Case: 25-112 Document: 2 Page: 1 Filed: 12/19/2024
`
`
`
`No. 25-___
`
`IN THE
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`_______________________
`
`IN RE LENOVO GROUP LIMITED,
`Petitioner
`
`_______________________
`
`On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to the
`United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas,
`Case No. 2:24-cv-00239
`Chief Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap
`____________________
`
`PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
`___________________
`
`JACOB SCHROEDER
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`3300 HILLVIEW AVENUE
`PALO ALTO, CA 94304-1203
`(650) 849-6600
`
`LI ZHANG
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`TWO SEAPORT LANE
`BOSTON, MA 02210-2001
`(617) 646-1600
`
`Counsel for Petitioner,
`Lenovo Group Limited
`
`
`
`
`December 18, 2024
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 25-112 Document: 2 Page: 2 Filed: 12/19/2024
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
`
`Case Number:
`
`
`
`Short Case Caption: In re Lenovo Group Limited
`
`Filing Party/Entity: Lenovo Group Limited
`
`Instructions:
`
`1. Complete each section of the form and select none or N/A if appropriate.
`
`2. Please enter only one item per box; attach additional pages as needed, and
`check the box to indicate such pages are attached.
`
`3. In answering Sections 2 and 3, be specific as to which represented entities
`the answers apply; lack of specificity may result in non-compliance.
`
`4. Please do not duplicate entries within Section 5.
`
`5. Counsel must file an amended Certificate of Interest within seven days after
`any information on this form changes. Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(c).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I certify the following information and any attached sheets are accurate and
`complete to the best of my knowledge.
`
`Date: December 18, 2024 Signature: /s/ Jacob A. Schroeder
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Name:
`
` Jacob A. Schroeder
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case: 25-112 Document: 2 Page: 3 Filed: 12/19/2024
`
`
`
`1. Represented
`Entities.
`Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(1).
`
`2. Real Party in
`Interest.
`Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(2).
`
`3. Parent Corporations
`and Stockholders.
`Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(3).
`
`Provide the full names of
`all entities represented by
`undersigned counsel in
`this case.
`
`Provide the full names of
`all real parties in interest
`for the entities. Do not
`list the real parties if they
`are the same as the
`entities.
`
`Provide the full names of
`all parent corporations
`for the entities and all
`publicly held companies
`that own 10% or more
`stock in the entities.
`
` None/Not Applicable
`
` None/Not Applicable
`
` None/Not Applicable
`
`Lenovo Group Limited
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Legend Holdings
`Corporation
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` Additional pages attached
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case: 25-112 Document: 2 Page: 4 Filed: 12/19/2024
`
`4. Legal Representatives. List all law firms, partners, and associates that (a)
`appeared for the entities in the originating court or agency or (b) are expected to
`appear in this court for the entities. Do not include those who have already
`entered an appearance in this court. Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(4).
`
` None/Not Applicable
`
`
`
` Additional pages attached
`
`David Michael Hoffman
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`
`Erin P Gibson
`DLA Piper LLP US
`
`Ahimsa Endelea Hodari
`DLA Piper LLP US
`
`Claire Schuster
`DLA Piper LLP US
`
`Helena D Kiepura
`DLA Piper LLP US
`
`Jason H Liss
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering
`Hale & Dorr LLP
`
`Aaron P Pirouznia
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`
`
`Dominic E Massa
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering
`Hale & Dorr LLP
`
`Jeffrey Allen Shneidman
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`
`Joseph J Mueller
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering
`Hale & Dorr LLP
`
`Louis W Tompros
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering
`Hale & Dorr LLP
`
`Melissa Richards Smith
`Gillam & Smith, LLP
`
`Salvatore P Tamburo
`DLA Piper LLP US
`
`Sarah R. Frazier
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering
`Hale & Dorr LLP
`
`Sharchun Dennis Wang
`Wilmer Cutler Pickering
`Hale and Dorr LLP
`
`5. Related Cases. Other than the originating case(s) for this case, are there
`related or prior cases that meet the criteria under Fed. Cir. R. 47.5(a)?
