| In In re Apple, the United States Court of Appeals | | | | mandamus for change of venue because the |
| for the Federal Circuit was asked to issue a writ of | | | | defendants had failed to establish why their choice of |
| mandamus requiring the Eastern District Court of | | | | forum, in this case the District of Massachusetts, was |
| Texas to transfer a patent litigation case to the | | | | clearly more convenient than the Eastern District of |
| more convenient venue of the District Court of | | | | Texas. |
| Massachusetts. The Eastern District of Texas had | | | | While this decision gives patent litigation defendants |
| previously denied the motion to transfer because it | | | | attempting to transfer a case out of the Eastern |
| found that that Texas had a local interest in | | | | District of Texas a victory, it does not completely |
| adjudicating the case because the plaintiff was a | | | | open the doors to the defendants to change the |
| Texas corporation. The Court of Appeals disagreed | | | | venue. A plaintiff can no longer establish a local |
| and found that the plaintiffs designation as a Texas | | | | interest in adjudicating a case in the Eastern District |
| corporation was "not entitled to significant weight" | | | | of Texas simply by forming a Texas corporation and |
| because the corporations presence there was recent | | | | then transferring their intellectual property interests |
| and ephemeral. The plaintiff had formed as a | | | | to that corporation. However, a defendant, likewise, |
| corporation in Texas just two months before the | | | | cannot transfer the case to any other district where |
| action was filed, did not have any employees in | | | | the case could have originally been brought without |
| Texas, and was using as its address the office of its | | | | clearly establishing that the other district is a more |
| Texas litigation counsel. However, the Court of | | | | convenient forum. |
| Appeals ultimately denied the motion for a writ of | | | | |