United States Court of Appeals
                        For the First Circuit


No. 23-1738

                        SYSCO MACHINERY CORP.,

                        Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                  v.

     CYMTEK SOLUTIONS, INC.; CYMMETRIK ENTERPRISE CO. LTD.,

                        Defendants, Appellees.


          APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
               FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

              [Hon. Leo T. Sorokin, U.S. District Judge]


                                Before

                        Barron, Chief Judge,
                 Lipez and Kayatta, Circuit Judges.


     Christopher E. Hanba, with whom Ariana Deskins Pellegrino,
Dickinson Wright PLLC, Christopher J. Somma, and Somma Law PLLC
were on brief, for appellant.
     Kevin Tottis, with whom Keith M. Stolte, Max Stein, TottisLaw,
Barbara A. Fiacco, Allison L. Anderson, and Foley Hoag LLP were on
brief, for appellee Cymtek Solutions, Inc.
     Li Chen, with whom Lumens Law Group PLLC, Dawn E. Murphy-
Johnson, and Miller & Chevalier Chartered were on brief, for
appellee Cymmetrik Enterprise Co. Ltd.


                          December 20, 2024
            KAYATTA,     Circuit     Judge.         Taiwanese     company   Sysco

Machinery Corp. ("Sysco") sued Taiwanese company Cymtek Solutions,

Inc. ("Cymtek") and Taiwanese company Cymmetrik Enterprise Co.

Ltd. ("Cymmetrik") in the U.S. District Court for the District of

Massachusetts for conduct originating in Taiwan that allegedly

infringed Sysco copyrights for material created in Taiwan.                     The

sole issue addressed on this appeal is whether the district court

properly exercised its discretion in applying the doctrine of forum

non conveniens to dismiss this lawsuit. For the following reasons,

we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion.

                                         I.

            Sysco,     Cymtek,     and   Cymmetrik     are      three   Taiwanese

companies involved in the business of industrial cutting.                   Around

twenty years ago, Sysco's team members -- all of whom were based

in Taiwan -- developed the rotary die-cutting ("RDC") machine that

spawned this dispute.      Sysco also created, in Taiwan, a series of

technical    drawings     illustrating        the   RDC.        These   Taiwanese

drawings, to which we refer as the "copyrighted works," enjoy

copyright protection in both the United States and Taiwan.                      In

2017, Sysco began shipping RDCs from Taiwan to the United States,

using U.S.    distributor DCS        USA Corp. ("DCS")          to develop and

maintain U.S. client relationships.

            In April 2021, several Sysco employees -- all of whom

are Taiwanese -- left the company to create and work for Cymtek.


                                     - 2 -
They did so with financial support from Cymmetrik, an existing

company   that   wholly     owned     Cymtek    until    late    December   2021.

According to Sysco, Cymtek developed a competing RDC in Taiwan by

misappropriating Sysco's trade secrets and copyrighted works.

Cymtek also formed a relationship with DCS and allegedly used that

relationship to usurp Sysco's U.S. business by shipping Cymtek's

competing    RDCs    from    Taiwan    to      the   United     States.     Sysco

additionally alleges that Cymtek copied Sysco's copyrighted works

in Taiwan and sent those copies "into the United States in order

to facilitate DCS's installation of RDCs for the U.S. customers."

                                       II.

            The present dispute represents Sysco's third roll of the

dice.   Sysco first brought suit in Taiwan's Intellectual Property

and Commercial Court ("IPCC") against Cymtek and several of its

employees and won a March 2022 preliminary injunction barring them

from using the copyrighted works or disclosing any information

contained    therein.       Those     proceedings       are   ongoing.      Sysco

reportedly did not include Cymmetrik in those proceedings "because

most of the evidence related to Cymmetrik's unlawful acts are to

be obtained from . . . third part[ies] in the United States."

            In August 2022, after facing setbacks in the IPCC, Sysco

sued Cymtek and Cymmetrik in the U.S. District Court for the

Eastern   District    of    North   Carolina.        Verified     Complaint   for

Injunctive & Other Relief, Sysco Mach. Corp. v. Cymtek Sols., Inc.,


                                      - 3 -
No. 5:22-cv-00319 (E.D.N.C. Aug. 11, 2022).              That lawsuit asserted

claims similar to those at bar but included additional defendants:

DCS and several former Sysco employees.               See id.     After learning

that Sysco's counsel had contacted a DCS employee without DCS's

counsel present, the court issued a protective order against Sysco.