`
` Yes (file separate notice; see below)
`
` No
`
`
`
` N/A (amicus/movant)
`
`If yes, concurrently file a separate Notice of Related Case Information that
`complies with Fed. Cir. R. 47.5(b). Please do not duplicate information. This
`separate Notice must only be filed with the first Certificate of Interest or,
`subsequently, if information changes during the pendency of the appeal. Fed.
`Cir. R. 47.5(b).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case: 25-112 Document: 2 Page: 5 Filed: 12/19/2024
`
`
`
`6. Organizational Victims and Bankruptcy Cases. Provide any information
`required under Fed. R. App. P. 26.1(b) (organizational victims in criminal cases)
`and 26.1(c) (bankruptcy case debtors and trustees). Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(6).
`
` None/Not Applicable
`
`
`
` Additional pages attached
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case: 25-112 Document: 2 Page: 6 Filed: 12/19/2024
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`RELIEF SOUGHT ..................................................................................................... 1
`
`ISSUE PRESENTED ................................................................................................. 2
`
`FACTS NECESSARY TO UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE PRESENTED ............... 5
`
`REASONS FOR ISSUING THE WRIT .................................................................... 8
`
`I.
`
`The Writ Is Proper Because It Raises Broad, Fundamental, and
`Recurring Legal Questions. ............................................................................. 9
`
`A.
`
`The “stream of commerce” theory of personal jurisdiction
`presents basic, unsettled legal questions concerning the nature
`of a foreign act that would purposefully avail a defendant of
`jurisdiction in a domestic forum. ........................................................10
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`The Supreme Court’s splintered “stream of commerce”
`decisions: Asahi and J. McIntyre Machinery ............................10
`
`This Court’s “stream of commerce” decisions:
`Abstention from joining the debate between the Asahi
`opinions. ....................................................................................12
`
`The inconsistent application of the “stream of commerce”
`theory among district courts. .....................................................14
`
`Inconsistent application of the “stream of commerce”
`theory within the Eastern District of Texas. .............................18
`
`B.
`
`The inconsistent application of the “stream of commerce”
`theory of personal jurisdiction to foreign companies that play
`no role in making, using, selling, offering for sale, or importing
`the accused products presents a basic, undecided legal question
`that should be resolved to thwart forum shopping in the wake of
`TC Heartland. ......................................................................................21
`
`II.
`
`LGL Has a Clear and Undisputable Right to the Writ Because It Has
`Not Purposefully Availed Itself of the Eastern District of Texas or the
`United States generally. .................................................................................24
`
`v
`
`

`

`
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`Case: 25-112 Document: 2 Page: 7 Filed: 12/19/2024
`
`The district court’s decision crediting conclusory, immaterial
`allegations over undisputed and material factual evidence was
`procedurally improper. ........................................................................24
`
`LGL did not purposefully avail itself of the Eastern District of
`Texas (under a “stream of commerce” theory) or the United
`States (under Rule 4(k)(2)). .................................................................27
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The district court’s decision that the “stream of
`commerce” theory supplies the Eastern District of Texas
`with personal jurisdiction over LGL is indisputably
`wrong.........................................................................................27
`
`The district court’s decision that Rule 4(k)(2) supplies
`the Eastern District of Texas personal jurisdiction over
`LGL is indisputably wrong. ......................................................30
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................32
`
`
`
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case: 25-112 Document: 2 Page: 8 Filed: 12/19/2024
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Cases
`
`3G Licensing, S.A. v. Lenovo Grp. Ltd.,
`No. 17-84-LPS, 2019 WL 3974539 (D. Del. Aug. 22, 2019), report and
`recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 7635823 (D. Del. Sept. 19, 2019) 3, 14, 15,
`29
`
`Abelesz v. OTP Bank,
`692 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2012) ................................................................................ 8
`
`ACQIS LLC v. Lenovo Grp. Ltd.,
`572 F. Supp. 3d 291 (W.D. Tex. 2021) ..........................................................3, 17
`
`AFTG-TG, LLC v. Nuvoton Tech. Corp.,
`689 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................. 13, 14, 29
`
`AlexSam, Inc. v. Aetna, Inc.,
`119 F.4th 27 (Fed. Cir. 2024) .............................................................................25
`
`Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Super. Ct. of Cal.,
