The University of Southern California sued Google LLC in the Western District of Texas, accusing Google of infringing two patents based on certain functionality of Google Earth, Google Maps, and Google Street View (Order 2). The complaint in University of Southern California v. Google LLC, No. 1:25-cv-01734, file-stamped October 27, 2025, lists U.S. Patent Nos. 8,026,929 and 8,264,504, each titled Seamlessly Overlaying 2D Images in 3D Model (Compl. paras. 1, 25, 28). The order lists the first patent as 8,206,929. Google moved to transfer under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a). The district court found that the willing witness factor slightly favored transfer and that the other factors were neutral, and it denied the motion (Order 2).
What the order says
The panel of Judges Dyk, Mayer, and Stark, writing per curiam and applying Fifth Circuit law, held that the denial was patently erroneous. It said the district court's conclusion that the sources of proof factor favored neither forum had at least two problems: the only specific sources of proof the district court discussed, including prior art software maintained on a CD, were in the Northern District of California, and the district court erred in giving the CD's location no weight; and, by the district court's own logic in treating employee witness locations as proxies for sources of proof, the factor should also at least have some weight in favor of transfer. It said the local interest factor also favored transfer, because the uncontroverted evidence indicated that Google designed, developed, and implemented the accused functionality there and not at all in the Western District of Texas, where, according to the order, the only local connection found below was quality assurance testing on one of the accused products (Order 2-4).
On compulsory process, the district court weighed the factor as neutral, and the panel said that analysis fails to account for the fact that it appears undisputed that seven potential non-party witnesses are subject to compulsory process in the Northern District of California, while only five are in the Western District of Texas, and that one of the potential witnesses in the Northern District is the inventor. The panel said that, even without disturbing the district court's conclusion on the compulsory process factor, the decision to deny transfer was patently erroneous, describing the case as "a California university suing a Northern California company for products designed and developed in Northern California based on patents invented by a resident of Northern California" (Order 4-5).
The court vacated the order denying transfer and directed the district court to grant Google's motion to the extent that the case is transferred to the Northern District of California (Order 5). The order does not address infringement or validity.