Order, Sysco Mach., No. 5:22-cv-00319 (Oct. 3, 2022).                  Two weeks

later, Sysco voluntarily dismissed the suit without prejudice.

Stipulation of Dismissal, Sysco Mach., No. 5:22-cv-00319 (Oct. 18,

2022)       (dismissing     DCS);    Notice     of   Dismissal,    Sysco   Mach.,

No. 5:22-cv-00319           (Oct. 18,    2022)       (dismissing     the    other

defendants).

               Three days after dismissing its North Carolina suit,

Sysco commenced this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the

District of Massachusetts against Cymtek and Cymmetrik.                     After

some preliminary motions and orders not relevant here, Sysco filed

an amended complaint on December 30, 2022, which forms the basis

for the dispute at bar.             That complaint asserted four causes of

action: (1) misappropriation of trade secrets under 

; (2) federal copyright infringement under 17 U.S.C. §§ 101–

810; (3) unfair and deceptive acts and practices under Mass. Gen.

Laws       ch. 93A;   and   (4) tortious      interference   with    prospective

economic advantage under common law.1 The first, third, and fourth



       The district court explained that counts three and four
       1

"are encompassed within the [analysis] of the trade secret and


                                        - 4 -
counts targeted Cymtek and Cymmetrik, while the second count

targeted only Cymtek.           Sysco sought monetary, declaratory, and

injunctive   relief   to       remedy   Cymtek's       and    Cymmetrik's    alleged

infringing conduct, as well as monetary damages for harms (e.g.,

loss of U.S. business) stemming therefrom.

            Cymtek and Cymmetrik both moved to dismiss the suit under

the doctrine of forum non conveniens.                  After a motions hearing,

the district court granted the two motions.                   Sysco Mach. Corp. v.

Cymtek Sols., Inc., No. 22-cv-11806, 

, at *11 (D.

Mass. Aug. 9, 2023).       Sysco appealed.

                                        III.

            We   review    a    district    court's        forum   non   conveniens

determination for abuse of discretion.                Imamura v. Gen. Elec. Co.,

, 106 (1st Cir. 2020).                    "We will find an abuse of

discretion if the district court (1) failed to consider a material

factor;    (2) substantially       relied       on    an     improper    factor;   or

(3) assessed the proper factors, but clearly erred in weighing

them."    

 (quoting Interface Partners Int'l Ltd. v. Hananel, 

 (1st Cir. 2009)).              While "the abuse-of-discretion

standard isn't a rubber stamp," Curtis v. Galakatos, 

,



copyright claims because all of the claims concern the same general
alleged course of conduct." Sysco Mach. Corp. v. Cymtek Sols.,
Inc., No. 22-cv-11806, 

, at *4 (D. Mass. Aug. 9,
2023).   On appeal, no party challenges this approach.      We thus
follow suit and devote our discussion to Sysco's federal
intellectual property ("IP") claims.


                                        - 5 -
49 (1st Cir. 2021), it nevertheless imposes "a formidable burden"

on anyone "attempting to convince the court of appeals that the

lower court erred," Rivera-Aponte v. Gomez Bus Line, Inc., 

, 7 (1st Cir. 2023) (quoting Rosario-Diaz v. Gonzalez, 

 (1st Cir. 1998)).          "Of course," any "material error of

law" that the district court committed "within its forum non

conveniens determination . . . invariably constitutes an abuse of

discretion"     warranting     reversal.          Imamura,   957   F.3d   at   106

(citations omitted).

                                      IV.

            The doctrine of forum non conveniens empowers "a federal

district court [to] dismiss an action on the ground that a court

abroad     is   the   more    appropriate     and     convenient     forum     for

adjudicating the controversy."         Sinochem Int'l Co. v. Malay. Int'l

Shipping    Corp.,    

    (2007).     Two   background

principles guide this inquiry:             First, "[a] defendant invoking

forum non conveniens ordinarily bears a heavy burden in opposing

the plaintiff's chosen forum," 

; such a defendant must

show that dismissal "is needed to avoid serious unfairness,"

Nandjou v. Marriott Int'l, Inc., 

, 141 (1st Cir. 2021)

(quoting Adelson v. Hananel, 

 (1st Cir. 2007)).

