In Re ZEPP HEALTH CORP v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 2004 . Un- der this highly deferential…

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In Re ZEPP HEALTH CORP.,
Petitioner
______________________
2025-100
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in No. 2:23-
cv-00172-RWS-RSP, Judge Robert Schroeder, III.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
Before PROST, BRYSON , and H UGHES , Circuit Judges.
PER C URIAM.
O R D E R
Zepp Health Corp. petitions for a writ of mandamus di-
recting the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas (“EDTX”) to vacate its order denying
transfer and to transfer this action to the United States
District Court for the Central District of California
(“CDCA”). Slyde Analytics LLC opposes the petition.
Slyde, a Texas LLC with an office in Marshall, Texas,
filed this suit in EDTX against Zepp, a company incorpo-
rated in the Cayman Islands, asserting Zepp’s Amazfit
brand of smartwatches infringe seven patents. Zepp
Case: 25-100 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 11/15/2024

-- 1 of 3 --

IN RE ZEPP HEALTH CORP. 2
moved to transfer to CDCA under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The
district court denied the motion, noting the presence of po-
tential witnesses (board members and a contractor of Zepp)
and sources of proof in EDTX and co-pending litigation
brought by Slyde involving the same patents. This petition
followed. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1295(a)(1) and 1651(a). See In re Princo Corp., 478 F.3d
1345, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
“In general, three conditions must be satisfied for a
writ to issue: (1) the petitioner must demonstrate a clear
and indisputable right to issuance of the writ; (2) the peti-
tioner must have no other adequate method of attaining
the desired relief; and (3) the court must be satisfied that
the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.” In re Ap-
ple Inc., 979 F.3d 1332, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citing Cheney
v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004)). Un-
der this highly deferential standard and applying regional
circuit law, we will not disturb a transfer decision unless a
petitioner has shown there is such a “clear” abuse of discre-
tion that it produced a “patently erroneous result.” Id.
(quoting In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 310
(5th Cir. 2008) (en banc)).
Zepp’s case for transfer largely rested on the presence
of its non-party subsidiary in CDCA. The district court,
however, concluded that Zepp had failed to show the loca-
tion of that subsidiary made CDCA the clearly more con-
venient forum. First, the district court found Zepp failed
to identify any particular record custodian in CDCA and
found that all the identified evidence is electronically
stored and therefore is readily accessible in any other dis-
trict. Second, the district court noted that “Zepp has only
broadly asserted all relevant witnesses are in California,”
Appx005–006, without specifically identifying individual
potential witnesses in its transfer motion. Third, the court
found only a “somewhat tenuous local interest[]” in that
district, Appx007. We cannot say that these findings were
clearly incorrect.
Case: 25-100 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 11/15/2024

-- 2 of 3 --

IN RE ZEPP HEALTH CORP. 3
In light of the evidence of record and arguments pre-
sented, we conclude that the district court did not clearly
abuse its discretion in finding that Zepp failed to show that
CDCA was clearly more convenient than EDTX. We there-
fore deny Zepp’s petition for a writ of mandamus.
Accordingly,
IT IS O RDERED THAT:
The petition is denied.
November 15, 2024
Date
FOR THE C OURT
Case: 25-100 Document: 18 Page: 3 Filed: 11/15/2024

-- 3 of 3 --