In Re Verizon Business Network Services Inc., 635 F.3d 559

Six defendants sued by Red River Fiber Optic Corp. in the Eastern District of Texas for patent infringement involving U.S. Patent No. 5,555,478.
Defendants moved to transfer to the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division; initial denial by Magistrate Judge.
Magistrate found Dallas was more convenient due to witness location; Marshall had prior case handling but court favored economy.
District court affirmed denial of transfer, citing built-in efficiencies from prior case and reexamination materials.
Petition for writ of mandamus was granted; court held denial of transfer was patently erroneous under §1404(a).
Court compared convenience and found most witnesses within 100 miles of Dallas and none within Marshall.]
Note: Prior district court case involving the same patent settled in 2003; no pending parallel case at time of decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of transfer was clearly erroneous given convenience	Red River: transfer to Dallas better for witnesses and efficiency	Marshall maintained due to prior case handling and expected overlapping issues	Yes; denial was patently erroneous; transfer granted
Whether prior handling of a related patent suit can justify denying transfer	Prior construction experience supports keeping in Marshall	Prior case results should be considered but not dispositive without current overlap	No; prior case handling does not override compelling transfer under §1404(a)

In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc; transfer denial was patently erroneous due to witnesses nearby Dallas)
In re Vistaprint Ltd., 628 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (district court’s familiarity with the patent and co-pending litigation does not justify denying transfer)
In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (discusses discretion in §1404(a) and related standards)
Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22 (1988) (guides §1404(a) balancing factors)