In Re CORE SCIENTIFIC, INC v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 2004 cleaned up . Core’s entitlement…

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In Re CORE SCIENTIFIC, INC.,
Petitioner
______________________
2026-140
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in No. 2:25-
cv-00519-JRG-RSP, Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
Before P ROST , MAYER, and CUNNINGHAM , Circuit Judges.
CUNNINGHAM , Circuit Judge.
O R D E R
Core Scientific, Inc. petitions for a writ of mandamus
seeking to compel the district court to transfer the under-
lying case to the United States District Court for the West-
ern District of Texas (“WDTX”). Malikie Innovations Ltd.
and Key Patent Innovations Ltd. (collectively, “Malikie”)
oppose. We deny the petition.
Malikie sued Core in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas (“EDTX”) alleging patent
infringement based on bitcoin mining. Core moved to
transfer the case to WDTX under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a),
Case: 26-140 Document: 22 Page: 1 Filed: 06/29/2026

-- 1 of 3 --

IN RE CORE SCIENTIFIC, INC. 2
arguing its bitcoin mining operations were now focused in
WDTX, as it terminated such operations in EDTX before
the complaint was filed, turning instead to High Perfor-
mance Computing (“HPC”) activities in EDTX.
After the motion was briefed but before it was resolved,
Malikie was granted leave of court to file an amended com-
plaint alleging infringement from both bitcoin mining and
HPC activities. Core later filed a third-party complaint
against CoreWeave, Inc., seeking indemnification related
to the accused HPC activities. The parties do not appear
to have sought to supplement their transfer papers to ad-
dress these developments. Ultimately, the district court
denied Core’s motion to transfer.1 Appearing to limit its
analysis to bitcoin mining activities, the court determined,
among other things, that EDTX would be more convenient
for several non-party witnesses with relevant and material
information to issues in the litigation and that a significant
share of the alleged infringement giving rise to those
claims occurred in EDTX before the complaint.
To obtain this extraordinary remedy, Core must show:
(1) “no other adequate means to attain the relief [it] de-
sires,” (2) a “clear and indisputable” right to relief, and
(3) the writ is “appropriate under the circumstances.”
Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81
(2004) (cleaned up). Core’s entitlement to mandamus to
direct transfer is anything but clear, at least because Core’s
petition fails to address the amended and third-party com-
plaints, both of which relate to Core’s ongoing activities in
EDTX. See In re Samsung Elecs. Co., 2 F.4th 1371, 1376
(Fed. Cir. 2021) (“Once the respondents filed their
amended complaints, the original complaints were dead
letters . . . . including for purposes of venue.” (cleaned up));
1 The district court adopted the magistrate judge’s
order, overruling Core’s objections.
Case: 26-140 Document: 22 Page: 2 Filed: 06/29/2026

-- 2 of 3 --

IN RE CORE SCIENTIFIC, INC. 3
see also In re Volkswagen AG, 371 F.3d 201, 203 (5th Cir.
2004).
Core argues the amended complaint was merely an at-
tempt to manipulate venue. That argument, “raised for the
first time in a reply brief,” is “not properly before this
court.” Norman v. United States, 429 F.3d 1081, 1091 n.5
(Fed. Cir. 2005); see In re TC Heartland LLC, 821 F.3d
1338, 1343 n.5 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[Petitioner]’s belated rais-
ing of this new argument is especially inappropriate in the
context of a petition for a writ of mandamus.”), rev’d on
other grounds sub nom., TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods
Grp. Brands LLC, 581 U.S. 258 (2017). Moreover, unlike
situations where a party’s unilateral actions to manipulate
venue were disregarded, see, e.g., Samsung, 2 F.4th at
1378–79 (collecting cases), here Malikie’s venue allegations
are based on Core’s activities in EDTX. Under the circum-
stances, we cannot say Core has demonstrated entitlement
to the extraordinary remedy of mandamus.
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
The petition is denied.
June 29, 2026
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 26-140 Document: 22 Page: 3 Filed: 06/29/2026

-- 3 of 3 --