Second, however, "[w]hen the plaintiff's choice is not its home

forum, . . . the presumption in the plaintiff's favor 'applies




                                     - 6 -
with less force.'"     Sinochem Int'l Co., 

 (quoting

Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 

 (1981)).

           Thus guided, the forum non conveniens inquiry proceeds

in two steps.

                                   A.

           At step one, we ask "whether an adequate alternative

forum exists to the one that the plaintiff has chosen for [its]

suit."   Nandjou, 985 F.3d at 141.      An adequate forum satisfies two

requirements:   "(1) all   parties      can    come   within   that   forum's

jurisdiction, and (2) the parties will not be deprived of all

remedies or treated unfairly, even though they may not enjoy the

same benefits as they might receive in an American court." Curtis,

19 F.4th at 47–48 (quoting Imamura, 957 F.3d at 106).             To satisfy

the jurisdictional requirement, a defendant must show that the

dispute can get through the foreign courthouse's doors -- in other

words,   that   the   foreign   forum    can    "exercise . . .       personal

jurisdiction over the defendant" and "subject matter jurisdiction

over the dispute."     Imamura, 957 F.3d at 108.          As to the remedy

requirement, a defendant need show that the foreign forum offers

remedies for "the types of claims that the plaintiff has brought,"

Iragorri v. Int'l Elevator, Inc., 

 (1st Cir. 2000);

such remedies cannot be "so clearly inadequate or unsatisfactory

that [they are] no remed[ies] at all," Piper, 

.




                                  - 7 -
         If   a   defendant   does    not   satisfy     both   adequacy

requirements, "that's the end of the line for [its] forum non

conveniens motion."   Curtis, 19 F.4th at 48.         If, however, the

defendant satisfies both requirements, we turn to the second step

of the forum non conveniens inquiry.

                                B.

         At step two, we ask whether "the compendium of factors

relevant to the private and public interests implicated by the

case strongly favors dismissal."     Iragorri, 

.     The

Supreme Court has enumerated a non-exhaustive list of germane

private-interest factors:

         the relative ease of access to sources of
         proof; availability of compulsory process for
         attendance of unwilling, and the cost of
         obtaining attendance of willing, witnesses;
         possibility of view of premises, if view would
         be appropriate to the action; and all other
         practical problems that make trial of a case
         easy, expeditious and inexpensive.

Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 

 (1947).       It has done

the same for germane public-interest factors:

         the administrative difficulties flowing from
         court congestion; the "local interest in
         having localized controversies decided at
         home"; the interest in having the trial of a
         diversity case in a forum that is at home with
         the law that must govern the action; the
         avoidance of unnecessary problems in conflict
         of laws, or in the application of foreign law;
         and the unfairness of burdening citizens in an
         unrelated forum with jury duty.

Piper, 

 n.6 (quoting Gilbert, 

).


                              - 8 -
            In    applying    these     factors,       "flexibility      is   the

watchword":       The Supreme Court's compendia "comprise a helpful

starting point, but not every item applies in every case," and the

lists are "illustrative rather than all-inclusive."              Iragorri, 

.      While the Supreme Court's instructions -- and our own

precedents -- control our forum non conveniens analysis, each

"inquiry ultimately turns on the unique facts of each case."

Curtis, 19 F.4th at 48.        At bottom, we seek to determine "where

trial will best serve the convenience of the parties and the ends

of justice."      Iragorri, 

 (quoting Koster v. (Am.)

Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 

 (1947)).

                                       V.

            The district court ruled for Cymtek and Cymmetrik at

both steps of the forum non conveniens inquiry and thus granted

their motions to dismiss. On appeal, Sysco challenges the district

court's rulings at both steps.         We consider each step in turn and

conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in

granting Cymtek's and Cymmetrik's motions for dismissal.

                                       A.

