The case and the ruling below
USC sued Google in Austin on October 27, 2025, in University of Southern California v. Google LLC, No. 1:25-cv-01734 (W.D. Tex.). The complaint asserts U.S. Patents 8,026,929 and 8,264,504, both titled Seamlessly Overlaying 2D Images in 3D Model, against Google Earth, Google Maps, and Google Street View. The order lists the first patent as 8,206,929; the complaint asserts 8,026,929. Google, headquartered in the Northern District of California, moved to transfer under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a). According to the order, the district court found that the willing witness factor weighed slightly in favor of transfer and that the other factors were neutral, and it denied the motion.
How the panel addressed the factors
The panel of Judges Dyk, Mayer, and Stark, writing per curiam in In re Google LLC, applied Fifth Circuit law, under which a transfer motion "should" be granted when the movant shows that the transferee venue is "clearly more convenient," In re Volkswagen of America, Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 315 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc). On sources of proof, the panel said the only specific sources of proof the district court discussed were in the Northern District, including prior art software maintained on a CD kept there, and that the district court erred in giving the CD's location no weight based on the view that the software could be loaded onto a computer and analyzed outside the Northern District. The panel added that the district court had used the location of potential employee witnesses as a proxy for the location of sources of proof, so if, as the district court reasonably explained, key technical employee witnesses are in or closer to the Northern District while primarily sales and marketing employees are in the Western District, then by the district court's own logic the sources of proof factor should also at least have some weight in favor of transfer.
On local interest, the order says the uncontroverted evidence indicated that Google designed, developed, and implemented the accused functionality in the Northern District and not at all in the Western District, and that USC's willfulness allegations appear to center on events there. According to the order, the only local connection found below was that Google performed quality assurance testing on one of the accused products in the Western District, and it appears undisputed that this testing had no connection to the accused functionality. On compulsory process, the panel said the district court, which weighed the factor as neutral, failed to account for the fact that it appears undisputed that seven potential non-party witnesses are subject to compulsory process in the Northern District, while only five are in the Western District. One of the potential witnesses in the Northern District is the inventor, and two other individuals there are former Google employees that USC indicates were connected with the inventor's work. The panel said the denial was patently erroneous even without disturbing the district court's conclusion on that factor, 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." It granted the petition, 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 under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a).
What to watch next
Watch for the transfer order in Austin, the case's assignment in the Northern District of California, and any petition by USC for rehearing. The case can end at any time by settlement or dismissal.