In Re Core Scientific, Inc.

In Re Core Scientific, Inc. The Federal Circuit denied Core Scientific's mandamus petition seeking transfer from E.D. Tex. to W.D. Tex. under § 1404(a). Core's right to relief was not clear and indisputable because its petition ignored the amended and third-party complaints tied to its ongoing E.D. Tex. activities, and its venue-manipulation argument was raised first in reply. Mandamus on transfer denials is hard to get, and a petition that does not address post-motion amended and third-party complaints, or that saves its manipulation argument for reply, will likely fail. Petition denied. Malikie sued Core in E.D. Tex. over bitcoin mining; Core moved to transfer to W.D. Tex. under § 1404(a), saying it had ended mining in E.D. Tex. before the complaint and shifted to HPC activities there. After the transfer motion was briefed, Malikie got leave to amend to add HPC-based infringement allegations, and Core filed a third-party complaint against CoreWeave seeking indemnification for the accused HPC activities. The parties apparently did not supplement the transfer papers. The district court, adopting the magistrate judge's order, denied transfer, appearing to limit its analysis to bitcoin mining. It found E.D. Tex. more convenient for several non-party witnesses and found that a significant share of the alleged infringement occurred there. The Federal Circuit held Core's entitlement to mandamus was not clear because its petition did not address the amended and third-party complaints, both of which relate to Core's ongoing E.D. Tex. activities. It cited Samsung for the point that original complaints are dead letters once amended, including for venue. Core's argument that the amendment was venue manipulation was raised first in reply and so was not properly before the court. It also failed on the merits because, unlike cases of unilateral manipulation, Malikie's venue allegations rest on Core's own E.D. Tex. activities. injunction / stay waiver / forfeiture non-precedential