Case: 21-158 Document: 7 Page: 1 Filed: 07/13/2021
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In re: TCO AS,
Petitioner
______________________
2021-158
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Texas in No. 6:20-
cv-00622-ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
Before TARANTO, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
STOLL, Circuit Judge.
ORDER
NCS Multistage, Inc., a Canadian corporation, and
NCS Multistage LLC, its Houston, Texas based subsidiary,
sued TCO AS, a Norwegian company, for patent infringe-
ment in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Texas. TCO moved to transfer the case to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
Texas pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The district court
denied the motion on May 28, 2021, finding that TCO had
failed to show the transferee venue was clearly more
Case: 21-158 Document: 7 Page: 2 Filed: 07/13/2021
2 IN RE: TCO AS
convenient. TCO now seeks a writ of mandamus directing
transfer.
A mandamus petitioner must establish, among other
things, that its right to relief is “clear and indisputable.”
Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C.,
542 U.S. 367, 381 (2004)
(citation and internal quotation marks omitted). In trans-
fer matters, that means the petitioner must show that the
denial of transfer was such a “clear abuse of discretion”
that refusing transfer would produce a “patently erroneous
result.” In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc.,
545 F.3d 304, 310
(5th Cir. 2008) (en banc). This is a highly deferential stand-
ard, under which we must leave the district court’s decision
undisturbed unless it is clear “that the facts and circum-
stances are without any basis for a judgment of discretion.”
Id. at 312 n.7 (quoting McGraw–Edison Co. v. Van Pelt,
350
F.2d 361, 363 (8th Cir. 1965)). We cannot say that such a
clear abuse of discretion occurred here.
The district court found that judicial-economy consid-
erations weighed against transfer here because of an ear-
lier-filed, pending action in the Western District of Texas
against another defendant involving the same patent
claims. It is true that “a clear abuse of discretion in bal-
ancing convenience against judicial economy under § 1404
is not outside the scope of correctible error on mandamus
review.” In re Vistaprint Ltd.,
628 F.3d 1342, 1346
(Fed. Cir. 2010). But here, we cannot say that TCO has a
clear and indisputable right to relief, particularly in light
of the fact that several potential witnesses are located out-
side of the proposed transferee venue, including some in
the Western District of Texas, and the fact that the only
party headquartered in the proposed transferee venue
elected to litigate this case in the Western District of Texas.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition is denied.
Case: 21-158 Document: 7 Page: 3 Filed: 07/13/2021
IN RE: TCO AS 3
FOR THE COURT
July 13, 2021 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Date Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
s25
