N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

In re : DROPBOX, INC., Petitioner

______________________

2020

- 130

______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in No. 6:19

-
cv

- 00525

- ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In re : DROPBOX, INC., Petitioner

______________________

2020

- 132

______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in No. 6:19

-
cv

- 00526

- ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright.

______________________
ON PETITION

______________________ Before P ROST , Chief Judge

, M OORE and H UGHES , Circuit Judges.

P ROST , Chief Judge

. Case: 20-130 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 07/28/2020IN RE : DROPBOX , INC

. 2

O R D E R

In these related p etitions a rising out of patent infringement suits brought by SynKloud Technologies, LLC against Dropbox, Inc. , which we consider together

, Dropbox asks this court to direct the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas to grant its motions to transfe r under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
Dropbox contends that the district court clearly erredin crediting SynKloud’s assertions that Dropbox’s employees in Austin, Texas had any relevant and material knowledge to the issues in this case without conducting any meaningful evaluation of the record and merely resolving any factual dispute between the parties in favor of the non

moving party. Dropbox further cont ends that the district court erred in weighing the court congestion factor against transfer and also weighing against transfer the fact that SynKloud brought a separate infringement action against Adobe involving overlapping patents asserted in one of the cases against Dropbox in the Western District of Texas.

S ince the district court made its determinations, this court has issued an order relevant to these petitions. In In re Adobe Inc.

, No. 2020

- 126 (Fed. Cir. ___ 2020 ) , this court recently granted ma ndamus to direct transfer of the very case the district court cited as weighing against transfer

. The court in Adobe also explained that the district court erred by giv ing the court congestion factor essentially dispositive weight, particularly given that the scheduling order the district court relied on (which is the same one cited by the court in these cases ) did not speak to court congestion.
In light of th is court’s intervening decision in Adobe

, we decline to find that Dropbox has “no other adequate means to attain the relief [it] desires ” without Dropbox first moving the district court for reconsideration of its order s denying Dropbox’s motion s to transfer. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Case: 20-130 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 07/28/2020IN RE : DROPBOX , INC

. 3

Court for the Dist. of Columbia , 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004) (int ernal quotation marks and citation omitted)

. We therefore deny the petitions for a writ of mandamus. Any new petitions for mandamus from the district court’s ruling s on reconsideration will be considered on their own merits.
Accordingly,

I T I S O RDERED T HAT : The petition s are denied.

Ju ly 28 , 2020 Date F OR THE C OURT

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

s31 Case: 20-130 Document: 18 Page: 3 Filed: 07/28/2020