Federal Circuit disposition — 23-150

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In re: ASSA ABLOY GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC.,
Petitioner
______________________
2023-150
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in No.
1:23-cv-00756, Judge Charles P. Kocoras.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
Before L OURIE, MAYER, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
STARK, Circuit Judge.
O R D E R
ASSA ABLOY Global Solutions, Inc. (“AAGS”) peti-
tions for a writ of mandamus seeking to vacate the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois’
(“NDIll”) order directing transfer to the United States Dis-
trict Court for the Eastern District of Texas (“EDTX”).1
1 The district court stayed transfer pending resolu-
tion of this petition.
Case: 23-150 Document: 12 Page: 1 Filed: 10/27/2023

-- 1 of 4 --

IN RE: ASSA ABLOY GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC. 2
Liberty Access Technologies Licensing LLC (“Liberty”) op-
poses. For the following reasons, we deny the petition.
In 2018, nearly five years before this case was filed,
Liberty sued other defendants in NDIll for infringement of
U.S. Patent Nos. 9,373,205 and 9,911,258. Those parties
settled after briefing a motion to dismiss. In late 2022, Lib-
erty brought suit against AAGS’ parent companies and one
of AAGS’ customers in EDTX, asserting infringement of
one of the same patents involved in the earlier action, U.S.
Patent No. 9,373,205, and two additional patents (Nos.
10,657,747 and 11,373,474). In early 2023, AAGS filed this
declaratory judgment action in NDIll for non-infringement
of the three patents previously asserted in EDTX, asserting
in its complaint that venue was proper “pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1).” Appx. 10.
Liberty moved to transfer to EDTX under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1404(a), which the district court granted. Applying the
law of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit,2 the district court found that AAGS’ choice of
2 Under Seventh Circuit law, the § 1404(a) transfer
movant “has the burden of establishing . . . that the trans-
feree forum is clearly more convenient.” Coffey v. Van Dorn
Iron Works, 796 F.2d 217, 219–20 & n.3 (7th Cir. 1986).
Relevant considerations include: (1) “plaintiff’s choice of fo-
rum,” (2) “availability of and access to witnesses,” (3) “each
party’s access to and distance from resources in each fo-
rum,” (4) “location of material events,” (5) “relative ease of
access to sources of proof,” (6) “docket congestion and likely
speed to trial,” (7) “each court’s relative familiarity with the
relevant law,” (8) “the respective desirability of resolving
controversies in each locale,” and (9) “the relationship of
each community to the controversy.” Rsch. Automation,
Inc. v. Schrader-Bridgeport Int’l, Inc., 626 F.3d 973, 978–
79 (7th Cir. 2010).
Case: 23-150 Document: 12 Page: 2 Filed: 10/27/2023

-- 2 of 4 --

IN RE: ASSA ABLOY GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC. 3
forum was not entitled to substantial weight because
AAGS has its principal place of business in the Northern
District of Texas, Liberty has its principal place of business
in the Western District of Texas, and neither had substan-
tial connections to Illinois. The court further found that
judicial economy considerations strongly favored transfer
based on the pending EDTX cases, while the other factors
were neutral. Ultimately, the district court concluded that
Liberty had shown transfer was appropriate. AAGS then
filed this petition. We have jurisdiction over the matter
under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1295(a)(1) and 1651(a). See In re
Princo, 478 F.3d 1345, 1351–52 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
To obtain the extraordinary remedy of a writ of man-
damus to overturn transfer, the petitioner must show:
(1) there are no adequate alternative avenues for relief,
(2) the right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputa-
ble, and (3) issuance of the writ is appropriate under the
circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S.
367, 380–81 (2004). For mandamus review of § 1404(a)
transfer decisions, we apply the law of the regional circuit,
In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315, 1319 (Fed.
Cir. 2008), and will issue the writ only where there is a
“clear abuse of discretion [that] will justify the invocation
of this extraordinary remedy,” Cheney, 542 U.S. at 380
(cleaned up). AAGS fails to meet this demanding standard.
Although AAGS contends that this action could not
“have been brought” in EDTX, as EDTX would not (accord-
ing to AAGS) have been a proper venue under either 28
U.S.C. § 1391(b) or § 1400(b) – as AAGS purportedly does
not “reside[]” in or have a “regular and established place of
business” in EDTX – AAGS did not present this threshold
argument to the district court. Instead, its opposition
raised § 1400(b), the patent venue statute, only as one con-
sideration to be weighed in the discretionary interest of jus-
tice analysis. That argument does not clearly preserve the
threshold challenge it now makes the centerpiece of its
Case: 23-150 Document: 12 Page: 3 Filed: 10/27/2023

-- 3 of 4 --

IN RE: ASSA ABLOY GLOBAL SOLUTIONS, INC. 4
petition to us. We therefore decline to find a clear abuse of
discretion based on AAGS’ forfeited argument.3
AAGS’ other arguments principally contend that the
district court applied too lenient of a standard in granting
transfer and erred by failing to give greater weight to con-
nections with NDIll based on a years-old closed case from
that forum. After considering the relevant factors and par-
ticular facts of this case, the district court disagreed, giving
more weight in its analysis to judicial economy considera-
tions favoring transfer. On our limited review, we cannot
say that the district court so clearly abused its discretion
in granting transfer based on the pending cases in EDTX
and the limited connections to NDIll as to warrant the ex-
traordinary remedy of mandamus.
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
The petition is denied.
October 27, 2023
Date
F OR THE COURT
3 AAGS’ contention that we must address the
§ 1400(b) question is in tension with its identification in its
complaint of only 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), the general venue
statute applicable to non-patent civil actions, as the basis
for NDIll being a proper venue. Appx. 10–11, 50–51.
Case: 23-150 Document: 12 Page: 4 Filed: 10/27/2023

-- 4 of 4 --