Federal Circuit Issues a Precedential Order Refusing Mandamus Relief to SAP, Despite District Court Mistakes
The order spent a considerable amount of time detailing the district court’s errors. However, the order spent a considerable amount of time detailing the district court’s errors.
Valtrus Innovations, Ltd. brought a suit against SAP in Marshall, Texas in January 2024 and SAP moved for transfer to Sherman in March 2024. SAP argued that the Sherman division would be more convenient for witnesses and employees than Marshall and that it had offices in Sherman. Valtrus argued that co-pending litigation with AT&T over the same patents was a factor in its opposition to the transfer. SAP petitioned CAFC which noted that district court had erred by giving weight to Valtrus’ separate litigation, despite the fact that it was “acknowledged
“. . . Closed and all defendants. . . dismissed’ by the time the motion to transfer was resolved and that it had not otherwise gained any substantive familiarity that might support denying transfer based on judicial economy considerations.”
Next, the CAFC said that the district court erred in weighing the court congestion factor against transfer “solely on the basis that the case, in its view, is ‘smoothly proceeding’ to trial.” In re TikTok, Inc. rejected the notion that case progress after filing is a relevant consideration for transfer, said the CAFC, and that this factor chiefly “concerns whether there is an appreciable difference in docket congestion between the two forums.” Since the court made no finding regarding court congestion that could justify weighing the factor in favor of Marshall, the court erred, explained the CAFC.
However, SAP still failed to show the denial of transfer was “patently erroneous” overall because it failed to “identify physical evidence, document custodians, or unwilling witnesses in the Sherman division”; SAP’s Sherman offices “appear to have little-to-no connection to this case”; and “SAP has not shown that the willing-witness factor clearly favors transfer.”[ing] [that case was]Chastising the district court again, the Federal Circuit panel said SAP correctly argued that the lower court “expressed an overly demanding standard in criticizing SAP for failing to specifically identify individuals as trial witnesses,” and yet the district court did not clearly abuse its discretion in finding the factor neutral. The Federal Circuit panel criticized the district court again, saying SAP correctly argued that the lower court “expressed an overly demanding standard in criticizing SAP for failing to specifically identify individuals as trial witnesses.” However, SAP still failed to show that the denial of transfer was “patently erroneous” overall because it failed to “identify The mandamus request was denied.
Eileen McDermott, Editor-in Chief of IPWatchdog.com is a veteran IP and legal journalist. Eileen McDermott is a veteran IP journalist and has held editorial and management positions at
.
