Case ID: f-appx_705/html/0955-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "O’Malley, Circuit Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

IN RE: YAHOO HOLDINGS INC., Petitioner
    2018-103
    United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
    Filed: 11/22/2017
    
      Charles Kramer Verhoeven, Attorney, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Patrick D. Cur-ran, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY, Miles Davenport Freeman, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Petitioner
    Ian B. Crosby, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Seattle, WA, Louis James Hoffman, Hoffman Patent Firm, Scottsdale, AZ, for Respondents
    Before Prost, Chief Judge,' Moore and O’Malley, Circuit Judges.
   ON PETITION

ORDER

O’Malley, Circuit Judge.

Yahoo Holdings, Inc, petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York to dismiss this case for improper venue. Specifically, Yahoo argues that the district court clearly abused its discretion in determining that Yahoo’s venue defense had been waived and that the Supreme Court’s decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, - U.S. -, 137 S.Ct. 1514, 197 L.Ed.2d 816 (2017) did not constitute an intervening change in law. Respondents Almond-Net, Inc., Datonics, LLC, and Intent IQ, LLC oppose.

We recently held that the Supreme Court’s decision in TC Heartland effected a relevant change in the law and, more particularly, that failure to present the venue objection earlier did not come within the waiver rule of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(g)(2) and (h)(1). In re Micron Tech., Inc., No. 17-138, 875 F.3d 1091, 2017 WL 5474215 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2017). In light of that decision, we deem it the proper course here for Yahoo to first move the district court for reconsideration of its order denying the motion to dismiss. We therefore deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. Any new petition for mandamus from the district court’s ruling on reconsideration will be considered on its own merits.

Accordingly,

It Is Ordered That:

The petition is denied.