NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In re: APPLE INC.,

Petitioner

______________________

2021-181

______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States 

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

cv-00505-ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright.

______________________

ON PETITION

______________________

Before DYK, PROST, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Apple Inc. petitions for a writ of mandamus directing 

the United States District Court for the Western District of 

Texas to transfer its case to the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of California. Because the 

district court’s refusal to transfer amounted to a clear 

abuse of discretion, we grant mandamus directing transfer.

Case 6:20-cv-00505-ADA Document 75 Filed 11/15/21 Page 1 of 11 Case: 21-181 Document: 13 Page: 1 Filed: 11/15/2021
2 IN RE: APPLE INC.

I

In June 2020, Neonode Smartphone LLC filed suit in 

the Waco Division of the Western District of Texas, accusing Apple’s iPhone and iPad products of infringing two patents concerning the user interface of a mobile handheld 

computer.

Apple moved to transfer the case to the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). According to Apple, that district was a clearly more convenient 

forum than the Western District of Texas because nearly 

all of Apple’s knowledgeable employees and relevant evidence are located in the Northern District of California, the 

events giving rise to this action took place there, and two 

key third parties identified in the complaint—Google LLC 

and Nuance Communications, Inc.—also reside there. By 

contrast, Apple emphasized that there are no significant 

ties between this action and the Western District of Texas. 

Apple asserted that its Austin-based employees have no 

unique knowledge about the accused products and do not 

hold the requisite credentials to access the secure servers 

hosting some of its relevant evidence. Apple further 

pointed out that Neonode is a recently-incorporated nonpracticing entity headquartered in Wyoming, with no offices or employees in Texas.

After analyzing the set of public and private interest 

factors that traditionally govern transfer determinations in 

the Fifth Circuit,1 the district court denied Apple’s transfer 

 

1 The public interest factors are: “(1) the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion; (2) the local 

interest in having disputes regarding activities occurring 

principally within a particular district decided in that forum; (3) the familiarity of the forum with the law that will 

govern the case; and (4) the avoidance of unnecessary 

Case 6:20-cv-00505-ADA Document 75 Filed 11/15/21 Page 2 of 11 Case: 21-181 Document: 13 Page: 2 Filed: 11/15/2021
IN RE: APPLE INC. 3

motion, finding that these factors did not favor transfer to 

the Northern District of California. In particular, the court 

found that the local interest factor slightly favored transfer. But it decided that the court congestion factor weighed 

heavily against transfer because the district court could adjudicate the case faster than the Northern District of California. It likewise concluded that the practical problems 

factor weighed heavily against transfer in light of Neonode’s co-pending suit accusing Samsung Electronics Co. 

Ltd. of infringing the same asserted patents. The court 

found that the five remaining factors were neutral. On balance, the court concluded that Apple had failed to show 

that the transferee venue was clearly more convenient. 

Apple then filed this petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1651 and 1295.

II

Under the well-established standard for obtaining 

mandamus relief, a petitioner must: (1) demonstrate that 

it has a clear and indisputable right to issuance, (2) show 

that it has no other adequate method of attaining the desired relief, and (3) convince the court that the writ is “appropriate under the circumstances.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. 

Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004). “In the § 1404(a) transfer 

 

problems of conflict of laws or in the application of foreign 

law.” In re Juniper Networks, Inc., 14 F.4th 1313, 1317

(Fed. Cir. 2021).

The private interest factors are: “(1) the relative ease of 

access to sources of proof; (2) the availability of compulsory 

process to secure the attendance of non-party witnesses 

whose attendance may need to be compelled by court order; 

(3) the relative convenience of the two forums for potential 

witnesses; and (4) all other practical problems that make 

the trial of a case easy, expeditious, and inexpensive.” Id.

at 1316–17.

Case 6:20-cv-00505-ADA Document 75 Filed 11/15/21 Page 3 of 11 Case: 21-181 Document: 13 Page: 3 Filed: 11/15/2021
4 IN RE: APPLE INC.

context, however, the test for mandamus essentially reduces to the first factor . . . .” In re Apple Inc., 979 F.3d 

1332, 1336–37 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Thus, the issue here is 

whether Apple has shown a clear and indisputable right to 

issuance of the writ.

A motion to transfer venue should be granted if the defendant demonstrates that the transferee venue “is clearly 

more convenient” than the venue chosen by the plaintiff. In 

re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 315 (5th Cir. 

