In Re VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC. , No. 21-149 (Fed. Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 21-149 Document: 5 Page: 1 Filed: 06/29/2021 NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ In re: VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., Petitioner ______________________ 2021-149 ______________________ On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in No. 6:20cv-01131-ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright. ______________________ ON PETITION ______________________ Before TARANTO, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges. STOLL, Circuit Judge. ORDER Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas to dismiss or to transfer to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. Alternatively, Volkswagen seeks to stay all deadlines unrelated to venue until the district court rules on the pending motion to dismiss or transfer. StratosAudio, Inc. filed this patent infringement suit in December 2020 in the Western District of Texas against Volkswagen. On February 19, 2021, Volkswagen filed a Case: 21-149 Document: 5 Page: 2 Filed: 06/29/2021 IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC. 2 motion to dismiss for improper venue, or alternatively, to transfer to the Eastern District of Michigan. The motion was fully briefed as of March 12, 2021. On May 4, 2021, the parties were directed via email to file a joint proposed scheduling order that included a Markman hearing for October 4, 2021. The parties were subsequently informed on May 17, 2021 that, while “[t]he Court will not stay the cases pending rulings on the motions to dismiss/transfer,” “[p]ursuant to the Court’s Standing Order Regarding Motion(s) for Inter-District Transfer, the Court will rule on these motions before [the] Markman hearing.” Appx0008. Volkswagen filed this petition seeking mandamus on June 4, 2021. Mandamus is “reserved for extraordinary situations.” Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289 (1988) (citation omitted). Under the well-established standard for obtaining such relief, the petitioner must: (1) show that it has a clear and indisputable legal right; (2) show it does not have any other method of obtaining relief; and (3) convince the court that the “writ is appropriate under the circumstances.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004) (citation omitted). Volkswagen has not met that standard. Volkswagen has not shown that it is unable to obtain a ruling on its venue motion in a timely fashion without mandamus. The district court has indicated that it will resolve that motion before it conducts a Markman hearing in this case. Nor has Volkswagen presently shown a clear legal right to stay all non-venue-related deadlines. We note, however, that the district court’s failure to issue a ruling on Volkswagen’s venue motion before a Markman hearing may alter our assessment of the mandamus factors. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The petition is denied. Case: 21-149 Document: 5 Page: 3 Filed: 06/29/2021 IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC. FOR THE COURT June 29, 2021 Date s35 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
