Case: 23-137 Document: 20 Page: 1 Filed: 08/17/2023
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In re: FIRST ALERT, INC., BRK BRANDS, INC.,
Petitioners
______________________
2023-137
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Texas in No. 6:22-
cv-00566-ADA-DTG, Judge Alan D. Albright.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
Before CHEN, MAYER, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
ORDER
The United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Texas denied First Alert, Inc. and BRK Brands,
Inc.’s (collectively, “First Alert”) motion to transfer this
case to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois under
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). * First Alert
* First Alert’s petition also sought to direct the dis-
trict court judge to rule on First Alert’s objections to the
magistrate judge’s denial of transfer, but that issue was
Case: 23-137 Document: 20 Page: 2 Filed: 08/17/2023
2 IN RE: FIRST ALERT, INC.
now seeks a writ of mandamus directing the district court
to grant its transfer motion. Walter Kidde Portable Equip-
ment Inc. (“Walter Kidde”) opposes the petition. We deny
the petition.
Walter Kidde filed this suit in the Waco Division of the
Western District of Texas against First Alert, which has an
in-district facility in El Paso that performs operations rel-
evant to the accused alarms. Walter Kidde claims, among
other things, that First Alert infringes two patents in-
vented by Joseph DeLuca, a former employee of both Wal-
ter Kidde and First Alert. First Alert filed a motion to
transfer to the Northern District of Illinois, where First
Alert is headquartered and where First Alert asserted Mr.
DeLuca resides. In March 2023, a magistrate judge denied
the motion. On June 22, 2023, the district court overruled
First Alert’s objections to the magistrate’s order.
First Alert now petitions this court to issue a writ of
mandamus to direct the district court to grant its transfer
motion. On mandamus, we review a district court’s denial
of § 1404(a) transfer under the relevant regional circuit’s
law (here, the law of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Fifth Circuit) and ask only whether the denial of trans-
fer was such a “‘clear’ abuse of discretion” that it 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 discern no such abuse here.
Under Fifth Circuit law, the party seeking transfer
must show that the transferee venue is “clearly more con-
venient” than the venue chosen by the plaintiff.
Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 315. Here, the district court con-
sidered the relevant § 1404(a) factors. It found that First
mooted when the district court judge overruled the objec-
tions. ECF No. 9.
Case: 23-137 Document: 20 Page: 3 Filed: 08/17/2023
IN RE: FIRST ALERT, INC. 3
Alert had failed to show that Mr. DeLuca resides in North-
ern Illinois; that Walter Kidde had shown the Western Dis-
trict of Texas would be more convenient for potential First
Alert employee witnesses and non-party witnesses (includ-
ing component suppliers, companies associated with the
distribution of the accused products, and a First Alert for-
mer employee); that both districts had sources of proof lo-
cated within them; and that the Western District of Texas
is likely to be faster in adjudicating the litigation.
First Alert challenges the court’s findings with respect
to Mr. DeLuca and potential witnesses in the Western Dis-
trict of Texas and contends that more weight should have
been assigned to the sources of proof in the Northern Dis-
trict of Illinois. But those arguments do not get First Alert
very far on mandamus. Such case-specific, fact-intensive
matters are principally entrusted to the district court,
which is generally in a better position than this court to
make such determinations. See In re Vistaprint Ltd.,
628
F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2010). And First Alert’s petition
fails to present a convincing basis for disturbing those find-
ings under the heightened standard for mandamus review.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition is denied.
FOR THE COURT
August 17, 2023 /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow
Date Jarrett B. Perlow
Clerk of Court
