In Re FUTABA CORPORATION OF AMERICA v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 2004 quoting Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct.…

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In Re FUTABA CORPORATION OF AMERICA,
Petitioner
______________________
2024-131
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Texas in No. 6:23-
cv-00440-ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
Before P ROST , T ARANTO, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Futaba Corporation of America (“FCA”) petitions for a
writ of mandamus directing the United States District
Court for the Western District of Texas (“WDTX”) to dis-
miss this case or, in the alternative, to stay proceedings
pending a ruling on its motion to dismiss for improper
venue and lack of personal jurisdiction. UUSI, LLC (“Nar-
tron”) opposes the petition.
Nartron sued FCA for patent and copyright infringe-
ment in WDTX. FCA filed a motion to dismiss for improper
venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) and for lack of
Case: 24-131 Document: 22 Page: 1 Filed: 07/22/2024

-- 1 of 3 --

IN RE FUTABA CORPORATION OF AMERICA 2
personal jurisdiction. In response to that motion, Nartron
sought leave to amend the complaint to add FCA’s parent
company, Futaba Corporation, as a party and to add alle-
gations against a Futaba affiliate with a place of business
in WDTX. On May 30, 2024, FCA filed this petition for a
writ of mandamus asking this court to direct WDTX to ei-
ther dismiss the case or rule on FCA’s motion to dismiss.
On June 20, 2024, the district court issued an order grant-
ing FCA’s motion for leave to amend its complaint. Having
allowed Nartron to file the amended complaint, the district
court issued a separate order the same day deeming FCA’s
motion to dismiss the previous complaint moot. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1295(a)(1), 1651.
Under the well-established standard for obtaining
mandamus relief, a petitioner must: (1) show that it has a
“clear and indisputable” right to issuance of the writ; (2)
show that it does not have any other adequate means to
obtain relief; and (3) convince the court that “the writ is
appropriate under the circumstances.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist.
Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004) (quoting Kerr v.
U.S. Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of Cal., 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976)).
FCA has not met that standard. In light of the orders
granting leave to file the new complaint and dismissing
FCA’s motion, FCA’s right to a stay or dismissal of the prior
complaint is anything but “clear and indisputable.” FCA’s
ability to raise challenges to the new complaint by way of a
motion to dismiss or on appeal after final judgment further
provide adequate alternative means to relief such that our
immediate intervention here is unwarranted.
Accordingly,
Case: 24-131 Document: 22 Page: 2 Filed: 07/22/2024

-- 2 of 3 --

IN RE FUTABA CORPORATION OF AMERICA 3
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
The petition is denied.
July 22, 2024
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 24-131 Document: 22 Page: 3 Filed: 07/22/2024

-- 3 of 3 --