In Re SONY GROUP CORPORATION, SONY INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT, INC v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 2004 cleaned up . 1 On June 21, 2023,…

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In Re SONY GROUP CORPORATION, SONY
INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT, INC.,
Petitioners
______________________
2024-140
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in No. 2:22-
cv-00424-JRG, Chief Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
Before D YK, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Sony Group Corporation and Sony Interactive Enter-
tainment, Inc. (collectively, “Sony”) petition for a writ of
mandamus directing 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 District Court for the Northern District of California
(“NDCA”). Resonant Systems, Inc. opposes. For the rea-
sons that follow, we deny the petition.
Case: 24-140 Document: 12 Page: 1 Filed: 09/30/2024

-- 1 of 3 --

IN RE SONY GROUP CORPORATION 2
On October 26, 2022, Resonant Systems filed this suit
against Sony in EDTX asserting infringement of U.S. Pa-
tent Nos. 8,860,337; 9,369,081; and 9,941,830. On the
same day, Resonant Systems sued Samsung Electronics
Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. in EDTX
for infringement of the ’081 and ’830 patents.1
On August 8, 2023, Sony moved to transfer this action
to NDCA under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) based largely on the
presence of its non-party Sony subsidiary, Sony Interactive
Entertainment LLC, in that district. On April 10, 2024,
the district court denied the motion, having concluded that
Sony had failed to show that NDCA was clearly more con-
venient than EDTX. Sony then moved for reconsideration,
which the district court denied on July 9, 2024.2 Sony then
filed this petition. 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).
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).
1 On June 21, 2023, Samsung moved to stay that
case pending resolution of related inter partes review pro-
ceedings, which was granted on March 8, 2024.
2 The district court’s April 10th Order initially de-
nied in part based on what it viewed as Sony’s substantial
delay in seeking transfer. On reconsideration, the court
concluded that it would have reached the same result “even
after discounting Defendants’ delay from the analysis.”
Appx 19. For present purposes, we will proceed based on
the district court having abandoned reliance on delay in its
analysis.
Case: 24-140 Document: 12 Page: 2 Filed: 09/30/2024

-- 2 of 3 --

IN RE SONY GROUP CORPORATION 3
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). Under Fifth Circuit
law, “we review only for clear abuses of discretion that pro-
duce patently erroneous results.” In re Volkswagen of Am.,
Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 312 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
Under that demanding standard, we cannot say Sony
has made a compelling showing that NDCA is clearly more
convenient, particularly given no party is located in that
district, the court found Sony failed to identify any physical
evidence or unwilling witness there, see In re Planned
Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc., 52 F.4th 625, 630 (5th Cir.
2022), the technical witnesses and material events giving
rise to the case were found to be outside NDCA, Def. Dis-
tributed v. Bruck, 30 F.4th 414, 435 (5th Cir. 2022), and, at
least at the time of the motion to transfer, it would not have
been unreasonable to say that keeping this case in EDTX
could potentially produce judicial economy benefits.
Accordingly,
The petition is denied.
September 30, 2024
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 24-140 Document: 12 Page: 3 Filed: 09/30/2024

-- 3 of 3 --