VELOS MEDIA LLC v. BYTEDANCE LTD (2026)

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Defendants ByteDance Ltd. and its foreign affiliates (collectively, “TikTok”) moved to transfer this case to the Northern District of California. After all, this case has next to nothing to do with Western District of Texas, the Fifth Circuit has already been clear that TikTok's limited presence in Austin isn't a good reason to litigate here, and TikTok has a large presence in the Bay Area. Plaintiff Velos Media, LLC (“Velos”) opposes the transfer, but argues that if the case is transferred, it should be transferred to the Central District of California. The Court agrees with TikTok that transfer is appropriate. But it agrees with Velos that the Central District of California is the more convenient of the two California fora. The motion to transfer is thus granted in part and the case is transferred to the Central District of California.

Background

Plaintiff Velos filed a patent infringement suit against Defendants in Austin, Texas. Velos alleges that it “owns and licenses a curated portfolio of more than 450 global assets, many of which have claims that are essential to one or more video decoding standards.” Compl. at ¶ 1 (ECF No. 1). Velos is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business in Dallas, Texas, which is in the Northern District of Texas. Id. at ¶ 4. Velos is also the owner by assignment of all U.S. patents at issue in this case. Id.

“TikTok is a popular application that allows users to edit and share short videos.” In re TikTok, Inc., 85 F.4th 352, 356 (5th Cir. 2023). Velos alleges that the application encodes and decodes video using Velos patents. According to Velos, it is willing to license the relevant patents on reasonable terms to TikTok because the patents are essential, but the parties were unable to reach a licensing deal through negotiations because TikTok demanded unreasonable terms.

This infringement suit followed the breakdown of negotiations. Velos alleges that Defendants are infringing on six of its patents, and have asserted a separate count of patent infringement for each patent. As a seventh count, Plaintiff brings two declaratory judgment claims: one, seeking a declaration that Velos and Avanci Video (acting on Velos's behalf) negotiated in good faith toward a license with TikTok (and so complied with its obligations under the International Telecommunication Union Common Patent Policy and commitments under Velos's relevant Patent Statement and Licensing Declarations); and two, that TikTok breached its obligation to negotiate in good faith with Velos, and chose instead to obstruct negotiations and avoid payment of a reasonable and nondiscriminatory (“RAND”) licensing royalty. In essence, Velos argues that—due to TikTok's badfaith negotiation—it both upheld its obligations to offer a RAND royalty and was still forced to institute this lawsuit for patent infringement.

Defendants moved to transfer this case to the Northern District of California. Velos opposes transfer, but states in its opposition papers that “[i]f the Court grants transfer, the Central District of California ․, where TikTok's U.S. operations are headquartered, would be the appropriate forum.” Velos's Resp. in Opp. at 15 (ECF No. 79). Defendants' reply states that, although TikTok “maintains [the Northern District of California] is the most convenient forum, in the alternative, TikTok joins Velos's request for transfer to [the Central District of California].” TikTok's Reply at 1 (ECF No. 83).

Legal Standard

Section 1404(a) of Title 28 of the U.S. Code states that “a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any district or division to which all parties have consented.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).

Applying this statutory language, the first step in analyzing a section 1404(a) transfer motion is to determine whether the case “ ‘might have been brought’ in the destination venue[,]” In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 312 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc), or the parties consented to that venue, In re Rolls Royce Corp., 775 F.3d 671, 680 n.42 (5th Cir. 2014).

If either threshold condition is satisfied, then the Court proceeds to a second step: it must determine whether transfer is appropriate by balancing the same private and public interests that it balances when deciding whether to dismiss in favor of a non-federal forum under the forum non conveniens doctrine. See Atl. Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for W. Dist. of Texas, 571 U.S. 49, 60–61, 134 S.Ct. 568, 187 L.Ed.2d 487 (2013) (“[Section] 1404(a) and the forum non conveniens doctrine from which it derives entail the same balancing-of-interests standard[.]”).

