NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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 PROST, Chief Judge, MOORE and HUGHES, Circuit 

Judges.

PROST, Chief Judge.

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

O R D E R

In these related petitions arising 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

transfer 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 erred

in 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 nonmoving party. Dropbox further contends 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. 

Since 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 mandamus 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 giving 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 this 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 orders denying Dropbox’s motions to transfer. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. 

Case: 20-130 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 07/28/2020
IN RE: DROPBOX, INC. 3

Court for the Dist. of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004) 

(internal 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 rulings on 

reconsideration will be considered on their own merits.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The petitions are denied. 

July 28, 2020 

Date

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

s31

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