Can a district court transfer a matter to a statutorily proscribed district based on expressly disregarding undisputed facts creating the proscription

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Ikorongo Technology LLC and Ikorongo Texas LLC have separate ownership and geographically divided patent rights that were infringed by Samsung, LG, and Uber. Under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) and 1400(b), the only possible venues for these actions were the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas and the defendants’ home venues of Delaware, New Jersey, and New York. The district court denied Samsung, LG, and Uber’s motions to transfer this action to the Northern District of California both because the cases could not have been brought in the Northern District of California and because the Northern District of California was not clearly more convenient than the Western District of Texas. The Federal Circuit granted Samsung, LG, and Uber’s petitions for writs of mandamus and ordered transfer, holding that (1) the district court was bound to disregard the geographic division of patent rights, and (2) the Northern District of California was clearly more convenient. The questions presented are: 1) Can a district court transfer a matter to a statutorily proscribed district based on expressly disregarding undisputed facts creating the proscription; and 2) Should Gulf Oil Corporation v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501 (1946), be overruled, particularly in light of stronger technological abilities shifting the reasonable focus for determining what is convenient for parties and witnesses?