Court Opinion

ID: 9352716
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-09 16:01:30.379917+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:57:55.894434
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-104    Document: 12     Page: 1    Filed: 01/09/2023

           NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

    In re: AMAZON.COM, INC., AMAZON.COM
  SERVICES LLC, AMAZON WEB SERVICES, INC.,
                    Petitioners
              ______________________

                         2023-104
                  ______________________

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Texas in No. 6:21-
cv-00668-ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright.
                  ______________________

                      ON PETITION
                  ______________________

   Before LOURIE, TARANTO, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
STARK, Circuit Judge.
                        ORDER
    Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, and Am-
azon Web Services, Inc. (collectively, “Amazon”) petition for
a writ of mandamus directing the United States District
Court for the Western District of Texas to vacate its order
denying transfer and to transfer this case to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Califor-
nia. VoIP-Pal.com, Inc. (“VoIP-Pal”) opposes the petition.
     VoIP-Pal sued Amazon in the Western District of Texas
for infringement of patents teaching systems, apparatuses,
Case: 23-104    Document: 12     Page: 2    Filed: 01/09/2023

2                                    IN RE: AMAZON.COM, INC.

and methods for enabling access to communication routing
infrastructure with a mobile device access code. VoIP-Pal’s
contentions focus on Amazon’s “communications platform,”
including the server structure, Alexa calling devices, and
Alexa software applications running on those devices.
Appx55-56.
    Amazon moved to transfer the case to the Northern
District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), ar-
guing that the middleware of the accused products was de-
veloped by Amazon employees located in the Northern
District of California and that that middleware is central
to the alleged infringement. As part of its opposition to the
motion, VoIP-Pal submitted a declaration from Tim
Thompson, who oversaw a 40-engineer Austin-based team
working on the operating system (“OS”) and its integration
with accused Amazon Echo and FireTV products.
Appx456. He stated that “[t]echnical documentation relat-
ing to the work of the DeviceOS and Echo Platform Soft-
ware teams is maintained at the Austin offices.” Appx347.
    The district court denied Amazon’s motion. The court
accepted that Amazon’s employees on the middleware team
in Northern California had relevant and material infor-
mation but determined that “the Alexa middleware is not
the only technology relevant to infringement.” Appx12.
The district court found that “the middleware’s functional-
ity depends on the device’s operating system,” and “[t]he
[Amazon] team that designs and develops that operating
system is comprised” of engineers located in Austin.
Appx12. Although Amazon identified employees in North-
ern California who could access source code and other rel-
evant documents, the court concluded that the sources of
proof factor favored neither forum, given Amazon employ-
ees in Austin could just as easily access those materials.
Appx7. It agreed with Amazon that the transferee court’s
ability to subpoena potential witnesses for trial favored
transfer because Amazon had identified five non-party wit-
nesses who could be compelled by the transferee venue
Case: 23-104    Document: 12      Page: 3    Filed: 01/09/2023

IN RE: AMAZON.COM, INC.                                      3

while VoIP-Pal had identified three non-party witnesses
who could be compelled to testify in the Western District of
Texas. Appx9. However, the court found that it could
likely hold a trial sooner than if the case were transferred.
On balance, the court found Amazon had failed to show the
transferee venue was clearly more convenient. The court
denied Amazon’s motion for reconsideration, reiterating its
conclusion that the “DeviceOS personnel” in Austin “are
relevant and implicated” by VoIP-Pal’s infringement alle-
gations, Appx27-30. Amazon then filed this petition.
     To prevail on its mandamus petition, Amazon must es-
tablish, 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). In the § 1404(a) context, which we assess under
regional circuit law, Amazon must show that the denial of
transfer was such a “clear abuse of discretion” that refusing
transfer would produce a “patently erroneous result.” In re
Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 310 (5th Cir. 2008)
(en banc). This is a highly deferential standard, under
which we leave the district court’s decision undisturbed un-
less it is clear “that the facts and circumstances are with-
out any basis for a judgment of discretion.” Id. at 312 n.7
(citation omitted).
    We cannot say that such a clear abuse of discretion oc-
curred here. The court considered all the relevant factors
and made reasonable findings based on the record. In par-
ticular, the court found that information known and held
by the operating system development team located in Aus-
tin Texas is material to the parties’ dispute, Appx27-30,
and we cannot say this finding was clearly erroneous. This
reasonable finding informed the court’s understanding and
weighing of the disputed factors. In particular, it found
that potential witnesses could more conveniently attend
trial in the Western District of Texas, that Amazon could
easily access relevant evidence in that District, and that
both Western Texas and Northern California had local
Case: 23-104    Document: 12      Page: 4    Filed: 01/09/2023

4                                     IN RE: AMAZON.COM, INC.

interests in the matter. Appx17, 34. Mindful of our limited
task on mandamus, we are not prepared to disturb the
court’s findings, which provide a plausible basis for its rul-
ing.
    Accordingly,
    IT IS ORDERED THAT:
    The petition is denied.
                                   FOR THE COURT

January 9, 2023                    /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
    Date                           Peter R. Marksteiner
                                   Clerk of Court