            We begin with step one of the forum non conveniens

inquiry: adequacy.      Sysco does not contest that Taiwanese courts

can exercise personal jurisdiction over Cymtek and Cymmetrik, nor

does   it   contest    that   Taiwanese       courts   enjoy   subject    matter

jurisdiction over private IP disputes of the type at bar.                 We are


                                      - 9 -
therefore satisfied that this case could make its way through

Taiwan's    courthouse     doors,         thus   fulfilling     step     one's

jurisdictional requirement.        Sysco does not meaningfully dispute

this conclusion.2

           Rather, Sysco devotes its adequacy challenge to step

one's remedy requirement.         The district court credited Cymtek's

and Cymmetrik's assertions "that Taiwanese law provides a range of

significant potential remedies for trade secret and copyright law

violations," including relief for downstream injuries "derived

from the infringement."         Sysco Mach., 

, at *5–6.

The   district   court   thus    deemed    the   remedies    available   under

Taiwanese law "adequate."        

.

           Sysco challenges this determination.             In its own words,

the company contests "the sufficiency of the remedy" available in

Taiwan, alleging that Cymtek and Cymmetrik have failed to adduce

evidence that a Taiwanese court could "provide a remedy for the

infringement of Sysco's U.S. intellectual property rights."                 In

other words, Sysco argues that, whenever a case involves a claim


      2 Sysco does at times appear to style its adequacy challenge
as jurisdictional, including at oral argument, where Sysco briefly
contended that "[t]he subject matter here [is] U.S copyrights."
However, Sysco's reply brief retreats from this position, and we
discern little precedential support for the proposition that the
courthouse-doors inquiry views "subject matter" so narrowly. See
Imamura, 957 F.3d at 108–09.           Instead, we see Sysco's
argument -- which, in Sysco's words, "focuses on the sufficiency
of the remedy" available in Taiwan -- as principally a remedy
challenge, and we treat it accordingly.


                                   - 10 -
under U.S. copyright law, a foreign forum is inadequate unless it

"could or would apply United States copyright law."    Halo Creative

& Design Ltd. v. Comptoir Des Indes Inc., 

 (Fed.

Cir. 2016).   Sysco appears to view trade-secrets law similarly.

          As a preliminary matter, it is not clear that the premise

for this argument (i.e., that a Taiwanese court could not apply

U.S. law) stands scrutiny. Contrary to Sysco's contentions, Cymtek

did adduce evidence that a Taiwanese court could apply U.S.

copyright law to this case.   As the district court observed:   "[I]n

a declaration submitted by Cymtek, [Taiwanese IP lawyer Vanessa]

Weng . . . assert[ed] that a Taiwanese court could apply foreign

law if 'the law of the place where the tort occurred is foreign.'"

Sysco Mach., 

, at *5 n.7.     Weng and the district

court acknowledged that, given this case's facts and Taiwanese

law's capacity to remedy Sysco's alleged injuries, a Taiwanese

court would more likely apply Taiwanese law.    

   But insofar as

the district court credited and based its adequacy finding on

Weng's testimony regarding the ability of Taiwanese courts to apply

U.S. IP law, such an approach did not constitute an abuse of

discretion.   See Creative Tech., Ltd. v. Aztech Sys. Pte., Ltd.,

, 702–03 (9th Cir. 1995).

          And even if Sysco were correct that a Taiwanese court

could not apply U.S. IP law, the precedent it cites does not

support its claim that a foreign court can only provide an adequate


                               - 11 -
remedy for alleged U.S. IP violations if it can apply U.S. IP law.

Rather, in each case Sysco cites, the foreign jurisdiction lacked

a sufficient nexus to the conduct at issue, raising the specter

that the foreign forum could not remedy the alleged infringement.

