This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential order in a patent case denying a petition for a writ of mandamus to order the Western District of Texas to stay all deadlines unrelated to venue until the district court rules on a pending motion to dismiss or transfer. Here is text from the order.
In re ADTRAN, Inc. (Nonprecedential Order)
ADTRAN, Inc. petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas to stay all deadlines unrelated to venue until the district court rules on its pending motion to dismiss or transfer. ADTRAN also moves for leave to file a supplemental appendix. Correct Transmission, LLC opposes both the motion to supplement and the petition.
* * *
ADTRAN has identified no authority establishing a clear legal right to a stay of all non-venue-related deadlines under circumstances where the venue-related motion is still in briefing and the Markman hearing is months away. Nor are we presently persuaded that ADTRAN is unable to obtain a decision on its venue motion before a Markman hearing without our help. As of February 11, 2021, when ADTRAN filed its mandamus petition, the Markman hearing was scheduled several weeks after the venue briefing was to be completed, which plausibly allows time for the court to resolve the venue issues before the Markman hearing, or grant the stay motion and postpone the hearing.
For these reasons, we deny ADTRAN’s request for mandamus relief. We note, however, that the district court’s failure to promptly act on the stay motion or its delay in ruling on the venue issues once fully briefed might tip the balance in favor of mandamus relief upon reapplication in the future. We fully expect, however, that the district court will give the stay motion and venue issues top priority. We remind the district court that any familiarity that it has gained with the underlying litigation due to the progress of the case since the filing of the complaint is irrelevant when considering the venue motion and should not color its decision. See In re Google Inc., No. 2015-138, 2015 WL 5294800, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Jul. 16, 2015).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The motion for leave to file a supplemental appendix is granted. The supplemental appendix, ECF No. 8-2, is accepted for filing.
(2) The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.