In Re VIRTAMOVE, CORP.
This text of In Re VIRTAMOVE, CORP. (In Re VIRTAMOVE, CORP.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Case: 25-138 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 09/11/2025
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________
In Re VIRTAMOVE, CORP., Petitioner ______________________
2025-138 ______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in No. 7:24- cv-00030-ADA-DTG, Judge Alan D. Albright. ______________________
ON PETITION ______________________
Before REYNA, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges. STOLL, Circuit Judge. ORDER VirtaMove, Corp. brought this patent infringement suit against Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com Services LLC, and Amazon Web Services, Inc. (Amazon) in the Mid- land/Odessa Division of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (WDTX), but the court transferred it to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (NDCA), invoking its au- thority under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404 and 1406. VirtaMove now seeks a writ of mandamus to vacate that transfer order. Case: 25-138 Document: 14 Page: 2 Filed: 09/11/2025
2 IN RE VIRTAMOVE, CORP.
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and a party seeking such a writ bears the heavy burden of demonstrating: (1) it has no adequate alternative means for relief, (2) it has a clear and indisputable right to the requested relief, and (3) mandamus is appropriate under the circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004). We disturb a district court’s rul- ing only where there is a “clear” abuse of discretion that produced a “patently erroneous result.” In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 310 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc)). VirtaMove has not made that showing here. In another order issued today, we denied VirtaMove’s petition challenging the transfer of its case against Google LLC from WDTX to NDCA. In re VirtaMove, Corp., No. 2025-130 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 11, 2025). VirtaMove here reiterates largely the same arguments it raised in No. 2025-130. For the same reasons we rejected its arguments in that case, we determine that VirtaMove has shown no right to mandamus relief here. VirtaMove has not shown otherwise by arguing that the court congestion factor should have been found to weigh against transfer. See In re Clarke, 94 F.4th 502, 515 (5th Cir. 2024) (noting docket congestion alone cannot be dispositive); In re Google LLC, 58 F.4th 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2023). Having concluded VirtaMove has no right to disturb the court’s transfer rul- ing under § 1404(a), we need not reach the issue of whether transfer was also appropriate under § 1406(a).1 Accordingly,
1 VirtaMove notes that the parties filed a joint stip- ulation to dismiss Amazon.com, Inc. and Amazon.com Ser- vices LLC from the case. But we see no issue with the district court transferring the entire action to NDCA under § 1404(a), even if those parties will no longer participate. Case: 25-138 Document: 14 Page: 3 Filed: 09/11/2025
IN RE VIRTAMOVE, CORP. 3
IT IS ORDERED THAT: The petition is denied. FOR THE COURT
September 11, 2025 Date
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In Re VIRTAMOVE, CORP., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-virtamove-corp-cafc-2025.