{"cached_at":"2026-10-08T09:54:27.068499+00:00","cl_docket_id":"73392142","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73392142/","id":73392142,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/cafc/","court_id":"cafc","original_court_info":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/originating-court-information/970189/","id":970189,"date_created":"2026-05-26T13:20:04.272827-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-29T09:03:28.384401-07:00","docket_number":"2:25-cv-00519","docket_number_raw":"2:25-cv-00519","assigned_to_str":"Rodney Gilstrap","ordering_judge_str":"","court_reporter":"","date_disposed":null,"date_filed":"2025-05-12","date_judgment":null,"date_judgment_eod":null,"date_filed_noa":null,"date_received_coa":"2026-04-27","date_rehearing_denied":null,"assigned_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/1211/","ordering_judge":null},"idb_data":null,"clusters":["https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/clusters/10881701/"],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":null,"referred_to":null,"bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/73392142/in-re-core-scientific-inc/","date_created":"2026-05-26T13:20:04.290971-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-29T09:03:28.431502-07:00","source":3,"appeal_from_str":"United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas","assigned_to_str":"","referred_to_str":"","panel_str":"","date_last_index":null,"date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2026-04-28","date_terminated":null,"date_last_filing":"2026-06-29","case_name_short":"","case_name":"In re: Core Scientific, Inc.","case_name_full":"","slug":"in-re-core-scientific-inc","docket_number":"26-140","docket_number_core":"26000140","docket_number_raw":"26-140","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"","federal_dn_case_type":"","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"24297","cause":"","nature_of_suit":"","jury_demand":"","jurisdiction_type":"","appellate_fee_status":"fee paid","appellate_case_type_information":"Mandamus (Civil), Petition for Writ of Mandamus","mdl_status":"","filepath_ia":"","filepath_ia_json":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"ia_needs_upload":true,"ia_date_first_change":"2026-05-26T13:20:04.253873-07:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/txed/","parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/469058881/","id":469058881,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73392142/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/484377323/","id":484377323,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73392142/22/in-re-core-scientific-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-29T06:15:20.080848-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-29T06:15:20.140781-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"22","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"01302715846","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Dispositive Court Order","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-06-29T06:15:20.032770-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-29T06:15:20.049758-07:00","date_filed":"2026-06-29","time_filed":"08:44:13","entry_number":22,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-06-29.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/465219608/","id":465219608,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73392142/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/480417832/","id":480417832,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73392142/18/in-re-core-scientific-inc/","date_created":"2026-05-26T13:20:05.182932-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-26T13:20:05.197318-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"18","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"01302697203","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-26T13:20:05.153093-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-26T13:20:05.161468-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-20","time_filed":null,"entry_number":18,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-20.002","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX FILED by Respondent Malikie Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Ltd.. Service: 05/20/2026 by email. (PENDING COMPLIANCE REVIEW) [1168546] [26-140] [Khue Hoang] [Entered: 05/20/2026 09:26 PM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/465219606/","id":465219606,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73392142/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/480417830/","id":480417830,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73392142/17/in-re-core-scientific-inc/","date_created":"2026-05-26T13:20:05.105063-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-27T03:43:10.381965-07:00","sha1":"12897d63f9df9af767e919fe745b3a034865f561","page_count":43,"file_size":424471,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cafc.24297/gov.uscourts.cafc.24297.17.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cafc.24297/gov.uscourts.cafc.24297.17.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"                            No. 2026-140\n\n\n        IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n               FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT\n\n\n                     IN RE: CORE SCIENTIFIC, INC.,\n                                      Petitioner.\n\n\nOn Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court\n                   for the Eastern District of Texas\n                      No. 2:25-cv-00519-JRG-RSP\n                Hon. J. Rodney Gilstrap, District Judge\n\n\n       MALIKIE INNOVATIONS LTD. AND KEY PATENT\n          INNOVATIONS LTD.\u2019S OPPOSITION TO\n          PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS\n\n\nBrian C. Baran                   Khue V. Hoang\nPhilip J. Eklem                  REICHMAN JORGENSEN\nREICHMAN JORGENSEN                LEHMAN & FELDBERG LLP\n LEHMAN & FELDBERG LLP           650 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2320\n1909 K St. NW, Suite 800         New York, NY 10019\nWashington, DC 20006             (212) 381-1965\n(202) 894-7310                   khoang@reichmanjorgensen.com\nbbaran@reichmanjorgensen.com\n                                 Matthew G. Berkowitz\n                                 REICHMAN JORGENSEN\n                                  LEHMAN & FELDBERG LLP\n                                 100 Marine Parkway, Suite 300\n                                 Redwood Shores, CA 94065\n                                 (650) 623-1401\n                                 mberkowitz@reichmanjorgensen.com\n                      Counsel for Respondents\n      Malikie Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Ltd.\n\f                   CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST\n\n    Counsel for Malikie Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations\nLtd. certify under Federal Circuit Rule 47.4 that the following\ninformation is accurate and complete to the best of their knowledge:\n    1. The full names of the entities represented by undersigned counsel\nin this case are Malikie Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations\nLtd.\n\n    2. Malikie Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations, Ltd. are\nthe real parties in interest. There are no other real parties in interest.\n\n    3. Malikie Innovations Ltd. is a wholly owned subsidiary of Key\nPatent Innovations Ltd. Key Patent Innovations Ltd. is a wholly owned\nsubsidiary of New PP Licensing LLC. No other entity is a parent\ncorporation for or publicly held company owning 10% or more stock in\nMalikie Innovations Ltd. or Key Patent Innovations Ltd.\n\n    4. Other than those who have already entered an appearance in this\nCourt, the following law firms, partners, and associates (a) appeared for\nMalikie Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations, Ltd. in the\noriginating court or (b) are expected to appear in this Court:\n\n   REICHMAN JORGENSEN LEHMAN & FELDBERG LLP: Courtland L.\n   Reichman, Christine E. Lehman, Patrick R. Colsher, Michael M.\n   Polka, Michael Caulkins\n\n   MILLER FAIR HENRY PLLC: Andrea L. Fair, Claire A. Henry, Garrett\n   C. Parish\n\n   5. The related or prior cases relevant to this appeal are listed on a\nseparately filed notice.\n\n    6. No additional information is required under Fed. R. App.\nP. 26.1(b) (organizational victims in criminal cases) or 26.1(c)\n(bankruptcy case debtors and trustees).\n\nDated: May 20, 2026               /s/ Khue V. Hoang\n                                  Khue V. Hoang\n\n\n\n\n                                    i\n\f                                   TABLE OF CONTENTS\nSTATEMENT OF RELATED CASES ..................................................... vii\nINTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1\nBACKGROUND .......................................................................................... 3\n     A. Malikie sues in the Eastern District of Texas, where venue is\n        undisputedly proper. ....................................................................... 3\n     B. Core moves for a convenience transfer to the Western District,\n        contending that it relocated its allegedly infringing activities\n        there. ................................................................................................ 3\n     C. Malikie amends its complaint, asserting another patent with\n        allegations concededly tied to the Eastern District. ...................... 5\n     D. Relying only on the original complaint, the district court finds\n        that Core failed to prove that the Western District is \u201cclearly\n        more convenient.\u201d ............................................................................ 6\n     E. Meanwhile, Core files a third-party complaint involving its\n        Eastern District operations. ............................................................ 9\nREASONS FOR DENYING THE PETITION ......................................... 10\n I. Core Has No Clear and Indisputable Right to Mandamus. ............. 10\n     A. The district court was well within its discretion in evaluating\n        the disputed factors. ...................................................................... 12\n         1. The district court did not clearly abuse its discretion in\n            finding that the local interest factor was neutral. .................. 12\n         2. The district court did not clearly abuse its discretion in\n            evaluating judicial economy. .................................................... 18\n         3. The district court did not clearly abuse its discretion in\n            evaluating availability of compulsory process, witness\n            convenience, and access to proof. ............................................. 21\n     B. The district court was well within its discretion in weighing\u2014\n        and not merely counting\u2014the factors. ......................................... 