## Facts

- A patent infringement suit concerning pivotally attached vehicle headrest assemblies was filed against TS Tech in the Eastern District of Texas.
- The accused headrest assemblies were allegedly made and sold to an automobile manufacturer for use in vehicles sold nationwide, including in the Eastern District of Texas.
- TS Tech moved to transfer venue to the Southern District of Ohio under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), asserting that relevant evidence and key witnesses were located primarily in Ohio (and also Michigan and Canada), and that no party had offices or incorporation ties to the Eastern District of Texas.
- The plaintiff opposed transfer, relying primarily on the sale of vehicles containing the accused assemblies in Texas.
- The district court denied transfer, reasoning that TS Tech had not shown inconvenience clearly outweighing deference to the plaintiff’s chosen forum.
- TS Tech petitioned for a writ of mandamus directing the district court to vacate the denial and transfer the case.

## Issues

1. Whether mandamus was appropriate to correct the denial of a § 1404(a) transfer motion where ordinary appellate review was unavailable.
2. Whether the district court clearly abused its discretion in applying the § 1404(a) private and public interest factors, including witness convenience, access to proof, and local interest.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit granted the petition for writ of mandamus.
- The court held the district court clearly abused its discretion in denying transfer and reached a patently erroneous result.
- The court directed the district court to vacate its transfer denial and transfer the action to the Southern District of Ohio.
- The court also allowed TS Tech to file a reply in support of the petition.

## Legal Principles

- Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available to correct a clear abuse of discretion or usurpation of judicial power when there is no adequate alternative means of relief and the right to issuance is clear and indisputable.
- In evaluating § 1404(a) motions in a Texas district court, the governing framework requires weighing private interest factors (access to proof, compulsory process, cost of attendance for willing witnesses, and other practical problems) and public interest factors (court congestion, local interest, forum familiarity with governing law, and conflict-of-laws concerns).
- A plaintiff’s forum choice is not an independent § 1404(a) factor; it is reflected only through the overall convenience-and-justice analysis and cannot be given dispositive weight.
- Witness convenience must account for substantial additional travel; where the distance between venues greatly exceeds 100 miles, increased travel burdens weigh strongly in the analysis.
- When most evidence and witnesses are concentrated in the transferee forum and none are in the chosen forum, access-to-proof and cost-of-attendance factors favor transfer despite the availability of electronic discovery.
- A forum’s “local interest” is weak where the only connection is the sale of products in the district as part of nationwide distribution; localized interest is stronger where relevant design, manufacturing, and operations occurred.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit ordered transfer by mandamus because the transferee forum contained the center of gravity for evidence, witnesses, and local interest, while the chosen forum had minimal ties beyond dispersed product sales; the district court’s contrary weighing of § 1404(a) factors was a clear abuse of discretion.


In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2008)