Federal Circuit disposition — 24-137

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In Re DATANET LLC,
Petitioner
______________________
2024-137
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Texas in No. 6:22-
cv-01142-OLG-DTG, Judge Orlando L. Garcia.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
Before L OURIE, H UGHES , and STARK, Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Datanet LLC petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking
to vacate the order of the United States District Court for
the Western District of Texas (“WDTX”) transferring the
case to the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California (“NDCA”). Dropbox Inc. opposes.
Datanet, a Nevada LLC with operations in Colorado,
filed this suit in the WDTX alleging that Dropbox’s file
hosting and backup services infringe its patents. Dropbox
moved pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer the case
to the NDCA, where it is headquartered. A magistrate
Case: 24-137 Document: 15 Page: 1 Filed: 09/11/2024

-- 1 of 3 --

IN RE DATANET LLC 2
judge initially denied the transfer motion. But on review,
the district court determined that the magistrate had
clearly erred in refusing to find the sources of proof, com-
pulsory process, cost of attendance for willing witnesses,
and local interest factors favored transfer. After correcting
for those errors, the court concluded that Dropbox had
demonstrated NDCA was clearly more convenient and
granted transfer. This petition followed.
Our review of transfer decisions is governed by the law
of the regional circuit, here the Fifth Circuit. In re TS Tech
USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008). On man-
damus review, we ask only whether the decision was 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 cir-
cumstances are without any basis for a judgment of discre-
tion.” Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 312 n.7 (citation omitted).
Datanet has not met this demanding standard.
The district court reasonably concluded that the mag-
istrate clearly erred in denying transfer, given, among
other things, the magistrate overlooked several party and
non-party potential witnesses in NDCA while giving credit
to individuals in Texas who were not shown to have rele-
vant and material information; incorrectly assumed that
design and development activity had occurred in WDTX;
failed to credit sources of proof custodians in NDCA; and
gave insufficient weight to the fact that NDCA was where
the accused technology was developed and designed,
“where the primary technical, marketing strategy, and fi-
nancial recordkeeping decisions for the accused product are
made,” Appx474, and is the forum with “greater relevant
factual connection” to the case, Appx484. Datanet has not
shown a clear right to disturb those findings.
Accordingly,
Case: 24-137 Document: 15 Page: 2 Filed: 09/11/2024

-- 2 of 3 --

IN RE DATANET LLC 3
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
The petition is denied.
September 11, 2024
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 24-137 Document: 15 Page: 3 Filed: 09/11/2024

-- 3 of 3 --