In a nonprecedential order addressing transfer of venue, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied a request for writ of mandamus, emphasizing the importance of addressing motions to transfer at the outset of litigation.  In re EMC Corp., Case No. 13-142 (Fed. Cir., Jan. 29, 2013) (Dyk, J.).

The case arose out of a lawsuit filed by Oasis Research LLC, alleging that 18 defendants, including petitioners EMC Corporation, Decho Corporation, Iomega Corporation and Carbonite Corporation, infringed patents directed to online data backup and storage.  In a prior ruling, the Federal Circuit reversed the lower court’s decision not to sever the case.  After severance, the lower court denied petitioners’ motions to transfer venue.

In denying the transfer motions, the lower court concluded that petitioners failed to show that the transferee venues were clearly more convenient.  Among other reasons, the lower court determined that, given its familiarity with the case after the pendency of the matter, judicial economy weighed heavily against transfer, noting that transferee courts would require significant resources getting up to speed.  Petitioners requested a writ of mandamus.

On writ, the Federal Circuit applied a highly deferential standard of review, indicating that it could only grant the writ if it found that the lower court’s denial of transfer was such a clear abuse of discretion that refusing transfer would produce a patently erroneous result.  The Court found that the standard had not been met.

The Federal Circuit began its analysis by emphasizing the importance of addressing motions to transfer venue at the outset of litigation.  The Court recognized that Congress’ intent in enacting the transfer statute may be frustrated if defendants must endure years of litigation before transfer motions are decided.

The Court stated that motions to transfer venue are to be decided based on the situation which existed when suit is initiated.  Thus, the Federal Circuit found that it was improper for the lower court to rely on familiarity with the case gained from handling the very cases sought to be transferred as grounds for judicial economy.  The Court, however, noted that the lower court properly considered the economy of having the same judge handle the suits against petitioners seeking transfer and the suits against other defendants, a fact that would have existed as of the timing the case began.

In the facts of the case at bar, the Federal Circuit analyzed the lower court’s consideration of all the relevant transfer factors and concluded that its determination was not so unreasonable as to warrant mandamus relief.