NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In re: G&H DIVERSIFIED MANUFACTURING, LP,

Petitioner

______________________

2021-176

______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States 

District Court for the Western District of Texas in No. 6:20-

cv-01110-ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright.

______________________

ON PETITION

______________________

Before LOURIE, BRYSON, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

G&H Diversified Manufacturing, LP (“G&H”) petitions 

for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District 

Court for the Western District of Texas to vacate its August 

5, 2021, order denying transfer of the patent infringement 

claims brought against G&H to the United States District 

Court for the Southern District of Texas. DynaEnergetics 

Europe GmbH and DynaEnergetics U.S., Inc. (collectively, 

“Dyna”) oppose the petition.

 

Case: 21-176 Document: 17 Page: 1 Filed: 09/27/2021
2 IN RE: G&H DIVERSIFIED MANUFACTURING, LP

I

Dyna alleges infringement of a patent relating to components for a perforation gun system used in well bore perforating in oil well drilling operations. Dyna makes and 

sells its own perforating gun system from operations

within the Western District of Texas. Although G&H’s

headquarters are in the Southern District of Texas, G&H

maintains a distribution warehouse in the Western District of Texas from which it advertises and distributes its

accused perforation systems. 

Dyna’s initial complaint in the Western District of 

Texas named only Yellow Jacket Oil Tools, LLC, as the defendant. G&H subsequently filed an action in the Galveston Division of the Southern District of Texas seeking a 

declaratory judgment that the accused products do not infringe. Dyna then amended its complaint in the Western 

District action to include G&H, and it filed third-party 

claims in the Galveston case against Yellow Jacket. G&H 

and Yellow Jacket subsequently moved in the Western District to dismiss or transfer the case to the Southern District. They explained that G&H manufactures and sells 

the accused products and that Yellow Jacket is just a holding company that engages in no business operations. 

In its August 5, 2021, order, the district court concluded that venue was not proper in the Western District 

with respect to Yellow Jacket. The court then severed the 

claims against Yellow Jacket and transferred those claims 

to the Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas. 

The court then concluded that G&H had failed to show that 

it would be clearly more convenient to try the remaining 

claims in the Southern District of Texas, and the court 

therefore denied G&H’s transfer request. Dyna has since 

moved to drop all claims against Yellow Jacket with prejudice in the Houston and Galveston cases. 

Case: 21-176 Document: 17 Page: 2 Filed: 09/27/2021
IN RE: G&H DIVERSIFIED MANUFACTURING, LP 3

II

The legal standard that must be shown to obtain mandamus relief is demanding. The petitioner must demonstrate, among other things, that its right to relief is “clear 

and indisputable.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 

U.S. 367, 381 (2004) (citation and internal quotation marks 

omitted). Under applicable Fifth Circuit law, we review 

the district court’s transfer determination only to see if 

there was a “clear abuse of discretion” that resulted in a

“patently erroneous result.” In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc.,

545 F.3d 304, 310 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc). 

The district court considered the relevant set of private

and public-interest factors and, after reasonably weighing

them, concluded that G&H had failed to show good cause 

to transfer the case under the governing legal standard. 

G&H has not provided compelling reasons to disagree with 

most of those determinations, which turn largely on factintensive matters, particularly in light of the exacting 

standard of review that applies on mandamus. 

The district court found that the Southern District of 

Texas had no comparative advantage over the Western 

District of Texas with respect to the convenience of potential willing witnesses because a number of employees of the 

parties in the Western District of Texas could be potential 

witnesses in the case. G&H has not made a persuasive case 

that the district court clearly abused its discretion in making that determination. G&H challenges whether some of 

those employees have relevant and material information. 

Mindful of the standard of review, however, we decline to 

exercise mandamus power to disturb such findings. See In 

re Apple Inc., 818 F. App’x 1001, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2020).

The district court also found that the Western District 

of Texas had a greater local interest in adjudicating this 

case than the Southern District of Texas. The district court 

based that finding on what it determined to be significant 

connections between the forum and the events giving rise 

Case: 21-176 Document: 17 Page: 3 Filed: 09/27/2021
4 IN RE: G&H DIVERSIFIED MANUFACTURING, LP

to the dispute in this case. In particular, the district court 

noted that “DynaEnergetics manufactures and assembles 

all competing DynaStage products in the WDTX.” App. 14. 

The district court also found that “[t]he harm and financial 

impacts from the alleged infringement are primarily felt in 

the WDTX.” Id. In that regard, the court noted that the 

great bulk of Dyna’s revenue is directly tied to products 

that are made in the Western District of Texas and sold or 

deployed to drilling sites in the Western District of Texas. 

Id. G&H has not shown clear error in those findings. Instead, G&H relies on inapposite cases holding that the sale 

in a particular district of an accused product that is offered 

nationwide does not by itself give rise to a substantial local 

interest on the part of that district. 

We agree with G&H that, in assessing the compulsoryprocess factor, the district court erred in categorically rejecting the relevance of prior art witnesses who were identified as located in the Southern District of Texas. See In 

re Hulu, LLC, No. 2021-142, 2021 WL 3278194, at *3 (Fed. 

Cir. Aug. 2, 2021). Nonetheless, because both forums are 

in Texas and denial of a transfer would not result in a substantial burden on witnesses required to travel from Houston to Waco for trial, we cannot say G&H has shown that 

the compulsory-process factor clearly weighs in favor of 

transfer. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a 

court in the Western District of Texas can subpoena a person to attend a trial, hearing, or disposition within the 

state where the person resides, is employed, or regularly 

transacts business in person, if the person is commanded 

to attend a trial and would not incur a substantial expense.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1)(B)(ii). 

G&H also argues that the district court erred in not 

weighing judicial economy considerations in favor of transfer. But it is not clear that judicial economy would be 

served by a transfer. Dyna has multiple pending cases in 

the Western District of Texas in which it has asserted the 

same patent against other defendants. Moreover, it is not 

Case: 21-176 Document: 17 Page: 4 Filed: 09/27/2021
IN RE: G&H DIVERSIFIED MANUFACTURING, LP 5

evident that, as G&H asserts, denial of its transfer motion 

will result in three separate cases involving the same parties and issues proceeding simultaneously. Dyna has 

asked to drop all claims against Yellow Jacket in its cases 

in Southern Texas. Dyna has also moved to dismiss or 

transfer the Galveston case under the first-to-file rule, and 

the district court in that case has stayed proceedings pending this petition.

In sum, G&H has failed to satisfy the standard required to justify the issuance of a writ of mandamus.

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The petition is denied.

September 27, 2021 

Date

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

s31

Case: 21-176 Document: 17 Page: 5 Filed: 09/27/2021