“Whether the district court abused its discretion in declining to apply the first-to- file rule by:
(1) erroneously concluding that the WDTX’s decision regarding the ’606 patent could conflict with the district court’s prior orders;
(2) erroneously accusing VoIP-Pal of forum shopping;
(3) erroneously invoking an exception to the first-to-file rule without a factual basis in the record;
(4) erroneously shifting the burden to prove an exception to the first-to-file rule to VoIP-Pal; and
(5) erroneously finding its limited familiarity with previous VoIP-Pal cases sufficient to override the first-to-file rule.”
“We see no error that is mandamus-worthy in the court’s analysis. . . . On this record, we cannot say that the district court clearly abused its discretion. . . . The petition is denied.”
