N OTE : This order is nonprecedential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 P ROST

, H UGHES , and S T OLL

, Circuit Judges

.
P ER C URIAM

.
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, a ccusing various Apple m obile phone, tablet Case: 24-100 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 12/14/2023IN RE : DODOTS LICENSING SO LUTIONS LLC 2

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 develop ment of the accused functionality occurred at Apple’s headquarters

in that forum ; that several inventors also reside there ; and
that DoDots ha s 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 , t he
district court conclud ed 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 compu lsoryprocess 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 review ing 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) (qu oting 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 limit ed or no knowledge Case: 24-100 Document: 10 Page: 2 Filed: 12/14/2023IN 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. T he 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 th e court’s assessment of the other factors. A lthough Apple relied on electronic sources of proof in NDCA

, only Apple employees in NDCA are credential ed to access that
information

, so th e sources of proof factor was correctly
found to favor transfer

. Se e 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 sl ightly favor ed 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: 12/14/2023IN RE : DODOTS LICENSING SO LUTIONS LLC 4

I T I S O RDERED T HAT :

T he petition is denied.

December 1 4 , 2023
Date F OR THE C OURT Case: 24-100 Document: 10 Page: 4 Filed: 12/14/2023