See Halo Creative, 

 ("[T]here is no evidence that

any predicate act occurred in Canada, and no authority that Canada

would provide a remedy for United States infringement . . . .");

dmarcian, Inc. v. dmarcian Eur. BV, 

, 137, 141 (4th

Cir. 2023) (noting that the defendant "originally gained access

to" and "facilitated the . . . use or disclosure" of the IP "within

the United States" and, correspondingly, that Dutch courts could

not remedy such conduct (cleaned up)); Lang Van, Inc. v. VNG Corp.,

, 1037, 1043 (9th Cir. 2022) (explaining that the

defendant   released   the   infringing    material    "into   the   United

States" and that Vietnamese law did not provide "a realistic

avenue" for relief (citation omitted)); Jose Armando Bermudez &

Co. v. Bermudez Int'l, No. 99 Civ. 9346, 

, at *2–4

(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 29, 2000) (describing infringing activity confined

to the United States and concluding that Dominican courts thus

could not "grant an adequate remedy to plaintiff").

            By   contrast,   in   IP   cases   with   sufficient     foreign

nexuses -- like the one at bar -- U.S. courts have repeatedly

granted forum non conveniens dismissals on the grounds that, in

applying their own domestic law, foreign courts could fashion


                                  - 12 -
remedies that adequately addressed the conduct that allegedly

violated U.S. IP law.       That is, in such cases, foreign courts may

still prove adequate for adjudicating disputes that implicate U.S.

IP law, even if those courts would not or could not apply U.S. IP

law.

            For    example,       in     Creative     Technology,        Creative

Technology,   Ltd.      ("Creative")      sued   Aztech    System      Pte.,   Ltd.

("Aztech") in U.S. court for alleged violations of U.S. copyright

law.   

.      Aztech moved for and received a forum non

conveniens dismissal in favor of Singapore. 

 The Ninth Circuit

affirmed the dismissal, explaining "that the Singapore Copyright

Act offers Creative an adequate alternative remedy independent of

United States copyright law."          

.    As the court expounded,

a victory under the Singapore Copyright Act -- notwithstanding its

lack of extraterritorial reach -- would afford Creative, inter

alia, the same remedies it sought under U.S. copyright law:

"damages incurred by Aztech Labs' alleged illegal distribution of

pirated sound cards within the United States" and injunctive relief

against "Aztech's infringing conduct in Singapore."                 

.

Other cases track Creative Technology.              See, e.g., Lockman Found.

v. Evangelical All. Mission, 

 (9th Cir. 1991)

(holding,   in    the   context    of    trademarks,      that   the    potential

inability to litigate a Lanham Act claim in Japanese court did

"not preclude forum non conveniens dismissal" where the plaintiff


                                       - 13 -
might still recover on "tort and contract claims"); Wave Studio,

LLC v. Gen. Hotel Mgmt. Ltd., 

 (2d Cir. 2018)

(summary order) ("[T]he mere existence of the Singapore Copyright

Act[, coupled with the broader record,] illustrates . . . that

Singapore    courts        are . . .     entirely       capable        of     properly

adjudicating     copyright     ownership        and    infringement         claims.");

González Cantón       v.   Mad Ruk Ent., Inc., No. 22-1458, 

, at *11 (D.P.R. July 13, 2023) ("Canada has its own laws

that attend tort and copyright claims, and though admittedly

different from the laws of the United States, those statutes should

not be so dissimilar as to deprive Plaintiff of the proper remedies

he seeks."); see also Howe v. Goldcorp Invs., Ltd., 

 (1st Cir. 1991) (listing non-IP cases showing that a court can

dismiss a case for forum non conveniens even when the foreign forum

would apply different substantive law than would a U.S. court).

            As   in   Creative      Technology,       the    district       court   here

reasonably   concluded       that    foreign     "law       provides    a    range   of

significant potential remedies for [IP] violations" sufficient to

remedy the harms alleged in the complaint.                   Sysco Mach., 

, at *6.

            "Of course, if the remedy provided by the alternative

forum is so clearly inadequate or unsatisfactory that it is no

remedy at all, . . . the district court may [refuse dismissal.]"

Piper, 

; see also Mercier v. Sheraton Int'l, Inc.,


                                       - 14 -


 (1st Cir. 1992) (noting that a plaintiff can

defeat   a    forum   non    conveniens    motion      by   "demonstrat[ing]

significant legal . . . obstacles to conducting the litigation in

the alternative forum").      But Sysco has made no such showing here.

The district court found -- and Sysco does not here contest -- that

Taiwan offers procedural regularity and remedies such as damages

and domestic injunctive relief that could compensate Sysco for,

and cut off the source of, Sysco's alleged U.S. harms.             See Sysco

Mach., 

, at *5–6.