The four private interest factors are: “(1) the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (2) the availability of compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses; (3) the cost of attendance for willing witnesses; and (4) all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive.” Id. (citation omitted). The four public interest factors are: “(1) the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion; (2) the local interest in having localized interests decided at home; (3) the familiarity of the forum with the law that will govern the case; and (4) the avoidance of unnecessary problems of conflict of laws [or in] the application of foreign law.” Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 315 (citation omitted and alteration in original). These factors are “not necessarily exhaustive or exclusive.” Id.

For a case to be transferred, the moving party must show “good cause”—i.e., that “its chosen venue is clearly more convenient.” In re Chamber of Com. of U.S. of Am., 105 F.4th 297, 303–04 (5th Cir. 2024). This standard stems from the preexisting “presumption in favor” of a plaintiff's desired forum. Humble Oil & Refin. Co. v. Bell Marine Serv., Inc., 321 F.2d 53, 56 (5th Cir. 1963). It is a lesser showing than that required for dismissal under forum non conveniens. Norwood v. Kirkpatrick, 349 U.S. 29, 32, 75 S.Ct. 544, 99 L.Ed. 789 (1955).

Analysis

The Central District of California is clearly more convenient than the Western District of Texas. Velos has no apparent connection to the Western District of Texas, and next to nothing related to this case happened in or is currently in this District. By contrast, the Central District is home to TikTok's United States headquarters, the forum for Velos's suit alleging that The Walt Disney Company infringed the same patents at issue in this case, and a more convenient destination than the Western District of Texas for many potential witnesses from Asia and the West Coast.

The Central District of California is also a more convenient forum than the Northern District of California. Both districts are a convenient hub for witnesses across the West Coast and the globe. But critical engineers in the San Diego area are only a short drive away from the Central District, and the TikTok employees that do not work at TikTok's headquarters in the Central District are all direct flights away thanks to multiple international airports in the Central District. Relevant proof for the continuation of the suit is not overwhelmingly concentrated in the Northern District, but scattered across the West Coast, Texas, and Asia. And the Central District has a shorter time-to-trial than the Northern District by over a year—a timeline that may be hastened in this case because of Velos's litigation already pending in the Central District.

I. Velos's choice of forum is entitled to diminished weight.

Courts generally give deference to the plaintiff's choice of forum. But that deference is diminished when the chosen forum is neither the plaintiff's home forum nor the forum in which the conduct underlying the plaintiff's cause of action occurred. See Sinochem Int'l Co. Ltd. v. Malaysia Int'l Shipping Corp., 549 U.S. 422, 430, 127 S.Ct. 1184, 167 L.Ed.2d 15 (2007) (stating that the presumption that choice of forum is convenient and appropriate applies with “less force” when it is not the plaintiff's home forum); see also Rimkus Consulting Grp., Inc. v. Balentine, 693 F. Supp. 2d 681, 690 (S.D. Tex. 2010) (“[W]hen a plaintiff is not a resident of the chosen forum, or when the operative facts underlying the case did not occur in the chosen forum, a court gives less deference to a plaintiff's choice.”).

That is the case here. Velos makes its home in Dallas, which is in the Northern District of Texas. The negotiations that serve as a basis for Velos's declaratory judgment claim occurred in Dallas. And the alleged infringement is occurring in California and Asia, not Austin and the Western District of Texas. The Court thus gives diminished weight to Velos's decision to litigate this case in the Western District of Texas. See Avalos v. Chavez, No. 1:17-cv-494-LY, 2017 WL 11717683, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 4, 2017) (“Because [plaintiff] neither resides in nor works in the Austin Division of the Western District of Texas, [his] choice to litigate his claims in this division of the Western District is not entitled to such deference.”).

II. The balance of interests favors transfer to the Central District of California.

Because no party contests that both the Northern and Central Districts of California are venues where this suit could have been filed, the Court turns to balancing the private and public interest factors. Here, both the private and the public factors demonstrate that the Central District of California is a clearly more convenient forum than this District and is a slightly more convenient forum than the Northern District of California.

