Federal Circuit disposition — 24-129

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In Re APPLE INC.,
Petitioner
______________________
2024-129
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Texas in No. 7:23-
cv-00077-ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
Before L OURIE, C UNNINGHAM , and STARK, Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Apple Inc. seeks a writ of mandamus directing the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Texas to transfer this patent infringement action to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. Resonant Systems, Inc. opposes.
In June 2023, Resonant brought this suit in the West-
ern District of Texas, alleging that various models of Ap-
ple’s mobile phones, computers, and watches infringe four
patents relating to haptic feedback devices. Apple filed a
motion to transfer the action to the Northern District of
Case: 24-129 Document: 20 Page: 1 Filed: 08/21/2024

-- 1 of 4 --

IN RE APPLE INC. 2
California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). To support its
contention that “Apple engineers who research, design, de-
velop, and implement the Taptic Engines in the accused
products are almost all in California,” Appx101, Apple re-
lied on a declaration submitted by Chang Zhang, an engi-
neer who manages Apple’s team responsible for taptic
engines in the accused computer products.
Resonant opposed the transfer motion, arguing that
Zhang’s declaration was unreliable and “artificially lim-
ited” to “Taptic Engine” technology “rather than all of the
accused components” at the expense of potential witnesses
and evidence “in Austin[, Texas] and elsewhere.” Appx762.
Resonant contended that it “expects that the trial will focus
on the claimed driving component and control component”
of Apple’s products, which it argues are not addressed by
Apple’s motion and declarations, and that it “intends to
prove at trial that amplifier components supplied by Cirrus
Logic of Austin, Texas contribute to infringement of the
claimed driving component and/or control component.”
Appx136. Resonant also identified several Cirrus Logic
employees in the Western District that “have relevant in-
formation about the operation, marketing, and/or account-
ing of” these components. Resp. at 9.
The district court denied Apple’s motion, relying on po-
tential witnesses from Cirrus Logic, sources of proof and
connections in the Western District of Texas, and on what
the court viewed as deficiencies in Apple’s motion and sup-
porting declarations. In particular, the court explained
that Mr. Zhang’s declaration “ignore[d]” components
“which Resonant contends are infringing”; was “unclear”
whether he could “speak for the other five design and engi-
neering teams, as [Mr.] Zhang spends no time whatsoever
describing the interplay between teams or whether he has
any oversight over them”; and failed to identify any of the
employees on his and other teams or provide information
as to what, if any, relevant and material information was
Case: 24-129 Document: 20 Page: 2 Filed: 08/21/2024

-- 2 of 4 --

IN RE APPLE INC. 3
in their possession. Appx11–12, 19. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1295(a)(1), 1651.
We apply regional circuit law on review of a denial of a
motion to transfer under § 1404(a). 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 discre-
tion,” TS Tech, 551 F.3d at 1318.
Apple’s arguments concerning the witness factors chal-
lenge the weight and significance accorded to its declar-
ants, other unnamed Apple employees, and third-party
suppliers in both venues. We are not prepared to say that
the district court clearly abused its discretion in making
what here was a case-specific assessment of the record that
it was uniquely well-positioned to do. See In re Vistaprint
Ltd., 628 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The court rea-
sonably found on this record that the Western District of
Texas is convenient for individuals with information rele-
vant and material to the allegations in this case. And the
court plausibly found deficiencies in Apple’s declarations
and presentations of the evidence concerning unidentified
individuals as witnesses and failure to provide information
about the location of witnesses and sources of proof related
to what the court reasonably deemed as relevant compo-
nents at this stage of the litigation. We have considered
Apple’s arguments on the other transfer factors and find
them unpersuasive to warrant granting this extraordinary
relief.
Accordingly,
Case: 24-129 Document: 20 Page: 3 Filed: 08/21/2024

-- 3 of 4 --

IN RE APPLE INC. 4
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
The petition is denied.
August 21, 2024
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 24-129 Document: 20 Page: 4 Filed: 08/21/2024

-- 4 of 4 --