26\n II. Mandamus Is Not Appropriate Under the Circumstances. ............. 27\n     A. Core\u2019s neglect of the \u201cappropriate under the circumstances\u201d\n        requirement is reason enough to deny mandamus. ....................... 28\n     B. Mandamus is inappropriate in light of the amended and third-\n        party complaints filed after briefing concluded. .......................... 30\nCONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 34\n\n\n                                                      ii\n\f                              TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n\n                                                                                           Page(s)\nCases\n\nIn re Abbott Labs.,\n   96 F.4th 371 (3d Cir. 2024) .................................................................. 13\n\nIn re Acer Am. Corp.,\n   626 F.3d 1252 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ...................................................... 13, 15\n\nIn re Al-Nashiri,\n   835 F.3d 110 (D.C. Cir. 2016) .............................................................. 13\n\nIn re Apple Inc.,\n   52 F.4th 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2022)............................................................. 21\nIn re Apple Inc.,\n   979 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ....................................................... 28-30\n\nAthena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs., LLC,\n  915 F.3d 743 (Fed. Cir. 2019) .............................................................. 16\n\nCerence Operating Co. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,\n  2025 WL 755219 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 10, 2025), adopted, 2025\n  WL 2492472 (E.D. Tex. July 25, 2025) ............................................... 20\n\nIn re Chamber of Com. of the U.S.,\n   105 F.4th 297 (5th Cir. 2024) .................................................. 11, 14, 26\n\nCheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C.,\n  542 U.S. 367 (2004) ............................................................... 1, 10, 27-31\n\nIn re Clarke,\n   94 F.4th 502 (5th Cir. 2024) ........................................ 11, 13, 16, 19, 26\n\nContinental Grain Co. v. Barge FBL-585,\n  364 U.S. 19 (1960) ............................................................................ 8, 19\n\nDef. Distributed v. Bruck,\n  30 F.4th 414 (5th Cir. 2022) ................................................................ 18\n\n\n\n                                                  iii\n\fIn re EMC Corp.,\n   501 F. App\u2019x 973 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ............................................. 14, 17-18\nGarcia v. Orta,\n  47 F.4th 343 (5th Cir. 2022) ................................................................ 16\nIn re Genentech, Inc.,\n   566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................ 30\n\nIn re Google LLC,\n   2021 WL 4592280 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 6, 2021) (per curiam) .................... 20\nIn re Google LLC,\n   2021 WL 5292267 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2021) (per curiam) ................. 18\nIn re Google LLC,\n   58 F.4th 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2023)............................................................. 23\n\nSmith ex rel. Hicks v. McDonough,\n  112 F.4th 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2024)........................................................... 30\nHoffman v. Blaski,\n  363 U.S. 335 (1960) .............................................................................. 17\nKranos IP Corp. v. Riddell Inc.,\n  2017 WL 3704762 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 28, 2017) ...................................... 24\n\nIn re McGraw-Hill Glob. Educ. Holdings,\n   909 F.3d 48 (3d Cir. 2018) ................................................................... 29\nIn re Monolithic Power Sys., Inc.,\n   50 F.4th 157 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (per curiam) .................................... 10-11\nIn re Nintendo Co.,\n   589 F.3d 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................ 30\n\nIn re Planned Parenthood Fed. of Am., Inc.,\n   52 F.4th 625 (5th Cir. 2022) .......................................................... 23, 25\n\nPrism Techs. LLC v. Sprint Spectrum L.P.,\n   849 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ............................................................ 24\n\nIn re Radmax Ltd.,\n   720 F.3d 285 (5th Cir. 2013) (per curiam) ......................... 21, 23, 26-27\n\n                                                  iv\n\fIn re RingCentral, Inc.,\n   2023 WL 6368336 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 29, 2023) ...................................... 17\nIn re Samsung Elecs. Co.,\n   2 F.4th 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2021)................................................... 13, 17, 31\nIn re SAP Am., Inc.,\n   133 F.4th 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (per curiam) ..................................... 19\n\nSME Steel Contractors, Inc. v. Seismic Bracing Co.,\n  2025 WL 2057365 (Fed. Cir. July 23, 2025) ....................................... 16\nIn re TikTok, Inc.,\n   85 F.4th 352 (5th Cir. 2023) ........................................................... 24-25\nIn re TS Tech USA Corp.,\n   551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ....................................................... 29-30\n\nVan Dusen v. Barrack,\n  376 U.S. 612 (1964) .............................................................................. 26\nIn re Verinata Health, Inc.,\n   2017 WL 1422489 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2017) (per curiam) ................... 13\nIn re Vistaprint Ltd.,\n   628 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ...................................... 11-12, 19, 26-27\n\nIn re Volkswagen of Am., Inc.,\n   545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc).................... 10-11, 22, 28, 30-31\nIn re Volkswagen of America, Inc.,\n   566 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................................ 19\n\nStatutes\n\n28 U.S.C. \u00a71404(a) ............................................................................ passim\n\nRules\n\nFed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ........................................................................... 3, 5\nFed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) ............................................................................ 16, 24\n\n\n\n\n                                                   v\n\fOther Authorities\n\nPetition for Writ of Mandamus, In re Apple Inc.,\n  979 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (No. 20-135), Dkt.2-1 ........................ 28\n\nNon-Confidential Response to Petition for Writ of Mandamus, In re\n  Apple Inc., 979 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (No. 20-135), Dkt.34 ...........29\n\n\n\n\n                                       vi\n\f               STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES\n   No appeal was previously taken from the underlying proceeding.\n\n   The patents asserted in the underlying case overlap with those\n\nasserted in Malikie Innovations Ltd. v. MARA Holdings, No. 7:25-cv-\n00222-DC-DTG (W.D. Tex.), and Malikie Innovations Ltd. v. Foundry\n\nDigital LLC, No. 7:25-cv-00567-DC-DTG (W.D. Tex.).\n\n\n\n\n                                vii\n\f                           INTRODUCTION\n   Petitioner Core Scientific, Inc. asks this Court to look back to a no-\n\nlonger-operative   complaint,   override   the   district   court\u2019s   careful\n\nassessment of a now-outdated factual picture, and order a transfer to the\ndistrict next door\u2014all without considering the operative pleadings that\n\nroot this case even deeper in the plaintiffs\u2019 chosen forum. The Court\n\nshould decline to use \u201cone of the most potent weapons in the judicial\n\narsenal\u201d this way. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380\n\n(2004) (cleaned up). The district court faithfully applied the law\n\ngoverning transfers under 28 U.S.C. \u00a71404(a) and reached a result that\nfalls comfortably within its discretion.\n\n   The district court reasonably found that Core failed to prove that the\n\nWestern District of Texas is a clearly more convenient forum than the\nEastern District. The bulk of the traditional factors are a wash: Core\u2019s\n\ninfringing activities in both districts give them similar local interests,\n\nand neither district has any real advantage on the judicial economy front.\n\nTrue, a sliver of physical evidence is in the Western District, and Core\n\nhas five employee witnesses there. But all the rest of the evidence is\n\nequally accessible, and the Eastern District is just as or more convenient\n\nfor every other witness. Balancing all those considerations, the court was\n\nwell within its discretion to find Core\u2019s showing insufficient.\n\n   Core comes to this Court with a grab bag of complaints about the\ndistrict court\u2019s analysis\u2014fighting five of the eight factors, including\n\n\n                                     1\n\fsquabbles over their degree rather than their direction. At the heart of\n\nthose complaints is Core\u2019s view that its past infringement in the Eastern\n\nDistrict that gave rise to this suit must be discounted in favor of its\n\ncurrent and future infringement in the Western District. Neither the law\nnor the record supports anything of the sort. Which leaves Core with a\n\nscattering of purported legal errors that came at its invitation and\n\nwithout its objection and, in any event, lack support in binding precedent\nor the record. Equally unavailing are Core\u2019s attempts to fight the district\n\ncourt\u2019s factfinding. As the court reasonably recognized, the record refutes\n\nCore\u2019s narrative.\n   But even if Core could establish a clear and indisputable right,\n\nmandamus would still be inappropriate here. Core does not even attempt\n\nto explain why mandamus is appropriate under the circumstances. Nor\n\ncould it. The now-operative amended complaint and Core\u2019s own third-\n\nparty complaint\u2014both filed after the close of briefing on the transfer\n\nmotion\u2014cement this case\u2019s foundation in the Eastern District. And it is\n\nthe operative pleadings that matter. So even if Core had identified a clear\n\nand indisputable error in how the district court analyzed the dispute\n\nbased on the original complaint, these developments made any error\n\nharmless. Correcting the court\u2019s discussion of stale facts is not what\n\nmandamus is for. The petition should be denied.\n\n\n\n\n                                    2\n\f                            BACKGROUND\n\n   A. Malikie sues in the Eastern District of Texas, where venue\n      is undisputedly proper.