`480 U.S. 102 (1987) ........................................................................................9, 10
`
`AX Wireless LLC v. Lenovo Grp. Ltd.,
`No. 2:22-cv-280-RWS-RSP, 2023 WL 7105701 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 6,
`2023), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:22-cv-280-RWS-RSP,
`Dkt. No. 119 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 26, 2023) ........................................................3, 17
`
`B/E Aerospace, Inc. v. Zodiac Aerospace,
`No. 2:16-cv-1417-JRG-RSP, 2018 WL 7140299 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 30,
`2018), report and recommendation adopted, No. 2:16-cv-1417-JRG-RSP
`Dkt. No. 208 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 28, 2019) ..............................................................22
`
`Baker Laser Tech., LLC v. Seiko Epson Corp.,
`No. 2:24-cv-924-JRG (E.D. Tex.) ........................................................................ 4
`
`Beverly Hills Fan Co. v. Royal Sovereign Corp.,
`21 F.3d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1994) .................................................................... passim
`
`Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz,
`471 U.S. 462 (1985) .............................................................................................. 5
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case: 25-112 Document: 2 Page: 9 Filed: 12/19/2024
`
`
`
`Capella Photonics, Inc. v. Infinera Corp.,
`No. 2:20-cv-00077-JRG, 2021 WL 518478 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 10, 2021) ...... 19, 20
`
`Celgard, LLC v. SK Innovation Co.,
`792 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2015) ..........................................................................24
`
`Cellport Sys., Inc. v. Harman Int’l Indus. Inc.,
`No. 4:22-cv-808-SDJ, 2024 WL 1337338 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 28, 2024) ..............22
`
`Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C.,
`542 U.S. 367 (2004) .............................................................................................. 8
`
`Colida v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`77 F. App’x 523 (Fed. Cir. 2003) ................................................................ 14, 29
`
`CommWorks Sols., LLC v. ASUSTek Comput. Inc.,
`No. 2:24-cv-931-JRG (E.D. Tex.) ........................................................................ 4
`
`Daimler AG v. Bauman,
`571 U.S. 117 (2014) .............................................................................................. 5
`
`Def. Distributed v. Grewal,
`971 F.3d 485 (5th Cir. 2020) ..............................................................................24
`
`Douglass v. Nippon Yusen Kabaushiki Kaisha,
`46 F.4th 226 (5th Cir. 2022) (en banc) ...............................................................30
`
`Dropbox, Inc. v. Synchronoss Techs., Inc.,
`815 F. App’x 529 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .....................................................................25
`
`Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. v. Amtran Tech. Co.,
`No. A-12-CV-644-LY, 2014 WL 1603665 (W.D. Tex. Mar. 19, 2014) ............30
`
`Fundamental Innovation Sys. Int’l LLC v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`No. 2:16-cv-1425-JRG-RSP, 2018 WL 837711 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 13, 2018) ........ 5
`
`Fundamental Innovation Sys. Int'l LLC v. LG Elecs., Inc.,
`No. 2:16-cv-01425-JRG-RSP, 2018 WL 279091 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 3, 2018),
`objection overruled by 2018 WL 837711 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 13, 2018) ................20
`
`Gesture Tech. Partners, LLC v. Lenovo Grp. Ltd.,
`No. 6:21-cv-00122-ADA, 2021 WL 6205789 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 29, 2021) .......10
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case: 25-112 Document: 2 Page: 10 Filed: 12/19/2024
`
`
`
`In re Lenovo Grp. Ltd.,
`No. 24-106 (Fed. Cir.) ........................................................................................18
`
`In re Meraki Integrated Cir. (Shenzhen) Tech., Ltd.,
`No. 2021-180, 2021 WL 5292271 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2021) ............................18
`
`In re Norplant Contraceptive Prods. Liab. Litig.,
`899 F. Supp. 315 (E.D. Tex. 1995) .....................................................................25
`
`In re Regents of the Univ. of Cal.,
`964 F.2d 1128 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ............................................................................ 8
`
`In re Roman Cath. Diocese of Albany,
`745 F.3d 30 (2d Cir. 2014) ................................................................................... 8
`
`In re Stingray IP Sols., LLC,
`56 F.4th 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2023) ............................................................................. 9
`
`In re Volkswagen Grp. of Am., Inc.,
`28 F.4th 1203 (Fed. Cir. 2022) ............................................................................. 9
`
`J. McIntyre Mach., Ltd. v. Nicastro,
`564 U.S. 873 (2011) ............................................................................................12
`
`Johnston v. Multidata Sys. Int’l Corp.,
`523 F.3d 602 (5th Cir. 2008) ..............................................................................25
`
