NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit

__________________________ 

IN RE GROUPON, INC., 

Petitioner.

__________________________ 

2014-118

__________________________ 

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 LOURIE, DYK, and REYNA, Circuit Judges. 

LOURIE, 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. opposes. Groupon replies. 

Groupon and Blue Calypso both compete in the digital 

social advertising market. In July 2012, Blue Calypso 

filed the underlying complaint at the Eastern District of 

Case: 14-118 Document: 17 Page: 1 Filed: 04/23/2014
IN RE GROUPON, INC. 2

Texas, alleging that Groupon infringed its patented 

methods and systems for targeted 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 maintains its corporate headquarters and where 

some potential witnesses and evidence related to the case 

are located. 

The district court issued an order denying Groupon’s

motion. The district court considered all the relevant 

transfer factors, and it concluded that the balance of 

factors weighed against transfer. The court held that one 

private interest factor, the availability of compulsory 

process to secure the attendance of witnesses, weighed 

slightly in favor of transfer because at least one more

third party witness was identified in the Northern District of Illinois. The court, however, found that Groupon 

had failed to establish that the transferee venue was 

clearly more convenient, noting relevant documents and 

potential witnesses, including the inventors, 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 exacting. The writ is available only upon a showing that the 

denial of transfer was a “clear abuse of discretion” such 

that refusing transfer produced a “patently 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 plausible support 

in the record for the district court’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 Illinois and the 

transferee venue has a stronger local interest in the 

Case: 14-118 Document: 17 Page: 2 Filed: 04/23/2014
3 IN RE GROUPON, INC. 

litigation. Groupon further contends that the district 

court failed to give proper weight to the location of nonparty witnesses located in or near the Northern District of 

Illinois. Blue Calypso responds that transferring the case

would make trial inconvenient for the witnesses located in 

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 

developed the patented invention. Its founder and chief 

technical 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 incorrect. 

In sum, Groupon has failed to meet its exacting burden to demonstrate that the district court was clearly and 

indisputably incorrect in concluding that the case should 

not have been transferred to the Northern District of 

Illinois. We therefore deny its petition. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied. 

FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

 Daniel E. O’Toole

 Clerk of Court

s24

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