\n   Plaintiffs Malikie and Key Patent (together, \u201cMalikie\u201d), Irish entities\nheadquartered in Ireland, brought this patent infringement suit in May\n\n2025 against Core Scientific, Inc., a Delaware corporation now\n\nheadquartered in Florida. Appx26-27; Pet.19 n.6. Malikie seeks damages\nfor Core\u2019s infringement since January 2024, when Core emerged from\n\nbankruptcy. Appx50(\u00b644).\n\n   Malikie filed in the Eastern District of Texas, alleging that Core\n\nengaged in infringing cryptocurrency mining operations there. Appx74-\n\n76(\u00b6\u00b6110-16). There is no dispute that venue is proper and that Core is\n\nsubject to personal jurisdiction in the Eastern District.\n\n   B. Core moves for a convenience transfer to the Western\n      District, contending that it relocated its allegedly\n      infringing activities there.\n   In July 2025, Core moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Appx19\n\n(Dkt.20). A few days later, Core moved under \u00a71404(a) for a convenience\n\ntransfer to the Western District of Texas. Appx20 (Dkt.23).\n\n   Despite contending that \u201cno party has relevant ties\u201d to the Eastern\n\nDistrict, Core acknowledged that the alleged infringement\u2014involving its\n\nbitcoin mining operations\u2014had \u201chistorically\u201d occurred at its Denton\n\nCounty data center in the Eastern District, among other facilities.\n\nAppx291-294. See also Appx293 (Core operates ten U.S. data centers,\n\n\n\n                                     3\n\fincluding its Denton facility). Core acknowledged that some employees\n\nwho worked on bitcoin mining at the Denton facility during the period of\n\nalleged infringement still work there. Appx311(\u00b614); accord Pet.5\n\n(\u201cDenton mining technicians\u201d who stayed \u201ctransitioned to new roles\u201d).\nAnd Core acknowledged that the relevant documentary evidence and\n\nsource code is stored on Core\u2019s company \u201cshare drive,\u201d Appx313(\u00b623), and\n\nso is just as accessible in the Eastern District as anywhere else with an\ninternet connection. Appx5-6; Appx780 (no dispute about accessibility).\n\n   Core\u2019s main gripe with the Eastern District was that it wound down\n\nits bitcoin mining operations in Denton in late 2024\u2014just a few months\nbefore Malikie sued\u2014as part of its \u201cstrategic transition\u201d to housing \u201chigh\n\nperformance computing (HPC)\u201d machines there \u201cfor third-party\n\ncustomers\u201d to \u201csupport[] artificial intelligence-related workloads.\u201d\n\nAppx292-295 (cleaned up). Meanwhile, Core has continued to mine\n\nbitcoin in the Western District. Appx299-300. So although Core\u2019s \u201calleged\n\nacts of infringement\u201d had concededly \u201coccurred at one time in EDTX,\u201d\n\nAppx778, Core insisted that because \u201cnone of the allegedly infringing\n\nactivity\u201d was \u201ccurrently tak[ing] place\u201d there, the Eastern District no\n\nlonger had any connection to this suit, Appx299.\n\n   Otherwise, Core\u2019s motion rested on its assertion that five of its\n\npreferred employee witnesses are based at its Austin campus in the\n\nWestern District, Appx302-303, while its employees and former\nemployees in the Eastern District who worked on bitcoin mining are\n\n\n                                    4\n\fmostly \u201clower-level employees\u201d whose jobs \u201cdo not require a college\n\ndegree\u201d and who it therefore assumes cannot speak to the \u201ccomplex\n\nmathematical algorithms covered by the asserted patents,\u201d Appx781 &\n\nnn.5-6.\n   The parties conducted venue discovery, SAppx1-2, and wrapped up\n\nbriefing in October 2025, Appx21.\n\n   C. Malikie amends its complaint, asserting another patent\n      with allegations concededly tied to the Eastern District.\n   In November 2025, before any ruling on transfer, Malikie sought\n\nleave to amend its complaint. SAppx7-8. The district court granted leave\n\nin February 2026, SAppx91, and the amended complaint is now Malikie\u2019s\n\noperative pleading, SAppx18-90.\n\n   The amended complaint adds a patent (the \u2019039 patent) and alleges\n\nthat Core infringes that patent through both its bitcoin mining and HPC\n\noperations. SAppx7-8; SAppx73-75(\u00b6\u00b6114-19); SAppx86-88(\u00b6\u00b6165-72).\n\nThe amended complaint also adds allegations that Core infringes the\npreviously asserted \u2019286 patent through its HPC operations in addition\n\nto its bitcoin mining. SAppx8; SAppx85-86(\u00b6\u00b6157-64). The accused HPC\n\noperations include those that Core admits are ongoing at its Denton\nfacility in the Eastern District.\n\n   Core responded by renewing its Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Appx23\n\n(Dkt.79). But Core did not refile or amend its transfer motion and did not\n\n\n\n\n                                    5\n\fotherwise address whether or how the amended complaint affected the\n\ntransfer analysis.\n\n   D. Relying only on the original complaint, the district court\n      finds that Core failed to prove that the Western District is\n      \u201cclearly more convenient.\u201d\n   The magistrate judge denied transfer in a March 2026 order. Appx13.\n\nAfter Core objected, the district court reviewed the order, \u201cagree[d] with\u201d\nthe magistrate judge\u2019s reasoning, and found that Core failed to show that\n\nthe order \u201cwas clearly erroneous or contrary to law.\u201d Appx1. The court\n\ntherefore overruled Core\u2019s objections and adopted the magistrate judge\u2019s\norder. Id.\n\n   Applying Fifth Circuit law, the district court analyzed the \u00a71404(a)\n\nfactors and found that Core failed to prove that the Western District \u201cis\n\nclearly more convenient.\u201d Appx13. The court discussed only Malikie\u2019s\n\ninitial complaint and the parties\u2019 related briefing; there is no indication\n\nthat it considered the amended complaint\u2019s impact. Appx2-13.\n\n   The court reviewed deposition testimony and Core documents to find\n\nthat the first private interest factor\u2014access to sources of proof\u2014only\n\nslightly favored transfer. Appx5-6. The court found that most of the\n\nevidence is stored on Core\u2019s cloud servers and so is equally accessible in\n\nboth districts by Core\u2019s own admission. Appx6. The only weight on the\n\nother side of the scale was that the accused mining machines are\n\navailable to inspect at Core\u2019s Western District data center. Id. But the\n\ncourt found that \u201cany purported benefit to being able to inspect the\n\n                                    6\n\fmachines \u2026 is minimal,\u201d reasoning that Malikie\u2019s \u201cinfringement read\n\ndepends on functionality that is controlled by software and firmware\u201d\n\nthat is undisputedly stored on Core\u2019s cloud servers or available from\n\npublic websites and is thus \u201cequally accessible\u201d from either district. Id.\n   The court found that the second private interest factor\u2014availability\n\nof compulsory process for unwilling witnesses\u2014weighed against transfer.\n\nAppx6-8. It found that Core had not identified any unwilling witnesses,\nwhile Malikie had identified over a dozen Core employees with relevant\n\nknowledge who worked at the Denton facility, at least nine of whom are\n\nformer employees outside Core\u2019s control. Appx6-7. It also found that\nMalikie   had   identified   knowledgeable    third-party   witnesses    at\n\nBlackBerry (a predecessor-in-interest to the asserted patents) and PPS\n\n(Malikie\u2019s licensing advisor), both in the Eastern District. Appx7.\n\nAlthough the court recognized that the witnesses were within both\n\ndistricts\u2019 subpoena power, it found that they would need to \u201ctravel\n\nsignificantly less distance to get to Marshall\u201d than to Austin. Appx7.\n\n   Next, the court found that the third private interest factor\u2014cost of\n\nattendance for willing witnesses\u2014only slightly favored transfer. Appx8-\n\n9. On the one hand, the court afforded \u201csome weight\u201d to the convenience\n\nof Core\u2019s five employee witnesses who live in Austin. Appx9. On the other\n\nhand, it applied the Fifth Circuit\u2019s 100-mile rule to find that it would be\n\n\u201cmarginally less expensive\u201d for Malikie\u2019s employee witnesses to travel\nfrom Ireland to Marshall. Id. Applying the same rule, the court found\n\n\n                                     7\n\fthat Core\u2019s two employees outside Austin \u201ceffectively cancel each other\n\nout.\u201d Id. The scales thus tipped in favor of transfer, but not by much. Id.\n\n   The court next found that the \u201cpractical problems\u201d factor was neutral.\n\nAppx9-10. After Core abandoned other arguments, Core was left with its\nassertion that Malikie\u2019s pending suit against another defendant in the\n\nWestern District\u2014filed the same day as this one\u2014justified transfer. Id.\n\nThe court disagreed because \u201cCore ha[d] not argued that the parallel\ncase\u201d involved \u201c\u2018precisely the same issues\u2019 within the meaning of \u201d\n\nContinental Grain Co. v. Barge FBL-585, 364 U.S. 19, 26 (1960). Appx10.\n\n   Turning to the public interest factors, Core conceded, and the court\naccepted, that all but local interests were neutral. Appx11-13. The court\n\nfound that the local interest factor, too, was neutral. Id. While\n\nacknowledging that Core had \u201cmoved any allegedly infringing machines\n\naway from this District,\u201d the court emphasized that Core \u201ccannot hide\n\nfrom the fact that a significant share of the alleged infringement giving\n\nrise to this suit occurred\u201d in the Eastern District. Appx12. The Eastern\n\nDistrict\u2019s resulting local interest was offset, however, by the court\u2019s\n\nfinding that \u201ca similar share of infringing activity also occurred in the\n\n[Western District] and continues to occur there.\u201d Appx12-13.\n\n   Putting it all together, one factor disfavored transfer, two slightly\n\nfavored transfer, and the rest were neutral. The court, \u201c[h]aving reviewed\n\neach factor, on balance,\u201d found that Core had not met its \u201csubstantial\nburden.\u201d Appx5, Appx13.\n\n\n                                     8\n\f   E. Meanwhile, Core files a third-party complaint involving\n      its Eastern District operations.\n   Three days after the magistrate judge denied its transfer motion,\n\nCore filed a third-party complaint against CoreWeave, Inc. Core alleges\nthat it is \u201centitled to indemnification from CoreWeave through one or\n\nmore agreements\u201d granting \u201cCoreWeave a license to use [Core\u2019s] data\n\ncenter(s) for CoreWeave\u2019s HPC operations.\u201d SAppx94(\u00b62). Core alleges\nthat in February 2025, it and CoreWeave \u201cannounced a $1.2 billion\n\nexpansion\u201d at Core\u2019s Denton facility \u201cto meet CoreWeave\u2019s growing need\n\nfor robust, high-density infrastructure to support its HPC operations.\u201d\n\nSAppx97(\u00b615). As part of that deal, Core contends, \u201cCoreWeave has\n\ninstalled HPC devices and equipment\u201d in Core\u2019s \u201cDenton, Texas data\n\ncenter.