NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In re: SUNSTONE INFORMATION DEFENSE, INC.,

Petitioner

______________________

2022-121

______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States 

District Court for the Northern District of California in No. 

4:21-cv-09529-YGR, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.

______________________

ON PETITION

______________________

Before MOORE, Chief Judge, DYK and STOLL, Circuit

Judges.

MOORE, Chief Judge.

O R D E R

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia transferred SunStone Information Defense, Inc.’s patent infringement action to the United 

States District Court for the Northern District of California. SunStone now petitions this court for a writ of mandamus directing the California court to return the action to 

Virginia and to set aside the transfer order. For the following reasons, we deny the petition. 

Case: 22-121 Document: 13 Page: 1 Filed: 02/11/2022
2 IN RE: SUNSTONE INFORMATION DEFENSE, INC.

SunStone filed this patent infringement suit in the 

Eastern District of Virginia against F5 Networks, Inc. and 

one of F5’s customers, Capital One Financial Corporation. 

At the time of the complaint, SunStone was headquartered 

in Northern California, which is also where its founder and 

the patent inventor, Dr. David Ford, resided. Since the filing of the complaint, SunStone (along with Dr. Ford) moved 

its operations to Ohio. SunStone does not have any offices 

or employees in Virginia. 

F5, joined by Capital One, moved to transfer the case 

to the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1404(a). F5 noted that the accused products were designed and developed by its subsidiary, Shape Security, 

Inc., in Northern California, where its technical documents 

were located. F5 also noted that employees knowledgeable 

about the design and development of the accused products 

as well as the marketing and sales of the products work 

from Northern California. 

On December 7, 2021, the district court granted F5’s 

transfer motion. The district court first noted that neither 

party disputes that the action meets the threshold requirement for transfer under § 1404(a), that the action “might 

have been brought” in the Northern District of California. 

The district court then concluded that F5 “has satisfied its 

burden of proving that transfer to the Northern District of 

California is warranted based on the relevant factors in 

this case.” Appx562. The district court determined that 

“the convenience of the parties and witnesses favor transfer because California is the center of the allegedly infringing activities.” Id. For the same reason, the court here

found that the “interest of justice also tips in favor of transfer.” Id. This petition followed.

Our review is governed by the law of the regional circuit, which in this case is the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. See In re TS Tech USA Corp., 

551 F.3d 1315, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008); Linnell v. Sloan, 636 

Case: 22-121 Document: 13 Page: 2 Filed: 02/11/2022
IN RE: SUNSTONE INFORMATION DEFENSE, INC. 3

F.2d 65, 66 (4th Cir. 1980) (explaining that even after 

transfer, “it is settled that the choice-of-law rules of the 

original forum continue to apply”). The district court’s conclusion regarding transfer is a question that we review on 

mandamus for a clear abuse of discretion. See TS Tech, 551 

F.3d at 1319; In re Ralston Purina Co., 726 F.2d 1002, 1005 

(4th Cir. 1984).

SunStone has failed to satisfy that stringent standard. 

The district court made a reasonable finding that SunStone’s choice of forum was not entitled to significant 

weight because the Eastern District of Virginia is not SunStone’s home forum and has no specific connection to SunStone’s infringement claims. The court here also found 

that the Northern District of California was more convenient and had a stronger interest in resolving this case. In 

particular, the court noted that the Northern District of 

California is where the accused products were designed 

and developed, where a number of witnesses and evidence 

are likely to be located, and where the patents-in-suit were 

developed. SunStone has not shown that the court clearly 

abused its discretion in reaching these determinations. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The petition is denied.

February 11, 2022 

Date

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 22-121 Document: 13 Page: 3 Filed: 02/11/2022