Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 103 Filed 01/24/19 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 4039
`
`NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`In re: LG ELECTRONICS INC.,
`Petitioner
`______________________
`
`2019-107
`______________________
`
`On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United
`States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in
`No. 2:17-cv-00514-JRG, Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap.
`______________________
`
`ON PETITION
`______________________
`
`Before PROST, Chief Judge, O’MALLEY and TARANTO,
`Circuit Judges.
`O’MALLEY, Circuit Judge.
`O R D E R
` LG Electronics Inc. (“LG Korea”) petitions for a writ of
`mandamus directing the United States District Court for
`the Eastern District of Texas to vacate its decision deny-
`ing LG Korea’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal
`jurisdiction or alternatively transfer the case pursuant to
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). AGIS Software Development, LLC
`opposes. The court denies the petition.
`
`AGIS filed this suit in the Eastern District of Texas
`against LG Korea, a South Korean corporation with no
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 103 Filed 01/24/19 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 4040
`
`2
`
`IN RE: LG ELECTRONICS INC.
`
`offices or employees in the United States. The complaint
`states that AGIS “is a limited liability company organized
`and existing under the laws of the State of Texas, and
`maintains its principal place of business at 100 W. Hou-
`ston Street, Marshall, Texas 75670.” The complaint
`alleges infringement of four patents through the importa-
`tion and sale of devices that are pre-configured or adapted
`with software applications developed by Google Inc. and
`other third parties that allow the device users to perform
`the patented methods directly, or indirectly, through
`instructions to device users concerning those applications.
` LG Korea moved the district court to either dismiss
`the case for lack of personal jurisdiction or alternatively
`to transfer the case to the Northern District of California.
`LG Korea argued that its subsidiary, LG Electronics Mo-
`bileComm U.S.A., Inc. (“LG Mobile”), purchases and takes
`title to the accused devices in South Korea and is entirely
`responsible for importing, marketing, and selling the
`accused devices to customers in the United States. LG
`Korea also argued that AGIS’s principals were conducting
`business and enforcing these patents largely from Florida
`under a related corporate entity just weeks before incor-
`porating in Texas and commencing this infringement suit,
`doing so only in hopes of a favorable venue. LG Korea
`further urged that the Northern District of California
`would be more convenient for trying this case because
`both Google and LG Mobile are headquartered there.
`The district court denied both requests. The court
`first concluded that it had specific personal jurisdiction
`over LG Korea because LG Korea knew or reasonably
`could have foreseen that a termination point of its estab-
`lished distribution channel was Texas, noting LG Korea’s
`admissions that it knew LG Mobile was reselling the
`devices to third-party carriers who distribute the phones
`nationwide, including in Texas, and that LG Korea direct-
`ly shipped some devices to the Dallas-Fort Worth area in
`Texas. The district court next concluded that LG Korea
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 103 Filed 01/24/19 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 4041
`
`IN RE LG: ELECTRONICS INC.
`
` 3
`
`had not shown that the Northern District of California
`was clearly more convenient for trial to warrant transfer.
`In doing so, the court found that transferring would make
`it convenient to secure more sources of proof relevant to
`the case and also secure the testimony of more potentially
`unwilling witnesses. However, it concluded that the
`plaintiff’s chosen forum was convenient for more willing
`witnesses. The court also concluded that the Eastern
`District of Texas had more local interest in resolving this
`case and that it could more quickly resolve the case.
`A party seeking a writ bears the burden of demon-
`strating that it has no “adequate alternative” means to
`obtain the desired relief, Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for
`the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 309 (1989), and that the
`right to issuance of the writ is “clear and indisputable,”
`Will v. Calvert Fire Ins., 437 U.S. 655, 666 (1978) (citation
`and internal quotation marks omitted). The court must
`also be satisfied that the issuance of the writ is appropri-
`ate under the circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court
`for the Dist. of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 381 (2004). LG
`Korea has failed to meet this demanding standard.
`With regard to the district court’s denial of the motion
`to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, LG Korea has
`not even attempted to explain why raising its arguments
`on appeal after a final judgment would be inadequate. It
`also has not shown a clear and indisputable right to relief.
`LG Korea’s primary assertion of error essentially appears
`to be that there is no personal jurisdiction for an in-
`fringement action in the Eastern District of Texas because
`it has not committed any patent infringement there or
`anywhere else in the United States. That, however, is a
`merits issue, and one that we should address only after it
`is resolved in the first instance by the district court.
`With regard to transfer, we have held in cases arising
`from district courts in the Fifth Circuit that mandamus
`may only be granted when a denial of transfer amounts to
`
`

`

`Case 2:17-cv-00514-JRG Document 103 Filed 01/24/19 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 4042
`
`4
`
`IN RE: LG ELECTRONICS INC.
`
`a “’clear’ abuse of discretion” such that refusing transfer
`produced a “‘patently erroneous result.’” In re TS Tech
`USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting
`In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 310 (5th Cir.
`2008) (en banc). We cannot say that a denial of transfer
`under these circumstances was such an abuse. It is
`undisputed that the Eastern District of Texas could more
`quickly resolve the case, which is worthy of at least some
`consideration. Cf. Parsons v. Chesapeake & Ohio Ry. Co.,
`375 U.S. 71, 73 (1963). The case also was assigned to the
`same district judge who is overseeing another action filed
`by AGIS involving the same patents, suggesting that the
`court system as a whole could benefit from adjudicating
`this case in plaintiff’s chosen forum.* See In re Vistaprint
`Ltd., 628 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2010). And while
`AGIS’s incorporation in Texas is deserving of little consid-
`eration, it is not clear that the allegations in this case are
`a concern of significant local interest to either forum.
`Accordingly,
`IT IS ORDERED THAT:
`The petition is denied.
`
`FOR THE COURT
`
` /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
` Peter R. Marksteiner
` Clerk of Court
`
`Jan. 24, 2019
` Date
`
`s31
`
`* While the district court was correct not to weigh this
`consideration against transfer because at the time there
`was a pending motion to transfer the related case, the
`district court ultimately denied transfer in both cases and
`this court recently denied mandamus to transfer the
`related case, ensuring that it will remain in Texas.
`
`