NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In re: GOOGLE LLC,

Petitioner

______________________

2021-144

______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States 

District Court for the Western District of Texas in No. 6:20-

cv-0075-ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright.

______________________

ON PETITION

______________________

Before O’MALLEY, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

REYNA, Circuit Judge.

O R D E R

Google LLC petitions for a writ of mandamus directing 

the United States District Court for the Western District of 

Texas to transfer this action to the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of California. EcoFactor, 

Inc. opposes the petition. 

EcoFactor brought this suit in the Western District of 

Texas, Waco Division, alleging that Google’s Nest Learning 

Thermostat products infringe EcoFactor’s patents. Google, 

which is headquartered in Mountain View, California, but 

also has a large office in Austin, Texas, moved to transfer

Case 6:20-cv-00075-ADA Document 85 Filed 08/04/21 Page 1 of 4 Case: 21-144 Document: 24 Page: 1 Filed: 08/04/2021
2 IN RE: GOOGLE LLC

the infringement action to the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). 

On April 16, 2021, the district court denied Google’s 

motion. The court found that co-pending cases brought by 

EcoFactor in the same judicial division involving the same 

patents weighed against transfer, Appx10; the Texas forum 

was fully open and equipped to safely conduct jury trials, 

whereas transfer might cause undue delay because the 

California forum was not currently open for trials due to 

the COVID-19 pandemic, Appx11; there appeared to be 

Google employees working from within the Western District of Texas that had material and relevant information, 

including the Head of Central Region Energy Partnerships 

for Nest, Appx9; Google had not informed the court that 

any third party in California was unwilling to travel to 

Texas to testify or could not testify by video, Appx7–9; 

Google had not “point[ed] with particularity to any relevant 

physical documents,” nor “confirm[ed] the existence of any 

physical documents located in the [Northern District of 

California],” Appx4; and the Western District of Texas had 

a localized interest because “Google has had a substantial 

presence in Austin for nearly 14 years,” and “[a]s EcoFactor 

notes, Google has leased significant square feet in office 

space and currently employs over 1,400 employees in Austin, with plans to expand its presence in Texas even further,” Appx12. 

The legal standard for mandamus relief is demanding. 

Before a court may issue the writ, a petitioner must establish, among other things, that the right to relief is “clear 

and indisputable.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 

U.S. 367, 381 (2004) (citation and internal quotation marks 

omitted). In transfer cases, we ask only whether the district court’s transfer ruling was such a “‘clear’ abuse of discretion” that refusing transfer produced a “‘patently 

erroneous result.’” In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 

1315, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting In re Volkswagen of 

Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 310 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc)). 

Case 6:20-cv-00075-ADA Document 85 Filed 08/04/21 Page 2 of 4 Case: 21-144 Document: 24 Page: 2 Filed: 08/04/2021
IN RE: GOOGLE LLC 3

Under Fifth Circuit law, where a decision applies transfer 

rules, we must deny mandamus unless it is clear “that the 

facts and circumstances are without any basis for a judgment of discretion.” Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 312 n.7 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Google has not 

met that standard here. 

To be sure, Google’s mere presence in the Western District of Texas insofar as it is not tethered to the events underlying the litigation is not entitled to weight in analyzing 

the local interest factor in this case. See In re Apple Inc., 

979 F.3d 1332, 1344–45 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Nor should mere 

allegations of infringement in EcoFactor’s selected forum 

dictate which forum has a greater local interest. See In re 

Samsung Electronics Co., 2 F.4th 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2021). 

Nonetheless, we do not find reconsideration necessary in 

this case, where Google has not made a clear and indisputable showing that transfer was required.

The district court’s efficiency determinations are not 

entirely without basis. Although we may have our doubts 

as to whether Western Texas is just as convenient as 

Northern California for prospective evidence and witnesses, the district court found that one or more Google employees in Austin, Texas are potential witnesses, and we 

are not prepared on mandamus to disturb those factual 

findings. See In re Apple Inc., 818 F. App’x 1001, 1004 (Fed. 

Cir. 2020) (“Whether individuals or organizations may 

have relevant information and whether a certain forum has 

a localized connection to the relevant conduct and activities 

in a case are fact-intensive matters often subject to reasonable dispute.”).

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The petition is denied. 

Case 6:20-cv-00075-ADA Document 85 Filed 08/04/21 Page 3 of 4 Case: 21-144 Document: 24 Page: 3 Filed: 08/04/2021
4 IN RE: GOOGLE LLC

August 04, 2021 

Date

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

s35

Case 6:20-cv-00075-ADA Document 85 Filed 08/04/21 Page 4 of 4 Case: 21-144 Document: 24 Page: 4 Filed: 08/04/2021