In Re VIRTAMOVE, CORP v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 2004 . We disturb a district court’s…

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In Re VIRTAMOVE, CORP.,
Petitioner
______________________
2025-138
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Texas in No. 7:24-
cv-00030-ADA-DTG, Judge Alan D. Albright.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
Before REYNA, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
STOLL, Circuit Judge.
O R D E R
VirtaMove, Corp. brought this patent infringement
suit against Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC,
and Amazon Web Services, Inc. (Amazon) in the Mid-
land/Odessa Division of the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas (WDTX), but the court
transferred it to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California (NDCA), invoking its au-
thority under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404 and 1406. VirtaMove now
seeks a writ of mandamus to vacate that transfer order.
Case: 25-138 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 09/11/2025

-- 1 of 3 --

IN RE VIRTAMOVE, CORP. 2
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and
a party seeking such a writ bears the heavy burden of
demonstrating: (1) it has no adequate alternative means
for relief, (2) it has a clear and indisputable right to the
requested relief, and (3) mandamus is appropriate under
the circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542
U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004). We disturb a district court’s rul-
ing only where there is a “clear” abuse of discretion that
produced a “patently erroneous result.” In re TS Tech USA
Corp., 551 F.3d 1315, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting In re
Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 310 (5th Cir. 2008)
(en banc)). VirtaMove has not made that showing here.
In another order issued today, we denied VirtaMove’s
petition challenging the transfer of its case against Google
LLC from WDTX to NDCA. In re VirtaMove, Corp.,
No. 2025-130 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 11, 2025). VirtaMove here
reiterates largely the same arguments it raised in No.
2025-130. For the same reasons we rejected its arguments
in that case, we determine that VirtaMove has shown no
right to mandamus relief here. VirtaMove has not shown
otherwise by arguing that the court congestion factor
should have been found to weigh against transfer. See In
re Clarke, 94 F.4th 502, 515 (5th Cir. 2024) (noting docket
congestion alone cannot be dispositive); In re Google LLC,
58 F.4th 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Having concluded
VirtaMove has no right to disturb the court’s transfer rul-
ing under § 1404(a), we need not reach the issue of whether
transfer was also appropriate under § 1406(a).1
Accordingly,
1 VirtaMove notes that the parties filed a joint stip-
ulation to dismiss Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon.com Ser-
vices LLC from the case. But we see no issue with the
district court transferring the entire action to NDCA under
§ 1404(a), even if those parties will no longer participate.
Case: 25-138 Document: 14 Page: 2 Filed: 09/11/2025

-- 2 of 3 --

IN RE VIRTAMOVE, CORP. 3
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition is denied.
September 11, 2025
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 25-138 Document: 14 Page: 3 Filed: 09/11/2025

-- 3 of 3 --