Federal Circuit disposition — 25-123

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In Re QUALCOMM INCORPORATED, APPLE INC.,
Petitioners
______________________
2025-123
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Texas in No. 6:21-
cv-00346-ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright.
______________________
ON PETITION AND MOTION
______________________
Before REYNA, MAYER, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
Qualcomm Incorporated petitions for a writ of manda-
mus directing the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas (“WDTX”) to vacate its order
denying Qualcomm and Apple Inc.’s motion to transfer pur-
suant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and to transfer this action to
the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California (“NDCA”). Apple moves to join the petition.
Red Rock Analytics, LLC opposes the petition but does not
oppose Apple’s motion. Qualcomm and Apple jointly reply
in support of the petition.
Case: 25-123 Document: 24 Page: 1 Filed: 06/24/2025

-- 1 of 4 --

IN RE QUALCOMM INCORPORATED 2
Red Rock filed the underlying suit against Qualcomm
and Apple (collectively, “the Petitioners”) in WDTX, alleg-
ing that products with a 5G wireless transmitter infringe
U.S. Patent No. 7,346,313, entitled “Calibration of I-Q Bal-
ance in Transceivers.” The Petitioners moved to transfer
the case to NDCA pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). After
analyzing the public and private interest factors that gov-
ern transfer decisions under the law of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the district court
concluded that Qualcomm and Apple had not shown NDCA
to be clearly more convenient and denied the motion.
Specifically, the district court determined that two of
the factors weigh against transfer, even if one (relative
ease of access to sources of proof) did so only slightly, and
that the remaining factors were neutral. The court noted
that “both venues contain witnesses with specialized
knowledge not found in the other venue,” Appx0013; a
third-party component manufacturer (Samsung Austin
Semiconductor (“SAS”)) has employees that are potential
witnesses and maintains relevant technical and testing
documents in WDTX; documents in NDCA are in electronic
format; and while Apple is headquartered in NDCA, both
Apple and Qualcomm have significant relevant operations
in WDTX where research related to the accused products
and development of applicable hardware features were per-
formed, Appx0024.
Qualcomm and Apple now challenge the district court’s
denial of transfer under § 1404(a). We apply regional cir-
cuit law under such circumstances. See In re TS Tech USA
Corp., 551 F.3d 1315, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008). Under Fifth
Circuit law, transfer “is properly granted only if the moving
party clearly establishes good cause by clearly demonstrat-
ing that a transfer is for the convenience of parties and wit-
nesses, in the interest of justice,” In re Clarke, 94 F.4th 502,
508 (5th Cir. 2024) (cleaned up), and we review the denial
of transfer on mandamus only for a “clear abuse of
Case: 25-123 Document: 24 Page: 2 Filed: 06/24/2025

-- 2 of 4 --

IN RE QUALCOMM INCORPORATED 3
discretion,” TS Tech, 551 F.3d at 1318. We cannot say that
the Petitioners have satisfied that demanding standard
here.
To be sure, the fact that the Petitioners maintain of-
fices in WDTX does not, standing alone, necessarily make
that forum convenient or give it a local interest. See In re
Juniper Networks, Inc., 14 F.4th 1313, 1319–1320 (Fed.
Cir. 2021). But here, the district court found that events
giving rise to this patent infringement suit occurred in both
forums and both have potential witnesses with material
and relevant information. The Petitioners challenge the
district court’s finding that both sides “point to a variety of
possible witnesses who may serve roles within this law-
suit,” including I-Q calibration and “relevant knowledge of
the claimed hardware.” Appx0010. But we cannot say un-
der the circumstances here that the court’s case-specific as-
sessment of this record was a clear abuse of discretion. See
In re Vistaprint Ltd., 628 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
The Petitioners further argue that the district court
erred in its analysis of the compulsory process factor in
stating that “[i]t is unlikely that any of the prior art inven-
tors or paper authors [in NDCA] who were hand-picked by
the Defendants will testify at trial.” Appx0018. While the
Petitioners are correct that such categorical assumptions
are generally not helpful in the analysis of transfer under
§ 1404(a), Juniper, 14 F.4th at 1319; see Stewart Org., Inc.
v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988) (requiring an “indi-
vidualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and
fairness” (citation omitted)), they failed to show that any of
these potential witnesses are unwilling to testify. See In re
Planned Parenthood Fed’n of Am., Inc., 52 F.4th 625, 630–
31 (5th Cir. 2022) (holding that this factor “receives less
weight when it has not been alleged or shown that any wit-
ness would be unwilling to testify”).
Finally, the Petitioners contend that the district court
erred in refusing to weigh the sources of proof factor in
Case: 25-123 Document: 24 Page: 3 Filed: 06/24/2025

-- 3 of 4 --

IN RE QUALCOMM INCORPORATED 4
favor of transfer by finding that “[n]either party has pre-
sented a compelling argument for an increased ease of ac-
cess to sources of proof being present in either venue,”
Appx0016, and that third party SAS’s technical and testing
documents in WDTX “are likely to be of some limited im-
portance,” id. Specifically, the Petitioners contend that
some of the electronically stored documents “are not acces-
sible remotely from WDTX” or at least not accessible to em-
ployees of the Petitioners remotely from WDTX. Pet. at 27.
The Petitioners, however, failed to specifically identify any
access restrictions in their initial motion to transfer and
supporting declarations before the trial court. Under these
circumstances, we decline to consider the argument.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) Apple’s motion for joinder is granted, and the peti-
tion is denied.
(2) The official caption is revised as reflected in this
order.
June 24, 2025
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 25-123 Document: 24 Page: 4 Filed: 06/24/2025

-- 4 of 4 --