A. The private-interest factors favor transfer.

1. Cost of attendance for willing witnesses

The factor that most drives the analysis in this case is the “the cost of attendance for willing witnesses[.]” Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 315. The Fifth Circuit uses a 100-mile benchmark when assessing this factor. Id. at 317. When travel to the venue exceeds 100 miles, “the factor of inconvenience to the witnesses increases in direct relationship to the additional distance to be traveled.” TikTok, 85 F.4th at 361 (citation omitted). This is because “it is more convenient for witnesses to testify at home, and additional distance means additional travel time, meal and lodging expenses, and time witnesses must be away from their regular employment.” Id. (cleaned up and emphasis added). In addition, travelling witnesses “suffer ‘personal costs associated with being away from work, family, and community[.]’ ” Id. (quoting Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 317).

This factors weighs heavily in favor of transfer to the Central District of California over the two alternatives. The evidence shows that the overwhelming bulk of the relevant witnesses, meaning those related to licensing negotiations or the technical aspects of the case, are in Asia or California. And, apart from monetization roles in Austin (roles that appear wholly fungible with those in California), the overwhelming majority of hypothetical witnesses do not live within 100 miles of this Court. The Fifth Circuit underscored in TikTok that it is “clearly more convenient” for witnesses in Asia to travel to California instead of Texas. 85 F.4th at 361. And the fact that some technical witnesses work in the Northern District means that a transfer from the Western District of Texas to the Central District of Texas would be clearly more convenient for those witnesses as well. Given that nearly all witnesses would be travelling instate if transferred to the Central District (or shortening their travel distance by well over 1,000 miles), attendance costs would be lower than if the case stayed here. Most importantly, the key witnesses to the heart of this suit—the ones most knowledgeable about and involved in the development of the relevant technology—are based in Southern California. It is more convenient for them to travel to the Central District over the Northern District.

As for the witnesses travelling to the United States from Asia, the parties do not contest (and the Court sees no meaningful distinction) between flights across the Pacific Ocean to the Northern or Central Districts, given that each district houses multiple international airports, each with daily direct flights to and from Asia. Either District is more convenient than the Western District of Texas for these witnesses, which is both farther away and generally lacks direct flights from Asia.

Because a transfer would severely lower costs for the over-whelming bulk of willing witnesses, this factor weighs heavily in favor of transfer to the Central District of California over both the Western District of Texas and the Northern District of California.

2. Ease of access to sources of proof

This private interest factor centers on “the location of ‘documents and physical evidence relating to the [case].’ ” TikTok, 85 F.4th at 358 (quoting Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 316) (alteration in original). “[T]he question is relative ease of access, not absolute ease of access.” In re Radmax, Ltd., 720 F.3d 285, 288 (5th Cir. 2013) (per curiam). And if the current district lacks any evidence relating to the case, this factor weighs in favor of transfer. See Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 316. The relative weight, however, lessens if “the vast majority of the evidence is electronic, and therefore equally accessible in either forum[.]” Tik-Tok, 85 F.4th at 358–59 (citation omitted and cleaned up). Witnesses are not “sources of proof” for purposes of this first factor. See In re Apple Inc., 979 F.3d 1332, 1339–40 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (applying Fifth Circuit law and finding legal error when the district court considered a witnesses as “sources of proof”).

For patent infringement suits, “the place where the defendant's documents are kept weighs in favor of transfer to that location.” In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). That is because “the bulk of the relevant evidence usually comes from the accused infringer.” Id. But here, as in TikTok, where the defendant's “source code is the most important evidence in this case,” the primary question is not simply where the code is kept, but where the code can be accessed. 85 F.4th at 359. This is because “only a select few individuals have access” to the source code, TikTok, 85 F.4th at 359 n.6, and that access is not defined by proximity to the servers hosting the code. As the Fifth Circuit put it, because “[t]he non-witness evidence ‘travels’ with the employees who have the needed security clearance․ the location of those individuals necessarily bears on which forum has relative ease of access to sources of proof.” Id.

None of the limited number of employees with access to the relevant source code reside or work in the Western District of Texas (or any district in the State of Texas at all). Instead, employees with access to the relevant repositories of source code work in some of TikTok's California offices, including locations in the Southern and Northern Districts. It is thus relatively easier to access the code in either the Central or Northern Districts of California than it is in the Western District of Texas. The location of the servers themselves is neutral because none are physically located either in Texas or California.