2008) (en banc). In assessing whether a defendant has met 

this burden, the court weighs the public and private interest factors to compare the relative convenience between the 

venues. See In re Juniper Networks, Inc., 14 F.4th 1313, 

1316–17 (Fed. Cir. 2021). We review transfer determinations in cases arising on mandamus from district courts in 

the Fifth Circuit for “a ‘clear’ abuse of discretion such that 

refusing transfer produced a ‘patently erroneous result.’”

In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 

2008) (quoting Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 310). Here, we conclude that the district court clearly abused its discretion in 

finding that Apple failed to make the requisite showing to 

call for transfer of this case to the Northern District of California.

First, the district court should have weighed the 

sources of proof factor in favor of transfer. “What matters” 

under this factor “is the relative access to sources of evidence in the two competing forums”—here, the Western 

District of Texas and the Northern District of California.

Juniper, 14 F.4th at 1321. Apple’s sworn declaration and 

deposition testimony make clear that essentially all of its 

source code and documentary evidence relevant to this action are maintained in the Northern District of California.

And neither Neonode nor the district court disputed Apple’s evidence or otherwise identified sources of proof more 

readily available in the Western District of Texas. In fact,

the district court did not identify any sources of proof located in the Western District of Texas.

Case 6:20-cv-00505-ADA Document 75 Filed 11/15/21 Page 4 of 11 Case: 21-181 Document: 13 Page: 4 Filed: 11/15/2021
IN RE: APPLE INC. 5

The district court provided no sound basis for disregarding the Northern District of California as a convenient 

forum with respect to sources of proof. See In re Radmax, 

Ltd., 720 F.3d 285, 288 (5th Cir. 2013) (concluding that the 

sources of proof factor weighs in favor of transfer when all 

of the documents and physical evidence are located in the 

transferee forum). The court instead “stressed that the focus on physical location of electronic documents is out of 

touch with modern patent litigation.” Appx4. And it faulted 

Apple for failing to “show that the ‘proper credentials’ have 

not been or cannot be given to Apple employees in Austin, 

Texas for the purpose of this litigation or in general.” 

Appx5. The court further suggested that Apple’s cooperation in discovery represents the kind of “need-to-know” basis for giving Apple’s Austin employees the proper 

credentials, so that the electronic information stored in the 

Northern District of California can be accessed in the Western District of Texas. Appx5. But that was error. The district court should have compared the ease of access in the 

Western District of Texas relative to the ease of access in 

the Northern District of California. Juniper, 14 F.4th at 

1321. Under the proper analysis, we conclude that the 

sources of proof factor favors transfer.

Second, the district court should have weighed the compulsory process factor in favor of transfer. “The venue’s 

ability to compel testimony through subpoena power 

is . . . an important factor in the § 1404(a) calculus,” In re 

Acer Am. Corp., 626 F.3d 1252, 1255 (Fed. Cir. 2010), that

“will weigh heavily in favor of transfer when more thirdparty witnesses reside within the transferee venue than reside in the transferor venue.” In re Apple, Inc., 581 F. App’x 

886, 889 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Here, the district failed to accord 

significance to the relative strength of the Northern District of California’s compulsory process powers. Neither 

party identifies potential third-party witnesses residing in 

the transferor forum, but Apple identified Google and Nuance as key third-party witnesses subject to the subpoena 

Case 6:20-cv-00505-ADA Document 75 Filed 11/15/21 Page 5 of 11 Case: 21-181 Document: 13 Page: 5 Filed: 11/15/2021
6 IN RE: APPLE INC.

powers of the transferee forum. And it pointed to Neonode’s 

complaint in support of both entities’ relevance to this suit. 

The complaint specifically identified two third-party software applications, developed by Google and Nuance, as a 

basis for its infringement allegations against Apple. It is 

also undisputed that both Google and Nuance have offices 

and employees that are subject to the subpoena powers of 

the Northern District of California. 

The district court erroneously discounted those third 

parties when it faulted Apple for not identifying any specific employees of those entities. In In re HP Inc., 

826 F. App’x 899 (Fed. Cir. 2020), we said that there was 

“no basis to discount” third-party entities that the district 

court itself had recognized as having pertinent information 

in the transferee venue “just because individual employees 

were not identified.” Id. at 903. Here, there similarly is no 

reason to doubt that employees of Google and Nuance in 

the Northern District of California have relevant and material information as both Neonode and Apple have alleged.