\u201d SAppx98(\u00b616). And Core alleges that Malikie\u2019s \u201cinfringement\ncontentions for the \u2019286 and \u2019039 Patents specifically target CoreWeave\n\nand the [HPC] devices hosted at [Core\u2019s] facilities,\u201d including in the\n\nEastern District. SAppx98(\u00b6\u00b616-17).\n\n   Because CoreWeave was not yet in the case, venue discovery did not\n\naddress its presence in the Eastern District.\n\n                                    ***\n\n   Two weeks after the district court\u2019s order, Core sought mandamus.\n\nIts petition ignores the amended and third-party complaint. This Court\n\nordered that any response and reply \u201cshould address the relevance, if\n\nany, of \u201d those pleadings. Dkt.7.\n\n\n\n                                    9\n\f             REASONS FOR DENYING THE PETITION\n   Mandamus is \u201ca drastic and extraordinary remedy\u201d justified \u201conly\n\n[by] exceptional circumstances amounting to a judicial usurpation of\n\npower or a clear abuse of discretion.\u201d Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C.,\n542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004) (cleaned up). Because \u201cthe writ is one of the most\n\npotent weapons in the judicial arsenal, three conditions must be satisfied\n\nbefore it may issue.\u201d Id. (cleaned up). First, the petitioner \u201cmust have no\n\nother adequate means to attain the relief \u201d requested. Id. at 380-81\n\n(cleaned up). Second, the petitioner must demonstrate a \u201cclear and\n\nindisputable\u201d \u201cright to issuance of the writ.\u201d Id. at 381 (cleaned up). And\nthird, \u201ceven if the first two prerequisites have been met, the issuing court,\n\nin the exercise of its discretion, must be satisfied that the writ is\n\nappropriate under the circumstances.\u201d Id.\n   Core falls far short of meeting these requirements. It cannot establish\n\na clear and indisputable right to relief. And it has not even attempted to\n\nshow that mandamus is appropriate under the circumstances, which\n\ninclude Malikie\u2019s now-operative amended complaint and Core\u2019s own\n\nthird-party complaint\u2014both of which tilt the scales even further toward\n\nthe Eastern District.\n\nI. Core Has No Clear and Indisputable Right to Mandamus.\n   Core bore the burden to prove that the Western District was \u201cclearly\n\nmore convenient\u201d than the Eastern District. In re Volkswagen of Am.,\n\nInc., 545 F.3d 304, 315 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc); see In re Monolithic\n\n\n                                     10\n\fPower Sys., Inc., 50 F.4th 157, 161 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (per curiam) (regional\n\ncircuit law governs). To meet that standard, Core needed to prove both\n\n\u201cthat the marginal gain in convenience\u201d in its preferred forum \u201cwill be\n\nsignificant\u201d and \u201cthat its evidence makes it plainly obvious\u2014i.e., clearly\ndemonstrated\u2014that those marginal gains will actually materialize in the\n\ntransferee venue.\u201d In re Chamber of Com. of the U.S., 105 F.4th 297, 304\n\n(5th Cir. 2024) (attribution omitted); see also In re Clarke, 94 F.4th 502,\n508 n.3 (5th Cir. 2024) (\u201c[A] mere preponderance of the evidence is\n\ninsufficient.\u201d). Without such a showing, Malikie\u2019s \u201cchoice should be\n\nrespected.\u201d Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 315.\n   To guide district courts\u2019 analysis, the Fifth Circuit has adopted a now-\n\nfamiliar set of factors. Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 315. Although they \u201care\n\nappropriate for most transfer cases,\u201d the factors \u201care not necessarily\n\nexhaustive or exclusive,\u201d and none is dispositive. Id.\n\n   District courts have \u201cbroad discretion in transfer decisions.\u201d In re\n\nVistaprint Ltd., 628 F.3d 1342, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (applying Fifth\n\nCircuit law). This Court\u2019s \u201ctask on mandamus is limited to seeing if there\n\nwas such a clear abuse of discretion that refusing transfer amounted to a\n\npatently erroneous result.\u201d Monolithic, 50 F.4th at 161 (applying Fifth\n\nCircuit law). Unless there is \u201conly one correct outcome\u201d from \u201ca\n\nmeaningful application of the \u00a71404(a) factors\u201d in a particular case,\n\nmandamus is unwarranted. Vistaprint, 628 F.3d at 1347.\n\n\n\n\n                                    11\n\f   Straining to meet that standard, Core contends that the district court\n\ngot five of the eight factors wrong. It quibbles with the court\u2019s case-\n\nspecific weighing of local interests, Pet.14-21; alleges legal and factual\n\nerrors as to the \u201cpractical problems\u201d factor, Pet.21-27; and quarrels with\nthe court\u2019s findings that the bulk of the relevant evidence is available\n\nelectronically and that Marshall is just as or more convenient than\n\nAustin for every potential witness other than the five Core employees\nwho live there, Pet.27-39. None of Core\u2019s complaints holds water.\n\n   A. The district court was well within its discretion in\n      evaluating the disputed factors.\n   The district court carefully analyzed each factor and found that one\n\ndisfavored transfer, two only slightly favored transfer, and the rest were\n\nneutral. Appx2-13. \u201cHaving reviewed each factor, on balance,\u201d in light of\n\nthe record, the court reasonably found that Core had not met its\n\n\u201csubstantial burden.\u201d Appx5, Appx13. The court\u2019s analysis reflects \u201ca\n\nmeaningful application of the \u00a71404(a) factors\u201d and lands comfortably\nwithin the \u201creasonable range of choice.\u201d Vistaprint, 628 F.3d at 1347.\n\nNone of Core\u2019s contrary arguments establishes a clear abuse of discretion.\n\n       1. The district court did not clearly abuse its discretion\n          in finding that the local interest factor was neutral.\n   The district court reasonably found that both districts had a similar\n\nlocal stake in this case. Appx11-13. Core\u2019s lead argument attacks that\n\nfinding on legal and factual grounds but comes up short on both counts.\n\n\n\n                                   12\n\f    a. Core first contends that the district court \u201ccommitted legal error\u201d\n\nby failing to \u201canalyze the evidence in a temporally correct manner.\u201d\n\nPet.15. By that, Core seems to mean that as a matter of law, \u201congoing\n\nconduct and evidence present in the Western District\u201d necessarily\noutweighed past infringement in the Eastern District. Pet.15-17. But\n\nCore cannot find a single case adopting such a rule\u2014let alone the binding\n\nprecedent required for mandamus. See, e.g., In re Verinata Health, Inc.,\n2017 WL 1422489, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 9, 2017) (per curiam) (\u201cclear and\n\nindisputable\u201d right depends on \u201c[t]he current state of the binding\n\nprecedent\u201d). 1\n\n    That is because binding precedent imposes no such rule. As Core\u2019s\n\nown cited case explains, the local interest inquiry focuses on \u201csignificant\n\nconnections between a particular venue and the events that gave rise to\n\na suit.\u201d Pet.15 (quoting In re Acer Am. Corp., 626 F.3d 1252, 1256 (Fed.\n\nCir. 2010) (applying Fifth Circuit law)); accord Clarke, 94 F.4th at 511.\n\nAs the past tense suggests, that includes past events. See, e.g., In re\nSamsung Elecs. Co., 2 F.4th 1371, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (applying Fifth\n\nCircuit law) (considering where \u201c[t]he relevant events leading to the\n\ninfringement claims here took place\u201d). After all, the factor\u2019s point is to\n\n\n    1 See also, e.g., In re Abbott Labs., 96 F.4th 371, 381 (3d Cir. 2024) (no\n\n\u201cclear and indisputable abuse of discretion\u201d absent \u201cbinding authority\u201d\n(attribution omitted)); In re Al-Nashiri, 835 F.3d 110, 137 (D.C. Cir. 2016)\n(\u201c[O]pen questions are the antithesis of the \u2018clear and indisputable\u2019 right\nneeded for mandamus relief.\u201d (cleaned up)).\n\n                                     13\n\fevaluate whether \u201cthe citizens of the forum have a sufficient interest in\n\nthe controversy to justify burdening them with jury duty.\u201d Chamber of\n\nCom., 105 F.4th at 308 (attribution omitted). Finding facts about the past\n\nand adjudicating past wrongs is what juries and federal courts do every\nday. Nothing supports Core\u2019s view that infringers can destroy a\n\ncommunity\u2019s localized interest in a dispute just by fleeing the forum.\n\n   With no support from binding precedent, Core hangs its hat on this\nCourt\u2019s statement in In re EMC Corp., 501 F. App\u2019x 973 (Fed. Cir. 2013),\n\nthat transfer motions \u201care to be decided based on the situation which\n\nexisted when suit was instituted,\u201d id. at 976 (cleaned up). See Pet.17. To\nstart, Core ignores that statement\u2019s context, which had nothing to do with\n\nweighing local interests. Rather, the Court was explaining that district\n\ncourts cannot \u201crely on judicial economy involved in retaining the very\n\ncases that were the subject of the transfer motion.\u201d EMC, 501 F. App\u2019x at\n\n976.\n\n   But no matter. The district court here did exactly what Core says it\n\nshould have done: The court recognized that the situation \u201cwhen\n\n[Malikie\u2019s] complaint was filed,\u201d Pet.17, was that Core had been allegedly\n\ninfringing the asserted patents in the Eastern District for years, and the\n\ncourt weighed the relative local interests accordingly. Appx11-13; supra\n\npp.3-4, 8. There was no error in declining to let Core \u201chide from the fact\u201d\n\nof its past conduct in the forum. Appx12.\n\n\n\n\n                                    14\n\f   b. Core\u2019s quibbles with the district court\u2019s factfinding fare no better.\n\nThe court was well within its discretion to find that mining 990.47 bitcoin\n\nin the Western District and 771.19 bitcoin in the Eastern District, Pet.18,\n\namounted to \u201ca similar share of infringing activity.\u201d Appx12-13. Core\ntries slicing and dicing the numbers every which way\u2014number of\n\nbitcoins, number of mining machines, bitcoins per month, percentage\n\ndifferences over this range or that, dollar values\u2014but nothing it tries\nadds up to an abuse of discretion, let alone mandamusable error. Contra\n\nPet.18-19 & nn.4-5. Indeed, Core cannot even keep its own asserted facts\n\nstraight; its bottom-line claim that \u201cthe Pecos facility outpaced the\nDenton facility during the relevant time period by anywhere from 50-\n\n75%\u201d finds no support in the cited source, see Appx310-311, and flatly\n\ncontradicts its own figures. See Pet.18 (starting with 28% more bitcoin\n\nand inflating the figure to 43% by considering post-complaint events,\n\ncontrary to the purported date-of-the-complaint standard); see also id.\n\n(\u201cmore miners 70% of the time\u201d); Pet.18-19 (monthly figures with no\n\nrelationship to the asserted percentages).