`Maxell, Ltd. v. Lenovo Grp. Ltd.,
`No. 6:21-cv-01169-ADA, Dkt. No. 146 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 6, 2023) ...................10
`
`M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd. v. Dynamic Air Ltda.,
`890 F.3d 995 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................31
`
`Orange Elec. Co. v. Autel Intelligent Tech. Corp.,
`No. 2:21-cv-240-JRG, 2022 WL 4368160 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 21, 2022) ..............22
`
`Panda Brandywine Corp. v. Potomac Elec. Power Co.,
`253 F.3d 865 (5th Cir. 2001) ....................................................................... 25, 29
`
`Papasan v. Allain,
`478 U.S. 265 (1986) ............................................................................................25
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Case: 25-112 Document: 2 Page: 11 Filed: 12/19/2024
`
`
`
`Polar Electro Oy v. Suunto Oy,
`829 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ..........................................................................13
`
`Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass’n,
`319 U.S. 21 (1943) ................................................................................................ 8
`
`Sportscastr Inc. v. Sportradar Grp. AG,
`No. 2:23-cv-472-JRG, 2024 WL 4219252 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 17, 2024) ..............22
`
`Synthes (U.S.A.) v. G.M. Dos. Reis Jr. Ind. Com de Equip. Medico,
`563 F.3d 1285 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ..........................................................................31
`
`TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC,
`581 U.S. 258 (2017) .............................................................................................. 3
`
`Theta IP, LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC,
`No. 22C3441, 2024 WL 1283706 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 25, 2024) ............. 3, 15, 16, 29
`
`Travelers Indem. Co. v. Calvert Fire Ins. Co.,
`798 F.2d 826 (5th Cir. 1986), modified, 836 F.2d 850 (5th Cir. 1988) ..............25
`
`Truesight Commc’ns LLC v. Lenovo Grp. Ltd.,
`No. 2:24-cv-31-JRG, Dkt. No. 56 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 13, 2024) ..........................2, 3
`
`United States v. Lapi,
`458 F.3d 555 (7th Cir. 2006) ................................................................................ 8
`
`Universal Connectivity Techs. Inc. v. Lenovo Grp. Ltd.,
`No. 2:23-cv-449-JRG, 2024 WL 4519760 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 17, 2024) ...... 1, 3, 18
`
`Xilinx, Inc. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG,
`848 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ..........................................................................25
`
`Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) ........................................................................................ 4, 8, 21
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) .............................................................................................4, 18
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) ................................................................................................... 8
`
`Rules
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k)(2) ....................................................................................... 30, 31
`
`x
`
`

`

`Case: 25-112 Document: 2 Page: 12 Filed: 12/19/2024
`
`
`
`Other Authorities
`
`16 Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and
`Procedure § 3933.1 (3d ed. 2023) ........................................................................ 9
`
`
`
`xi
`
`

`

`Case: 25-112 Document: 2 Page: 13 Filed: 12/19/2024
`
`
`
`RELIEF SOUGHT
`
`Lenovo Group Limited (LGL) filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal
`
`jurisdiction. The district court denied the motion, ruling that LGL (a holding
`
`company) purposefully availed itself of the Eastern District of Texas. Though the
`
`undisputed facts establish that LGL is not registered to do business in the United
`
`States, has no assets in the United States, makes no products, offers no products for
`
`sale, sells no products, and imports no products into the United States, the district
`
`court credited conclusory allegations over this evidence and held that LGL “chose
`
`to conduct business in Texas” and “place[s] the accused products in the stream of
`
`commerce.” Appx10. The district court’s application of the “stream of commerce”
`
`theory of personal jurisdiction is more expansive than any endorsed by the Supreme
`
`Court in Asahi and creates an end-run around the Supreme Court’s TC Heartland
`
`decision. The opinion challenged in this petition is nearly identical to one issued in
`
`Universal Connectivity Technologies Inc. v. Lenovo Group Limited, No. 2:23-cv-
`
`449-JRG, 2024 WL 4519760 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 17, 2024).1 And last week, the Eastern
`
`District of Texas, citing its prior decisions here and in Universal Connectivity (and
`
`others), denied LGL’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, stating it
`
`“declines to revisit such analysis where, as here, nothing new or additional has been
`
`
`1 LGL has petitioned for a writ of mandamus there, which has been docketed in this
`Court as No. 25-111. LGL’s petition here is substantially similar to that petition.
