Court Opinion

ID: 9383883
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-31 15:01:05.294779+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:48.812965
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-114    Document: 22      Page: 1    Filed: 03/23/2023

           NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                   In re: ROKU, INC.,
                         Petitioner
                  ______________________

                         2023-114
                  ______________________

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Texas in No. 6:21-
cv-01296-ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright.
                  ______________________

                      ON PETITION
                  ______________________

   Before LOURIE, PROST, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.
WALLACH, Circuit Judge.
                         ORDER
    Roku, Inc. petitions for a writ of mandamus directing
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Texas to vacate its denial of transfer and to transfer pur-
suant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California. IOENGINE,
LLC opposes.
    When adopting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge to deny transfer, the district court found that: (1) de-
spite Roku suggesting all of its potential employee wit-
nesses are in Northern California, several Roku employees
Case: 23-114     Document: 22    Page: 2    Filed: 03/23/2023

2                                           IN RE: ROKU, INC.

are in Austin, Texas and “possess particularly relevant
knowledge to this case,” Appx8; (2) the court could, if nec-
essary, compel the testimony of third-party potential wit-
nesses (including suppliers of components for the accused
products, channel content creators, and three former Roku
employees, including one who currently works for a rele-
vant third-party supplier); (3) relevant sources of proof and
custodians of that proof are in Austin; and (4) the court was
likely to be faster in adjudicating the matter.
    On mandamus, our review is limited to determining
whether the denial of transfer was a “‘clear’ abuse of dis-
cretion” such that refusing transfer produced a “patently
erroneous result,” In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315,
1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). Here, the district
court considered the relevant factors and found, based on
the record evidence and perceived lack of credibility of
Roku’s declarant, that Roku had failed to show the North-
ern District of California was clearly more convenient, par-
ticularly given the sources of proof and potential witnesses
in the Western District of Texas. We cannot say “that the
facts and circumstances are without any basis for a judg-
ment of discretion” in this case. In re Volkswagen of Am.,
Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 312 n.7 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (cita-
tion omitted).
    Accordingly,
    IT IS ORDERED THAT:
    The petition is denied.
                                    FOR THE COURT

March 23, 2023                      /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
    Date                            Peter R. Marksteiner
                                    Clerk of Court