With no servers in Texas, and a host of witnesses in Southern California with critical access, the Central District of California is more convenient than the Northern District of California and the Western District of Texas.

3. Availability of compulsory process

The next private interest factor is “the availability of compulsory process to secure the attendance of witnesses.” Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 315. This factor favors transfer when non-party witnesses are “outside the [ ] District's subpoena power” and “a proper venue that does enjoy absolute subpoena power for both depositions and trial ․ is available.” Id. at 316 (emphasis in original). Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45, a court may “command a person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition ․ within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person[ ] or within the state where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person, if ․ [he] is commanded to attend a trial and would not incur substantial expense.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1) (emphasis added). “[T]he availability of compulsory process receives less weight when it has not been alleged or shown that any witness would be unwilling to testify.” In re Planned Parenthood Fed'n of Am., Inc., 52 F.4th 625, 630–31 (5th Cir. 2022) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

This factor is neutral here. No venue appears to enjoy absolute subpoena power for depositions and trial that would capture all third-party witnesses. And the third-party witnesses that transfer would bring within the transferee court's compulsory process are offset by witnesses who are subject to compulsory process here but would not be in the transferee district.

On the one hand, at least seven named inventors on important prior art publications reside in the Northern District of California and are thus subject to compulsory process in both that district and the Central District of California (absent substantial expense), but not the Western District of Texas. Velos disputes that these witnesses are relevant to the analysis because it contends there is no reason to think they will need to testify live at trial. But prior art witnesses must be considered when weighing this factor even if they are generally unlikely to testify at trial. WAG Acquisition, L.L.C. v. Google LLC, No. W-21-cv-00816-ADA, 2022 WL 9569437, at *5 (W.D. Tex. Oct. 5, 2022) (citing In re Hulu, LLC, No. 2021-142, 2021 WL 3278194, at *3 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 2, 2021)). That does not mean prior art witnesses have the same weight as other witness who are likely to testify or play a large role in the case, but they nonetheless carry some weight.

On the other hand, several non-party witnesses—Austin based Oracle employees, Avanci employees,¹ and the former president of Avanci—are currently subject to this Court's trial subpoena power, but would be outside the compulsory process of both the Northern and Central Districts of California if this case were transferred. This matters for the former president of Avanci and other potential Avanci witnesses because they were directly involved in negotiations underlying Velos's declaratory judgment claims and so may have relevant evidence. The loss of compulsory process over them if the case were transferred thus carries weight in the analysis. But the Austin-based employees of Oracle are different. Velos has not shown that they possess any evidence that is both non-duplicative and relevant to the claims in this case, so the lack of access to compulsory process in California does not materially weigh in the analysis.

This factor is thus neutral.

4. All other practical issues

As a sort of catchall, courts must consider “all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious[,] and inexpensive.” Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 315 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). This factor often plays little role in the transfer analysis relative to the other factors, but not here. Litigating this case in the Central District of California is likely to be more expeditious and inexpensive because Velos is already litigating patent infringement claims in that court regarding the same set of patents and the same underlying technology. See Velos Media, LLC v. The Walt Disney Co., 2:26-cv-03052, 2026 WL 2497040 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 20, 2026). There is thus good reason to conclude that the Central District of California will be familiar with the asserted patents and the related technology in ways that will materially facilitate litigation for the parties.

This factor thus supports transfer to the Central District of California and is neutral as to transfer to the Northern District of California. See, e.g., WAG Acquisition, 2022 WL 9569437, at *7 (finding this factor supports transfer where related cases were pending in the transferee district); Solofill, LLC v. Rivera, No. CV H-16-2702, 2017 WL 1354146, at *4 (S.D. Tex. Apr. 13, 2017) (“[T]ransfer under § 1404(a) is appropriate when there is ongoing litigation on a related case in another jurisdiction”).

