NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In re: NETFLIX, INC.,

Petitioner

______________________

2021-190

______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States 

District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in No. 2:21-

cv-00080-JRG-RSP, Chief Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap.

______________________

ON PETITION

______________________

Before DYK, PROST, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

Netflix, Inc. petitions for a writ of mandamus directing 

the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 

Texas to stay proceedings until 28 days after the district 

court decides Netflix’s motion to dismiss or transfer. CA, 

Inc. and Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited oppose. 

CA and Avago filed this patent infringement suit 

against Netflix in March 2021. On May 17, 2021, Netflix

moved to dismiss for improper venue or, alternatively, to

transfer the case to the United States District Court for the

Case: 21-190 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 10/25/2021
2 IN RE: NETFLIX, INC.

Northern District of California. Briefing on Netflix’s venue

motion was completed on July 27, 2021. On July 29, 2021, 

Netflix filed an expedited motion to stay proceedings pending the district court’s resolution of its venue motion. 

On September 10, 2021, the district court scheduled a 

Markman hearing for November 2, 2021. Also on September 10, Netflix moved to amend the docket control order 

and vacate all claim construction deadlines pending resolution of its venue motion. On September 14, 2021, the district court denied Netflix’s motion to vacate the claim 

construction deadlines, stating that it “fully expects to address the motion in advance of any claim construction hearing.” Appx333.

On September 24, 2021, Netflix filed this petition for a 

writ of mandamus seeking to stay all proceedings pending 

resolution of its motion to dismiss or transfer. On September 27, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge entered a report and recommendation that Netflix’s motion to dismiss 

or transfer be denied. Netflix filed its objections to the magistrate’s report on October 5, 2021. 

Mandamus is “reserved for extraordinary situations.” 

Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 

271, 289 (1988) (citation omitted). Under the well-established standard for obtaining such relief, the petitioner 

must: (1) show that it has a “clear and indisputable” right

to issuance of the writ; (2) show that it does not have any 

other adequate means to obtain relief; and (3) convince the 

court that “the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 

380–81 (2004) (quoting Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for N. Dist. of 

Cal., 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976)). Netflix has not met that 

exacting standard. 

Our precedent and Fifth Circuit law entitle parties to 

have their venue motions prioritized over substantive proceedings in district court. In re Apple Inc., 979 F.3d 1332, 

1337 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“Although district courts have 

Case: 21-190 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 10/25/2021
IN RE: NETFLIX, INC. 3

discretion as to how to handle their dockets, once a party 

files a transfer motion, disposing of that motion should unquestionably take top priority.”); In re Horseshoe Ent., 337 

F.3d 429, 433 (5th Cir. 2003) (“[I]n our view disposition of 

that [transfer] motion should have taken a top priority in 

the handling of this case by the . . . District Court.”). Delays

in resolving transfer motions, coupled with ongoing discovery, claim construction, and other proceedings, frustrate 

the purpose of § 1404(a) by forcing defendants “to expend 

resources litigating substantive matters in an inconvenient 

venue while a motion to transfer lingers unnecessarily on 

the docket.” In re Google Inc., No. 2015-138, 2015 WL 

5294800, at *1 (Fed. Cir. July 16, 2015). 

A stay of merits proceedings is appropriate relief if the 

district court cannot decide a venue motion quickly enough 

to avoid burdening the moving party with unnecessary expense and prejudice. We have issued writs of mandamus 

staying district court proceedings for similar delays in addressing venue motions. See, e.g., In re TracFone Wireless, 

Inc., 848 F. App’x 899 (Fed. Cir. 2021); In re SK hynix Inc., 

835 F. App’x 600 (Fed. Cir. 2021); In re Google, 2015 WL 

5294800.

Here, though, the magistrate judge has now issued a

report and recommendation denying Netflix’s venue motion and has stated that the district court is proceeding toward quick resolution of Netflix’s motion. In addition, the 

motion has been pending for a shorter time than in past 

cases, and the district court has not issued other substantive orders in the case. We are thus not convinced that an 

exceptional writ of mandamus is appropriate under the circumstances. We expect, however, the court will promptly 

decide the pending motion to dismiss or transfer.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The petition is denied.

Case: 21-190 Document: 18 Page: 3 Filed: 10/25/2021
4 IN RE: NETFLIX, INC.

October 25, 2021

Date

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

s29

Case: 21-190 Document: 18 Page: 4 Filed: 10/25/2021