`LGL is filing this petition to preserve its challenge in this case.
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case: 25-112 Document: 2 Page: 14 Filed: 12/19/2024
`
`
`
`presented.” Truesight Commc’ns LLC v. Lenovo Grp. Ltd., No. 2:24-cv-31-JRG,
`
`Dkt. No. 56, at 4 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 13, 2024).
`
`LGL seeks an order (1) clarifying that the “stream of commerce” theory of
`
`personal jurisdiction cannot stretch to cover defendants who place no products into
`
`any stream of commerce, (2) vacating the district court’s denial of LGL’s motion,
`
`and (3) instructing the district court to dismiss the action.
`
`ISSUE PRESENTED
`
`This petition presents the issue of whether a district court may exert personal
`
`jurisdiction over a foreign holding company under the “stream of commerce” theory
`
`of personal jurisdiction simply because its indirect domestic subsidiaries purchase
`
`products, import them into the United States, and sell them here.
`
`To support its decision, the district court credited general, conclusory
`
`allegations of the plaintiff over material, undisputed facts contained in a sworn
`
`declaration submitted by LGL. But the law does not credit conclusory allegations
`
`of the plaintiff over undisputed, evidence-supported facts presented by the
`
`defendant. And the district court’s expansive view of “stream of commerce”
`
`jurisdiction led the court to conclude that LGL—a Hong Kong-based holding
`
`company that plays no role in the accused products other than being an indirect
`
`shareholder of the domestic entities that do—purposefully availed itself of the
`
`Eastern District of Texas. The growing “stream of commerce” precedent in the
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 25-112 Document: 2 Page: 15 Filed: 12/19/2024
`
`
`
`Eastern District of Texas stretches “stream of commerce” jurisdiction far broader
`
`than any articulation of it in the Supreme Court’s splintered Asahi decision.
`
`There is a conflict between the district courts on this issue. For example, the
`
`District of Delaware held that LGL “could not be subject to personal jurisdiction
`
`based on the stream of commerce theory.”2 The Northern District of Illinois also
`
`found that “the stream of commerce theory does not allow this Court to exercise
`
`jurisdiction over LGL.”3 Yet, the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas have come
`
`to a different conclusion applying what should be the same law.4
`
`Plaintiffs have caught on to the lack of clarity in the law and are using it for
`
`forum shopping following TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC,
`
`581 U.S. 258 (2017). LGL has identified at least 123 patent infringement cases that
`
`have been filed, in 2024 alone, in the Eastern District of Texas alleging a “stream of
`
`
`2 3G Licensing, S.A. v. Lenovo Grp. Ltd., No. 17-84-LPS, 2019 WL 3974539, at *6
`(D. Del. Aug. 22, 2019), report and recommendation adopted, 2019 WL 7635823
`(D. Del. Sept. 19, 2019).
`3 Theta IP, LLC v. Motorola Mobility LLC, No. 22C3441, 2024 WL 1283706, at *6
`(N.D. Ill. Mar. 25, 2024).
`4 Truesight, No. 2:24-cv-31-JRG, Dkt. No. 56 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 13, 2024); Universal
`Connectivity Techs., 2024 WL 4519760; AX Wireless LLC v. Lenovo Grp. Ltd., No.