\n\n   At the end of the day, the court reasonably found that Core\u2019s\n\nsprawling Denton data center that employed dozens of residents and\n\ngenerated tens of millions in revenue from allegedly infringing activity,\n\nsee Appx533-539, gave rise to \u201csignificant connections\u201d between this suit\n\nand the Eastern District, see Acer, 626 F.3d at 1256. And it reasonably\nfound that those connections were on par with the Western District\u2019s.\n\n\n                                    15\n\f   Finally, Core contends that \u201cphysical evidence[] and key witnesses\n\ncurrently reside in the Western District\u201d and should have tipped the\n\nscales in favor of transfer. Pet.19-20. Core overstates both the facts, see\n\ninfra pp.21-26 (discussing the evidence and witnesses under the private\ninterest factors), and their significance to the analysis. Because the focus\n\nis \u201con the events\u2014not the parties,\u201d \u201cthe parties\u2019 connections to the venue\u201d\n\ndo not count. Clarke, 94 F.4th at 511. And although witnesses\u2019 locations\ncan be \u201cuseful proxies,\u201d those \u201cproxies \u2026 can never subsume the ultimate\n\ninquiry\u201d into \u201cthe interest of non-party citizens in adjudicating the case.\u201d\n\nId. Besides, Core failed to preserve this argument in its objections to the\nmagistrate judge\u2019s order. See Appx1018-1019. Objections not raised\n\nbelow are forfeited. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) (\u201cA party may not\n\nassign as error a defect in the order not timely objected to.\u201d); Garcia v.\n\nOrta, 47 F.4th 343, 349 (5th Cir. 2022) (holding that the defendants\n\nforfeited \u201carguments not presented to the district court\u201d when\n\nchallenging a magistrate judge\u2019s decision). 2\n\n   c. Malikie\u2019s amended complaint (and, for that matter, Core\u2019s third-\n\nparty complaint) confirms the district court\u2019s conclusion. It is the\n\noperative pleadings that say which events gave rise to this suit. As this\n\n\n   2 See also Athena Diagnostics, Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Servs., LLC,\n\n915 F.3d 743, 756 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (regional circuit law governs \u201cwaiver\u201d);\nSME Steel Contractors, Inc. v. Seismic Bracing Co., 2025 WL 2057365, at\n*9 (Fed. Cir. July 23, 2025) (applying regional circuit law to preservation\nunder Rule 72(a)).\n\n                                    16\n\fCourt\u2019s binding precedent applying Fifth Circuit law put it, once Malikie\n\n\u201cfiled [its] amended complaint[], the original complaint[]\u201d became a \u201cdead\n\nletter[] and no longer performed any function in the case[].\u201d Samsung, 2\n\nF.4th at 1376 (cleaned up). \u201cThat understanding has been uniformly\napplied in a variety of contexts,\u201d including \u201cfor transfer under \u00a71404(a).\u201d\n\nId. (discussing \u00a71404(a)\u2019s venue requirement); accord In re RingCentral,\n\nInc., 2023 WL 6368336, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 29, 2023) (no clear abuse of\ndiscretion \u201cin resting [the] venue determination on [facts] identified in\n\nMarble\u2019s amended complaint\u201d). There is no reason to apply that uniform\n\nrule to \u00a71404(a)\u2019s threshold venue inquiry while ignoring it for the\nconvenience analysis. 3\n\n   The operative complaint refutes Core\u2019s premise that this suit does not\n\nconcern any ongoing activity in the Eastern District. Beyond Core\u2019s past\n\ninfringement in Denton, the operative complaint alleges ongoing\n\ninfringement through Core\u2019s substantial HPC operations there. Supra\n\npp.5-6. Core\u2019s third-party complaint is likewise directed to events\ninvolving the Denton facility. Supra p.9. Although the district court does\n\n\n   3  There is no tension between this point and the rule that courts\ncannot manufacture judicial economy interests by making progress on\nthe merits after a transfer is requested, see EMC, 501 F. App\u2019x at 976\n(relying on Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 343 (1960)). Looking to the\noperative complaint to determine what a case is about and what local\ninterests it implicates does not present any similar concern. See\nSamsung, 2 F.4th at 1376 (distinguishing Hoffman because it \u201cdid not\ninvolve or address the filing of an amended complaint\u201d).\n\n                                    17\n\fnot appear to have considered them, the operative pleadings only\n\nreinforce its assessment of the relative local interests. See Def.\n\nDistributed v. Bruck, 30 F.4th 414, 435 (5th Cir. 2022) (\u201c[T]he place of the\n\nalleged wrong is one of the most important factors in venue\ndeterminations.\u201d (attribution omitted)).\n\n        2. The district court did not clearly abuse its discretion\n           in evaluating judicial economy.\n   Core next attacks the district court\u2019s finding that no \u201cpractical\n\nproblems\u201d supported transfer, asserting both that the court \u201cincorrectly\n\ndiminished the significance of Malikie\u2019s co-pending suit in the Western\nDistrict\u201d and should have \u201ccredit[ed] Core\u2019s prompt motion to transfer.\u201d\n\nPet.21-27. The court reasonably disagreed.\n\n   a. There was nothing wrong with the court\u2019s conclusion that transfer\nwould    not   support   judicial   economy.    Appx10.    As    discussed,\n\n\u201c[c]onsiderations of judicial economy are generally based on the situation\n\nat the time the suit was filed.\u201d In re Google LLC, 2021 WL 5292267, at *3\n\n(Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2021) (per curiam) (citing EMC, 501 F. App\u2019x at 976).\n\nMalikie filed its Western District suit the same day as this one, so there\n\nwas no \u201cfamiliarity with the patents and the triable issues\u201d to take\n\nadvantage of. Contra Pet.24-25. Later developments like which court got\n\nto claim construction first cannot change that reality. Contra Pet.24. Just\n\nas \u201cprogress after filing\u201d in the case at hand generally cannot create\n\njudicial economy interests that justify denying transfer, there is no\n\n\n                                    18\n\freason to allow another case\u2019s progress while awaiting a transfer decision\n\nto wind up forcing a transfer. See In re SAP Am., Inc., 133 F.4th 1370,\n\n1374-75 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (per curiam).\n\n   Core invited the statement about Continental Grain that it now\ncomplains was legal error. Compare Appx782 (Core\u2019s reply invoking\n\nContinental Grain\u2019s \u201cprecisely the same issues\u201d point (quoting 364 U.S.\n\nat 26)), and Appx1018 (same in objections); with Pet.22 (arguing that\n\u201cprecisely the same issues\u201d is the wrong standard). Regardless, even\n\nassuming that the cases present \u201cprecisely the same issues,\u201d there was\n\nno reason at the outset to favor one district over another because both\ncases were in their infancy, contra Pet.22-25. See Clarke, 94 F.4th at 510\n\n(\u201cAt bottom, the transfer factors are relative.\u201d).\n\n   Neither precedential case Core cites says otherwise. In re Volkswagen\n\nof America, Inc., 566 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2009), found no error in keeping\n\noverlapping cases together in the district where they were filed so as to\n\navoid creating inefficiencies by splitting them up, id. at 1351. So too for\n\nVistaprint, where the plaintiff\u2019s chosen forum also had \u201csubstantial\n\nexperience\u201d with \u201cprior litigation\u201d involving the same patent. 628 F.3d at\n\n1344. Core identifies no case compelling district courts to use \u00a71404(a) to\n\nunite cases filed the same day in different districts just because they\n\noverlap.\n\n   b. Nor does it matter that Core \u201cpromptly filed\u201d its motion. Contra\nPet.25-27. For starters, the district court reasonably found that Core\n\n\n                                     19\n\f\u201cdrop[ped]\u201d this argument in its reply, Appx10. See Appx782 (Core\u2019s reply\n\naddressing only the alleged parallel case). That was reason enough to\n\nreject it. Contra Pet.25 (falsely asserting that \u201c[t]he court noted Core\u2019s\n\nargument but then made no further mention of it\u201d (citing Appx9)).\n   Even setting aside Core\u2019s forfeiture, the district court considered its\n\nargument and found it \u201cunpersuasive,\u201d Appx10\u2014and rightly so. Below,\n\nCore cited only a magistrate judge decision finding a transfer motion\nuntimely. Appx304 (citing Cerence Operating Co. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,\n\n2025 WL 755219, at *6 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 10, 2025), adopted, 2025 WL\n\n2492472 (E.D. Tex. July 25, 2025)). Core made no attempt to explain how\nit got from its obligation to act promptly to the view that it should get\n\nextra credit for doing so. Its petition is no better on that score. True, late\n\nmotions weigh against transfer. See, e.g., In re Google LLC, 2021 WL\n\n4592280, at *6 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 6, 2021) (per curiam). But Core offers no\n\ncase saying that prompt motions can be (let alone must be) counted in\n\nfavor of transfer. A timely filing is table stakes\u2014not a reason to reduce\n\nthe movant\u2019s heavy burden. See id. (finding the motion timely without\n\nsuggesting that timeliness favored transfer).\n\n   c. Core\u2019s real complaint seems to be that the district court took too\n\nlong. Pet.25-27. But it makes no argument that the court used that time\n\nas a reason for denying transfer. Id. Because that is not what the court\n\ndid. Appx10.\n\n\n\n\n                                     20\n\f   If Core wanted a speedier decision, it should not have spent five\n\nmonths sitting around after briefing closed. By Core\u2019s own account, it\n\nfirst complained to the district court about the timing in February, a\n\nmonth before the ruling. Pet.26 n.7. If Core wanted a stay earlier, it\nshould have asked for one. And if it thought the magistrate judge was\n\nmoving too slowly, it should have sought relief from the district judge\n\nand, failing that, from this Court. See In re Apple Inc., 52 F.4th 1360,\n1361 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (mandamus is available \u201cto correct a clearly\n\narbitrary refusal to act on a longstanding pending transfer motion\u201d). Now\n\nthat Core waited for the district court\u2019s decision, it cannot complain about\nthe timing; nothing can be done about it without a time machine.\n\n       3. The district court did not clearly abuse its discretion\n          in evaluating availability of compulsory process,\n          witness convenience, and access to proof.\n   Core next attempts to flyspeck the district court\u2019s factfinding as to\n\navailability of compulsory process, witness convenience, and access to\n\nproof. Pet.27-39. The record confirms the court\u2019s conclusions.