NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In re: TRUE CHEMICAL SOLUTIONS, LLC,

Petitioner

______________________

2021-131

______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United 

States District Court for the Western District of Texas in 

No. 7:18-cv-00078-ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright.

______________________

ON PETITION

______________________

Before REYNA, CHEN, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

On March 5, 2021, the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Texas granted Performance 

Chemical Company (“PCC”)’s motion for intra-division 

transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). On the eve of trial, 

True Chemical Solutions, LLC (“True Chem”) now petitions this court for a writ of mandamus reversing that 

transfer order. We deny True Chem’s petition. 

PCC and True Chem, both headquartered in Midland, 

Texas, deliver oil and gas chemicals to their customers. 

In mid-2018, True Chem filed this declaratory judgment 

Case: 21-131 Document: 9 Page: 1 Filed: 03/23/2021
2 IN RE: TRUE CHEMICAL SOLUTIONS, LLC

action against PCC in the Western District of Texas, 

Midland-Odessa Division, asserting that the hydraulic 

fracturing trailers True Chem uses to deliver the chemicals did not infringe a patent owned by PCC. PCC counterclaimed for infringement, seeking both damages and 

injunctive relief. In April 2019, the case was reassigned 

to Judge Albright, who began conducting some proceedings from his courtroom in Waco, Texas. 

Weeks before trial was set to begin, PCC moved for 

intra-division transfer of the case from the MidlandOdessa Division to the Waco Division of the Western 

District of Texas. Notably, PCC moved to transfer the 

entire case, not just the trial proceedings. See In re Intel 

Corp., No. 2021-105, 2020 WL 7647543 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 23, 

2020). PCC argued, among other things, that the Waco 

courthouse had already implemented significant protocols 

for socially-distanced in-person jury trials and that a trial 

would be easier to conduct in Waco because it would 

eliminate the need to coordinate the schedule of Judge 

Albright with other judges in Midland-Odessa. On March 

8, 2021, the district court granted the motion. The court 

subsequently scheduled trial in Waco for March 29, 2021. 

On March 11, 2021, True Chem filed this petition. 

The legal standard for mandamus relief is demanding. 

“In general, three conditions must be satisfied for a writ 

to issue: (1) the petitioner must demonstrate a clear and 

indisputable right to issuance of the writ; (2) the petitioner must have no other adequate method of attaining the 

desired relief; and (3) the court must be satisfied that the 

writ is appropriate under the circumstances.” In re Apple 

Inc., 979 F.3d 1332, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citing Cheney 

v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004)). In 

the context of transfer rulings, we look to see only if the 

decision was such a “clear abuse of discretion” that it

produced a “patently erroneous result.” In re TS Tech 

USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (internal 

quotation marks and citation omitted). Under that exactCase: 21-131 Document: 9 Page: 2 Filed: 03/23/2021
IN RE: TRUE CHEMICAL SOLUTIONS, LLC 3

ing standard, we must deny mandamus unless it is clear 

“that the facts and circumstances are without any basis 

for a judgment of discretion.” In re Volkswagen of Am., 

Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 312 n.7 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc)

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

Section 1404(a) gives district courts broad discretion 

to determine when party and witness “convenience” or 

“the interest of justice” make a transfer appropriate. The 

district court further concluded here, and True Chem does 

not meaningfully challenge on appeal, that it “has even 

greater discretion in granting intra-district transfers than 

[it does] in the case of inter-district transfers.” True 

Chem. Sols, LLC v. Performance Chem. Co., No. 18-cv00078, 2021 WL 860009, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 8, 2021); 

cf. In re Radmax, Ltd., 720 F.3d 285, 289 (5th Cir. 2013) 

(suggesting, in the context of a § 1404(a) case, that “the 

traditional deference given to plaintiff’s choice of forum . . 

. is less’ for ‘intra-district transfers.’” (quoting 17 JAMES 

WM. MOORE ET AL., MOORE’S FEDERAL PRACTICE

§ 111.21[2] at 111–155 (3d ed. 2013))). 

We are not prepared to say that the district court 

clearly abused that discretion. The district court meaningfully analyzed the transfer factors. The court found 

that the more congested docket in plaintiff’s chosen forum 

would likely cause additional delay and prejudice to PCC, 

particularly given it was seeking injunctive relief. The 

district court further found that no non-party witness 

resides within the Midland-Odessa Division and several

non-party witnesses residing in other parts of Texas 

would find it significantly easier, safer, and cheaper to 

travel to Waco for trial. The district court added that it 

was unlikely that an actual physical trailer located in 

Midland would be an exhibit during the trial and did not 

foresee the opportunity for any field trips during a trial. 

Under these circumstances, we cannot say True Chem has 

established a clear and indisputable right to relief. 

Case: 21-131 Document: 9 Page: 3 Filed: 03/23/2021
4 IN RE: TRUE CHEMICAL SOLUTIONS, LLC

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The petition is denied. 

March 23, 2021

Date

FOR THE COURT

/s/Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

s31

Case: 21-131 Document: 9 Page: 4 Filed: 03/23/2021