NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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 PETITION

______________________

Before DYK, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

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 brought this suit against Kia

in EDTX as 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: 10/01/2024
2 IN RE KIA CORP.

“Toyota”), alleging infringement of the same three patents. 

The cases were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings. 

Kia moved to transfer this case under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1404(a) to CDCA.1 On June 14, 2024, the district court 

denied the motion. Analyzing the public- and private-interest factors, the court determined that its adjudication of 

this and the Toyota case would benefit judicial economy; 

that EDTX is home to potential witnesses 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 the 

facts 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 not 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: 10/01/2024
IN RE KIA CORP. 3

case and the Toyota case, which it noted involve “substantially similar” accused technologies and three of the same 

patents. Appx24; see also In re Vistaprint Ltd., 628 F.3d 

1342, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2010). While we have recognized that 

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, 

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

The petition is denied. 

October 1, 2024 

 Date

FOR THE COURT

Case: 24-138 Document: 25 Page: 3 Filed: 10/01/2024