The fact that the plaintiff here elected to file its suit outside 

of the venue where the third parties are located does not 

negate the benefit of transferring to a forum that has the 

ability to compel their testimony. See TS Tech, 551 F.3d at

1320 (“Fifth Circuit precedent clearly forbids treating the 

plaintiff’s choice of venue as a distinct factor in the 

§ 1404(a) analysis.”). Because there are potential thirdparty witnesses subject to the subpoena powers of the 

Northern District of California but not the Western District 

of Texas, we conclude that the compulsory process factor 

weighs strongly in favor of transfer. 

Third, the district court should have weighed the relative convenience of the two competing forums for potential 

witnesses strongly in favor of transfer. Apple identified 

eight employees who reside in the Northern District of California and are likely to testify given their knowledge of the 

“research, design, and development,” “marketing, licensing, and financial records,” and “sales and financial 

Case 6:20-cv-00505-ADA Document 75 Filed 11/15/21 Page 6 of 11 Case: 21-181 Document: 13 Page: 6 Filed: 11/15/2021
IN RE: APPLE INC. 7

information” of the accused features. Appx96, 99–101. It is 

also undisputed that Google and Nuance are two thirdparty entities in the Northern District of California that 

are likely materially relevant to Neonode’s infringement 

suit. By contrast, Neonode did not assert that any of its

employees reside in the Western District of Texas. And the 

potential non-party witnesses that Neonode identified are

associated with its parent company and either reside in 

California or outside of the United States. Because Apple 

identified several potential party and non-party witnesses 

residing in the Northern District of California, and no potential witnesses appear to reside in the Western District 

of Texas, the witness convenience factor weighs strongly in 

favor of transfer. In re Google, No. 2021-171, 2021 WL 

4592280, at *5 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 6, 2021) (“Google II”).

We have repeatedly held that a district court’s failure 

to weigh this factor in favor of transfer constitutes a clear

abuse of discretion “when there are several witnesses located in the transferee forum and none in the transferor 

forum.” Id.; see, e.g., In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 

1345 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Apple, 979 F.3d at 1342; In re Google, 

No. 2021-170, 2021 WL 4427899, at *4 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 27, 

2021) (“Google I”); In re TracFone Wireless, Inc., 

852 F. App’x 537, 539–40 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Notwithstanding this precedent, the district court gave no weight to the 

relative convenience of the transferee forum for the potential witnesses.

Citing its own prior opinions, the district court weighed 

the witness convenience factor as neutral in part because

“the convenience of party witnesses is given little weight,”

and it presumed that “no more than a few parties—and 

even fewer third-party witnesses, if any—will testify live 

at trial.” Appx8 (citations omitted). But we have repeatedly 

“rejected the district court’s reliance on the fact that a 

party’s ability to compel the testimony of its employees supports assigning little or no weight to the convenience and 

cost to [party] witnesses.” Google I, 2021 WL 4427899, 

Case 6:20-cv-00505-ADA Document 75 Filed 11/15/21 Page 7 of 11 Case: 21-181 Document: 13 Page: 7 Filed: 11/15/2021
8 IN RE: APPLE INC.

at *4; see also In re Samsung Elecs. Co., 2 F.4th 1371, 1379 

(Fed. Cir. 2021); In re Hulu, LLC, No. 2021-142, 2021 WL 

3278194, at *5 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 2, 2021). We have likewise 

“rejected the district court’s categorical assumption that 

defendants are likely to call few if any of the proposed party 

witnesses . . . that are identified for purposes of supporting 

transfer motions.” Juniper, 14 F.4th at 1319 (citations 

omitted). The district court also attached comparable 

weight to a “competing list of Apple employees located in 

WDTX” offered by Neonode “that might testify at trial for 

the same aspects of the accused products at a trial.” Appx8. 

However, district courts “should assess the relevance and 

materiality of the information the witness[es] may provide.” Genentech, 566 F.3d at 1343. The court failed to do 

so here. 

Fourth, the district court erred in weighing the practical problems factor strongly against transfer. “[W]hile we 

recognize that judicial economy can serve important ends 

in a transfer analysis, we have rejected as a general proposition that the mere co-pendency of infringement suits in 

a particular district automatically tips the balance in the 

non-movant’s favor.” In re NetScout Sys., Inc., 

No. 2021-173, 2021 WL 4771756, at *5 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 13, 

2021) (citations omitted); see also Samsung, 2 F.4th at 

1379–80; In re EMC Corp., 501 F. App’x 973, 976 (Fed. Cir. 

