In Re Morgan Stanley v. United States, 417 F. App'x 947

Realtime Data, LLC, a New York-based non-practicing entity, sued numerous financial brokers, dealers, exchanges, and data providers for four patents.
All three related suits were filed in the Eastern District of Texas.
The defendants moved to transfer to the Southern District of New York for convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice; others joined the motion.
The district court denied transfer, citing its familiarity with two of the patents and the underlying data compression technology from a prior Realtime litigation.
The petitioners seek mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to compel transfer to SDNY, arguing it is clearly more convenient and fair and would reduce burden on witnesses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether mandamus is proper to direct transfer under §1404(a).	Realtime contends denial was a patently erroneous result requiring mandamus.	Defendants argue the district court acted within its discretion.	Yes; mandamus granted directing transfer.
Whether SDNY is clearly the more convenient forum warranting transfer.	Most parties and witnesses are located near SDNY, making it more convenient.	Court should keep case where court is familiar with patents; transfer not justified by convenience alone.	Yes; transfer to SDNY warranted due to convenience and witness location.
Whether prior familiarity with related patents blocks transfer under §1404(a).	Prior familiarity would hinder efficiency and consistency if transferred.	Familiarity with the patent does not defeat transfer; new patents and issues require new analyses.	No; prior familiarity does not preclude transfer; other considerations favor transfer.

In re Acer Am. Corp., 626 F.3d 1252 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (large number of parties in transferee forum supports transfer to reduce burden)
In re Zimmer Holdings, Inc., 609 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (reversal of denial where familiarity did not override convenience considerations)
In re Nintendo Co., Ltd., 589 F.3d 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (transfer appropriate where convenience and access to evidence favor transferee venue)
In re Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., 587 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (policy supporting transfer when it serves convenience and justice)
In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (prior familiarity with patent did not preclude transfer where other factors favored it)
In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (considerations under §1404(a) balancing convenience and justice)