Court Opinion

ID: 9383951
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-31 15:01:42.773622+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:49.315397
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-115    Document: 18     Page: 1    Filed: 03/06/2023

           NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

 In re: WESTERN DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
                     Petitioner
              ______________________

                         2023-115
                  ______________________

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Texas in No. 6:21-
cv-01230-ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright.
                  ______________________

                      ON PETITION
                  ______________________

      Before DYK, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
DYK, Circuit Judge.
                        ORDER
    Western Digital Technologies, Inc. (“Western Digital”)
petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the United
States District Court for the Western District of Texas to
vacate its decision denying transfer and to transfer this pa-
tent infringement case to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California. Viasat, Inc. op-
poses. We deny the petition.
    In its order denying transfer, the district court found
that, while headquartered in Northern California, several
Western Digital employees (who are potential witnesses)
Case: 23-115    Document: 18     Page: 2    Filed: 03/06/2023

2                  IN RE: WESTERN DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

work from its offices in Austin, Texas, and that eight for-
mer Western Digital employees (who are also potential wit-
nesses) still live within the Western District of Texas. The
district court rejected Western Digital’s argument that
these current and former employees did not have relevant
and material information, finding Western Digital’s sup-
porting deponents lacked credibility and/or failed to
properly investigate facts relevant to its Austin office and
the accused products. In addition, none of Viasat’s employ-
ees in the transferee district had been identified as poten-
tial witnesses. The court also noted that Viasat has co-
pending litigation involving one of the same patents in the
Western District of Texas and that the Western District of
Texas was likely to be faster in adjudicating the matter.
On balance, the court concluded that Western Digital had
failed to show that the Northern District of California was
clearly more convenient and denied transfer.
    On mandamus, our review is limited to determining
whether the denial of transfer was such a “‘clear’ abuse of
discretion” that refusing transfer produced a “patently er-
roneous result,” In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315,
1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). In this case, the
district court considered the relevant factors and found,
based on the record before it and its credibility/inadequate
investigation findings regarding Western Digital’s depo-
nents, that Western Digital had failed to show the North-
ern District of California had a clear comparative
advantage with regard to the witness and sources of proof
factors. Mindful of the standard of review on mandamus,
we are not prepared to disturb those findings, which, taken
together with the district court’s other findings, provide a
plausible basis for its judgment of discretion to deny the
transfer request here.
    Accordingly,
Case: 23-115    Document: 18    Page: 3     Filed: 03/06/2023

IN RE: WESTERN DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.                 3

    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