## Facts

- A patent owner sued eighteen companies in a single action, alleging infringement of four patents covering methods for off-site computer data storage and backup.
- The defendants offered competing or independent online backup/remote storage services using different websites and infrastructures.
- The complaint did not allege coordinated conduct, supplier-customer relationships, joint development, or other factual connections among defendants.
- Multiple defendants moved to sever under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2) and to transfer the severed cases under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to more convenient venues.
- The district court denied severance, reasoning the accused services were “not dramatically different” and shared common questions of law and fact; it denied transfer because transfer would split a single action into lawsuits across multiple districts.
- Several defendants petitioned for mandamus, seeking correction of the joinder standard and reconsideration of severance and transfer.

## Issues

1. Whether mandamus was available to review the denial of severance and transfer in a multi-defendant patent infringement action.
2. What Rule 20(a)(2) requires to join multiple defendants in a patent case—specifically, whether alleging infringement of the same patents by similar services is sufficient.
3. Whether applying an incorrect joinder standard that drove the venue ruling was a clear abuse of discretion warranting mandamus relief.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit granted the mandamus petition in part.
- The court held the district court used an incorrect legal standard for Rule 20 joinder by relying on whether the accused services were “not dramatically different.”
- The court directed the district court to re-evaluate joinder under the correct Rule 20 standard and then reconsider severance and any § 1404(a) transfer requests in light of that joinder analysis.
- The court did not decide which defendants must be severed or where any severed actions should be transferred, leaving those determinations to the district court on remand.

## Legal Principles

- Rule 20(a)(2) requires both (i) claims arising out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences, and (ii) at least one common question of law or fact.
- In patent cases, independent defendants may not be joined merely because they are accused of infringing the same patents or doing so in a similar way.
- Proper joinder requires that the infringement allegations against each defendant share an “aggregate of operative facts,” such as coordinated action, a shared sales/manufacturing scheme, or another concrete factual link tying defendants’ accused conduct together.
- Common patent issues (e.g., claim construction, validity) typically exist across defendants and do not, by themselves, satisfy Rule 20’s transaction-or-occurrence requirement.
- When an erroneous joinder ruling forecloses meaningful consideration of venue transfer, mandamus may issue to correct the legal error and require reconsideration of § 1404(a) transfer on a properly framed case structure.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit required a fact-linked showing for multi-defendant joinder in patent cases, rejecting joinder based on generalized similarity of accused services, and ordered the district court to reassess severance and venue transfer under the corrected Rule 20 framework.


In re EMC Corp., 677 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012)