Court Opinion

ID: 9365230
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-23 15:00:47.236315+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:43.842061
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-105    Document: 17     Page: 1    Filed: 01/23/2023

           NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

 In re: GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY, GENERAL
                MOTORS LLC,
                   Petitioners
             ______________________

                         2023-105
                  ______________________

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Texas in No. 6:21-
cv-01088-ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright.
                  ______________________

                      ON PETITION
                  ______________________

   Before LOURIE, TARANTO, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
STARK, Circuit Judge.
                        ORDER
     General Motors Company and General Motors LLC
(collectively, “GM”) petition for a writ of mandamus direct-
ing the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Texas to transfer this case to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Intel-
lectual Ventures I LLC and Intellectual Ventures II LLC
(collectively, “IV”) oppose the petition.
    IV sued GM in the Western District of Texas asserting
infringement of twelve patents based on various services
Case: 23-105    Document: 17      Page: 2    Filed: 01/23/2023

2                            IN RE: GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY

and products installed in GM automobiles, including fea-
tures of GM’s OnStar service. GM moved pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer the case to the Eastern District
of Michigan, contending that the employees most knowl-
edgeable about the design and development of the accused
products and certain third-party component suppliers are
in Michigan. As part of its opposition, IV argued that GM
has an IT Innovation Center in Austin, within the Western
District of Texas, where employees helped develop and con-
tinue to work on aspects of the accused products.
    The district court denied the motion. Although the
court found that GM had identified employees in Michigan
who are potential witnesses, the court concluded that the
convenience of the willing witness factor did not weigh ei-
ther in favor of or against transfer, given that GM employ-
ees in Austin are also potential witnesses with relevant
and material information. The court found that the trans-
feree forum had a slight advantage with regard to the ease
of access to the sources of proof and local interest factors.
However, finding that only the Western District of Texas
could subpoena one of the named inventors, the court
weighed the compulsory process factor against transfer.
The court also concluded that it could likely hold trial
sooner than the Michigan court. On balance, the district
court found that GM had failed to show the transferee fo-
rum was clearly more convenient and denied the motion.
     A writ of mandamus is an “‘extraordinary remedy’” re-
served for “‘extraordinary causes.’”          In re Planned
Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc., 52 F.4th 625, 628 (5th Cir.
2022) (citation omitted). Accordingly, when presented with
a petition for a writ of mandamus predicated on a § 1404(a)
transfer decision, our task is to determine whether, under
the relevant circuit law, the transfer decision was such a
“‘clear’ abuse of discretion” that it led to a “‘patently erro-
neous result.’” In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315,
1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). Under the law of
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit,
Case: 23-105    Document: 17      Page: 3    Filed: 01/23/2023

IN RE: GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY                               3

the burden rests squarely on the party seeking transfer to
show that the transferee forum is clearly more convenient.
See In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 315 (5th
Cir. 2008) (en banc). “[W]hen the transferee [forum] is not
clearly more convenient than the [forum] chosen by the
plaintiff, the plaintiff’s choice should be respected.” Id.
Moreover, “the district courts have ‘broad discretion in de-
ciding whether to order a transfer.’” Id. at 311 (quoting
Balawajder v. Scott, 160 F.3d 1066, 1067 (5th Cir. 1998);
see also In re Vistaprint Ltd., 628 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir.
2010) (holding that § 1404(a) requires district courts to
“balance[] a number of case-specific factors” and that such
balancing is within “sound discretion of the trial court
based not on per se rules but rather on an individualized,
case-by-case consideration of convenience and fairness.”)
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
    We cannot say that such a clear abuse of discretion oc-
curred here. The district court considered and weighed
each of the relevant factors and made reasonable factual
findings based on the record before it. The court found,
among other things, that there were GM employees in the
Western District of Texas with relevant and material infor-
mation; the evidence stored electronically on data centers
in Michigan can be accessed by GM from its offices in the
Western District; the Western District could compel the
testimony of potential third-party witnesses, including in-
ventor testimony; and the Western District’s local interest
in this matter extended beyond GM’s mere presence in the
district. Mindful of the standard of review, we are not pre-
pared to disturb the district court’s findings, which provide
a plausible basis for the conclusion that GM failed to
demonstrate that litigating this case in the transferee fo-
rum would be clearly more convenient.
    Accordingly,
Case: 23-105     Document: 17      Page: 4   Filed: 01/23/2023

4                              IN RE: GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY

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

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