             In its reply brief, Sysco argues that these remedies

fall short because they do not include the ability to remedy

"extraterritorial infringing activity" through "extraterritorial

enforcement."     But to qualify as adequate, a foreign forum need

not possess all the remedial tools available to U.S. courts, such

as the ability to enforce judgments in the United States.                See

Creative Tech., 

.        Rather, we require only that the

foreign forum have the power to provide "reasonably fair" remedies.

Ahmed v. Boeing Co., 

 (1st Cir. 1983).                  And

Sysco's briefing develops no argument as to why extraterritorial

enforcement constitutes the only reasonably fair way to remedy its

alleged injuries.      See United States v. Zannino, 

(1st Cir. 1990) ("[I]ssues adverted to in a perfunctory manner,

unaccompanied    by   some   effort   at   developed    argumentation,   are

deemed waived.").      Thus, for the dispute at bar, we cannot say


                                  - 15 -
that Taiwanese IP law falls so short of U.S. IP law as to render

its remedies an inadequate stand-in for U.S. remedies.

            Finally,        contending    that    "Adequacy    is   Particularly

Important in the Context of Intellectual Property Disputes," Sysco

relies on Halo Creative to assert that "[t]he policies underlying

[U.S. IP law] would be defeated if a [court were to dismiss for

forum non conveniens] without a sufficient showing of [foreign]

adequacy," 

.             We have no need here to delve into

this normative argument because, as explained supra, Taiwan does

offer an adequate forum to adjudicate the dispute at bar.                  Thus,

we do not threaten "[t]he policies underlying [U.S. IP law]" by

affirming the dismissal of Sysco's claims in favor of a Taiwanese

forum.    Id.

                                          B.

            Turning its attention to step two of the forum non

conveniens      inquiry,      Sysco     challenges    the     district   court's

balancing of private- and public-interest factors.

                                          1.

            Sysco first groups its private-interest assertions into

three    buckets,      arguing   that     the    district   court    abused    its

discretion      when   it    "(1) disregarded       substantial     evidence   and

relied on unsupported advocacy in order to determine that certain

factors    favored      litigation       in     Taiwan,   (2) determined       that




                                      - 16 -
litigation in either forum would entail similar difficulties, and

(3) considered the existence of concurrent litigation."

            In support of its first argument, Sysco asserts that the

district court improperly (1) characterized this case as taking

place "largely in Taiwan," Sysco Mach., 

, at *7;

(2) understated the difficulty of compelling witnesses in Taiwan,

including by juxtaposing that difficulty with the difficulty of

compelling    witnesses     in     the     district       court,        

;

(3) exaggerated    the    significance      of     the    fact    that        "the   vast

majority   of . . .     evidence    [is]    in     Taiwan,"       

;    and

(4) failed to substantiate its conclusion that the costs of U.S.

litigation would exceed those of Taiwanese litigation, 

.

            None of these alleged errors constituted an abuse of

discretion.    Though Sysco claimed harm in the United States, the

district court reasonably characterized the alleged events that

putatively     caused     that      harm      --      theft,        copying,          and

dissemination -- as having "t[aken] place largely in Taiwan."                         

.     The district court acknowledged that a Taiwanese court

might struggle "to obtain testimony in the United States" but

concluded that, overall, Taiwan offers greater access to witnesses

than does the United States.             

.           Additionally, the

district court adequately explained why the location of "the vast

majority     of . . .    evidence"       heavily         favors    litigation          in

Taiwan -- i.e., because a U.S. forum would require the translation


                                    - 17 -
of "significantly" more documents than a Taiwanese forum.                 

.       Finally, "the record and common sense," A.W. Chesterton

Co. v. Chesterton, 

 (1st Cir. 1997), supported the

district court's conclusion that "[l]itigating in the U.S. would

involve greater overall costs for interpretation . . . , flights,

and lodging for witnesses testifying at trial as well as for

depositions," Sysco Mach., 

, at *8.