B. No public interest factor weighs against transfer.

Regardless of the result of the private-factor analysis, this Court must consider public-interest factors. Atl. Marine, 571 U.S. at 62, 134 S.Ct. 568. To refresh, these factors include: “(1) the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion; (2) the local interest in having localized interests decided at home; (3) the familiarity of the forum with the law that will govern the case; and (4) the avoidance of unnecessary problems of conflict of laws [or in] the application of foreign law.” Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 315 (citation omitted and alteration in original).

The first private factor favors transfer to the Central District of Texas, especially as compared to the Northern District of California. The Fifth Circuit has observed that “to the extent docket efficiency can be reliably estimated, the district court is better placed to do so than this court.” Planned Parenthood, 52 F.4th at 631. And while hypothesizing about timing can sometimes be “speculative,” Genentech, 566 F.3d at 1347, from the evidence proffered by the parties it appears that time to trial was slightly faster in the Central District when compared to this District. Defendants argue that the time-to-trial statistics indicate the median time to trial is shorter in the Northern District (albeit from a 2024 case) than the Western District. But in 2025, the median time in months for a case to reach trial in this District was 35.5 months, while in the Northern District it was 45.6 months. Meanwhile, in the Central District, time to trial was the lowest of the three at 33.3 months. The first public interest factor thus weighs very slightly in favor of transfer to the Central District.

As for the second public-interest factor, the Court must analyze the forum's “connections with the events that gave rise to th[e] suit”—not simply generalized connections to the forum. Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 318. The Central District of California has stronger connections to this suit than the Western District of Texas. Much of the design and development of the accused products and features appears to have occurred in the Northern and Southern Districts of California. See, e.g., In re Samsung Elecs. Co., Ltd., 2 F.4th 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (holding that research, design, and development are “significant factors” that make the infringement suit a matter of local concern). TikTok argues that because the accused products and features were developed primarily in California and Asia (meaning no work was done by their engineers in this District), the local interest factor favors the Northern District of California. Yet this ignores the fact that TikTok's United States headquarters, essentially the nerve center of its domestic operations, is located in the Central District—and the fact that many engineers worked on the accused products and features in the Southern District.

At bottom, the pertinent connections in this suit come from Dallas, California, and Asia. No single district can capture all—or even most—of whatever local interests may be at stake. With the absence of concrete evidence showing any real connection in the Western District of Texas, the Court finds that this factor weighs in favor of transfer to either California district, with a slight edge to the Central District of California.

The third public interest factor—familiarity of the potential forum with the relevant law—is neutral here as well. This factor “commonly applies where the destination venue is in a different State—in which case that State's familiarity with the applicable law would be especially probative to the transfer analysis.” Planned Parenthood, 52 F.4th at 632 n.5. So, this Court looks to the law the district court must apply. The claims do not implicate any state law, making this factor neutral for transfer purposes.

The last public interest factor seeks to avoid “unnecessary problems of conflict of laws [or in] the application of foreign law.” Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 315 (alteration in original). The claims at issue in this case are solely federal law claims. But, with another court with the same set of patents before it comes the possibility of duplicative—or even dueling—claim constructions. Despite not being bound by another court's claim construction, the Supreme Court has emphasized “the importance of uniformity in the treatment of a given patent.” Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 390, 116 S.Ct. 1384, 134 L.Ed.2d 577 (1996); see also In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 566 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (holding in a similar case that the “existence of multiple lawsuits involving the same issues is a paramount consideration when determining whether a transfer is in the interest of justice”). Often, district courts will transfer cases to prevent duplicative claim construction opinions. PersonalWeb Techs., LLC v. NEC Corp. of Am., Inc., No. 6:11-cv-655, 2013 WL 9600333, at *23 n.35 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 21, 2013), order clarified sub nom. Personalweb Techs., LLC v. Google, Inc., No. 6:11-cv-656, 2013 WL 12138549 (E.D. Tex. June 28, 2013) (collecting cases). Because litigating this case outside the Central District of California runs a higher risk of conflicting claim construction orders, this factor weighs in favor of transfer.

Conclusion

The motion to transfer (ECF No. 51) is GRANTED in part. The Court directs the Clerk of Court to transfer this case to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

So ordered by the Court on September 22, 2026.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Avanci is Velos's Dallas-based licensing partner.

Andrew Davis, United States District Judge