NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET NO. 880 IN RE VOLKSWAGEN OF AMERICA, INC. (now known as Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.), Petitioner. On Writ of Mandamus from t he United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in case no. 07-CV-14992, Senior Judge John Corbett O’Meara. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS Before MAYER, LOURIE, and DYK, Circuit Judges

. MAYER, Circuit Judge

. O R D E R Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (V W) petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan to vacate its orders transferring VW’s federal claims to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and to vacate it s order dismissing VW’s state law claims. On July 13, 2007, MHL Tek, LLC (MHL) filed a patent infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas aga inst 21 automakers, including VW, alleging infringement of three patents involving automot ive tire pressure monitoring systems. On November 21, 2007, VW filed suit against MHL, Animatr onics, Inc., McLaughlin Electronics, Inc., Michael Handfield, and Helen Laliberte in the Eastern District of Michigan seeking declaratory relief that VW does not infringe t he same patents in th e Texas litigation and that the patents are invalid and unenforceable; alleging st ate law claims of unfair competition, defamation and trade disparagement, and abuse of process; and allegingviolation of the Lanham Act. In March 2008, MHL filed a second infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas agains t a second group of automakers. The Michigan district court declined to ex ercise supplemental jurisdiction over VW's state law claims and dismissed those claims. MHL et al. also moved to transfer the Michigan action to Te xas or dismiss, pursuant to the fi rst to file doctrine. On June 30, 2008, the court granted MHL’s motion to trans fer, finding that the Texas action, filed four months before the Michigan action, h ad progressed significantly to the point of discovery, and that the parties in the tw o actions and the issues at stake were substantially similar. * The court also rejected VW’s ar gument that it should retain the case as the more convenient forum pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), finding that retaining the case would be a waste of judici al resources and risk inconsistent rulings on the patents at issue. The remedy of mandamus is available only in extraordin ary situations to correct a clear abuse of discretion or usurpation of judicial power. In re Calmar, Inc. , 854 F.2d 461, 464 (Fed. Cir. 1988). A party seeking a writ bear s the burden of prov ing that it has no other means of attaini ng the relief desired, Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Southern Dist. of Iowa , 490 U.S. 296, 309 (1989), and that the right to issuan ce of the writ is "clear and indisputable," Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc. , 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1 980). A court may deny mandamus relief “even thou gh on normal appeal, a court mi ght find reversible error.” In re Cordis Corp. , 769 F.2d 733, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In reviewing a district court’s decision to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims and in revie wing the decision to transfer pursuant to § 1404(a), we

* In addition to MHL, the other defendants are MHL's owners and the inventors.

Misc. 880 - 2 -would apply the law of the regional circuit. See Storage Tech. Corp. v. Cisco Sys., Inc. , 329 F.3d 823, 836 (Fed. Cir. 20 03). The Sixth Circuit review s a district court’s decision whether to exercise jurisdiction over state law claims and a decision whether to transfer pursuant to section 1404(a) fo r an abuse of discretion. See Landefeld v. Marion Gen. Hosp., Inc. , 994 F.2d 1178, 11882 (6th Cir. 1993); Zomba Enter., Inc. v. Panorama Records, Inc. , 491 F.3d 574, 588 (6th Cir. 2007). “Where a matter is committed to [the trial court’s] discretion, it c annot be said that a litigant's right to a particular result is ‘clear and indisputable.’” Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc. , 449 U.S. at 35. Because VW challenges the district cour t’s exercise of discretion, it faces a high burden to show that its right to a particular re sult is clear and indisputable. Id. Concerning dismissal of the state law claims, VW has no t shown that it could not obtain review of this issue on appeal from any final ju dgment. Thus, it has not met its burden to obtain a writ of mandamus on th is issue. Mallard , 490 U.S. at 309. Concerning the district court's decision to transfer the action, VW argues that the Michigan district court erred in transferring the Michigan action to Texas unde r § 1404(a) because VW does not believe th at the Texas district court will have personal jurisdiction over some of the defendants and because VW believes that Texas is an inconvenient forum. Regarding pe rsonal jurisdiction, the district co urt disagreed, stating that VW was "merely stat[ing] that th e Defendants do not reside in the Eastern District of Texas with no mention that a long-arm statute or minimal contacts anal ysis could allow for personal jurisdiction in the Eastern District of Texa s." Counsel for MHL note s that Animatronics and the inventors consented to pers onal jurisdiction in the Easter n District of Texas, and that the other defendant, McLaughlin Electronics, Inc., was not served with the complaint

Misc. 880 - 3 -Misc. 880 - 4 - because it is defunct. Nonet heless, if the Eastern District of Texas were to dismiss any of the defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction, VW could of course obtain review of that ruling later on appeal from any final judgment. Concerning VW's argument that the conveni ence factors disfavor transfer to the Texas district court, VW makes only genera l assertions regardin g convenience and falls short of satisfying the difficult burden of showing that it has a clear and indisputable right to issuance of a writ of mandamus. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. FOR THE COURT

Sept. 26, 2008 /s/ Haldane R obert Mayer Da te Haldane Robert Mayer Circuit Judge cc: Michael J. Lennon, Esq. David C. Doyle, Esq.
s20