              In support of its second argument, Sysco takes issue

with portions of the district court's analysis that "credited"

Cymtek's and Cymmetrik's contentions over Sysco's.                 Specifically,

Sysco    argues    that     the     district    court   accepted   Cymtek's   and

Cymmetrik's arguments concerning access to sources of proof and

the ability of courts to offer remedies with extraterritorial

impact    --    even     though      Sysco     purportedly   proffered   equally

persuasive arguments to the contrary.               But in conducting a forum

non   conveniens        analysis,    a   district   court    enjoys   significant

discretion to assess evidence and arguments as it sees fit.                   See

Mercier, 

 n.3, 1353–54.                 And the district court

adequately explained its rationale for concluding that factors in

facial equipoise actually favor litigation in Taiwan:                 Concerning

sources of proof, the district court reasoned that, while Taiwan

and     the    United     States     have    similar    evidence-authentication

processes, the fact that most of the evidence is located in Taiwan

and written in Chinese weighs in favor of a Taiwanese forum.                  See


                                         - 18 -
Sysco Mach., 

, at *7–8.        As for remedies with

extraterritorial impact, the district court carefully explained

that a Taiwanese remedial order would cure Sysco's U.S. injuries,

while a U.S. remedial order would not reach the underlying conduct

at issue in Taiwan.    See 

.

          Finally, in arguing that the district court abused its

discretion by "improperly consider[ing] the effect of concurrent

litigation in Taiwan," Sysco misconstrues Adelson, which provided

in relevant part:

          The existence of concurrent litigation is not
          a relevant factor to the analysis; none of the
          [public-interest] factors . . . invokes a
          comparison between the two competing fora. By
          focusing   on  the   existence   of   parallel
          proceedings in a foreign court, the district
          court essentially converted the analysis into
          a determination of which of the two pending
          cases should go forward.

.       Here, the district court did not reduce its

decision to a binary Taiwan-or-Massachusetts inquiry.        Instead,

citing Adelson, the court explained that it could "look to the

proceedings   in    Taiwan   for   evidence   related   to    various

considerations that are part of the forum non conveniens analysis,

such as whether Taiwanese courts address the types of claims at

issue or have jurisdiction over these parties."    Sysco Mach., 

, at *4 n.6.    In short, the district court did not treat

the existence of the Taiwanese proceedings as a factor, but rather

drew logical inferences from the existence of those proceedings to


                                - 19 -
inform its assessment of routine private-interest factors.                     We

decline    Sysco's     invitation    to    rob   courts   of   this   source   of

particularly relevant information.

                                          2.

            Lastly, Sysco asserts three brief challenges to the

district court's appraisal of the public-interest factors.

            Sysco first argues that the district court improperly

determined "that the administrative difficulties flowing from

court congestion weigh" neither in favor of Taiwan nor the United

States, thus rendering "this factor . . . in equipoise."                 

.   According to Sysco, the parties failed to adduce evidence on

this point, and the district court therefore should have foregone

this factor. We fail to comprehend how foregoing this factor would

have produced a meaningfully different result than labeling this

factor "in equipoise."          Regardless, the district court provided

sufficient detail to satisfy us that the parties presented enough

evidence   for   the    court   to   meaningfully     compare    the   relative

administrative difficulties of litigating this case in Taiwan and

the district court.       See 

            Next, Sysco once more takes issue with the district court

treating this case as, first and foremost, a Taiwanese dispute.

See 

    For the reasons provided throughout this opinion, supra,

we agree with the district court's characterization.




                                     - 20 -
          Finally, while seemingly accepting that this case would

require a U.S. forum to apply Taiwanese law, Sysco argues that the

district court wrongly found that "Taiwanese courts would likely

not need to apply foreign law in adjudicating" this dispute.    Id.

But as the district court explained in its forum-adequacy analysis,

and as discussed in section V.A, supra, Cymtek adduced evidence

that a Taiwanese court would likely conclude that "Taiwanese law

would and should apply to this case, rather than the law of the

United States."   Id. at *5 n.7.   The district court did not abuse

its discretion by apparently crediting this evidence.

                               VI.

          The district court properly exercised its discretion in

applying the doctrine of forum non conveniens. We discern no error

in its reasoning -- much less an abuse of discretion -- and

therefore affirm its considered opinion.




                              - 21 -