Court Opinion

ID: 9891717
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-19 16:01:59.472494+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:00:23.025531
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-144    Document: 19     Page: 1    Filed: 10/19/2023

           NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

   In re: SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT
   INC., SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT
                         LLC,
                      Petitioners
                ______________________

                         2023-144
                  ______________________

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Texas in No. 6:22-
cv-00386-ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright.
                  ______________________

                      ON PETITION
                  ______________________

   Before REYNA, TARANTO, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
REYNA, Circuit Judge.
                        ORDER
    Sony Interactive Entertainment Inc. and Sony Interac-
tive Entertainment LLC (collectively, “Sony”) petition for a
writ of mandamus directing the United States District
Court for the Western District of Texas (“WDTX”) to trans-
fer the case to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California (“NDCal”). ACQIS LLC op-
poses. For the reasons that follow, we deny the petition.
Case: 23-144    Document: 19     Page: 2    Filed: 10/19/2023

2               IN RE: SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT INC.

     ACQIS sued Sony for patent infringement in the Waco
division of WDTX, asserting venue was proper based, in
part, on Sony’s in-district office space in Austin, Texas.
Sony moved to transfer the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)
to NDCal or, in the alternative, to the Austin Division of
WDTX. The district court granted Sony’s motion to the ex-
tent that the case was transferred to the Austin division
because it was clearly more convenient than the Waco di-
vision, but transfer to NDCal was denied because Sony had
failed to show NDCal was clearly more convenient than
WDTX. In reaching those conclusions, the district court
found that potential witnesses from a third-party supplier
of a component highly relevant to ACQIS’s infringement
allegations are in Austin; the sources of proof appear to be
stored electronically and accessible from both NDCal and
WDTX; both NDCal and WDTX have a connection to the
accused products; and judicial economy considerations
weighed strongly against transfer based on a pending case
involving the same patents and the court’s familiarity with
the patents from other prior cases.
    Sony then filed this petition, challenging the decision
not to transfer to NDCal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §§ 1295(a)(1) and 1651(a). See In re Princo Corp.,
478 F.3d 1345, 1351–52 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In order to obtain
a writ of mandamus, a petitioner must show: (1) there are
no adequate alternative avenues for relief, (2) the right to
issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable, and (3) issu-
ance of the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.
Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81
(2004). Applying regional circuit law, we review a § 1404(a)
transfer decision on mandamus only for a “clear abuse of
discretion such that refusing transfer produced a patently
erroneous result.” In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315,
1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (cleaned up). Sony’s petition fails to
meet this exacting standard.
    The court made a plausible determination that judicial
economy considerations weighed in favor of keeping this
Case: 23-144    Document: 19      Page: 3    Filed: 10/19/2023

IN RE: SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT INC.                  3

case in WDTX, given the court’s prior experience with the
patents and the overlap with the co-pending litigation in-
volving the same patents. And while those considerations
do not necessarily override a clear imbalance from the
other transfer factors, see In re Google LLC, 58 F.4th 1379,
1382–83 (Fed. Cir. 2023), they do not stand alone. The
court also plausibly found there to be a significant number
of relevant and material potential witnesses in WDTX, in
addition to sources of proof and local interests, based on the
particular record in this case. Although Sony challenges
those determinations, it has not shown a clear abuse of dis-
cretion. Sony argues that the district court should have
accorded more weight to the potential witnesses and docu-
ments in NDCal, but on mandamus review, we leave the
district court’s decision undisturbed unless it is clear “that
the facts and circumstances are without any basis for a
judgment of discretion,” In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545
F.3d 304, 312 n.7 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc). Sony’s petition
has not made that showing.
    Accordingly,
    IT IS ORDERED THAT:
    The petition is denied.
                                        FOR THE COURT

October 19, 2023                        /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow
     Date                               Jarrett B. Perlow
                                        Clerk of Court