`Case: 21-149 Document: 5 Page: 1 Filed: 06/29/2021
`
`NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`In re: VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner
`______________________
`
`2021-149
`______________________
`
`On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
`District Court for the Western District of Texas in No. 6:20-
`cv-01131-ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright.
`______________________
`
`ON PETITION
`______________________
`
`Before TARANTO, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
`STOLL, Circuit Judge.
`
`O R D E R
`Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. petitions for a writ
`of mandamus directing the United States District Court for
`the Western District of Texas to dismiss or to transfer to
`the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
`Michigan. Alternatively, Volkswagen seeks to stay all
`deadlines unrelated to venue until the district court rules
`on the pending motion to dismiss or transfer.
`StratosAudio, Inc. filed this patent infringement suit
`in December 2020 in the Western District of Texas against
`Volkswagen. On February 19, 2021, Volkswagen filed a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-01131-ADA Document 37 Filed 06/29/21 Page 2 of 3
`Case: 21-149 Document: 5 Page: 2 Filed: 06/29/2021
`
`2
`
`
`
`IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.
`
`motion to dismiss for improper venue, or alternatively, to
`transfer to the Eastern District of Michigan. The motion
`was fully briefed as of March 12, 2021.
`On May 4, 2021, the parties were directed via email to
`file a joint proposed scheduling order that included a Mark-
`man hearing for October 4, 2021. The parties were subse-
`quently informed on May 17, 2021 that, while “[t]he Court
`will not stay the cases pending rulings on the motions to
`dismiss/transfer,” “[p]ursuant to the Court’s Standing Or-
`der Regarding Motion(s) for Inter-District Transfer, the
`Court will rule on these motions before [the] Markman
`hearing.” Appx0008. Volkswagen filed this petition seek-
`ing mandamus on June 4, 2021.
`Mandamus is “reserved for extraordinary situations.”
`Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S.
`271, 289 (1988) (citation omitted). Under the well-estab-
`lished standard for obtaining such relief, the petitioner
`must: (1) show that it has a clear and indisputable legal
`right; (2) show it does not have any other method of obtain-
`ing relief; and (3) convince the court that the “writ is ap-
`propriate under the circumstances.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist.
`Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004) (citation omitted).
`Volkswagen has not met that standard.
`Volkswagen has not shown that it is unable to obtain a
`ruling on its venue motion in a timely fashion without man-
`damus. The district court has indicated that it will resolve
`that motion before it conducts a Markman hearing in this
`case. Nor has Volkswagen presently shown a clear legal
`right to stay all non-venue-related deadlines. We note,
`however, that the district court’s failure to issue a ruling
`on Volkswagen’s venue motion before a Markman hearing
`may alter our assessment of the mandamus factors.
`
`Accordingly,
`
`IT IS ORDERED THAT:
`
`The petition is denied.
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-01131-ADA Document 37 Filed 06/29/21 Page 3 of 3
`Case: 21-149 Document: 5 Page: 3 Filed: 06/29/2021
`
`IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.
`
` 3
`
`
`
`June 29, 2021
`Date
`
`FOR THE COURT
`
`/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
`Peter R. Marksteiner
`Clerk of Court
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s35
`
`
`
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
