Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential order in In Re: Dish Network, L.L.C., No. 21-182 (Oct. 21, 2021), directing Judge Albright to transfer Broadband iTV's (BBiTV) patent infringement suit against Dish Network (DISH) from the Western District of Texas to the District of Colorado pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
Judge Albright had denied an original motion to transfer the case filed by DISH, and DISH petitioned the Federal Circuit for a writ of mandamus. The Federal Circuit denied the request but stated “that the district court should reconsider its decision in light of In re Samsung Electronics Co., 2 F.4th 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2021) and In re Apple Inc., 979 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2020).” On reconsideration, however, the district court again denied DISH’s motion to transfer. DISH petitioned the Federal Circuit again for a writ of mandamus.
This time, the Federal Circuit granted the petition. Examining its own precedent in Samsung and Apple, the Federal Circuit determined that the “center of gravity of [BBiTV’s] patent infringement action is clearly in Colorado, not in Western Texas.” In particular, the Court noted that employees knowledgeable about the development of the accused software worked at DISH’s Colorado headquarters, and that the convenience of potential witnesses “is probably the single most important factor in transfer analysis.” The Court further noted that the district court failed to properly weigh the compulsory process factor. Specifically, DISH had identified prior art witnesses who could only be compelled to testify in Colorado and concluding that these witnesses were unlikely to testify was clear error. The Court also rejected the notion that judicial economy, based upon co-pending lawsuits against different defendants over different products, precluded transfer. The Court explained that any judicial economy achieved by having the same judge handle multiple patent suits should not dominate the transfer inquiry. As a result of its determinations on these and the other relevant factors, the Court held that "[t]he [district] court clearly abused its discretion [] in finding that DISH failed to make the requisite showing for transfer of this case to the District of Colorado." The Court, therefore, vacated the district court’s order denying DISH’s motion to transfer and directed the district court to grant the transfer motion.