EXHIBIT A

Case 6:20-cv-00491-ADA Document 121-1 Filed 10/27/21 Page 1 of 3
In re: NETFLIX, INC., Petitioner, Not Reported in Fed. Rptr. (2021)

 © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 1

2021 WL 4944826

Only the Westlaw citation is currently available.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

In re: NETFLIX, INC., Petitioner

2021-190

|

Date October 25, 2021

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.

ORDER

PER CURIAM

*1 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 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 wellestablished 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 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).

*2 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

Case 6:20-cv-00491-ADA Document 121-1 Filed 10/27/21 Page 2 of 3
In re: NETFLIX, INC., Petitioner, Not Reported in Fed. Rptr. (2021)

 © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. 2

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.

FOR THE COURT

Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court

All Citations

Not Reported in Fed. Rptr., 2021 WL 4944826

End of Document © 2021 Thomson Reuters. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

Case 6:20-cv-00491-ADA Document 121-1 Filed 10/27/21 Page 3 of 3