Case 6:23-cv-00320-ADA Document 66 Filed 04/04/24 Page 1 of 4
`Case: 24-117 Document: 9 Page: 1 Filed: 04/04/2024
`
`NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`In Re GOOGLE LLC,
`Petitioner
`______________________
`
`2024-117
`______________________
`
`On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
`District Court for the Western District of Texas in No. 6:23-
`cv-00320-ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright.
`______________________
`
`ON PETITION
`______________________
`
`Before MOORE, Chief Judge, TARANTO and CHEN, Circuit
`Judges.
`
`MOORE, Chief Judge.
`
`O R D E R
` Google LLC petitions for a writ of mandamus directing
`the United States District Court for the Western District of
`Texas to vacate its order denying transfer and transfer to
`the United States District Court for the Northern District
`of California. We deny the petition.
`
`Proxense, LLC filed suit in the Western District of
`Texas against Google alleging infringement of six patents
`related to using biometrics and personal digital keys as
`passwords. Google moved, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a),
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2011, Page 1 of 4
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00320-ADA Document 66 Filed 04/04/24 Page 2 of 4
`Case: 24-117 Document: 9 Page: 2 Filed: 04/04/2024
`
`2
`
`
`
`IN RE GOOGLE LLC
`
`to transfer the case to the Northern District of California,
`arguing that its employees knowledgeable about the ac-
`cused products primarily work in that district and that the
`majority of relevant documents concerning the products
`were created and maintained in the Northern District of
`California.
`In its response, Proxense argued that the Western Dis-
`trict of Texas would be convenient for potential witnesses
`and that judicial economy favored denying the motion.
`Proxense noted that the trial judge spent substantial time
`with prior litigation involving two of the asserted patents,
`including having conducted claim construction and re-
`solved summary judgment motions before the case settled
`on the eve of trial. Appx010. See Proxense, LLC v. Sam-
`sung Elecs. Co., No. 21-cv-00210-ADA (W.D. Tex.). Prox-
`ense further noted that it filed a co-pending suit in the
`Western District of Texas alleging infringement of the
`same six patents.
`After analyzing the transfer factors, the district court
`denied the motion, determining Google failed to carry its
`burden to show that the Northern District of California
`was clearly more convenient. The court noted the presence
`of potential Google employee witnesses in the Western Dis-
`trict of Texas, including a software engineering manager
`who described himself as leading the engineering team for
`one of the accused products. Appx005. It further found
`that the court’s “prior knowledge of the patents-in-suit and
`the time, effort, resources devoted to the earlier case will
`likely reduce costs and judicial resources.” Appx010.
` Mandamus is “reserved for extraordinary situations,”
`Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S.
`271, 289 (1988) (citation omitted). We review denials of
`transfer on mandamus under the relevant regional circuit’s
`law, here the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth
`Circuit. In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315, 1319
`(Fed. Cir. 2008). We ask only whether the decision was
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2011, Page 2 of 4
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00320-ADA Document 66 Filed 04/04/24 Page 3 of 4
`Case: 24-117 Document: 9 Page: 3 Filed: 04/04/2024
`
`IN RE GOOGLE LLC
`
` 3
`
`such a “clear abuse of discretion” that it produced a “pa-
`tently erroneous result.” Id. (citation and internal quota-
`tion marks omitted). Under that standard, we must deny
`mandamus unless it is clear “that the facts and circum-
`stances are without any basis for a judgment of discretion.”
`In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 312 n.7 (5th
`Cir. 2008) (en banc). Google fails to make that showing.
`Judicial economy can serve important ends in a trans-
`fer analysis. See In re Vistaprint Ltd., 628 F.3d 1342, 1346
`(Fed. Cir. 2010). Here, the district court reasonably found
`that judicial economy considerations disfavor transfer in
`light of the trial court’s familiarity with the patents and
`technology from its substantial involvement with prior lit-
`igation. The district court examined the evidence of all
`other factors for what it showed about the comparative as-
`sessment of the two forums at issue, and it found that
`Google had not shown transfer to be favored on any factor.
`In this analysis, the court specifically found, among other
`things, that potential witnesses reside in the Western Dis-
`trict of Texas, including a Google employee that the court
`found to be “the most important witness because of his
`knowledge of the accused functionalities,” Appx007; that
`there is a local interest in that district because “much of
`the direction and leadership in design and implementation
`occurred” there, Appx012; that likely relevant sources of
`proof are accessible from both districts; and that no third-
`party potential witness had been shown to reside in the
`California forum. Google has not established any clear ba-
`sis to disturb those findings, which plausibly support deny-
`ing transfer under the circumstances of this case.
`
`Accordingly,
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2011, Page 3 of 4
`
`

`

`Case 6:23-cv-00320-ADA Document 66 Filed 04/04/24 Page 4 of 4
`Case: 24-117 Document: 9 Page: 4 Filed: 04/04/2024
`
`
`
`IN RE GOOGLE LLC
`
`FOR THE COURT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IT IS ORDERED THAT:
`The petition is denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`April 4, 2024
` Date
`
`
`
`Patent Owner Exhibit 2011, Page 4 of 4
`
`