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 Decide Albright to switch the case to N.D. California on comfort grounds underneath 28 U.S.C. 1404. Decide Albright refused — noting that Roku’s company witness lacked credibility and his testimony was “both deceptive or primarily based on an insufficient investigation of the information.” Particularly, the document confirmed a number of Roku workers with “notably related information” of the case positioned within the W.D. Tex. (Austin), however that Roku had indicated all potential worker witnesses have been positioned in Northern California.
Nonetheless, Roku petitioned for mandamus with some confidence, having seen the Federal Circuit beforehand repeatedly nitpick the work of Decide Albright on switch motions. Though Roku didn’t expressly declare that Decide Albright was biased, it did argue a failure of “goal evaluation” (primarily the equal).
Objectively assessing the information exhibits that the [Roku] workers in WDTX recognized by IOENGINE don’t possess related materials data. And, even when they do, their information is, at greatest, cumulative to the information of Roku workers in NDCA.
Roku Petition. In fact, the second sentence suggests the issue with Roku’s argument.
In the long run right here, the appellate panel didn’t transfer ahead — holding that denial of switch was not a “clear abuse of discretion” because the district courtroom thought of the related components in its conclusion that Roku failed to point out that the Northern District of California was clearly extra handy.