Inre: Barnes & Noble, Inc., 743 F.3d 1381

B.E. Technology sued Barnes & Noble in the Western District of Tennessee alleging patent infringement by B&N's Nook devices.
Hoyle, CEO and inventor of the asserted patent, resides in Tennessee; B.E. is based in Tennessee and operates there.
Barnes & Noble moved to transfer the case under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) arguing California is more convenient for witnesses, evidence, and third-party witnesses.
The district court denied transfer, finding Tennessee more convenient, despite acknowledging California witnesses and evidence exist.
The court weighed convenience of witnesses, convenience to parties, and interest of justice, concluding neither party had a clear advantage; transfer not warranted.
Barnes & Noble sought mandamus, arguing the district court failed to meaningfully consider merits and erred in the transfer decision; the majority denied relief, while a dissent urged transfer due to imbalance of convenience.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion under § 1404(a).	Barnes & Noble contends transfer to CA was clearly more convenient.	B.E. argues Tennessee forum mattered given local nexus and witnesses; balance did not favor transfer.	No clear abuse; district court properly weighed factors.
Whether the convenience of witnesses favored transfer to Northern District of California.	California witnesses and evidence favored transfer.	Some Tennessee witnesses exist; court should consider overall balance and local ties.	Not shown to outweigh other factors to compel transfer.
Whether the convenience to parties and the interest of justice supported transfer.	Transfer would reduce disruption and align with party interests.	No strong weight to transfer given mixed interests and risks of disruption in one forum.	No clear weight in favor of transfer.
Whether mandamus relief is appropriate to correct a district court's decision under 1404(a).	District court failed to meaningfully consider merits; mandamus warranted.	Abuse of discretion not shown; standard is exacting but not met.	Mandamus denied.
Whether the court should consider prior related litigation and courtroom experience with the patent.	Prior or ongoing related actions in Tennessee support keeping case local.	Evidence handling and related actions in California support transfer.	Evidence supported district court's decision not to transfer.

In re Calmar, Inc., 854 F.2d 461 (Fed.Cir.1988) (mandamus standard for abuse of discretion in transfer rulings)
In re Vistaprint Ltd., 628 F.3d 1342 (Fed.Cir.2010) (clear consideration of merits required in transfer rulings)
Reese v. CNH Am. LLC, 574 F.3d 315 (6th Cir.2009) (plaintiff's forum choice rarely disturbed unless strongly outweighed)
In re Nintendo Co., 589 F.3d 1194 (Fed.Cir.2009) (transfer warranted when venue connection is starkly unbalanced)
In re Hoffmann-La Roche, 587 F.3d 1333 (Fed.Cir.2009) (similar transfer balancing; non-practicing plaintiffs)
In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338 (Fed.Cir.2009) (where most evidence is located weighs in favor of transfer)
In re Microsoft Corp., 630 F.3d 1361 (Fed.Cir.2011) (rejecting transfer where plaintiffs do not practice patent)
In re Zimmer Holdings, Inc., 609 F.3d 1378 (Fed.Cir.2010) (limits on transfer when patent does not motivate forum choice)
In re Volkswagen of America, Inc., 545 F.3d 304 (Fed.Cir.2008) (en banc; strict standard that transfer must be clearly more convenient)