N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

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

______________________

In Re KIA CORP., KIA AMERICA, INC., Petitioners

______________________

2024

- 138

______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in No. 2:23

-
cv

- 00437

- JRG, Chief Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap.

______________________
ON PETI TION

______________________
Before D YK , R EYNA , and C HEN , Circuit Judges

. P ER C URIAM

. O R D E R
Kia Corp. and Kia America, Inc. (collectively, “Kia”) petition for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (“EDTX”) to transfer this action to the United States District Court for the Central District of California (“CDCA”)

. Emerging Automotive LLC (“EA”) opposes the petition. Kia replies.
In September 2023, EA broug ht this suit against Kia in EDTX a s well as a separate suit in EDTX against Toyota Motor North America, Inc. and its affiliates (collectively, Case: 24-138 Document: 25 Page: 1 Filed: 10/01/2024IN RE KIA CORP

. 2

“Toyota”)

, alleging infringement of the same three patents

. The cases were consolidated for pre

- trial proceedings

. Kia moved to transfer th is case under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to CDCA

. 1 On June 14, 2024, the district court denied the motion. A nalyzing the public

- and private

- interest factors, the court determined that its adjudication of this and the Toyota case w ould benefit judicial economy ; that EDTX is home to potential witnesse s and evidence ; and that no physical evidence or unwilling third

- party witnesses are in CDCA

. 2 This petition followed. We have jurisdiction

. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1295(a)(1) and 1651(a) ; In re Princo Corp ., 478 F.3d 1345, 1351

– 52 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Mandamus is “reserved for extraordinary situations

. ” Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp ., 485 U.S. 271, 289 (1988) (citation omitted). Our review of transfer decisions is governed by the law of the regional circuit, here the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In re TS Tech USA Corp ., 551 F.3d 1315, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Applying Fifth Circuit law, we grant mandamus only when there is such a “clear” abuse of discretion that it produced a “patently erroneous result.” Id . (quoting In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc ., 545 F.3d 304, 310 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc)). Under this highly deferential standard, we will not disturb a transfer decision unless it is clear “that thefacts and circumstances are without any basis for a judgment of discretion.” Volkswagen , 545 F.3d at 312 n.7 (citation omitted). Kia fails to make that showing here

. It was no t clear error for the district court to consider the potential judicial economy benefit to resolving both this

1 Toyota has not moved to transfer the consolidated action out of EDTX.

2 There is no dispute that the action meets the threshold requirement for transfer under § 1404(a) that the action “might have been brought” in CDCA

. Case: 24-138 Document: 25 Page: 2 Filed: 10/01/2024IN RE KIA CORP

. 3

case and the Toyota case , which it noted involve “substantially similar” accused technologies and three of the same patents. Appx 24; s ee also In re Vistaprint Ltd ., 628 F.3d 1342, 134 4 (Fed. Cir. 2010). While we have recognized tha t the benefits of transfer based on other considerations might be so clear that denial of transfer based on judicial

economy alone cannot be supported, see, e.g., In re Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd ., 2 F.4th 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2021)

, we cannot say that Kia has shown here the type of imbalance on the other factors to warrant disturbing the district court’s refusal to transfer on mandamus review.
Accordingly

, I T I S O RDERED T HAT : The petition is denied

.

Octo ber 1, 202 4 Date F OR THE C OURT Case: 24-138 Document: 25 Page: 3 Filed: 10/01/2024