The panel found that West Texas Judge
“Here, the district court considered the relevant factors and found, based on the record before it, that Google had failed to establish that the Northern District of California is ‘clearly more convenient,’” Judge
Flypsi Inc. sued the California tech giant in January 2022 over patents relating to a telephone network system. It alleged Google infringed the patents through its Google Voice application.
Albright batted down the transfer motion based on a determination that Waco and Silicon Valley were more or less equally convenient for key witnesses at the two companies: Six West Coast Google witnesses would be more inconvenienced having to travel to Waco, but three Flyp employees in North Texas and three more Google employees in Western Texas would have an easier time.
In its petition to the Federal Circuit, Google argued that Albright erred in that analysis by “improperly weighing Flyp’s employees,” who are located in the Dallas-Fort Worth area despite a lack of evidence that those potential witnesses would be useful in the case.
The Federal Circuit, however, noted that the district court acknowledged other relevant Texas factors including “that judicial economy considerations weigh against transfer because of the Western District’s familiarity with the asserted patents based on prior litigation; and that the Western District is likely to be faster in adjudicating the case.”
Judges Jimmie V. Reyna and Raymond T. Chen also sat on the panel.
Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP is representing Google. Flyp is represented by Winston & Strawn LLP.
The case is In re: Google LLC, Fed. Cir., No. 23-00112, petition denied 3/6/23.
To contact the reporter on this story:
To contact the editors responsible for this story: