Federal Circuit disposition — 24-135

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In Re DAVID’S DOZER V-LOC SYSTEM INC.,
DAVID ARMAS,
Petitioners
______________________
2024-135
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida in No.
1:23-cv-24931-CMA, Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
Before L OURIE, H UGHES , and STARK, Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
David’s Dozer V-Loc System Inc. and David Armas (col-
lectively, “David’s Dozer”) petition this court for a writ of
mandamus challenging the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Florida (“SDFL”)’s order trans-
ferring the underlying action to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Iowa (“NDIA”). Deere &
Company and John Deere Construction and Forestry Com-
pany (collectively, “Deere”) oppose the petition.
Case: 24-135 Document: 23 Page: 1 Filed: 09/11/2024

-- 1 of 3 --

IN RE DAVID’ S DOZER V- LOC SYSTEM INC. 2
David’s Dozer filed this suit in SDFL, alleging false ad-
vertising and patent infringement. David’s Dozer also
sought a correction of inventorship to name Mr. Armas
(David’s Dozer’s founder) as a joint inventor to certain of
Deere’s patents. Deere moved to transfer the action to
NDIA pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), noting that the ac-
cused products were designed in NDIA and that NDIA
would be more convenient for the employees and contrac-
tors who helped develop Deere’s accused products, were re-
sponsible for the allegedly false advertisements, and are
inventors of the relevant Deere patents.
After analyzing the public and private interest factors
that govern transfer determinations under the law of the
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit,
the district court concluded that Deere had established
good cause to transfer to NDIA. The court determined,
among other things, that “the bulk of the witnesses would
be inconvenienced by litigating in [SDFL],” Appx7; it would
be easier to access the accused large products from NDIA,
even if Deere could transport the machinery to SDFL; that
David’s Dozer’s choice of forum was entitled to little weight
because the suit was filed outside of where it found the lo-
cus of operative events occurred; and that the relative
means of the parties favor neither forum, given David’s
Dozer and Deere were corporate entities.
We have jurisdiction to consider David’s Dozer’s petition
seeking the extraordinary remedy of mandamus under 28
U.S.C. §§ 1651 and 1295. We apply regional circuit law—
here the Eleventh Circuit—when reviewing a decision
granting transfer under § 1404(a). In re Juniper Networks,
Inc., 14 F.4th 1313, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2021). And we review
transfer decisions on mandamus only for a clear abuse of
discretion under governing legal standards. See id.; In re
BayCare Med. Grp., Inc., 101 F.4th 1287, 1290 (11th Cir.
2024); Brown v. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co., 934 F.2d 1193,
1197 (11th Cir. 1991) (“Absent a clear abuse of discretion,
Case: 24-135 Document: 23 Page: 2 Filed: 09/11/2024

-- 2 of 3 --

IN RE DAVID’ S DOZER V- LOC SYSTEM INC. 3
an appellate court will not reverse a court’s decision to
transfer a case.”).
The district court did not clearly abuse its discretion.
It recognized that “a plaintiff’s choice of forum should not
be disturbed unless it is clearly outweighed by other con-
siderations,” Appx16, but reasonably found that was the
case here. David’s Dozer primarily argues that the court
should have given its choice of forum more deference given
the suit was filed in its home venue. We see no clear abuse
of discretion, however, in the court finding that “other con-
siderations outweigh Plaintiffs’ choice to litigate at home.”
Appx17. Nor can we say that the district court clearly
abused its discretion in finding the relative means of the
parties factor to be neutral.
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
The petition is denied.
September 11, 2024
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 24-135 Document: 23 Page: 3 Filed: 09/11/2024

-- 3 of 3 --