Court Opinion

ID: 9407227
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-06 13:01:08.402671+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:36.047740
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-130    Document: 18     Page: 1    Filed: 06/27/2023

           NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

 In re: ONEPLUS TECHNOLOGY (SHENZEN) CO.,
                     LTD.,
                    Petitioner
             ______________________

                         2023-130
                  ______________________

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Texas in No. 6:21-
cv-01217-ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright.
                  ______________________

                      ON PETITION
                  ______________________

    Before LOURIE, HUGHES, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit
                       Judges.
LOURIE, Circuit Judge.
                         ORDER
    Atlas Global Technologies LLC brought this patent in-
fringement suit against OnePlus Technology (Shenzen)
Co., Ltd. in the United States District Court for the West-
ern District of Texas, Waco Division. The district court de-
nied OnePlus’s motion to transfer under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1404(a) to the United States District Court for the Cen-
tral District of California or, alternatively, to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Case: 23-130     Document: 18    Page: 2    Filed: 06/27/2023

2              IN RE: ONEPLUS TECHNOLOGY (SHENZEN) CO., LTD.

OnePlus now petitions this court for a writ of mandamus
that would vacate that order and direct transfer.
    In denying OnePlus’s motion to transfer, the district
court analyzed the traditional § 1404(a) factors and con-
cluded that the practical problems factor weighed strongly
against both transferee forums while the other factors were
neutral. The court noted, among other things, that
OnePlus has no presence in either transferee forum, but it
does have a subsidiary headquartered within 90 miles from
the Waco courthouse and a chip supplier and circuitry
manufacturer in or near Western Texas; that Atlas’s pres-
ident lives primarily in Austin and would find Waco more
convenient; that potential third-party witnesses (including
one inventor and employees of third-party suppliers and
the Wi-Fi Alliance) live in or near Western Texas; and that
there are four co-pending cases in the Western District of
Texas involving the same patents and technology.
     On mandamus, we review denials of § 1404(a) transfer
under the relevant regional circuit’s law (here, the law of
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit)
and ask only whether the denial of transfer was such a
“clear abuse of discretion” that it produced a “patently er-
roneous result.” In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315,
1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted). We discern no such abuse here. The dis-
trict court considered the relevant factors and determined,
based on the record evidence, that OnePlus had failed to
establish that the Central District of California or the
Northern District of Texas would be clearly more conven-
ient in light of the location of potential witnesses and rec-
ords in Western Texas and judicial economy considerations
weighing against transfer to either forum because of the co-
pending cases. We are unable to say “that the facts and
circumstances are without any basis for a judgment of dis-
cretion” for that conclusion. In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc.,
545 F.3d 304, 312 n.7 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Case: 23-130    Document: 18    Page: 3   Filed: 06/27/2023

IN RE: ONEPLUS TECHNOLOGY (SHENZEN) CO., LTD.           3

    Accordingly,
    IT IS ORDERED THAT:
    The petition is denied.
                                    FOR THE COURT

June 27, 2023                       /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow
    Date                            Jarrett B. Perlow
                                    Acting Clerk of Court