In Re HAPTIC, INC v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380 2004 , we will disturb a district court’s…

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In Re HAPTIC, INC.,
Petitioner
______________________
2024-121
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Texas in No. 1:23-
cv-01351-RP, Judge Robert L. Pitman.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
Before STOLL, CUNNINGHAM, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
STOLL, Circuit Judge.
O R D E R
The United States District Court for the Western Dis-
trict of Texas (“WDTX”) transferred Haptic, Inc.’s patent
infringement case against Apple Inc. to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California
(“NDCA”). Haptic now petitions for a writ of mandamus
directing the district court to vacate that order and re-
quests the case be returned to WDTX. We deny the peti-
tion.
Haptic brought this suit against Apple in the WDTX,
alleging that the “Back Tap” feature on Apple’s iPhones
Case: 24-121 Document: 22 Page: 1 Filed: 06/25/2024

-- 1 of 5 --

IN RE HAPTIC, INC. 2
infringes Haptic’s patent relating to gesture detection sys-
tems. Apple moved pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to
transfer the case to NDCA, which the district court granted
after analyzing the public- and private-interest factors rel-
evant under § 1404(a). Specifically, the court found three
factors weighed in favor of transfer and the remaining fac-
tors were neutral. The court explained that Apple had
“clearly shown through its employee declarations that the
bulk of its relevant evidence is in NDCA, not WDTX;” that
“the majority of the Apple employees who developed and
work with the allegedly infringing technology are in”
NDCA; and that the creation of the accused product
“largely took place in NDCA and not in WDTX.” Appx006;
Appx011; Appx014. This petition followed. We have juris-
diction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1295(a)(1) and 1651(a).
We follow regional circuit law in reviewing decisions to
transfer made under § 1404(a). See In re TS Tech USA
Corp., 551 F.3d 1315, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008). It is well es-
tablished under Fifth Circuit law that transfer “should be
granted if ‘the movant demonstrates that the transferee
venue is clearly more convenient.’” In re Radmax, Ltd., 720
F.3d 285, 288 (5th Cir. 2013) (quoting In re Volkswagen of
Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 315 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc)). And
on mandamus, which is a “drastic and extraordinary rem-
edy,” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380
(2004), we will disturb a district court’s decision transfer-
ring a case only if it amounts to a “‘clear’ abuse of discre-
tion” that produced a “patently erroneous result.” TS Tech,
551 F.3d at 1319 (quoting Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 310); In
re TikTok, Inc., 85 F.4th 352, 358 (5th Cir. 2023). We can-
not say Haptic has made that showing here.
Haptic challenges several of the court’s transfer find-
ings, but its arguments are unpersuasive particularly in
light of the applicable standard of review on mandamus.
As to the sources of proof factor, we cannot agree with Hap-
tic that the district court clearly erred in relying exclu-
sively on source code and other electronic sources of proof
Case: 24-121 Document: 22 Page: 2 Filed: 06/25/2024

-- 2 of 5 --

IN RE HAPTIC, INC. 3
in NDCA in finding that this factor favors transfer. Nota-
bly, Apple submitted sworn declarations attesting to the
fact that such information was restricted on a need-to-
know basis to Apple employees located in NDCA and areas
outside WDTX. See, e.g., Appx106. Under such circum-
stances, the district court here reasonably could conclude
under Fifth Circuit law that the sources of proof are more
easily accessible from NDCA than WDTX. See TikTok, 85
F.4th at 359 (“[T]he key evidence may be electronic, but . . .
it is not equally accessible in either forum.” (internal quo-
tation marks and citation omitted)).
As to the cost of attendance for willing witnesses, Apple
submitted sworn declarations in support of its motion
demonstrating that several of its employees knowledgeable
about the accused functionality, the sales and marketing of
the accused products, and Apple’s licensing practices are
either in NDCA or would find the transferee venue more
convenient, while no Apple employee in WDTX appeared to
have relevant and material information. The district court
recognized that Haptic identified two of its own potential
witnesses in WDTX and one potential witness in Houston,
Texas, but determined that, on balance, the burden on po-
tential witnesses would be materially less if the case were
transferred to NDCA. We have no basis to second guess
that determination on mandamus review.1
1 Haptic contends that if this court does not decide to
reverse the district court’s transfer ruling, it should order
the district court to allow Haptic to take discovery of indi-
viduals responsible for the development of the Back Tap
feature, the locations in which Apple stores documents, and
to test or challenge other statements made in Apple’s dec-
larations. However, Haptic’s discovery request in the dis-
trict court amounted to just a single sentence in its
opposition to Apple’s transfer motion and did not even
Case: 24-121 Document: 22 Page: 3 Filed: 06/25/2024

-- 3 of 5 --

IN RE HAPTIC, INC. 4
The court also reasonably concluded that the local in-
terest factor favors transfer, given at least part of the de-
sign and development of the accused products took place in
NDCA, and not at all in WDTX. See In re Apple Inc., 979
F.3d 1332, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Although Haptic argues
that a 2016 meeting between its predecessor and Apple in
Houston forms the basis of its willfulness contentions and
that Haptic developed its own technology in WDTX, we
cannot say that the district court clearly erred in refusing
to find those establish a comparable local interest in
WDTX, since, as the district court noted, the meeting “took
place outside of WDTX,” and “[i]t was not Haptic’s creation
of [its own product] that gave rise to this suit but rather
Apple’s creation of” the accused product. Appx013–14.
Finally, as to court congestion, Haptic likens this case
to In re Clarke, 94 F. 4th 502, 515 (5th Cir. 2024), relying
on the district court’s statement here that “the undersigned
has a particularly busy civil caseload.” Appx012. But this
comparison is inapt. In Clarke, the Fifth Circuit granted
mandamus to reverse transfer on the ground that “transfer
cannot be granted solely because of court congestion.” 94
F.4th at 515. There, “none of the [other transfer] factors
specifically weighed in favor of transferring the case.” Id.
at 516. Here, by contrast, the district court weighed the
court congestion factor in its analysis only as neutral or
“slightly in favor of transfer at best,” Appx013, and reason-
ably found several other factors favored transfer.
Accordingly,
indicate the type of discovery it sought. Under these cir-
cumstances, Haptic does not have a clear entitlement to
discovery.
Case: 24-121 Document: 22 Page: 4 Filed: 06/25/2024

-- 4 of 5 --

IN RE HAPTIC, INC. 5
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition is denied.
June 25, 2024
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 24-121 Document: 22 Page: 5 Filed: 06/25/2024

-- 5 of 5 --