Federal Circuit disposition — 26-104

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In Re COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC,
dba Xfinity, COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS
MANAGEMENT, LLC, dba Comcast Technology So-
lutions,
Petitioners
______________________
2026-104
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in No. 2:24-
cv-00886-JRG-RSP, Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
Before PROST, CHEN, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC and Comcast
Cable Communications Management, LLC (collectively,
“Comcast”) petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to set
aside the district court’s denial of Comcast’s motion to dis-
miss or transfer for improper venue. Sandpiper CDN, LLC
opposes the petition. Comcast replies.
Case: 26-104 Document: 22 Page: 1 Filed: 12/09/2025

-- 1 of 3 --

IN RE COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC 2
Sandpiper brought this suit in the United States Dis-
trict Court for the Eastern District of Texas (“EDTX”), al-
leging Comcast infringed claims of five method patents.
Comcast, which is incorporated in Delaware, moved to dis-
miss or transfer to the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, arguing EDTX is an im-
proper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) because Comcast
does not “reside” in EDTX for venue purposes and no “acts
of infringement” occurred in that district. Adopting the
magistrate judge’s recommendation, the district court de-
nied the motion. Comcast now petitions for mandamus, ar-
guing the court erred in concluding that venue is proper
despite Sandpiper failing to sufficiently establish that
every step of the patented methods was performed in the
EDTX.
A petitioner seeking the extraordinary remedy of man-
damus must generally show: (1) “no other adequate means
to attain the relief he desires,” (2) a “clear and indisputa-
ble” 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). At a minimum, Com-
cast has failed to show it has no other adequate means to
challenge the district court’s venue determination. “[A]n
appeal will usually provide an adequate remedy for a de-
fendant challenging the denial of an improper-venue mo-
tion,” and Comcast has failed to demonstrate that review
of its challenge in a post-judgment appeal would be “inad-
equate” under the circumstances of this case. In re HTC
Corp., 889 F.3d 1349, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2018).1
1 A post-judgment appeal may be inadequate when
immediate appellate intervention is necessary to resolve “a
basic, unsettled, recurring legal issue over which there is
considerable litigation producing disparate results, or sim-
ilar [extraordinary] circumstances,” In re Monolithic Power
Case: 26-104 Document: 22 Page: 2 Filed: 12/09/2025

-- 2 of 3 --

IN RE COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, LLC 3
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition is denied.
December 9, 2025
Date
FOR THE COURT
Sys., Inc., 50 F.4th 157, 160 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (cleaned up),
but no such urgency has been shown here. And waiting
until final judgment would “allow the issue to percolate in
the district courts as to more clearly define the importance,
scope, and nature of the issue for us to review.” In re Google
LLC, No. 2018-152, 2018 WL 5536478, at *3 (Fed. Cir.
Oct. 29, 2018).
Case: 26-104 Document: 22 Page: 3 Filed: 12/09/2025

-- 3 of 3 --