\n\n   a. Compulsory process. Core insists that even though the court\n\nfound that travel to Marshall would be more convenient for nonparty\nwitnesses, this factor should have been neutral because those witnesses\n\nare \u201cwithin the subpoena powers of both districts.\u201d Pet.27-28. Not so. The\n\nFifth Circuit\u2019s two-sentence approval of one court\u2019s analysis does not\nestablish any categorical rule, much less prohibit considering nonparty\n\nwitnesses\u2019 convenience. In re Radmax Ltd., 720 F.3d 285, 288 (5th Cir.\n\n                                    21\n\f2013) (per curiam); see Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 316 (even under the\n\ncompulsory process factor, the \u201ctransfer analysis is concerned with\n\nconvenience\u201d).\n\n   Core\u2019s contrary view lacks precedential support and misses the forest\nfor the trees. Because Core asks to move the case to the venue next door,\n\nthe nonparty witnesses here happen to be within both courts\u2019 subpoena\n\nrange. But that they can be compelled to travel to either court does not\nmean the district court lacked discretion to find that the relative\n\ninconvenience of traveling to Austin compared to Marshall weighed\n\nagainst transfer, whether under this factor or otherwise. Far from\nendorsing such empty formalism, the Fifth Circuit has made clear that\n\nthe factors are neither \u201cexhaustive [n]or exclusive.\u201d Volkswagen, 545 F.3d\n\nat 315. After all, Core\u2019s ultimate burden was to show that the Western\n\nDistrict is \u201cclearly more convenient.\u201d Id. If the need for Core\u2019s Austin-\n\nbased witnesses to take a short road trip tilts the scales toward transfer,\n\nPet.33-34, then so too should the need for the Eastern District witnesses\n\nto do the same thing tilt against transfer.\n\n   Core next asserts that without \u201cactual evidence of witness\n\nunwillingness,\u201d the district court had to treat this factor as neutral.\n\nPet.30. Here, too, Core mistakes a decision finding no clear and\n\nindisputable error in one case-specific assessment with a categorical rule\n\ngoverning all cases\u2014and misreads its cited authority to boot. What\nCore\u2019s case actually says is that the district court was within its\n\n\n                                    22\n\fdiscretion to find this factor neutral where the petitioners \u201cfailed to\n\nidentify any witnesses who would be unwilling to testify,\u201d reasoning that\n\nthe factor \u201creceives less weight when it has not been alleged or shown\n\nthat any witness would be unwilling.\u201d In re Planned Parenthood Fed. of\nAm., Inc., 52 F.4th 625, 630-31 (5th Cir. 2022) (emphasis added)\n\n(attribution omitted); see Radmax, 720 F.3d at 288-29 (no relevant\n\ndiscussion).\n   Finally, Core complains that the district court should not have\n\nconsidered former Core employees who concededly worked at Core\u2019s\n\nbitcoin mining facility because, according to Core, they \u201chave little to no\nrelevant knowledge about the bitcoin mining activities at issue.\u201d Pet.30-\n\n31. The court was within its discretion not to take Core\u2019s word for it.\n\nAppx7 (finding that the witnesses \u201chave knowledge about \u2026 the\n\nallegedly infringing activity (bitcoin mining) that took place in this\n\nDistrict\u201d). Core provided no evidence about any specific former\n\nemployees\u2019 knowledge; it pointed only generally to their job titles.\n\nAppx781 & n.6; Appx786-91. This Court\u2019s decision in In re Google LLC,\n\n58 F.4th 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2023), is not to the contrary. There, unlike here,\n\n\u201cGoogle provided sworn, unequivocal deposition testimony from each\n\nemployee explaining that none of them work on the accused features.\u201d Id.\n\nat 1384.\n\n   b. Witness convenience. Core complains that the district court\n\u201cerroneously minimized\u201d the inconvenience to its witnesses by \u201crelying\n\n\n                                    23\n\fon Kranos IP \u2026 for the proposition that the convenience of party-\n\nemployee witnesses is not as important.\u201d Pet.32-34. But that was what\n\nCore invited the magistrate judge to do. Appx303-304 (Core \u201cunderstands\n\nthat the Court \u2018gives the convenience of employee witnesses less\nweight\u2019 \u2026 .\u201d (quoting Kranos IP Corp. v. Riddell Inc., 2017 WL 3704762,\n\nat *12 (E.D. Tex. Aug. 28, 2017)). So it is no surprise that Core failed to\n\nobject on this basis. See Appx1016-1017. Because Core first invited and\nthen failed to object to the claimed error, the argument it now makes for\n\nthe first time on mandamus is forfeited. See, e.g., Prism Techs. LLC v.\n\nSprint Spectrum L.P., 849 F.3d 1360, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (\u201c[A] party\nmay not complain on appeal of errors that he himself invited or provoked\n\nthe court to commit.\u201d (cleaned up)); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).\n\n   As for witnesses outside Austin, the district court reasonably found\n\ntheir convenience to be a wash under the Fifth Circuit\u2019s 100-mile rule.\n\nAppx9. That the court did not give weight to Core\u2019s two traveling\n\nwitnesses\u2019 preference for working from Core\u2019s Austin office rather than a\n\nhotel was not a clear abuse of discretion; Core\u2019s own witness testified that\n\nCore\u2019s employees can access their work online, Appx544, and Core does\n\nnot suggest otherwise.\n\n   Core also suggests that the convenience of witnesses who live in\n\nneither forum must be ignored. Pet.32-33. Binding Fifth Circuit\n\nprecedent says otherwise. In re TikTok, Inc., 85 F.4th 352, 361-62 (5th\nCir. 2023) (holding that the district court clearly abused its discretion in\n\n\n                                    24\n\ffailing to conclude that, for witnesses in China, California was closer and\n\ntherefore more convenient than Texas).\n\n   c. Access to proof. Finally, Core complains that the district court\n\nshould have weighed access to proof \u201cstrongly,\u201d rather than slightly, in\nfavor of transfer. Pet.37. The court was right to reject its view.\n\n   The court correctly found that the Western District had no relative\n\nadvantage over the Eastern District in accessing electronic documents\u2014\nthe bulk of the evidence. Appx5-6; Appx540-541. Core\u2019s \u201cown witness\n\nidentified\u201d the electronic evidence Core relies on as \u201cstored on cloud\n\nservers\u201d that are \u201cequally accessible\u201d in both districts. Appx6; see\nPlanned Parenthood, 52 F.4th at 630-31 (no error in finding that\n\nelectronic evidence was \u201cequally accessible in either forum\u201d). Core\u2019s cited\n\ncase is not to the contrary; TikTok involved genuine barriers to accessing\n\nsource code, see 85 F.4th at 359 (\u201csource code [was] the most important\n\nevidence\u201d and was more accessible from the transferee forum because\n\n\u201cemployees with [the necessary] security clearance\u201d were there). Here,\n\nCore concedes that the relevant \u201ccode is available through the cloud and\n\ncan be (and has been) made available at other locations.\u201d Pet.38.\n\n   Nor do any of Core\u2019s arguments undermine the finding that any\n\nbenefit of inspecting the physical mining machines is \u201cminimal\u201d in light\n\nof this suit\u2019s focus on software and firmware that \u201cis again equally\n\naccessible from cloud servers (where it is stored) and websites.\u201d Appx6;\nsee Planned Parenthood, 52 F.4th at 630 (\u201cThe location of evidence bears\n\n\n                                     25\n\fmuch more strongly on the transfer analysis when \u2026 the evidence is\n\nphysical in nature.\u201d). Core\u2019s speculation about a \u201cpotential need to inspect\n\nthose machines\u201d for unspecified purposes, Pet.38, falls far short of\n\nmaking it \u201cplainly obvious\u201d that any \u201cmarginal gains\u201d in convenience\n\u201cwill actually materialize in the transferee venue.\u201d Chamber of Com., 105\n\nF.4th at 304. In any event, there is no dispute that Core houses the\n\naccused HPC machines in Denton. Supra p.5.\n\n   B. The district court was well within its discretion in\n      weighing\u2014and not merely counting\u2014the factors.\n   Finally, Core hints in passing that because two factors slightly\nfavored transfer and one disfavored it, the raw counting of factors should\n\nhave carried the day. See Pet.39. But as Core\u2019s own cases confirm, the\n\nFifth Circuit has long \u201ccautioned against a raw counting of the factors\nthat weighs each the same\u201d or that gives any one factor \u201cdispositive\n\nweight.\u201d Clarke, 94 F.4th at 509 (cleaned up); accord Radmax, 720 F.3d\n\nat 290 n.8 (\u201cWe do not suggest\u2014nor has this court held\u2014that a raw\ncounting of the factors in each side, weighing each the same and deciding\n\ntransfer only on the resulting \u2018score,\u2019 is the proper methodology.\u201d).\n\nSection 1404(a) instead \u201ccommits the balancing determination to the\n\nsound discretion of the trial court based not on per se rules but rather on\n\nan \u2018individualized, case-by-case consideration of convenience and\n\nfairness.\u2019\u201d Vistaprint, 628 F.3d at 1346 (quoting Van Dusen v. Barrack,\n\n376 U.S. 612, 622 (1964)). Indeed, the Supreme Court \u201chas repeatedly\n\n\n                                    26\n\frejected the use of per se rules in\u201d this context. Id. (collecting cases). This\n\naversion to bright-line rules is no mere \u201cformality\u201d; rather, it reflects \u201ca\n\nlongstanding recognition that a trial judge has a superior opportunity to\n\nfamiliarize himself or herself with the nature of the case and the probable\ntestimony at trial, and ultimately is better able to dispose of these\n\nmotions.\u201d Id.\n\n    Just as in Vistaprint, the district court here conducted a \u201cthorough\nanalysis\u201d and made its decision \u201cbased on an individualized, case-by-case\n\nconsideration of the relevant factors, balancing convenience and\n\nefficiency.\u201d 628 F.3d at 1347 (cleaned up). That does not add up to\nmandamus. This is far from a case with \u201c[w]ith nothing on the transferor-\n\nforum side of the ledger,\u201d Pet.39 (attribution omitted), or with \u201cno\n\nconnection\u201d to the plaintiffs\u2019 chosen forum, Radmax, 720 F.3d at 290.\n\n                                     ***\n\n    For all these reasons, Core cannot establish a clear abuse of discretion\n\nand therefore has not demonstrated a \u201cclear and indisputable\u201d right to\n\nrelief. Cheney, 542 U.S. at 381 (attribution omitted).\n\nII. Mandamus Is Not Appropriate Under the Circumstances.\n    In any event, Core cannot establish \u201cthat the writ is appropriate\n\nunder the circumstances,\u201d as Cheney\u2019s third requirement mandates. 542\n\nU.S. at 381. Core does not even try\u2014nor would it have succeeded.\n\n\n\n\n                                      27\n\f   A. Core\u2019s neglect of the \u201cappropriate under the circumstances\u201d\n      requirement is reason enough to deny mandamus.