in Re Leggett & Platt, Incorporated and Simmons Bedding Company v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 34 1980 . Mandamus is thus available only if: 1 the

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

# United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

IN RE LEGGETT & PLATT, INCORPORATED
AND SIMMONS BEDDING COMPANY,
Petitioners.

Miscellaneous Docket No. 986

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California in case
no. 10-CV-7416, Judge R. Gary Klausner.

ON PETITION

Before NEWMAN, SCHALL and DYK, Circuit Judges.
NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.

## ORDER

Imaginal Systematic, LLC (Imaginal) has sued Leg-
gett & Platt, Incorporated (Leggett) and Simmons Bed-
ding Company (Simmons) in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, charging
Leggett and Simmons with infringement of a patent
relating to the manufacture of mattress box springs.
Leggett and Simmons asked the court to transfer the case

<!-- PageBreak -->

<!-- PageHeader="IN RE LEGGETT & PLATT" -->

to the United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Missouri pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which
authorizes changes of venue "for the convenience of par-
ties, and witnesses, in the interest of justice." The district
court denied the motion because the defendants failed to
make a "strong showing" that the action should be trans-
ferred for convenience of the parties and witnesses. An
order denying a motion under § 1404(a) is not a final
order, which is why Leggett and Simmons have filed this
writ of mandamus asking us to direct the district court to
transfer this case.

Mandamus is a "drastic" remedy, "to be invoked only
in extraordinary circumstances." Allied Chem. Corp. v.
Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 34 (1980). Mandamus is thus
available only if: (1) the plaintiff has a clear right to
relief; and (2) there is no other adequate remedy available
to plaintiff." Mallard v. U. S. Dist. Court for S. Dist. of
Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 309 (1989). Because this petition
does not raise issues that are unique to patent law, we
apply the law of the regional circuit, in this case the
Ninth Circuit. In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315,
1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008).

The Ninth Circuit has reiterated that the "[w]eighing
of the factors for and against transfer involves subtle
considerations and is best left to the discretion of the trial
judge[.]" Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Savage,
611 F.2d 270, 279 (9th Cir. 1979). Thus, only in "rare"
instances should an appellate court override the trial
court's decision not to transfer. Id.

We see no reason to do so here. It was not disputed
below that Leggett maintains a number of facilities in the
Central District of California. Simmons also maintains
facilities in the Central District of California where
employees not only perform the accused manufacturing

<!-- PageBreak -->

<!-- PageHeader="IN RE LEGGETT & PLATT" -->

methods, but also operate the accused machinery that
secures a plurality of box spring modules to a wood
frame-machinery that as Imaginal points out is located
in, and can be available for inspection in, the Central
District of California, but not the Western District of
Missouri. The defendants' contacts in the plaintiff's
choice of forum are thus directly related to the alleged
harm, and could plausibly justify having the trial in the
Central District of California.

Based on the same facts and arguments presented
here, the district court determined that the petitioners did
not make a sufficient showing that this action should be
transferred. We are not prepared to hold that determina-
tion was plainly incorrect. In sum, the petitioners have
failed to satisfy the demanding standard required to
justify the issuance of a writ of mandamus. We therefore
deny the petition.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied. The
motion for a stay is denied as moot.

FOR THE COURT

JUL 7 2011

Date

/s/ Jan Horbaly
Jan Horbaly
Clerk

cc: Steven M. Hanle, Esq.
Kenneth G. Parker, Esq.
Clerk, United States District Court for the Central
District of California

s19

FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR
THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
JUL 0 7 2011

JAN HORBALY
CLERK