Amazon’s Petition to Transfer Infringement Case to Calif. Is Denied

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied Amazon’s mandamus petition to vacate the orders of U.S. District Judge Alan Albright for the Western District of Texas in Waco and transfer VoIP-Pal’s infringement lawsuit against Amazon to the Northern District of California (see 2211210049).

The Federal Circuit agreed with Albright that Amazon failed to show the Northern California transferee venue was clearly more convenient, said its order Monday (docket 23-104). Albright also was correct to deny Amazon’s motion for reconsideration, repeating his conclusion that the Amazon’s DeviceOS staffers in nearby Austin are “relevant and implicated” by VoIP-Pal’s infringement allegations, it said.

To prevail on its mandamus petition, Amazon must establish that its right to relief is clear and indisputable, which it failed to do, said the Federal Circuit. Amazon needed to show the denial of transfer was such a clear abuse of discretion that refusing transfer would produce a patently erroneous result, the order said. “This is a highly deferential standard, under which we leave the district court’s decision undisturbed” unless it's clear the facts and circumstances are without any basis for a judgment of discretion, it said: “We cannot say that such a clear abuse of discretion occurred here.”

Albright in the district court “considered all the relevant factors and made reasonable findings based on the record,” said the Federal Circuit. It especially found that information “known and held” by the operating system development team in Austin is material to the parties’ dispute, “and we cannot say this finding was clearly erroneous,” it said. “This reasonable finding informed the court’s understanding and weighing of the disputed factors.”

Albright was correct to say potential witnesses “could more conveniently attend trial” in Waco, said the Federal Circuit. He also was right to conclude that Amazon “could easily access relevant evidence” in Western Texas, and that both Western Texas and Northern California “had local interests in the matter,” it said. “Mindful of our limited task on mandamus, we are not prepared to disturb the court’s findings, which provide a plausible basis for its ruling.”