`2:22-cv-280-RWS-RSP, 2023 WL 7105701 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 6, 2023), report and
`recommendation adopted, No. 2:22-cv-280-RWS-RSP, Dkt. No. 119 (E.D. Tex.
`Sept. 26, 2023); ACQIS LLC v. Lenovo Grp. Ltd., 572 F. Supp. 3d 291 (W.D. Tex.
`2021).
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 25-112 Document: 2 Page: 16 Filed: 12/19/2024
`
`
`
`commerce” theory of personal jurisdiction against foreign defendants.5 See, e.g.,
`
`CommWorks Sols., LLC v. ASUSTek Comput. Inc., No. 2:24-cv-931-JRG (E.D.
`
`Tex.); Baker Laser Tech., LLC v. Seiko Epson Corp., No. 2:24-cv-924-JRG (E.D.
`
`Tex.). LGL, specifically, has been a defendant in nine of those cases. For those
`
`complaints against LGL, though they assert personal jurisdiction over LGL based
`
`on its involvement in an alleged “stream of commerce,” seven of these complaints
`
`failed to name any of LGL’s US-based subsidiaries (those entities who actually sell,
`
`offer for sale, or import the accused products) as defendants. Had these entities been
`
`named as a party, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) would hold venue improper in Texas.
`
`Even within the Eastern District of Texas, there is a conflict between how the
`
`court applies “stream of commerce” jurisdiction. When defending its exercise of
`
`personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant, the Eastern District of Texas applies
`
`the “stream of commerce” theory broadly on motions to dismiss. Yet, when
`
`determining whether another domestic venue would have personal jurisdiction over
`
`a defendant (in the context of a motion to transfer under § 1404(a)), it has applied
`
`
`5 Based on a December 17, 2024, Docket Navigator search of complaints filed in the
`Eastern District of Texas since January 1, 2024 with the search string: (“under the
`law of” /10 (china or japan or singapore or “hong kong” or korea or taiwan or
`germany or netherlands or france or “united kingdom” or italy or sweden or finland
`or denmark) and “stream of commerce”).
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 25-112 Document: 2 Page: 17 Filed: 12/19/2024
`
`
`
`the theory narrowly—refusing to transfer cases to other courts on the basis that the
`
`transferee courts lack personal jurisdiction over similarly situated defendants.6
`
`LGL seeks interlocutory review and asks that the Court resolve the growing
`
`conflict in the “stream of commerce” theory of personal jurisdiction for companies,
`
`like LGL, that place no product in the stream—playing no role in the creation of the
`
`accused product, its insertion into the stream of commerce, or its passage
`
`therethrough. So long as this conflict remains, companies such as LGL are prevented
`
`from “structur[ing] their primary conduct with some minimum assurance as to
`
`whether that conduct will and will not render them liable to suit.” Daimler AG v.
`
`Bauman, 571 U.S. 117, 139 (2014) (quoting Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471
`
`U.S. 462, 472 (1985)).
`
`FACTS NECESSARY TO UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE PRESENTED
`
`Eireog Innovations Limited (“Eireog”) sued LGL in the Eastern District of
`
`Texas, accusing certain Lenovo-branded products of infringing the claims of patents
`
`Eireog purchased.
`
`LGL is a holding company. Appx42 at ¶ 3; Appx 50 n.1. It is incorporated
`
`and has its principal place of business in Hong Kong. Appx42 at ¶ 2. LGL has no
`
`bank accounts, properties, or any other assets in the United States, has no employees
`
`
`6 See, e.g., Fundamental Innovation Sys. Int’l LLC v. LG Elecs., Inc., No. 2:16-cv-
`1425-JRG-RSP, 2018 WL 837711 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 13, 2018).
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 25-112 Document: 2 Page: 18 Filed: 12/19/2024
`
`
`
`in the United States, and is not authorized, registered, or licensed to do business
`
`anywhere in the United States. Appx43 at ¶ 4.
