`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`NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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.
`
`O R D E R
` 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 6:22-cv-00031-ADA Document 101 Filed 03/06/23 Page 2 of 2
`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
`
`/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
`Peter R. Marksteiner
`Clerk of Court
`
`
`March 6, 2023
` Date
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
