Court Opinion

ID: 9383953
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-31 15:01:43.73539+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:49.174265
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-112    Document: 19     Page: 1    Filed: 03/06/2023

           NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

                  In re: GOOGLE LLC,
                         Petitioner
                  ______________________

                         2023-112
                  ______________________

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Texas in No. 6:22-
cv-00031-ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright.
                  ______________________

                      ON PETITION
                  ______________________

      Before DYK, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
DYK, Circuit Judge.
                        ORDER
    Flypsi, Inc. (“Flyp”) brought this patent infringement
suit against Google LLC in the United States District
Court for the Western District of Texas, Waco Division.
The district court denied Google’s motion to transfer the
case under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California. Google now
petitions this court for a writ of mandamus that would va-
cate that order and direct transfer. Flyp opposes.
    We review denials of transfer under the relevant re-
gional circuit’s law and on mandamus ask only whether the
Case: 23-112    Document: 19      Page: 2    Filed: 03/06/2023

2                                           IN RE: GOOGLE LLC

transfer decision was such a “clear abuse of discretion” that
it led to a “patently erroneous result.” In re TS Tech USA
Corp., 551 F.3d 1315, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted). Here, the district court
considered the relevant factors and found, based on the rec-
ord before it, that Google had failed to establish that the
Northern District of California is “clearly more conven-
ient.” In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 315 (5th
Cir. 2008) (en banc).
     We cannot say “that the facts and circumstances are
without any basis for” that conclusion. Id. at 312 n.7. The
district court noted, among other things, that while Google
is headquartered in Northern California, three of its em-
ployees who are potential witnesses work in the Western
District of Texas; that Flyp’s offices are located within a 90-
minute drive of the Waco courthouse; that at least one for-
mer Google employee and two former Flyp employees are
potential witnesses who reside within the subpoena power
of the Western District of Texas; that judicial economy con-
siderations weigh against transfer because of the Western
District’s familiarity with the asserted patents based on
prior litigation; and that the Western District is likely to
be faster in adjudicating the case.
    Accordingly,
    IT IS ORDERED THAT:
    The petition is denied.
                                    FOR THE COURT

March 6, 2023                       /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
    Date                            Peter R. Marksteiner
                                    Clerk of Court