A Texas federal court has refused Google's bid to transfer a case from Branch Metrics accusing the search giant of monopolizing several markets related to searching on mobile devices to California, where the companies are both headquartered.

U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap issued an opinion and order under seal Oct. 22, denying Google's motion to transfer after finding the bulk of the factors considered were neutral, while some weighed only "slightly" in favor of sending the case to the Northern District of California.

A redacted version of the order filed Tuesday says that while it is a close call, the judge found Google fell short of carrying its burden to show California is a "clearly more convenient forum" or that Branch's choice of forum in the Eastern District of Texas should be set aside.

"The three factors favoring Google's chosen venue weigh only slightly in favor of transfer, and half of all the factors were neutral — on these facts, NDCA is not 'clearly' more convenient," the order said.

Judge Gilstrap said the court looked at the locations of servers that might store relevant data, as well as the people in charge of creating and maintaining the data, but found this factor weighs only slightly in favor of transfer. The judge noted Branch's arguments that none of Google's 14 data centers are in California and that all but three are closer to Texas.

Branch said its data center is in Iowa, 870 miles closer to the court in Texas than the one in California.

Google also argued that the location of potential witnesses should weigh in favor of transfer, but the judge said Google's "lack of specificity significantly weakens" its position on this factor since it named only one potential witness.

The judge found that considerations about court congestion in California weigh in favor of keeping the case in Texas. The order noted Branch's argument that transfer would likely delay resolution of the case by over a year, since the median time to trial is 25.9 months in the Eastern District of Texas and 40.2 months in the Northern District of California.

The court found that neither locality has a particular interest in the case and said the sides agreed that other factors were neutral.

A California-based Android developer, Branch filed suit in January accusing Google of abusing its market power as a general search engine to destroy competition in the markets for general and application search services.

Branch makes a product called Discovery, which provides Android mobile users with an integrated search bar on their devices that serves as a "one-stop shop" to access content from different apps and services.

The suit builds on claims made by the U.S. Department of Justice in its search monopolization case against Google, where a D.C. federal court found last year that Google "is a monopolist" in the markets for general search services and general search text ads. That case was based on agreements that make Google's search engine the default on a wide range of devices in exchange for billions of dollars in shared ad revenue.

Branch's case focuses on Google's agreements with Android manufacturers that require default status and the prominent placement of Google's apps. It also accuses Google of abusing its monopoly power in Android app distribution through its Google Play Store by creating a "walled garden" for apps to be discovered and downloaded.

Branch moved last month to compel Google to produce a number of expert reports from the government's antitrust case, saying they address the same technology markets, anticompetitive conduct and anticompetitive effects at issue in its case.

Google has pushed back against that effort, contending that U.S. District Judge Amit P. Mehta specifically concluded in the ruling in the government case last year that Branch had "no potential to become a viable platform substitute for Google."

Judge Mehta also found there was no "chilling effect" in the general search service market with respect to Branch, which Google said further undermines the relevance of any purported overlap with Branch's case.

Representatives for Google and Branch did not immediately respond to requests for comment Wednesday.

Branch is represented by Neal Manne, Alex Kaplan, John Schiltz, Danielle Nicholson, Zachary B. Savage and Russell Rennie of Susman Godfrey LLP, Claire Abernathy Henry of Miller Fair Henry PLLC, and Steven C. Holtzman.

Google is represented by Melissa R. Smith of Gillam & Smith LLP, John E. Schmidtlein, Benjamin M. Greenblum and Alexander S. Zolan of Williams & Connolly LLP, and Matthew L. McGinnis and Adam R. Safadi of Ropes & Gray LLP.

The case is Branch Metrics Inc. v. Google LLC, case number 2:25-cv-00089, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.