Federal Circuit disposition — 25-113

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In Re DATABRICKS, INC.,
Petitioner
______________________
2025-113
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in No. 4:23-
cv-01147-ALM, Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
Before T ARANTO, STOLL , and STARK, Circuit Judges.
STARK, Circuit Judge.
O R D E R
Databricks, Inc. 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 the action to the United States Dis-
trict Court for the Northern District of California
(“NDCA”). R2 Solutions LLC (“R2”) opposes. Databricks
replies. For the following reasons, we deny the petition.
R2 filed this suit against Databricks in EDTX asserting
infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,190,601. Databricks
moved to transfer to NDCA pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Case: 25-113 Document: 15 Page: 1 Filed: 03/04/2025

-- 1 of 3 --

IN RE DATABRICKS, INC. 2
§ 1404(a). The district court denied the motion, concluding,
after analyzing the public and private interest factors, that
Databricks had not shown NDCA was clearly more conven-
ient. In particular, the court noted that judicial economy
favored keeping the case based on its familiarity with the
patent and technology gained from other suits; that EDTX
was likely to resolve this case faster than NDCA; that,
while Databricks is headquartered in NDCA, it maintains
offices and employees in EDTX, including its Director of
Technical Solutions; that “the bulk of the relevant evi-
dence” is “electronic” and “equally accessible in either
venue,” Appx6; and that the compulsory process factor was
neutral because “neither party asserts that any non-party
witness is unwilling to attend trial,” Appx8.
To establish entitlement to the extraordinary remedy
of a writ of mandamus, a petitioner must show: (1) “no
other adequate means to attain the relief [it] desires,” (2) a
“clear and indisputable” right to relief, and (3) that the writ
is “appropriate under the circumstances.” Cheney v. U.S.
Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004) (cleaned up).
On review of a § 1404(a) transfer decision, we apply the law
of the regional circuit—here, the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. In re TS Tech USA Corp.,
551 F.3d 1315, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Applying Fifth Cir-
cuit law, we grant mandamus only when there is such a
“clear” abuse of discretion that it produced a “patently er-
roneous result.” Id. (quoting In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc.,
545 F.3d 304, 310 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc)). Databricks
has not satisfied that demanding standard here.
We have recognized that a court may consider its prior
familiarity with the asserted patent in assessing whether
to transfer. See In re Vistaprint Ltd., 628 F.3d. 1342, 1344
(Fed. Cir. 2010). Of course, just because “a patent is liti-
gated in a particular [forum]” does not mean “the patent
owner will necessarily have a free pass to maintain all fu-
ture litigation involving that patent in that [forum],” id. at
1347 n.3. But the district court could reasonably find that
Case: 25-113 Document: 15 Page: 2 Filed: 03/04/2025

-- 2 of 3 --

IN RE DATABRICKS, INC. 3
the judicial economy considerations here (combined with
all other factors) were strong enough to support retaining
this case, given gained familiarity through relatively re-
cent, substantive hearings construing the patent claims in
other cases. The court also reasonably declined to assign
significant weight to the compulsory process or the sources
of proof factors given Databricks’s failure to identify any
witness in NDCA unwilling to come to trial or any source
of proof that was not also readily accessible from EDTX.
See In re Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc., 52 F.4th
625, 630–31 (5th Cir. 2022). Finally, while Databricks con-
tends that, because R2 is a non-practicing entity, the court
congestion factor is neutral, and not against transfer as the
district court determined, Databricks failed to raise this
contention in its motion to transfer. Under the circum-
stances, we decline to consider it.
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
The petition is denied.
March 4, 2025
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 25-113 Document: 15 Page: 3 Filed: 03/04/2025

-- 3 of 3 --