In Re Nintendo Co., Ltd., 544 F. App'x 934

Petitioners seek mandamus to sever retailer claims and transfer Nintendo claims to a more convenient venue.
UltimatePointer filed two complaints in the Eastern District of Texas alleging Nintendo and retailers infringe the ’321 and ’729 patents.
District court refused to sever and denied transfer, relying on Rule 20 and Rule 18/299(AIA) joinder without evaluating severance first.
AIA joinder is stricter than Rule 20, requiring same transaction/occurrence and common questions; court failed to assess meaningful separation and convenience.
Court grants mandamus and remands to address severance and transfer before Rule 18 analysis.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the retailer claims should be severed for transfer.	UltimatePointer argues misjoinder; severance aids transfer.	Nintendo/retailers contend joinder under Rule 20/18 is proper.	Remand required; district court must decide severance/transfer first.
Whether Rule 18 joinder was appropriate before severance/transfer analysis.	Rule 18 permits broad joinder of claims.	Joinder should not override severance/transfer considerations.	District court erred by relying on Rule 18 before severance/transfer analysis.
Whether transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) was properly considered.	Transfer to Western District of Washington is appropriate for convenience.	Eastern District of Texas should remain if severance is not granted.	Court must assess transfer priority; remand to consider §1404(a) factors.

Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass’n, 319 U.S. 21 (U.S. 1943) (mandamus confines court to lawful jurisdiction)
Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 426 U.S. 394 (U.S. 1976) (two-part test for mandamus: clear right and no adequate remedy)
In re EMC Corp., 677 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (abuse of discretion if misapplied standard on severance/transfer)
In re Nintendo Co., Ltd., 589 F.3d 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (transfer when witnesses/evidence closer to transferee venue)