In Re Google Inc.

\ \ 1-1 NOTE: This order is n0nprecedentia1. United States Court of Appeals for the FederaI Circuit IN RE GOOGLE INC., ADOBE SYSTEMS INC., AMAZON.COM, INC., APPLE INC., CDW LLC, EBAY INC., JP MORGAN CHASE & CO., NEW FRONTIER MEDIA, INC., ORACLE AMERICA, INC., (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SUN MICROSYSTEMS INC.), PLAYBOY ENTERPRISES INTERNATIONAL, INC., STAPLES, INC., TI-IE GO DADDY GROUP, INC., YAHOO! INC., AND YOUTUBE; LLC, Petiti0n,ers. Misce11ane0us D0cket N0. 968 011 Petiti0n for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District C0urt for the Eastern District of Texas in case n0s. 09-CV-0446, Judge Le0nard Davis. " ON PETITION Before PROsT, MAYER, and MO0RE, Circuic Judges. MOORE, Circuit Judge. 0 R D E R lN RE GOOGLE 2 This is a petition for a writ of mandamus from an or- der denying a motion to transfer to the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) 0r, in the alternative, to sever and transfer plaintiffs claims against certain defendants. The petition arises out of a patent infringement suit against twenty-two defendants1 brought by EolaS Technolog“ies, Inc. (Eolas), the exclusive licensee of the patents-in-suit. Eolas filed this suit in its home district, the Eastern District of TeXas. Of the defendants, four reside in the forum, seven reside in the Northern District of Ca1ifornia, and the remaining reside in other districts throughout the country Severa1 defendants moved to transfer the case to the Northern District of California. A1ternatively, the defendants argued that, if any defendant served as a barrier to transfer, then the district court should sever the claims against that defendant and transfer the re- 1 Among the petitioners, Google, Adobe, Apple, eBay Inc., Oracle, Yahoo! Inc., YouTube, LLC, are head- quartered in the Northern District of California, Ama- zon.com, Inc. is headquartered in Seattle, Washington, CDW LLC and P1ayboy Enterprises Internati0nal, Inc. are headquartered in Illinois, Go Daddy GrUup ia__;l1}ead- quartered in Arizona, New Frontier Media, Inc. is head- quartered in Colorado, Staples, Inc. is headquartered in Massachusetts, and JPMorgan Case & Co. is headquar- tered in New York. A1nong the other defendants, Texas Instruments Inc. is headquartered in Dal1as, Texas, Perot Systems Corp., Frito-Lay, Inc., J.C. Penney Company, Inc., and Rent-A-Center, Inc. are headquartered in the Eastern District of Texas, Citigroup Inc. is headquartered in NeW York, Argosy Publishing Inc. is headquartered in Massachusetts, and Off1ce Depot, Inc. is headquartered in Florida. Originally, Blockbuster Inc. was also joined but has now been severed . ij -»--1»---v » " 3 IN RE GOOGLE mainder of the case to the Northern District of California. The district court denied those motions. The district court explained that the Eastern District of Texas has a local interest in adjudicating this matter because Eolas main- tains of5ces and is incorporated in the forum and because four defendants are also headquartered there. The court also explained that for those parties "it will be substan- tially more convenient for the case to continue in the Eastern District of Texas.” Eolas Tech. Inc. v. Adobe Systems, Inc., 6:09-CV-00446, slip op. at 5 (E.D. Texas. Sept. 28, 2010) (hereinafter T?'ansfer Order). The court also denied the petitioners request to sever and transfer, explaining that the products, facts, and issues of law were significantly related and overlapping and that severance and transfer would not preserve judicial economy. “[D]eference” the Supreme C0urt has stated “is the hallmark of abuse of discretion review.” Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 143 (1975). Our reluctance to interfere is not a formality. Section 1404(a) of title 28 of the United States Code provides that a district court “mcty transfer" a civil action to another court “[f]or the conven- ience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice." (emphasis added). Thus, the transfer statute itself com- mits the balancing determination to the sound discretion of the trial court based on its familiarity with th`é"case and issues involved. See fn re Vistaprint Ltd., 628 F.3d l342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing A. Olim§ck & Sons v. Dem.pster Bros., Inc., 365 F.2d 439, 444 (2d Cir. 1966)). Our authority here on mandamus review is narrow, confined solely to determining whether the trial court’s denial of transfer produced a patently erroneous result See In re Volkswagen, of Am,., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 310 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc). The district court did not abuse its discretion. With regard to the motion to transfer the entire action, the IN RE GOOGLE 4 district court first acknowledged that the Northern Dis- trict of California would be more convenient for the seven defendants that reside there._ Tran.sfer Order at 5. But it similarly determined that four of the defendants were headquartered in the Eastern District of Texas and that for these parties "it will be substantially more convenient for the case to continue in the Eastern District of Texas.” Id. “Where [defendants] are in different states there is no choice of forum that will avoid imposing inconvenience [.]” In re Not’I Presto Inclus., Inc., 347 F.3d 662, 665 (7th Cir. 2003). We cannot hold that, on these facts, the district court abused its discretion in refusing to transfer the entire action. We also cannot say that the trial court abused its dis- cretion in refusing to sever and transfer the petitioners’ claims to the Northern District of California. 'Courts have consistently held that judicial economy plays a para- mount role in trying t0 maintain an 0rderly, effective, administration of justice and having one trial court decide all of these claims clearly furthers that objective. See Cont’l Gra£n Co. v. Barge FBL-5S5, 364 U.S. 19, 26 (1960); see also Vistaprint, 628 F.3d at 1346. Further, the district court noted that, in this case, “adjudicating infringe- ment . . . will involve substantially overlapping questions of law or fact." Tron,sfer Order at 3. This determination does not amount to an abuse of discretion Accordingly, IT ls ORDERED THAT: The petition is denied FoR THE CoUR'r 0 4 lsi Jan Horbaly Date J an Horbaly Clerk Fl U.S. COURT 0l?EA?PEALS FW THE FEDERAL ClRCU1T FAR 04 2011 JAN H9}`€BALY CLERK