\n   Despite unambiguous Supreme Court precedent requiring a finding\n\n\u201cthat the writ is appropriate under the circumstances,\u201d Cheney, 542 U.S.\nat 381, Core ignores this requirement. The closest Core comes is its\n\nunexplained contention that \u201cgrant of the writ is appropriate here,\u201d\n\nPet.40, plus a hint in its standard of review section that the requirement\ndoes not apply to \u00a71404(a) cases, Pet.11. That is not the law.\n\n   To be sure, Core identifies one case in which this Court observed that\n\nthe test \u201cessentially reduces to the first factor\u201d in \u00a71404(a) cases. In re\n\nApple Inc., 979 F.3d 1332, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2020); see Pet.11. But Core\n\nis wrong to read that passing observation as a categorical rule. As the\n\nCourt\u2019s   choice   of   \u201cessentially\u201d\u2014and   not,   say,   \u201cnecessarily\u201d   or\n\u201ccategorically\u201d\u2014suggests, deciding that there was nothing beyond the\n\nmerits to consider in one particular \u00a71404(a) dispute is a far cry from\n\nholding that there can never be.\n\n   1. For starters, nobody in Apple advanced any discretionary\n\nconsiderations. The petitioner asserted incorrectly that under Fifth\n\nCircuit law, the third requirement is satisfied whenever a district court\n\nreaches a \u201cpatently erroneous result.\u201d Compare Petition for Writ of\n\nMandamus at 10-11, Apple, 979 F.3d 1332 (No. 20-135), Dkt.2-1 (citing\n\nVolkswagen, 545 F.3d at 310-12, 318-19); with Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at\n\n310-12 (setting out the Cheney requirements), and id. at 318-19\n\n(separately analyzing the third requirement after finding the others\n\n                                    28\n\fsatisfied). The respondent addressed only the \u201cclear and indisputable\n\nright\u201d requirement. Non-Confidential Response to Petition for Writ of\n\nMandamus at 6, Apple, 979 F.3d 1332 (No. 20-135), Dkt.34. So the Court\n\nhad no occasion to\u2014and thus presumably did not\u2014adopt a categorical\nrule eliminating the third requirement.\n\n    2. More fundamentally, Core\u2019s reading would require this Court to\n\nconclude that in a single sentence applying Fifth Circuit law, the Apple\nCourt created a conflict with the Supreme Court\u2019s Cheney decision, this\n\nCircuit\u2019s precedent, and its sister circuits\u2014including the Fifth. The Court\n\ndid no such thing.\n    Start with the cases Apple cited. 979 F.3d at 1336-37 (citing In re\n\nMcGraw-Hill Glob. Educ. Holdings, 909 F.3d 48, 56 (3d Cir. 2018); and\n\nIn re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2008)). Neither\n\nsupports Core\u2019s categorical rule. Although McGraw-Hill explains why\n\ntransfer cases categorically satisfy other requirements, the \u201cthird factor\u201d\n\nthat it described as \u201ccollaps[ing] into\u201d the merits was the Third Circuit\u2019s\n\n\u201cirreparable injury\u201d requirement\u2014not this Court\u2019s (and Cheney\u2019s) third\n\nrequirement. 909 F.3d at 56 (attribution omitted). The Third Circuit went\n\non to note, consistent with Cheney\u2019s third requirement, that it \u201cretain[s]\n\ndiscretion to deny the writ even in the face of [clear and indisputable]\n\nerrors.\u201d Id. at 57.\n\n    Likewise, this Court\u2019s TS Tech decision recognized that \u201cthe \u2018no other\nmeans\u2019 requirement\u201d is satisfied in \u00a71404(a) cases, but it went on to apply\n\n\n                                    29\n\fCheney\u2019s separate discretionary requirement. See 551 F.3d at 1322-23\n\n(finding \u201cthat the district court clearly abused its discretion\u201d and then\n\nseparately \u201cdetermin[ing] that mandamus relief is appropriate in this\n\ncase\u201d); accord In re Nintendo Co., 589 F.3d 1194, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2009)\n(same); In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (same).\n\nThe Apple panel did not purport to overrule these cases. Nor could it\n\nhave. Smith ex rel. Hicks v. McDonough, 112 F.4th 1357, 1364 (Fed. Cir.\n2024).\n\n   What\u2019s more, on Core\u2019s reading, Apple would clash with the very\n\nregional circuit whose law it was applying. Apple applied Fifth Circuit\nlaw as articulated in Volkswagen. See Apple, 979 F.3d at 1336. That en\n\nbanc decision leaves no doubt that Cheney\u2019s third requirement means\n\nwhat it says in \u00a71404(a) cases as in any others. Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at\n\n319 (separately analyzing the third requirement and finding it satisfied).\n\n   In sum, Fifth and Federal Circuit law alike comply with Cheney:\n\n\u201c[E]ven if \u201d a court finds the first two requirements satisfied, it must still\n\nconsider whether \u201cthe writ is appropriate under the circumstances.\u201d 542\n\nU.S. at 381. This Court would be well within its discretion to deny Core\u2019s\n\npetition for skipping this requirement.\n\n   B. Mandamus is inappropriate in light of the amended and\n      third-party complaints filed after briefing concluded.\n   Core\u2019s petition seeks nothing more than case-specific error correction.\n\nCore presents no issue with any \u201cimportance beyond this case.\u201d Cf.\n\n\n                                     30\n\fVolkswagen, 545 F.3d at 319. Nor do the issues have any practical\n\nimportance in this case. Even if Core could establish error in the district\n\ncourt\u2019s decision based on the original complaint, the amended and third-\n\nparty complaints made any error harmless. Both Malikie\u2019s amended\nallegations and Core\u2019s own third-party allegations refute Core\u2019s central\n\ncontention in support of transfer: that this case\u2019s connection to the\n\nEastern District rests in the past. It is now beyond dispute that this case\ninvolves ongoing activity in the Eastern District, undermining Core\u2019s\n\narguments on every contested factor.\n\n   As discussed, Malikie\u2019s amended complaint made the original\ncomplaint on which Core\u2019s argument rests a \u201cdead letter[]\u201d that \u201cno\n\nlonger perform[s] any function in [this] case[].\u201d Samsung, 2 F.4th at 1376\n\n(cleaned up); supra pp.16-18. That now-operative complaint\u2014plus Core\u2019s\n\nthird-party complaint stemming from it\u2014puts Core\u2019s case for transfer to\n\nrest. This Court should not deploy \u201cone of the most potent weapons in the\n\njudicial arsenal\u201d to second-guess the district court\u2019s evaluation of a set of\n\nfacts that no longer exists. Cheney, 542 U.S. at 380 (cleaned up).\n\n   Start with the amended complaint. Filed after the transfer briefing\n\nwas completed, the amended complaint alleges that Core infringes two of\n\nMalikie\u2019s patents\u2014one that has been in the case all along, and one newly\n\nasserted\u2014in connection with Core\u2019s HPC operations at its Denton facility\n\nin the Eastern District. SAppx86-88(\u00b6\u00b6161-64, 168-72). Core expanded\nits Denton data center to provide infringing HPC services there.\n\n\n                                     31\n\fSAppx47-55(\u00b6\u00b648, 54-56, 60). The expansion will result in \u201cone of the\n\nlargest GPU supercomputers in North America.\u201d SAppx47-48(\u00b648). As a\n\nresult, Malikie\u2019s infringement claims arise in part from Core\u2019s ongoing\n\nHPC activities in Denton. SAppx77(\u00b6126), SAppx79(\u00b6132).\n   Core\u2019s third-party complaint deepens this case\u2019s Eastern District\n\nroots. That complaint brings CoreWeave, the customer occupying Core\u2019s\n\nDenton data center, into this case. SAppx93-94(\u00b6\u00b61-2), SAppx100-\n102(\u00b6\u00b623-31). Core\u2019s third-party complaint acknowledges that Malikie\n\n\u201callege[s] infringement by [Core] based on [Core\u2019s] tenant CoreWeave\n\nperforming high-performance computing (\u2018HPC\u2019) in one or more of\n[Core\u2019s] data centers.\u201d SAppx93-94(\u00b61); see also SAppx96-97(\u00b6\u00b611-12)\n\n(acknowledging infringement allegations based on hosting and use of\n\nNVIDIA GPUs and DPUs). Core contends that if it is held liable \u201cby\n\nvirtue of the HPC activities of CoreWeave,\u201d then Core \u201cis entitled to\n\nindemnification from CoreWeave through one or more agreements\u201d in\n\nwhich Core \u201cgrant[ed] CoreWeave a license to use [Core\u2019s] data center(s)\n\nfor CoreWeave\u2019s HPC operations.\u201d SAppx94(\u00b62). One of those data\n\ncenters is, of course, the Denton data center identified in Malikie\u2019s\n\namended complaint, where, according to Core, \u201cCoreWeave does\n\nbusiness\u201d and \u201chas installed HPC devices and equipment, including\n\nNVIDIA GPUs for HPC operations.\u201d SAppx96(\u00b68), SAppx98(\u00b616); see\n\nalso SAppx98(\u00b618) (alleging that \u201cCoreWeave owns HPC devices\n\n\n\n\n                                  32\n\fincluding the accused NVIDIA GPUs and DPUs that are hosted at\n\n[Core\u2019s] data centers\u201d).\n\n   These developments underscore that the district court was right to\n\ndeny transfer and thus that this Court should deny mandamus. But at\nthe very least, they narrow the scope of any appropriate relief. There is\n\nno reason to direct transfer without first considering how the amended\n\nand third-party complaints\u2014both of which came after briefing wrapped\nup\u2014affect the transfer analysis. Nor is there any reason for this Court to\n\ndo so in the first instance, let alone in a mandamus posture and without\n\nthe benefit of discovery. So even if Core could satisfy the mandamus\nrequirements, the most it should get is vacatur and a remand for the\n\ndistrict court to reconsider in light of the now-operative pleadings.\n\n\n\n\n                                    33\n\f                           CONCLUSION\n  This Court should deny the petition.\n\n\n                                Respectfully, submitted,\n\n                                /s/ Khue V. Hoang\nBrian C. Baran                  Khue V. Hoang\nPhilip J. Eklem                 REICHMAN JORGENSEN\nREICHMAN JORGENSEN               LEHMAN & FELDBERG LLP\n LEHMAN & FELDBERG LLP          650 Fifth Avenue, Suite 2320\n1909 K St. NW, Suite 800        New York, NY 10019\nWashington, DC 20006            (212) 381-1965\n(202) 894-7310                  khoang@reichmanjorgensen.com\nbbaran@reichmanjorgensen.com\n                                Matthew G. Berkowitz\n                                REICHMAN JORGENSEN\n                                 LEHMAN & FELDBERG LLP\n                                100 Marine Parkway, Suite 300\n                                Redwood Shores, CA 94065\n                                (650) 623-1401\n                                mberkowitz@reichmanjorgensen.com\n                      Counsel for Respondents\n      Malikie Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Ltd.