Federal Circuit disposition — 24-138

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In Re KIA CORP., KIA AMERICA, INC.,
Petitioners
______________________
2024-138
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in No. 2:23-
cv-00437-JRG, Chief Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
Before D YK , REYNA, and CHEN , Circuit Judges.
PER C URIAM.
O R D E R
Kia Corp. and Kia America, Inc. (collectively, “Kia”) pe-
tition for a writ of mandamus directing the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (“EDTX”)
to transfer this action to the United States District Court
for the Central District of California (“CDCA”). Emerging
Automotive LLC (“EA”) opposes the petition. Kia replies.
In September 2023, EA brought this suit against Kia
in EDTX as well as a separate suit in EDTX against Toyota
Motor North America, Inc. and its affiliates (collectively,
Case: 24-138 Document: 25 Page: 1 Filed: 10/01/2024

-- 1 of 3 --

IN RE KIA CORP. 2
“Toyota”), alleging infringement of the same three patents.
The cases were consolidated for pre-trial proceedings.
Kia moved to transfer this case under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1404(a) to CDCA.1 On June 14, 2024, the district court
denied the motion. Analyzing the public- and private-in-
terest factors, the court determined that its adjudication of
this and the Toyota case would benefit judicial economy;
that EDTX is home to potential witnesses and evidence;
and that no physical evidence or unwilling third-party wit-
nesses are in CDCA.2 This petition followed. We have ju-
risdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1295(a)(1) and 1651(a); In re
Princo Corp., 478 F.3d 1345, 1351–52 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Mandamus is “reserved for extraordinary situations.”
Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S.
271, 289 (1988) (citation omitted). Our review of transfer
decisions is governed by 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 Circuit law, we grant mandamus
only when there is such a “clear” abuse of discretion that it
produced a “patently erroneous result.” Id. (quoting In re
Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 310 (5th Cir. 2008)
(en banc)). Under this highly deferential standard, we will
not disturb a transfer decision unless it is clear “that the
facts and circumstances are without any basis for a judg-
ment of discretion.” Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 312 n.7 (cita-
tion omitted). Kia fails to make that showing here.
It was not clear error for the district court to consider
the potential judicial economy benefit to resolving both this
1 Toyota has not moved to transfer the consolidated
action out of EDTX.
2 There is no dispute that the action meets the
threshold requirement for transfer under § 1404(a) that
the action “might have been brought” in CDCA.
Case: 24-138 Document: 25 Page: 2 Filed: 10/01/2024

-- 2 of 3 --

IN RE KIA CORP. 3
case and the Toyota case, which it noted involve “substan-
tially similar” accused technologies and three of the same
patents. Appx24; see also In re Vistaprint Ltd., 628 F.3d
1342, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2010). While we have recognized that
the benefits of transfer based on other considerations
might be so clear that denial of transfer based on judicial
economy alone cannot be supported, see, e.g., In re Sam-
sung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 2 F.4th 1371, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2021),
we cannot say that Kia has shown here the type of imbal-
ance on the other factors to warrant disturbing the district
court’s refusal to transfer on mandamus review.
Accordingly,
IT IS O RDERED THAT:
The petition is denied.
October 1, 2024
Date
FOR THE C OURT
Case: 24-138 Document: 25 Page: 3 Filed: 10/01/2024

-- 3 of 3 --