2013). Here, “the district court overstated the concern 

about waste of judicial resources and risk of inconsistent 

results” in light of Neonode’s other infringement suit in the 

Western District of Texas. Samsung, 2 F.4th at 1379. That 

suit involves different defendants and different accused 

products, and does not similarly involve accusations regarding third-party software. Neonode’s separate actions 

are therefore likely to result in “significantly different discovery, evidence, proceedings, and trial.” Id. at 1380 (citation omitted). Thus, any “incremental gains in keeping 

[this] case in the Western District of Texas” are insufficient 

Case 6:20-cv-00505-ADA Document 75 Filed 11/15/21 Page 8 of 11 Case: 21-181 Document: 13 Page: 8 Filed: 11/15/2021
IN RE: APPLE INC. 9

“to justify overriding the inconvenience to the parties and 

witnesses.” Id. 

Fifth, the district court erred in weighing the court congestion factor heavily against transfer. We have noted that 

“the Western District of Texas and the Northern District of 

California show no significant differences in caseload or 

time-to-trial statistics.” Juniper, 14 F.4th at 1322. The district court did not explain how any difference in the prospective time-to-trial was caused by an appreciable 

difference in the degree of docket congestion between the 

two forums. Nor did the district court point to any reason 

in its analysis why a possibly more rapid disposition of this 

case in Texas is worthy of important weight. 

We have held that when other relevant factors weigh 

in favor of transfer or are neutral, “then the speed of the 

transferee district court should not alone outweigh all of 

those other factors.” Genentech, 566 F.3d at 1347. And 

where, as here, the district court has relied only on median 

time-to-trial statistics to support its conclusion as to court 

congestion, we have characterized this factor as the “most 

speculative” of the factors bearing on the transfer decision. 

Id. (citation omitted); see also Apple, 979 F.3d at 1344 n.5. 

Under the approach taken in Genentech, the district court’s 

speculation about what might happen with regard to the 

speed of adjudication is plainly insufficient to warrant 

keeping this case in the Texas forum given the striking imbalance favoring transfer based on the convenience factors.

Finally, the district court should have weighed the local interest factor strongly in favor of transfer. The court 

acknowledged that the Northern District of California had 

“a strong local interest in this matter because the research, 

development, and operation of the accused technology took 

place there, Apple is headquartered there, and all of its 

likely witnesses are there.” Appx13. But the court weighed 

that factor only slightly in favor of transfer because it found 

that Apple also has a “significant presence” in the Western 

Case 6:20-cv-00505-ADA Document 75 Filed 11/15/21 Page 9 of 11 Case: 21-181 Document: 13 Page: 9 Filed: 11/15/2021
10 IN RE: APPLE INC.

District of Texas, “with over 6,000 employees in the Austin 

area and five retail stores located in the [d]istrict.” Appx13.

The problem with the court’s analysis, however, is that 

it relies on Apple’s “general presence in the [transferor] forum, not on the locus of the events that gave rise to the 

dispute.” Google II, 2021 WL 4592280, at *5. We have repeatedly rejected that a party’s “general presence in a particular district” can alone “give that district a special 

interest in the case.” Id.; see also Juniper, 14 F.4th at 1320; 

Apple, 979 F.3d at 1345. Rather, “what is required is that 

there be ‘significant connections between a particular 

venue and the events that gave rise to a suit.’” Google II, 

2021 WL 4592280, at *5 (citation omitted). Because only 

the Northern District of California has significant connections to the events that gave rise to this suit, the local interest factor weighs strongly in favor of transfer. 

In sum, the center of gravity of this action is clearly in 

the transferee district, not in the Western District of Texas. 

Several of the most important factors bearing on the transfer decision strongly favor transfer, and no factor favors 

keeping the case in the Western District of Texas. The only 

connection that the district court identified between this 

case and the Western District of Texas is Apple’s general 

presence in the district. But, as we have said before, “the 

court’s reliance on that circumstance to justify denying 

transfer ‘improperly conflate[s] the requirements for establishing venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) and the requirements for establishing transfer under § 1404(a).’” Id. at *7 

(citation omitted). We therefore grant Google’s petition 

seeking transfer of the case to the Northern District of California.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The petition is granted. The district court’s July 19, 

2021 order is vacated, and the district court is directed to 

Case 6:20-cv-00505-ADA Document 75 Filed 11/15/21 Page 10 of 11 Case: 21-181 Document: 13 Page: 10 Filed: 11/15/2021
IN RE: APPLE INC. 11

transfer this matter to the United States District Court for 

the Northern District of California.

November 15, 2021 

Date

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

s31

Case 6:20-cv-00505-ADA Document 75 Filed 11/15/21 Page 11 of 11 Case: 21-181 Document: 13 Page: 11 Filed: 11/15/2021