NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

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

__________________________

IN RE GROUPON , INC., Petitioner.

__________________________
2014 -1 18

__________________________ On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in No. 6: 12

- CV

- 00486

- MHS

, Judge Michael H. Schneider

.

__________________________ ON PETITION

__________________________
Before L OURIE , D YK , and R EYNA , Circuit Judges

.

L OURIE , Circuit Judge

. O R D E R Groupon, Inc. seeks a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Blue Calypso, Inc. oppo s es. Group on replies. Groupon and Blue Calypso both compete in the digital social advertising market. In July 2012, B lue Calypso filed the underlying complaint at the Eastern District of Case: 14-118 Document: 17 Page: 1 Filed: 04/23/2014IN RE GROUPON , INC

. 2

Texas , alleging that Groupon infringed its patented meth ods and systems for t argeted advertising. In October 2012, Groupon moved to transfer the case to the Northern District of Illinois , pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) , where Groupon mai n tains its corporate headquarters and where

some pote n tial witnesses and evidence related to t he case are loca t ed.

T he district court issued an order denying Groupon’s motion. The district court consi d ered all the relevant transfer factors, and it concluded that the ba l ance of factors weighed against tran s fer. The court held that one private i nterest factor, the availability of co m pulsory process to secure the attendance of wi t nesses, weighed slightly in favor of trans fer because at least one more third party wit ness was identified in th e Northern Di strict of Illinois . T he court , however, foun d that Grou pon had failed to establish that the transferee venue was clearly more convenient , noting relevant documents and potential witnesses, including the inve n tors, are located in or near the Eastern District of Texas. Groupon’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeks to vacate that order. The standard for mandamus is exac ting

. The writ is avail a ble only upon a showing that the denial of transfer was a “clear abuse of discretion” such that refusing transfer produced a “p a tently erroneous result.” In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 312 ( 5th Cir

. 2008) (en banc); In re Vistaprint Ltd

., 628 F.3d 1342, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Put differently, a request to direct transfer will be denied if there is plaus i ble support in th e record for the district c ourt’ s conclusions. See Vistaprint , 628 F

. 3d at 1347. Groupon contends that the “bulk” of the witnesses and evidence are in the Northern District of Illi nois and the transferee venue has a stron g er local interest in the Case: 14-118 Document: 17 Page: 2 Filed: 04/23/2014IN RE GROUPON , INC

. 3

litigation . Groupon further conten ds that the di s trict court failed to give proper weight to the loc at ion of non

party witnesses located in or near the Nort h ern District of Illinois

. Blue Calypso responds that transfe r ring the case would make trial inconvenient for the witnesses loca t ed i n or near the Eastern District of Texas. We agree with Blue Calypso that Groupon has not shown entitlement to mandamus relief. Blue Calypso filed this case where it is headquartered and where it deve l oped the patented invention. It s founder and chief tech nical officer and at least two non

- party witnesses are in the Eastern District of Texas, along with all of its documents. While Groupon identified at least one more

non

- party witness in the transferee venue, we are not prepared to say that the district court’s weighing of all of the factors was clearly incorre ct. In sum, Groupon has failed to meet its exacting bu rden to demonstrate that the district court wa s clearly and indi s putably incorrect in concluding that the case should not have been transferred to the Northern District of Illinois

. We therefore deny its petition. Accordingly

, I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
The petition for writ of mandamus is denied

.
F OR T HE C OURT /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Daniel E. O’Toole Cler k of Court

s 24 Case: 14-118 Document: 17 Page: 3 Filed: 04/23/2014