Last month, the Federal Circuit issued a per curiam order in In re Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, a patent case we have been following because it attracted an amicus brief. In this case a petition for a writ of mandamus presented a question whether venue is proper when a patent owner fails to establish that every step of a patented method was performed in a judicial district. In a order authored per curiam, Judges Prost, Chen, and Hughes denied the petition. Here is a summary of the order.
The panel first briefly outlined the relevant background:
Sandpiper brought this suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (“EDTX”), alleging Comcast infringed claims of five method patents. Comcast, which is incorporated in Delaware, moved to dismiss or transfer to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, arguing EDTX is an improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) because Comcast does not “reside” in EDTX for venue purposes and no “acts of infringement” occurred in that district. Adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation, the district court denied the motion. Comcast now petitions for mandamus.
The panel explained the standard for mandamus relief requires a “petitioner seeking the extraordinary remedy of mandamus must generally show: (1) ‘no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires,’ (2) a ‘clear and indisputable’ right to relief, and (3) the writ is ‘appropriate under the circumstances.'”
Applying this standard, the panel concluded that Comcast at a minimum failed to satisfy the first requirement. The panel explained that “‘an appeal will usually provide an adequate remedy for a defendant challenging the denial of an improper-venue motion,’ and Comcast has failed to demonstrate that review of its challenge in a post-judgment appeal would be ‘inadequate’ under the circumstances of this case.”
As a result, the panel denied Comcast’s petition without reaching the merits of the question presented.