In re: Roku, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2023)
IOEngine sued Roku for patent infringement again in 2021. As is frequent with massive company defendants sued in Waco, Roku requested Choose Albright to switch the case to N.D. California on comfort grounds beneath 28 U.S.C. 1404. Choose Albright refused — noting that Roku’s company witness lacked credibility and his testimony was “both deceptive or based mostly on an insufficient investigation of the details.” Specifically, the document confirmed a number of Roku workers with “notably related data” of the case positioned within the W.D. Tex. (Austin), however that Roku had indicated all potential worker witnesses had been positioned in Northern California.
Nonetheless, Roku petitioned for mandamus with some confidence, having seen the Federal Circuit beforehand repeatedly nitpick the work of Choose Albright on switch motions. Though Roku didn’t expressly declare that Choose Albright was biased, it did argue a failure of “goal evaluation” (primarily the equal).
Objectively assessing the details exhibits that the [Roku] workers in WDTX recognized by IOENGINE don’t possess related materials info. And, even when they do, their data is, at finest, cumulative to the data of Roku workers in NDCA.
Roku Petition. After all, the second sentence suggests the issue with Roku’s argument.
Ultimately right here, the appellate panel didn’t transfer ahead — holding that denial of switch was not a “clear abuse of discretion” for the reason that district court docket thought of the related elements in its conclusion that Roku failed to point out that the Northern District of California was clearly extra handy.