In re Google Inc., No. 11-M968 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 4, 2011)

Moore, Circuit Judge.

ORDER

2OGLE 2 IN RE GO

This is a petition for a writ of mandamus from an order denying a motion to transfer to the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) or, in the alternative, to sever and transfer plaintiffs claims against certain defendants. The petition arises out of a patent infringement suit against twenty-two defendants! brought by Eolas Technologies, Inc. (Zolas), the exclusive licensee of the patents-in-suit.

Eolas filed this suit in its home district, the Eastern District of Texas. Of the defendants, four reside in the forum, seven reside in the Northern District of California, and the remaining reside in other districts throughout the country. Several defendants moved to transfer the case to the Northern District of California. Alternatively, the defendants argued that, if any defendant served as a barrier to transfer, then the district court should sever the claims against that defendant and transfer the re-

1 Among the petitioners, Google, Adobe, Apple, eBay Inc., Oracle, Yahoo! Inc., YouTube, LLC, are headquartered in the Northern District of California, Amazon.com, Inc. is headquartered in Seattle, Washington, CDW LLC and Playboy Enterprises International, Inc. are headquartered in Illinois, Go Daddy Group is_headquartered in Arizona, New Frontier Media, Inc. is headquartered in Colorado, Staples, Inc. is headquartered in Massachusetts, and JPMorgan Case & Co. is headquartered in New York. Among the other defendants, Texas Instruments Inc. is headquartered in Dallas, Texas, Perot Systems Corp., Frito-Lay, Inc, J.C. Penney Company, Inc., and Rent-A-Center, Inc. are headquartered in the Eastern District of Texas, Citigroup Inc. is headquartered in New York, Argosy Publishing Inc. is headquartered in Massachusetts, and OfÏce Depot, Inc. is headquartered in Florida. Originally, Blockbuster Inc. was also joined but has now been severed.

33 IN RE GOOGLE mainder of the case to the Northern District of California. The district court denied those motions. The district court explained that the Eastern District of Texas has a local interest in adjudicating this matter because Eolas maintains ofÏces and is incorporated in the forum and because four defendants are also headquartered there. The court also explained that for those parties “it will be substantially more convenient for the case to continue in the Eastern District of Texas.” Eolas Tech. Inc. v. Adobe Systems, Inc., 6:09-CV-00446, slip op. at 5 (E.D. Texas. Sept. 28, 2010) (hereinafter Transfer Order). The court also denied the petitioners’ request to sever and transfer, explaining that the products, facts, and issues of law were significantly related and overlapping and that severance and transfer would not preserve judicial economy.

“[D]eference” the Supreme Court has stated “is the hallmark of abuse of discretion review.” Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 143 (1975). Our reluctance to interfere is not a formality. Section 1404(a) of title 28 of the United States Code provides that a district court “may transfer” a civil action to another court “[flor the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice.” (emphasis added). Thus, the transfer statute itself commits the balancing determination to the sound discretion of the trial court based on its familiarity with thé-ease and issues involved. See In re Vistaprint Lid., 628 F.3d 1342, 1846 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing A. Olinick & Sons v. Dempster Bros., Inc., 365 F.2d 439, 444 (2d Cir. 1966)). Our authority here on mandamus review is narrow, confined solely to determining whether the trial court’s denial of transfer produced a patently erroneous result. See In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 310 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc).

The district court did not abuse its discretion. With ‘regard to the motion to transfer the entire action, the4 IN RE GOOGLE ⁴ district court first acknowledged that the Northern District of California would be more convenient for the seven defendants that reside there. Transfer Order at 5, But it similarly determined that four of the defendants were headquartered in the Eastern District of Texas and that for these parties “it will be substantially more convenient for the case to continue in the Eastern District of Texas.” id. “Where [defendants] are in different states there is no choice of forum that will avoid imposing inconvenience[.]” In re Natl Presto Indus., Inc., 347 F.8d 662, 665 (7th Cir. 2003). We cannot hold that, on these facts, the district court abused its discretion in refusing to transfer the entire action.

We also cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to sever and transfer the petitioners’ claims to the Northern District of California. Courts have consistently held that judicial economy plays a paramount role in trying to maintain an orderly, effective, administration of justice and having one trial court decide all of these claims clearly furthers that objective. See Cont Grain Co. v. Barge FBL-585, 364 U.S. 19, 26 (1960); see also Vistaprint, 628 F.3d at 1346. Further, the district court noted that, in this case, “adjudicating infringement... will involve substantially overlapping questions of law or fact.” Transfer Order at 3. This determination does not amount to an abuse of discretion.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The petition is denied.

For THE Court MAR 04 2011 /si Jan Horbaly

Date Jan Horbaly

; Clerk

US, count WED ens FOR

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

HAR 04 2041

JAN HORBALY

CLERK