Authored by: Jeremy J. Gustrowsky
In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit denied SAP America, Inc.’s attempt to move a patent infringement lawsuit from one division of the Eastern District of Texas (Marshall) to another (Sherman). The case began when Valtrus Innovations Ltd. sued SAP for patent infringement in January 2024. SAP argued that the Sherman division would be more convenient because it has offices there and some potential witnesses are based in Sherman. However, the district court rejected the transfer, and SAP sought a writ of mandamus—a special court order—to force the move.
The Federal Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision and found that, while the lower court made some mistakes, SAP did not meet the high bar required for mandamus relief. Specifically, the district court incorrectly considered a related lawsuit against AT&T that had already been closed, and it also gave too much weight to the fact that the case was moving smoothly toward trial in Marshall. According to the Federal Circuit, the progress of a case after a transfer motion is filed should not be used as a reason to deny transfer.
Despite these errors, the Federal Circuit agreed that SAP had not shown the Sherman division was “clearly more convenient.” Most of the witnesses were located outside Texas, and SAP did not explain why its Sherman-based employees’ knowledge was important to the case. The court also noted that electronic evidence could be accessed from either location, and there was no strong reason to believe that Sherman would be a better forum.
Ultimately, the Federal Circuit denied SAP’s petition, keeping the case in Marshall. This decision highlights the high standard for obtaining a writ of mandamus to transfer venue and underscores the importance of providing specific reasons why a different location would be significantly more convenient for all parties involved.