Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

In re Yahoo Holdings Inc., No. 18-103 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 22, 2017)

Denied
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 18-103
Decided
November 22, 2017
Judge
O'Malley, J.
Document
Nonprecedential Opinion
Length
2 pages

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

In re: YAHOO HOLDINGS INC.,

Petitioner

2018-103

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York in No. 1:16-cv-01557-ILG-SMG, Judge I. Leo Glasser.

ON PETITION

Before PROST, Chief Judge, MOORE and O’MALLEY, Circuit

Judges.

O R D E R

Yahoo Holdings, Inc. petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York to dismiss this case for improper venue. Specifically, Yahoo argues that the district court clearly abused its discretion in determining that Yahoo’s venue defense had been waived and that the Supreme Court’s decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017) did not constitute an intervening change in law. Respondents Al-

22 IN RE: YAHOO HOLDINGS INC.

mondNet, Inc., Datonics, LLC, and Intent IQ, LLC oppose.

We recently held that the Supreme Court’s decision in TC Heartland effected a relevant change in the law and, more particularly, that failure to present the venue objection earlier did not come within the waiver rule of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(g)(2) and (h)(1). In re Micron Tech., Inc., No. 17-138 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2017). In light of that decision, we deem it the proper course here for Yahoo to first move the district court for reconsideration of its order denying the motion to dismiss. We therefore deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. Any new petition for mandamus from the district court’s ruling on reconsideration will be considered on its own merits.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The petition is denied. FOR THE COURT

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court

s31

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

In re Yahoo Holdings Inc., No. 18-103 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 22, 2017).

Record ID
CAFC-18-103-20171201
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-18-103-20171201

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.