Case: 21-147 Document: 25 Page: 1 Filed: 08/04/2021
`
`NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`IN RE: APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`______________________
`
`2021-147
`______________________
`
`On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
`District Court for the Western District of Texas in No. 6:20-
`cv-00665-ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright.
`______________________
`
`ON PETITION
`______________________
`
`Before REYNA, CHEN, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
`REYNA, Circuit Judge.
`
`O R D E R
` Koss Corporation filed the underlying patent infringe-
`ment suit against Apple Inc. in the United States District
`Court for the Western District of Texas. Apple maintains
`its principal place of business in Cupertino, California, but
`also has a large corporate campus in Austin, Texas. Apple
`moved pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer the in-
`fringement action to the United States District Court for
`the Northern District of California. The district court de-
`nied the motion. Apple filed this petition seeking a writ of
`mandamus directing transfer.
`
`Page 1 of 3
`
`KOSS-2036
`IPR2021-00686
`
`

`

`Case: 21-147 Document: 25 Page: 2 Filed: 08/04/2021
`
`2
`
`
`
`IN RE: APPLE INC.
`
`The legal standard for mandamus relief is demanding.
`
`A petitioner must establish, among other things, that the
`right to mandamus relief is “clear and indisputable.”
`Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 381 (2004)
`(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). Under ap-
`plicable Fifth Circuit law, district courts have “broad dis-
`cretion in deciding whether to order a transfer.” In re
`Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 311 (5th Cir. 2008)
`(en banc) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
`“[I]n no case will we replace a district court’s exercise of
`discretion with our own; we review only for clear abuses of
`discretion that produce patently erroneous results.” Id. at
`312. Accordingly, where a decision applies transfer rules,
`we must deny mandamus unless it is clear “that the facts
`and circumstances are without any basis for a judgment of
`discretion.” Id. at 312 n.7 (citation and internal quotation
`marks omitted). Apple has not satisfied that exacting
`standard here.
`The district court considered the convenience factors
`and explained its reasoning at length. It noted that two
`non-party potential witnesses reside in the Western Dis-
`trict of Texas who were unwilling to travel to California to
`testify,* Appx13, that Apple appeared to rely on a number
`of employee witnesses within the transferee venue that
`were not likely to be called at trial as well as employee wit-
`nesses residing hundreds of miles outside of the transferee
`venue, Appx17–18, and that one of the inventors was
`
`
`* Although the district court suggested that it was
`unlikely that one of these witnesses would end up testify-
`ing at trial, it did not rule out that he has material infor-
`mation relevant to this case, and Koss stated that he “has
`already been an integral part of the litigation process, and
`his involvement has only become more critical as the par-
`ties delve into fact discovery post-Markman.” Resp. at 13
`n.2.
`
`Page 2 of 3
`
`KOSS-2036
`IPR2021-00686
`
`

`

`Case: 21-147 Document: 25 Page: 3 Filed: 08/04/2021
`
`IN RE: APPLE INC.
`
` 3
`
`willing to travel from California to Texas to testify,
`Appx21. The district court further found that judicial-
`economy considerations weighed against transfer because
`of co-pending lawsuits concerning the same patents in the
`same judicial division, Appx22–24, and that there were
`connections between the Western District of Texas and
`events that gave rise to this suit, Appx27. To be sure, the
`district court’s analysis was not free of error. Among other
`things, it improperly diminished the importance of the con-
`venience of witnesses merely because they were employees
`of the parties. Even under these circumstances, we cannot
`say that Apple has shown entitlement to this extraordinary
`relief.
`
`Accordingly,
`
`IT IS ORDERED THAT:
`
`The petition is denied.
`
`
`August 04, 2021
`Date
`
`FOR THE COURT
`
`/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
`Peter R. Marksteiner
`Clerk of Court
`
`s28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 3
`
`KOSS-2036
`IPR2021-00686
`
`