NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In re: DODOTS LICENSING SOLUTIONS LLC,

Petitioner

______________________

2024-100

______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States 

District Court for the Western District of Texas in No. 6:22-

cv-00533-ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright.

______________________

ON PETITION

______________________

Before PROST, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (“WDTX”) transferred DoDots Licensing Solutions LLC (“DoDots)’s patent infringement case against 

Apple Inc. to the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of California (“NDCA”). DoDots petitions for a writ of mandamus to undo transfer. We deny 

the petition.

DoDots filed this suit in the Waco Division of the

WDTX, accusing various Apple mobile phone, tablet 

Case: 24-100 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 12/14/2023
2 IN RE: DODOTS LICENSING SOLUTIONS LLC

computer, and smartwatch products of infringing three patents. Apple moved to transfer the case to the NDCA pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), noting that knowledgeable

Apple employees and potential sources of evidence are in 

or close to NDCA; that the majority of the development of 

the accused functionality occurred at Apple’s headquarters 

in that forum; that several inventors also reside there; and 

that DoDots has meaningful connections to NDCA and no 

meaningful connection to WDTX. 

After analyzing the public and private interest factors 

that govern transfer determinations under law of the 

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the 

district court concluded that Apple established that the 

NDCA was clearly more convenient. In particular, the district court found that, while the practical problems factor 

weighed slightly against transfer, the witness convenience

and access to sources of proof factors weighed in favor of 

transfer. The court further concluded that the compulsory 

process factor and local interest factor at least slightly favored transfer. The court found that the remaining factors 

were neutral. On balance, the court found good cause to 

transfer, and therefore granted Apple’s motion. 

We have jurisdiction to consider DoDots’ petition seeking a writ of mandamus under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1651 and 1295. 

We apply regional circuit law when reviewing motions to 

transfer under § 1404(a). In re Juniper Networks, Inc., 14 

F.4th 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2021). We review transfer decisions

in cases arising on mandamus from district courts in the 

Fifth Circuit only for “clear abuses of discretion that produce patently erroneous results.” In re Planned 

Parenthood Fed. Am. et al., 52 F.4th 625 (5th Cir. 2022) 

(quoting In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 312 

(5th Cir. 2008) (en banc)). The district court did not clearly 

abuse its discretion in granting transfer here. 

The district court found that the WDTX-based Apple 

employees DoDots identified had limited or no knowledge 

Case: 24-100 Document: 10 Page: 2 Filed: 12/14/2023
IN RE: DODOTS LICENSING SOLUTIONS LLC 3

of the accused functionality. And it accorded those individuals less significance in the transfer analysis than Apple 

employees in or close to NDCA who the court found had

relevant and material information. The district court’s determination that the willing witness factor weighed in favor of transfer, based on its evaluation of the specific record 

in this case regarding which individuals have relevant and 

material information, was not error, let alone, a clear abuse 

of discretion. See In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1343 

(Fed. Cir. 2009) (explaining that a district court should “assess the relevance and materiality of the information the 

witness[es] may provide.”). 

DoDots has also not shown a clear abuse of discretion 

in the court’s assessment of the other factors. Although 

Apple relied on electronic sources of proof in NDCA, only 

Apple employees in NDCA are credentialed to access that 

information, so the sources of proof factor was correctly 

found to favor transfer. See In re TikTok, Inc., 85 F. 4th 

352, 359 (5th Cir. 2023) (“[T]he key evidence may be electronic, but unlike in Planned Parenthood, it is not ‘equally 

accessible in either forum.’ 52 F.4th at 630.”). The court 

also found that the compulsory process factor slightly favored transfer in part because third parties in NDCA include patent inventors and a prior patent owner that 

DoDots represented “will be a witness at trial.” Appx19 

(citation omitted). DoDots has not made a persuasive case 

that the district court erred in making that finding. 

Accordingly,

Case: 24-100 Document: 10 Page: 3 Filed: 12/14/2023
4 IN RE: DODOTS LICENSING SOLUTIONS LLC

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The petition is denied.

December 14, 2023

 Date

FOR THE COURT

Case: 24-100 Document: 10 Page: 4 Filed: 12/14/2023