin, Texas. Meta now petitions for a writ of 

mandamus that would direct transfer to the NDCA. 

Case: 23-143 Document: 25 Page: 1 Filed: 10/30/2023
2 IN RE: META PLATFORMS, INC.

Immersion Corporation (“Immersion”) opposes the petition. We deny the petition.

Immersion brought this suit in the Waco Division of the 

WDTX alleging Meta’s products, including Quest 2 and 

Quest Pro, infringe six of Immersion’s patents. Meta

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

to the NDCA or, alternatively, to the WDTX’s Austin Division. The district court granted the motion in part, agreeing to transfer to Austin but concluding that Meta had

failed to show that the NDCA was clearly more convenient. 

Among other things, the court found that: on balance the 

WDTX would be more convenient for potential witnesses; 

while Meta was headquartered in the NDCA, it also had 

significant relevant operations in Austin; sources of proof 

were likely located in both the NDCA and the WDTX; while 

more non-party potential witnesses were identified in the 

NDCA, only one individual (not in the NDCA) appeared unwilling to testify; and the WDTX is likely to be faster in 

adjudicating the matter. 

To obtain mandamus, Meta must establish, among 

other things, that its right to relief is “clear and indisputable.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 381 

(2004) (citation omitted). In the § 1404(a) transfer context, 

which we assess under regional circuit law, Meta must 

show a “clear abuse of discretion” that produced a “patently 

erroneous result.” In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d

304, 310 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc). This is a highly deferential standard, under which we will not disturb the district court’s transfer decision unless it is clear “that the 

facts and circumstances are without any basis for a judgment of discretion.” Id. at 312 n.7 (citation omitted). Having carefully considered Meta’s petition here, we cannot 

say that it has satisfied this demanding standard. 

The district court plausibly concluded that Meta failed 

to establish that the willing witness factor favored transfer. Meta’s transfer motion broadly asserted that relevant

Case: 23-143 Document: 25 Page: 2 Filed: 10/30/2023
IN RE: META PLATFORMS, INC. 3

Meta employees are located in California and Washington 

state, and the majority of its teams are located on the West 

Coast. The district court evaluated details relating to 15

named Meta employees (along with two additional Immersion employees) in Northern California and Seattle and 

weighed the existence of this group of potential witnesses 

in favor of transfer but, nonetheless, plausibly found that 

Meta was not sufficiently clear about what relevant and 

material information the various other team members possessed. See In re Apple Inc., 743 F.3d 1377, 1378–79 (Fed. 

Cir. 2014) (denying mandamus relating to transfer when

movant’s lack of supporting evidence “stymied” analysis). 

The court also plausibly weighed the convenience of the

NDCA for the group of witnesses just described against the

22 potential witnesses who would find the WDTX more convenient, a group including several Meta employees in Austin with relevant knowledge of product design, operations, 

finances, and marketing. Meta criticizes the court for relying on Meta employees in the WDTX who purportedly do 

not have relevant and material information, but Meta’s petition only directly addresses one such employee on which 

the district court relied. Given the lack of a persuasive 

showing in its papers on such a case-specific, fact-intensive 

matter principally entrusted to the district court, see In re 

Vistaprint Ltd., 628 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2010), 

Meta’s argument contributes almost nothing to its effort to 

show a clear abuse of discretion here.

Nor do we see any clear abuse of discretion in the district court’s analysis that would warrant disturbing its denial of transfer. The district court plausibly concluded that 

the sources of proof and compulsory process factors did not 

substantially affect the ultimate transfer decision based on 

the particular circumstances of this case. See In re Planned 

Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc., 52 F.4th 625, 630–31 (5th 

Cir. 2022).

Case: 23-143 Document: 25 Page: 3 Filed: 10/30/2023
4 IN RE: META PLATFORMS, INC.

Lastly, we agree with Meta that the district court

clearly erred in finding that the court congestion factor 

weighed slightly against transfer. As we recently held in 

In re Google LLC, 58 F.4th 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2023), this 

factor should not weigh against transfer when the patentee 

“is not engaged in product competition in the marketplace 

and is not threatened in the market in a way that, in other 

patent cases, might add urgency to case resolution.” Citing 

Google, the district court found that these conditions are 

satisfied, seemingly because Immersion has been operating 

since 1993, has developed and licensed products which are 

used worldwide, and its workforce has shrunk from a peak 

of 184 employees to just 21. Appx. 30–31. Immersion never 

argued that these facts, or any others, established that Immersion competes with Meta in the market for the accused 

technology; nor did it even contend there is any urgency to 

the timing by which this litigation is resolved. There is no 

record evidence for the district court’s findings that Immersion “is/was engaged in product competition in the marketplace” against Meta or that the shrinkage in its workforce 

is “evidence of the urgency to case resolution . . . giv[ing] 

some significance to the time-to-trial difference” between 

districts. Appx. 30–31 (internal quotation marks omitted).*

Accordingly, the court congestion factor should have been 

treated as neutral. In the context in which we confront this 

error, however, we conclude it is harmless, as we cannot 

 

* Immersion submitted a Supplemental Appendix, 

containing documents not cited to the district court for 

these points, and directs us to other hints in the record to 

try to show that the district court had a basis for its findings on product competition and urgency to case resolution. 

See Response to Petition at 28–30. Even assuming these 

materials are properly considered in this procedural posture, they do not support the district court’s clearly erroneous sua sponte findings, as Meta persuasively explains. See 

Reply in Support of Petition at 5–6.

Case: 23-143 Document: 25 Page: 4 Filed: 10/30/2023
IN RE: META PLATFORMS, INC. 5

say it would be a clear abuse of discretion to deny transfer 

to the NDCA even changing this one factor from weighing 

against transfer to being neutral.

Accordingly,

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

The petition is denied.

October 30, 2023

 Date

FOR THE COURT

 

 

Case: 23-143 Document: 25 Page: 5 Filed: 10/30/2023