Court Opinion

ID: 9893735
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-30 15:01:11.025578+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:07.492730
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-143    Document: 25     Page: 1    Filed: 10/30/2023

          NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

   In re: META PLATFORMS, INC., fka Facebook,
                        Inc.,
                      Petitioner
               ______________________

                         2023-143
                  ______________________

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Texas in No. 1:23-
cv-00623-ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright.
                  ______________________

                      ON PETITION
                  ______________________

    Before LOURIE, MAYER, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
STARK, Circuit Judge.
                        ORDER
     The United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Texas (“WDTX”) denied the motion of Meta Plat-
forms, Inc. (“Meta”) to transfer to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California
(“NDCA”) while also granting alternative relief requested
by Meta, transferring the case within the District from
Waco to Austin, Texas. Meta now petitions for a writ of
mandamus that would direct transfer to the NDCA.
Case: 23-143    Document: 25      Page: 2    Filed: 10/30/2023

2                                 IN RE: META PLATFORMS, INC.

Immersion Corporation (“Immersion”) opposes the peti-
tion. We deny the petition.
     Immersion brought this suit in the Waco Division of the
WDTX alleging Meta’s products, including Quest 2 and
Quest Pro, infringe six of Immersion’s patents. Meta
moved to transfer the case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)
to the NDCA or, alternatively, to the WDTX’s Austin Divi-
sion. The district court granted the motion in part, agree-
ing to transfer to Austin but concluding that Meta had
failed to show that the NDCA was clearly more convenient.
Among other things, the court found that: on balance the
WDTX would be more convenient for potential witnesses;
while Meta was headquartered in the NDCA, it also had
significant relevant operations in Austin; sources of proof
were likely located in both the NDCA and the WDTX; while
more non-party potential witnesses were identified in the
NDCA, only one individual (not in the NDCA) appeared un-
willing to testify; and the WDTX is likely to be faster in
adjudicating the matter.
     To obtain mandamus, Meta must establish, among
other things, that its right to relief is “clear and indisputa-
ble.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 381
(2004) (citation omitted). In the § 1404(a) transfer context,
which we assess under regional circuit law, Meta must
show a “clear abuse of discretion” that produced a “patently
erroneous result.” In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d
304, 310 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc). This is a highly defer-
ential standard, under which we will not disturb the dis-
trict court’s transfer decision unless it is clear “that the
facts and circumstances are without any basis for a judg-
ment of discretion.” Id. at 312 n.7 (citation omitted). Hav-
ing carefully considered Meta’s petition here, we cannot
say that it has satisfied this demanding standard.
    The district court plausibly concluded that Meta failed
to establish that the willing witness factor favored trans-
fer. Meta’s transfer motion broadly asserted that relevant
Case: 23-143    Document: 25     Page: 3    Filed: 10/30/2023

IN RE: META PLATFORMS, INC.                                3

Meta employees are located in California and Washington
state, and the majority of its teams are located on the West
Coast. The district court evaluated details relating to 15
named Meta employees (along with two additional Immer-
sion employees) in Northern California and Seattle and
weighed the existence of this group of potential witnesses
in favor of transfer but, nonetheless, plausibly found that
Meta was not sufficiently clear about what relevant and
material information the various other team members pos-
sessed. See In re Apple Inc., 743 F.3d 1377, 1378–79 (Fed.
Cir. 2014) (denying mandamus relating to transfer when
movant’s lack of supporting evidence “stymied” analysis).
     The court also plausibly weighed the convenience of the
NDCA for the group of witnesses just described against the
22 potential witnesses who would find the WDTX more con-
venient, a group including several Meta employees in Aus-
tin with relevant knowledge of product design, operations,
finances, and marketing. Meta criticizes the court for rely-
ing on Meta employees in the WDTX who purportedly do
not have relevant and material information, but Meta’s pe-
tition only directly addresses one such employee on which
the district court relied. Given the lack of a persuasive
showing in its papers on such a case-specific, fact-intensive
matter principally entrusted to the district court, see In re
Vistaprint Ltd., 628 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2010),
Meta’s argument contributes almost nothing to its effort to
show a clear abuse of discretion here.
     Nor do we see any clear abuse of discretion in the dis-
trict court’s analysis that would warrant disturbing its de-
nial of transfer. The district court plausibly concluded that
the sources of proof and compulsory process factors did not
substantially affect the ultimate transfer decision based on
the particular circumstances of this case. See In re Planned
Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc., 52 F.4th 625, 630–31 (5th
Cir. 2022).
Case: 23-143    Document: 25      Page: 4    Filed: 10/30/2023

4                                IN RE: META PLATFORMS, INC.

     Lastly, we agree with Meta that the district court
clearly erred in finding that the court congestion factor
weighed slightly against transfer. As we recently held in
In re Google LLC, 58 F.4th 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2023), this
factor should not weigh against transfer when the patentee
“is not engaged in product competition in the marketplace
and is not threatened in the market in a way that, in other
patent cases, might add urgency to case resolution.” Citing
Google, the district court found that these conditions are
satisfied, seemingly because Immersion has been operating
since 1993, has developed and licensed products which are
used worldwide, and its workforce has shrunk from a peak
of 184 employees to just 21. Appx. 30–31. Immersion never
argued that these facts, or any others, established that Im-
mersion competes with Meta in the market for the accused
technology; nor did it even contend there is any urgency to
the timing by which this litigation is resolved. There is no
record evidence for the district court’s findings that Immer-
sion “is/was engaged in product competition in the market-
place” against Meta or that the shrinkage in its workforce
is “evidence of the urgency to case resolution . . . giv[ing]
some significance to the time-to-trial difference” between
districts. Appx. 30–31 (internal quotation marks omitted). *
Accordingly, the court congestion factor should have been
treated as neutral. In the context in which we confront this
error, however, we conclude it is harmless, as we cannot

    *   Immersion submitted a Supplemental Appendix,
containing documents not cited to the district court for
these points, and directs us to other hints in the record to
try to show that the district court had a basis for its find-
ings on product competition and urgency to case resolution.
See Response to Petition at 28–30. Even assuming these
materials are properly considered in this procedural pos-
ture, they do not support the district court’s clearly errone-
ous sua sponte findings, as Meta persuasively explains. See
Reply in Support of Petition at 5–6.
Case: 23-143    Document: 25     Page: 5   Filed: 10/30/2023

IN RE: META PLATFORMS, INC.                               5

say it would be a clear abuse of discretion to deny transfer
to the NDCA even changing this one factor from weighing
against transfer to being neutral.
    Accordingly,
    IT IS ORDERED THAT:
    The petition is denied.
                                             FOR THE COURT

 October 30, 2023
      Date