Federal Circuit disposition — 23-123

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In re: TP-LINK TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD., TP-
LINK CORP. LTD., fka TP-Link International Ltd.,
Petitioners
______________________
2023-123
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in No. 2:21-
cv-00430-JRG-RSP, Chief Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
Before L OURIE, P ROST , and WALLACH , Circuit Judges.
WALLACH , Circuit Judge.
O R D E R
TP-Link Technologies Co., Ltd. and TP-Link Corp. Ltd.
(collectively, “TP-Link”), the defendants in this patent in-
fringement suit, petition for a writ of mandamus directing
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas to grant TP-Link’s motion to transfer this case pur-
suant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to the United States District
Court for the Central District of California. Atlas Global
Technologies LLC (“Atlas”), the plaintiff that brought this
Case: 23-123 Document: 23 Page: 1 Filed: 04/11/2023

-- 1 of 3 --

IN RE: TP- LINK TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD. 2
suit against TP-Link, opposes. For the reasons that follow,
we deny the petition.
In adopting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge to deny transfer, the district court found, among
other things, that the defendants have no presence in the
Central District of California; that while TP-Link’s domes-
tic distributor (TP-Link USA Corporation) is headquar-
tered in that forum, it has no additional information not
already in possession of the defendants; that the cost of at-
tending proceedings is not materially different between the
two forums given potential witnesses in both California
and Texas and TP-Link’s employees having to travel inter-
nationally; that the Texas court had the ability to compel
the testimony of potential non-party witnesses (an inven-
tor, component suppliers, and non-parties with relevant
and material technical information); that Atlas has filed
two other pending cases in the Eastern District of Texas
involving the same patents and technology; and that the
court is likely to be faster in adjudicating the case.
To prevail on its mandamus petition, a petitioner must
establish, among other things, that its right to relief is
“clear and indisputable.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C.,
542 U.S. 367, 381 (2004) (citation and internal quotation
marks omitted). In the § 1404(a) context, which we assess
under regional circuit law (here, the Fifth Circuit), a peti-
tioner must show that the denial of transfer was such a
“clear abuse of discretion” that refusing transfer would pro-
duce a “patently erroneous result.” In re Volkswagen of
Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 310 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc). This
is a highly deferential standard, under which we leave the
district court’s decision undisturbed unless it is clear “that
the facts and circumstances are without any basis for a
judgment of discretion.” Id. at 312 n.7 (citation omitted).
We cannot say that TP-Link has shown such a clear abuse
of discretion here.
Case: 23-123 Document: 23 Page: 2 Filed: 04/11/2023

-- 2 of 3 --

IN RE: TP- LINK TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD. 3
The district court considered the relevant factors and
reasonably determined that TP-Link had failed to show
that the Central District of California was clearly more
convenient. In particular, the court plausibly found that
judicial-economy considerations weighed against transfer
because of the co-pending claims and suits concerning the
same patents. While TP-Link is correct that such consid-
erations do not necessarily override a clear imbalance on
the other transfer factors, see In re Google LLC, 58 F.4th
1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2023), we cannot say that TP-Link
has made such a showing here, given the fact that none of
the defendants is located in the transferee forum and TP-
Link’s motion failed to identify any specific TP-Link USA
employees as potential witnesses.
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
The petition is denied.
April 11, 2023
Date
F OR THE COURT
/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
Case: 23-123 Document: 23 Page: 3 Filed: 04/11/2023

-- 3 of 3 --