Case: 24-100 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 12/14/2023
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In re: DODOTS LICENSING SOLUTIONS LLC,
Petitioner
______________________
2024-100
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Texas in No. 6:22-
cv-00533-ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
Before PROST, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
ORDER
The United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Texas (“WDTX”) transferred DoDots Licensing So-
lutions LLC (“DoDots)’s patent infringement case against
Apple Inc. to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California (“NDCA”). DoDots peti-
tions for a writ of mandamus to undo transfer. We deny
the petition.
DoDots filed this suit in the Waco Division of the
WDTX, accusing various Apple mobile phone, tablet
Case: 24-100 Document: 10 Page: 2 Filed: 12/14/2023
2 IN RE: DODOTS LICENSING SOLUTIONS LLC
computer, and smartwatch products of infringing three pa-
tents. Apple moved to transfer the case to the NDCA pur-
suant to
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), noting that knowledgeable
Apple employees and potential sources of evidence are in
or close to NDCA; that the majority of the development of
the accused functionality occurred at Apple’s headquarters
in that forum; that several inventors also reside there; and
that DoDots has meaningful connections to NDCA and no
meaningful connection to WDTX.
After analyzing the public and private interest factors
that govern transfer determinations under law of the
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the
district court concluded that Apple established that the
NDCA was clearly more convenient. In particular, the dis-
trict court found that, while the practical problems factor
weighed slightly against transfer, the witness convenience
and access to sources of proof factors weighed in favor of
transfer. The court further concluded that the compulsory
process factor and local interest factor at least slightly fa-
vored transfer. The court found that the remaining factors
were neutral. On balance, the court found good cause to
transfer, and therefore granted Apple’s motion.
We have jurisdiction to consider DoDots’ petition seek-
ing a writ of mandamus under
28 U.S.C. §§ 1651 and 1295.
We apply regional circuit law when reviewing motions to
transfer under § 1404(a). In re Juniper Networks, Inc.,
14
F.4th 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2021). We review transfer decisions
in cases arising on mandamus from district courts in the
Fifth Circuit only for “clear abuses of discretion that pro-
duce patently erroneous results.” In re Planned
Parenthood Fed. Am. et al.,
52 F.4th 625 (5th Cir. 2022)
(quoting In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc.,
545 F.3d 304, 312
(5th Cir. 2008) (en banc)). The district court did not clearly
abuse its discretion in granting transfer here.
The district court found that the WDTX-based Apple
employees DoDots identified had limited or no knowledge
Case: 24-100 Document: 10 Page: 3 Filed: 12/14/2023
IN RE: DODOTS LICENSING SOLUTIONS LLC 3
of the accused functionality. And it accorded those individ-
uals less significance in the transfer analysis than Apple
employees in or close to NDCA who the court found had
relevant and material information. The district court’s de-
termination that the willing witness factor weighed in fa-
vor of transfer, based on its evaluation of the specific record
in this case regarding which individuals have relevant and
material information, was not error, let alone, a clear abuse
of discretion. See In re Genentech, Inc.,
566 F.3d 1338, 1343
(Fed. Cir. 2009) (explaining that a district court should “as-
sess the relevance and materiality of the information the
witness[es] may provide.”).
DoDots has also not shown a clear abuse of discretion
in the court’s assessment of the other factors. Although
Apple relied on electronic sources of proof in NDCA, only
Apple employees in NDCA are credentialed to access that
information, so the sources of proof factor was correctly
found to favor transfer. See In re TikTok, Inc.,
85 F. 4th
352, 359 (5th Cir. 2023) (“[T]he key evidence may be elec-
tronic, but unlike in Planned Parenthood, it is not ‘equally
accessible in either forum.’ 52 F.4th at 630.”). The court
also found that the compulsory process factor slightly fa-
vored transfer in part because third parties in NDCA in-
clude patent inventors and a prior patent owner that
DoDots represented “will be a witness at trial.” Appx19
(citation omitted). DoDots has not made a persuasive case
that the district court erred in making that finding.
Accordingly,
Case: 24-100 Document: 10 Page: 4 Filed: 12/14/2023
4 IN RE: DODOTS LICENSING SOLUTIONS LLC
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition is denied.
FOR THE COURT
December 14, 2023
Date
