In Re ROKU, INC. ( 2023 )


Menu:
  • Case: 23-114    Document: 22      Page: 1    Filed: 03/23/2023
    NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Federal Circuit
    ______________________
    In re: ROKU, INC.,
    Petitioner
    ______________________
    2023-114
    ______________________
    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
    District Court for the Western District of Texas in No. 6:21-
    cv-01296-ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright.
    ______________________
    ON PETITION
    ______________________
    Before LOURIE, PROST, and WALLACH, Circuit Judges.
    WALLACH, Circuit Judge.
    ORDER
    Roku, Inc. petitions for a writ of mandamus directing
    the United States District Court for the Western District of
    Texas to vacate its denial of transfer and to transfer pur-
    suant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 1404
    (a) to the United States District
    Court for the Northern District of California. IOENGINE,
    LLC opposes.
    When adopting the recommendation of the magistrate
    judge to deny transfer, the district court found that: (1) de-
    spite Roku suggesting all of its potential employee wit-
    nesses are in Northern California, several Roku employees
    Case: 23-114     Document: 22    Page: 2    Filed: 03/23/2023
    2                                           IN RE: ROKU, INC.
    are in Austin, Texas and “possess particularly relevant
    knowledge to this case,” Appx8; (2) the court could, if nec-
    essary, compel the testimony of third-party potential wit-
    nesses (including suppliers of components for the accused
    products, channel content creators, and three former Roku
    employees, including one who currently works for a rele-
    vant third-party supplier); (3) relevant sources of proof and
    custodians of that proof are in Austin; and (4) the court was
    likely to be faster in adjudicating the matter.
    On mandamus, our review is limited to determining
    whether the denial of transfer was a “‘clear’ abuse of dis-
    cretion” such that refusing transfer produced a “patently
    erroneous result,” In re TS Tech USA Corp., 
    551 F.3d 1315
    ,
    1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citation omitted). Here, the district
    court considered the relevant factors and found, based on
    the record evidence and perceived lack of credibility of
    Roku’s declarant, that Roku had failed to show the North-
    ern District of California was clearly more convenient, par-
    ticularly given the sources of proof and potential witnesses
    in the Western District of Texas. We cannot say “that the
    facts and circumstances are without any basis for a judg-
    ment of discretion” in this case. In re Volkswagen of Am.,
    Inc., 
    545 F.3d 304
    , 312 n.7 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (cita-
    tion omitted).
    Accordingly,
    IT IS ORDERED THAT:
    The petition is denied.
    FOR THE COURT
    March 23, 2023                      /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
    Date                            Peter R. Marksteiner
    Clerk of Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 23-114

Filed Date: 3/23/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 3/23/2023