\n\nMay 20, 2026\n\n\n\n\n                                 34\n\fFORM 19. Certificate of Compliance with Type-Volume Limitations                        Form 19\n                                                                                      July 2020\n\n\n                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n                       FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT\n\n  CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH TYPE-VOLUME LIMITATIONS\n\n            Case Number: 2026-140\n\n  Short Case Caption: In re Core Scientific, Inc.\n\n Instructions: When computing a word, line, or page count, you may exclude any\n items listed as exempted under Fed. R. App. P. 5(c), Fed. R. App. P. 21(d), Fed. R.\n App. P. 27(d)(2), Fed. R. App. P. 32(f), or Fed. Cir. R. 32(b)(2).\n\nThe foregoing filing complies with the relevant type-volume limitation of the\nFederal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Federal Circuit Rules because it meets\none of the following:\n\n        \u2714       the filing has been prepared using a proportionally-spaced typeface\n                and includes __________\n                               7,762     words.\n\n                the filing has been prepared using a monospaced typeface and includes\n                __________ lines of text.\n\n                the filing contains __________ pages / __________ words / __________\n                lines of text, which does not exceed the maximum authorized by this\n                court\u2019s order (ECF No. __________).\n\n\n        05/20/2026\n  Date: _________________                       Signature:        /s/ Khue V. Hoang\n\n\n                                                Name:             Khue V. Hoang\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-05-26T13:20:18.112714-07:00","document_number":"17","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"01302697200","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-26T13:20:05.066871-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-26T13:20:05.076711-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-20","time_filed":null,"entry_number":17,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-20.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"RESPONSE of Respondent Malikie Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Ltd. to Doc No. [2]. Service: 05/20/2026 by email. [1168545] [26-140] [Khue Hoang] [Entered: 05/20/2026 09:25 PM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/465219605/","id":465219605,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73392142/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/480417828/","id":480417828,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73392142/16/in-re-core-scientific-inc/","date_created":"2026-05-26T13:20:05.032884-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-26T13:20:05.046489-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"16","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"01302689013","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-26T13:20:04.999828-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-26T13:20:05.011095-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-05","time_filed":null,"entry_number":16,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-05.004","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Docketing Statement for the Petitioner Core Scientific, Inc.. Service: 05/05/2026 by email. [1164980] [26-140] [Matthew Dowd] [Entered: 05/05/2026 05:02 PM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/465219603/","id":465219603,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73392142/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/480417827/","id":480417827,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73392142/15/in-re-core-scientific-inc/","date_created":"2026-05-26T13:20:04.957843-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-26T13:20:04.978012-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"15","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"01302689007","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-26T13:20:04.927198-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-26T13:20:04.934873-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-05","time_filed":null,"entry_number":15,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-05.003","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Notice of Related Case Information for Petitioner Core Scientific, Inc.. Service: 05/05/2026 by email. [1164978] [26-140] [Matthew Dowd] [Entered: 05/05/2026 05:01 PM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/465219602/","id":465219602,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73392142/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/480417826/","id":480417826,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73392142/14/in-re-core-scientific-inc/","date_created":"2026-05-26T13:20:04.885696-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-26T13:20:04.907210-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"14","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"01302689002","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-26T13:20:04.840961-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-26T13:20:04.849189-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-05","time_filed":null,"entry_number":14,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-05.002","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Certificate of Interest for Petitioner Core Scientific, Inc.. Service: 05/05/2026 by email. [1164977] [26-140] [Matthew Dowd] [Entered: 05/05/2026 05:00 PM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/465219600/","id":465219600,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73392142/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/480417824/","id":480417824,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73392142/13/in-re-core-scientific-inc/","date_created":"2026-05-26T13:20:04.802574-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-26T13:20:04.818974-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"13","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"01302688999","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-26T13:20:04.771089-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-26T13:20:04.780228-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-05","time_filed":null,"entry_number":13,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-05.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Corrected Entry of Appearance for Matthew J. Dowd; Robert J. Scheffel; Anthony H. Son as counsel for Petitioner Core Scientific, Inc.. Service: 05/05/2026 by email. [1164976] [26-140] [Matthew Dowd] [Entered: 05/05/2026 04:59 PM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/465219598/","id":465219598,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73392142/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/480417823/","id":480417823,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73392142/12/in-re-core-scientific-inc/","date_created":"2026-05-26T13:20:04.725619-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-26T13:20:04.740196-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"12","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"01302685543","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-26T13:20:04.694480-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-26T13:20:04.703616-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-30","time_filed":null,"entry_number":12,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-30.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"ORDER filed granting motion to extend time [11] to the extent that any response to the mandamus petition [2] is due no later than 05/20/2026, and the reply is due no later than 05/29/2026. (Per Curiam). Service as of this date by the Clerk of Court. [1163599] [NL] [Entered: 04/30/2026 11:31 AM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/465219597/","id":465219597,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73392142/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/480417821/","id":480417821,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73392142/11/in-re-core-scientific-inc/","date_created":"2026-05-26T13:20:04.638756-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-26T13:20:04.654269-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"11","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"01302685220","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-26T13:20:04.598760-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-26T13:20:04.607926-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-29","time_filed":null,"entry_number":11,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-29.003","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"MOTION of Respondent Malikie Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Ltd. to extend time. Service: 04/29/2026 by email. [1163445] [26-140] [Khue Hoang] [Entered: 04/29/2026 05:35 PM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/465219596/","id":465219596,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73392142/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/480417819/","id":480417819,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73392142/10/in-re-core-scientific-inc/","date_created":"2026-05-26T13:20:04.550191-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-26T13:20:04.566601-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"10","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"01302685217","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-26T13:20:04.509987-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-26T13:20:04.526590-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-29","time_filed":null,"entry_number":10,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-29.002","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Notice of Related Case Information for Respondent Malikie Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Ltd.. Service: 04/29/2026 by email. [1163444] [26-140] [Khue Hoang] [Entered: 04/29/2026 05:30 PM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/465219594/","id":465219594,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73392142/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/480417817/","id":480417817,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73392142/9/in-re-core-scientific-inc/","date_created":"2026-05-26T13:20:04.469256-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-26T13:20:04.490129-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"9","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"01302685214","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-26T13:20:04.427986-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-26T13:20:04.438993-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-29","time_filed":null,"entry_number":9,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-29.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Certificate of Interest for Respondent Malikie Innovations Ltd. and Key Patent Innovations Ltd.. Service: 04/29/2026 by email. [1163443] [26-140] [Khue Hoang] [Entered: 04/29/2026 05:29 PM]","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=73392142&page_size=40"}