NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In re: TRACFONE WIRELESS, INC.,

Petitioner

______________________

2021-118

______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States 

District Court for the Western District of Texas in No. 6:20-

cv-00303-ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright.

______________________

ON PETITION

______________________

 

Before REYNA, CHEN, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

TracFone Wireless, Inc. petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Texas to transfer this case to the 

United States District Court for the Southern District of 

Florida, or in the alternative, to direct the district court to

stay proceedings until such time the district court rules on 

TracFone’s motion to transfer. Precis Group LLC responds 

and takes “no position regarding the relief requested.”

We apply the law of the United States Court of Appeals 

for the Fifth Circuit in cases arising from district courts in 

Case: 21-118 Document: 5 Page: 1 Filed: 03/08/2021
2 IN RE: TRACFONE WIRELESS, INC.

that circuit. We therefore review a district court’s decision 

on a motion to transfer on a clear abuse of discretion standard. In this regard, we have granted mandamus to stay 

proceedings and order prompt action on a long-pending motion to transfer where the district court has refused to take 

action. See, e.g., In re SK hynix Inc., 835 F. App’x 600 (Fed. 

Cir. 2021); In re Google, No. 2015-138, 2015 WL 5294800 

(Fed. Cir. Jul. 16, 2015); cf. In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 

F.3d 1315, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008). 

Precis filed this patent infringement suit against 

TracFone on April 21, 2020. On June 22, 2020, TracFone 

moved to dismiss the case based on improper venue or alternatively to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida pursuant to 

both 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1406. The motion 

was fully briefed by July 14, 2020. Shortly thereafter, the 

district court issued a scheduling order for discovery, a

Markman hearing, and the start of trial. 

On October 1, 2020, TracFone moved the district court

to stay all proceedings pending resolution of its venue motion. Not having heard from the court on either the motion 

to dismiss or the motion to transfer by December 21, 2020, 

TracFone moved for a decision on its motion to transfer before the Markman hearing scheduled for December 29, 

2020. The district court also did not rule on that request. 

Instead, the district court conducted the Markman hearing 

as scheduled and issued a claim construction order the following day. Having still received no ruling from the district court on any of its requests, TracFone filed this 

petition for writ of mandamus on March 2, 2020.

We addressed strikingly similar circumstances from 

the same district court last month in SK hynix. There, as 

here, the petitioners sought mandamus relief from this 

court after waiting nearly eight months for a ruling on a 

motion to transfer that was fully briefed. We agreed with 

the petitioner that “the district court’s handling of the 

Case: 21-118 Document: 5 Page: 2 Filed: 03/08/2021
IN RE: TRACFONE WIRELESS, INC. 3

transfer motion up until this point in the case has 

amounted to egregious delay and blatant disregard for 

precedent.” 835 F. App’x at 600–01. We did not compel

further action because the district court scheduled a hearing while the petition was pending before this court, but we 

directed the district court to stay proceedings, including 

the upcoming Markman hearing, until the district court 

ruled on the motion. We explained that mandamus was 

appropriate because “precedent compels entitlement to 

such relief and the district court’s continued refusal to give 

priority to deciding the transfer issues demonstrates that 

SK hynix has no alternative means by which to obtain it.” 

Id. at. 601. 

In Google, we explained that lengthy delays in resolving transfer motions can frustrate the intent 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.” 2015 WL 

5294800 at *1. We concluded that a trial court’s failure to 

act on a fully briefed transfer motion that had been pending for approximately eight months while pressing forward 

with discovery and claim construction issues amounted to 

an arbitrary refusal to consider the merits of the transfer 

motion. Id. at *1–2. We therefore directed the district 

court to promptly rule and to stay all proceedings pending 

completion of the motion. Id. at *2.

Our decisions in Google and SK hynix rest on a principle well-established in Fifth Circuit law: That district 

courts must give promptly filed transfer motions “top priority” before resolving the substantive issues in the case. 

In re Horseshoe Entm’t, 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.”); see also In re Apple, Inc., 979 F.3d 

1332, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2020 (explaining that “once a party 

files a transfer motion, disposing of that motion should unquestionably take top priority.”); In re Nintendo Co., Ltd., 

Case: 21-118 Document: 5 Page: 3 Filed: 03/08/2021
4 IN RE: TRACFONE WIRELESS, INC.

544 F. App’x 934, 941 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“[A] trial court must 

first address whether it is a proper and convenient venue 

before addressing any substantive portion of the case.”).

We agree with TracFone that the circumstances here 

are comparable to those in Google. As in Google, the facts 

here establish that the district court has clearly abused its 

discretion. And, unlike in SK hynix, the court to date has 

taken no action to suggest it is proceeding towards quick 

resolution of the motion. 

We order the district court to stay all proceedings until 

such time that it issues a ruling on the motion to transfer 

that provides a basis for its decision that is capable of 

meaningful appellate review. See SK hynix, 835 F. App’x 

at 601. We do not here address TracFone’s motions, leaving those decisions to be made by the district court in the 

first instance. But we remind the lower 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 transfer motion 

and should not color its decision. See Google, 2015 WL 

5294800 at *2. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The Petition for Writ of Mandamus is granted and the 

district court is ordered to issue its ruling on the motion to 

transfer within 30 days from the issuance of this order, and 

to provide a reasoned basis for its ruling that is capable of 

meaningful appellate review. See SK hynix, 835 F. App’x 

at 601. We also order that all proceedings in the case are 

stayed until further notice. We do not address the merits 

of TracFone’s motions, leaving those decisions to be made 

by the district court in the first instance. But we remind 

the lower 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 

Case: 21-118 Document: 5 Page: 4 Filed: 03/08/2021
IN RE: TRACFONE WIRELESS, INC. 5

considering the transfer motion and should not color its decision. See Google, 2015 WL 5294800 at *2. 

March 08, 2021

Date

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

s24

Case: 21-118 Document: 5 Page: 5 Filed: 03/08/2021