Federal Circuit disposition — 25-129

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In Re SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.,
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
Petitioners
______________________
2025-129
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in No. 2:24-
cv-00049-JRG, Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
Before REYNA, MAYER, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (SEC) and Samsung
Electronics America, Inc. (SEA) (collectively, Samsung) pe-
tition for a writ of mandamus directing the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (EDTX) to
vacate its order denying Samsung’s motion to transfer and
to transfer the action to the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California (NDCA). Mullen In-
dustries LLC (Mullen) opposes. We deny the petition.
Case: 25-129 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 07/09/2025

-- 1 of 5 --

IN RE SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 2
Mullen sued SEC, a Korean company, and its American
subsidiary, SEA, alleging their smartphones, tablets, and
watches infringe several patents. Two of the accused func-
tionalities include Google Maps and Wear OS, originally
designed and developed by non-party Google, Inc. It is un-
disputed, however, that Samsung utilizes its own adapted
version of Wear OS and that any relevant documentation
of that functionality is in Korea.
Samsung moved to transfer the case to NDCA pursu-
ant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) based primarily on Google’s pres-
ence in that forum. The district court denied the motion.
The court concluded Samsung had not demonstrated SEA
had an established presence in NDCA sufficient for patent
venue, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), such that the entire action
“might have been brought” in NDCA, § 1404(a). Samsung’s
motion, the district court explained, had only stated that
“SEA has offices with over 200 regular full-time employees
in the NDCA.” Appx04. The district court found Samsung
had “fail[ed] to support this allegation with evidence of
these facilities’ addresses or support that either Defendant
operates a regular and established place of business at
these unidentified facilities.” Id.
The court nevertheless proceeded to analyze the merits
of the motion under the traditional transfer factors. The
court found that EDTX had a stronger local interest than
NDCA in resolving this case, noting Google was not a party
to the action, SEA maintains a large presence in EDTX
with relevant connections to the case, and “Defendants
have tested at least one of the accused functionalities in
this District.” Appx17. The court also found that transfer
would not result in more convenient access to sources of
proof, because, among other things, SEA maintained dam-
ages-related documents in EDTX and most of the technical
documents are likely outside either forum, in Korea.
As to the willing witnesses factor, the court acknowl-
edged that NDCA would be more convenient for potential
Case: 25-129 Document: 14 Page: 2 Filed: 07/09/2025

-- 2 of 5 --

IN RE SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 3
Google witnesses and for SEC employees in Korea who may
testify. But it found that any comparative advantage to
NDCA in this regard was tempered by the presence of po-
tential SEA employee witnesses in EDTX and the fact that
Samsung used non-Google software or an adapted version
of Google’s software for two of the three accused function-
alities. The court found that the remaining factors were
neutral. On balance, the court determined Samsung had
failed to show that NDCA was clearly more convenient.
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)). Samsung has
not satisfied that demanding standard here.
We see no clear abuse in the district court’s conclusion
that Samsung did not satisfy the threshold requirement for
transfer under § 1404(a). The burden for establishing
transfer was on Samsung. Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 315.
And Samsung dedicated a perfunctory sentence in its
transfer motion to assert venue over SEA in NDCA was
proper. The court plausibly focused on that de minimis
presentation, see generally Magnolia Island Plantation,
L.L.C. v. Whittington, 29 F.4th 246, 251–52 (5th Cir. 2022),
and concluded it was insufficient. We cannot say that
Case: 25-129 Document: 14 Page: 3 Filed: 07/09/2025

-- 3 of 5 --

IN RE SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 4
conclusion was a clear abuse of discretion.1 Furthermore,
Samsung has not otherwise shown a clear and indisputable
right to transfer. The district court plausibly found that
EDTX—where SEA maintains significant relevant opera-
tions and where at least one of the accused products was
tested—is home to potential witnesses and sources of proof.
While Samsung contends that the court should have given
more weight to potential witnesses and sources of proof in,
or closer to, NDCA, we cannot say the district court’s con-
clusion that Samsung failed to show NDCA was clearly
more convenient was a clear abuse of discretion.2
Accordingly,
1 Although there is not a venue problem with NDCA
for SEC, a foreign corporation, see In re HTC Corp., 889
F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018), “[i]n suits against multi-
ple defendants, transfer is proper only to a district in which
all of them are subject to personal jurisdiction and in which
venue is proper for an action against all of them,” 15
Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Fed. Prac. & Proc.
Juris. § 3845 (4th ed. May 2025 Update) (collecting cases).
2 Samsung notes that third-party potential wit-
nesses who can be compelled to testify by way of subpoena
have been identified in NDCA but not in EDTX. However,
in cases like this, where no individual has been identified
as unwilling to testify, that factor is not generally entitled
to significant weight. See In re TikTok Inc., 85 F.4th 352,
361 (5th Cir. 2023).
Case: 25-129 Document: 14 Page: 4 Filed: 07/09/2025

-- 4 of 5 --

IN RE SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. 5
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition is denied.
July 9, 2025
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 25-129 Document: 14 Page: 5 Filed: 07/09/2025

-- 5 of 5 --