`
`As a holding company, LGL does not place anything into the stream of
`
`commerce. LGL does not make products at all, including products under the Lenovo
`
`brands. Appx42 at ¶ 3; Appx 50 n.1. Nor does it sell, offer for sale, export, import,
`
`or otherwise distribute Lenovo products anywhere—not in the United States
`
`generally and not in Texas specifically. Appx42–43 at ¶¶ 3–7; Appx 50 n.1. LGL
`
`does not engage in sales, advertising, or marketing efforts targeting the United
`
`States, or sell or offer to sell any Lenovo-branded products on the Lenovo.com
`
`website. Appx43 at ¶ 5. LGL does not perform research and development for
`
`Lenovo-branded products. Appx44 at ¶ 10.
`
`Lenovo-branded products are sold in the United States by non-party Lenovo
`
`(United States) Inc. (“Lenovo US”) and Lenovo Global Technology (United States)
`
`Inc. (“Lenovo Global Tech”). Appx43 at ¶¶ 6–7. Both are Delaware corporations
`
`with a principal place of business in North Carolina. Id. Lenovo US and Lenovo
`
`Global Tech buy products from non-party Lenovo PC HK and Lenovo Global
`
`Technology HK, then import them into the United States for sale. Id.
`
`LGL, Lenovo US, and Lenovo Global Tech are separate business entities.
`
`Even though Lenovo US and Lenovo Global Tech are indirect subsidiaries of LGL,
`
`there are no common officers or directors between LGL on the one hand and Lenovo
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 25-112 Document: 2 Page: 19 Filed: 12/19/2024
`
`
`
`US and Lenovo Global Tech on the other. Appx44–45 at ¶ 12. LGL files separate
`
`tax returns from Lenovo US and Lenovo Global Tech. Appx45 at ¶ 13. LGL has
`
`no distribution, sales, or marketing agreements with Lenovo US, Lenovo Global
`
`Tech, or any other U.S. affiliate with respect to Lenovo-branded products. Appx44
`
`at ¶ 8. Moreover, LGL is not involved in the daily business activities and decisions
`
`of Lenovo US or Lenovo Global Tech relating to the use, sale, offer for sale,
`
`marketing, distribution, or importation of Lenovo-branded products in the United
`
`States. Id.; Appx 50 n.1.
`
`In sum, LGL is a holding company. It does not control or direct the creation
`
`of any product or the placement of any product into the stream of commerce. As a
`
`holding company, LGL simply holds investments in companies that place products
`
`into the stream of commerce. Far from purposefully availing itself of Texas or the
`
`United States, LGL has purposefully remained outside of the United States—LGL
`
`is not authorized, registered, or licensed to do business in the United States, and it
`
`has no assets in the United States. Appx43 at ¶ 4. Yet, the district court held LGL
`
`purposefully availed itself of the Eastern District of Texas under the “stream of
`
`commerce” theory based on (1) acts performed by LGL’s domestic subsidiaries,
`
`including Lenovo US and Lenovo Global Tech; and (2) Eireog’s allegations that
`
`LGL acted in concert with them—even though the court did not pierce the corporate
`
`veil between these separate corporate entities. Appx5–11. This case is headed
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case: 25-112 Document: 2 Page: 20 Filed: 12/19/2024
`
`
`
`towards trial in the Eastern District of Texas, as if Lenovo US and Lenovo Global
`
`Tech were named as parties, even though if Lenovo US and Lenovo Global Tech
`
`were parties to this case, venue would be improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).
`
`REASONS FOR ISSUING THE WRIT
`
`The Federal Circuit has broad jurisdiction and discretion to issue writs of
`
`mandamus pursuant to the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a), to correct a “clear
`
`abuse of discretion or usurpation of judicial power.” In re Regents of the Univ. of
`
`Cal., 964 F.2d 1128, 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Mandamus typically requires the
`
`petitioner to show that (1) he has “no other adequate means to attain the relief he
`
`desires,” (2) he has a “clear and indisputable” right to the writ, and (3) the writ is
`
`“appropriate under the circumstances.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S.
`
`367, 380–81 (2004) (citations omitted).
`
`Despite the demanding requirements for mandamus relief, courts of appeals
`
`have granted writs of mandamus to correct the district courts’ erroneous personal
`
`jurisdiction rulings. See, e.g., In re Roman Cath. Diocese of Albany, 745 F.3d 30
`
`(2d Cir. 2014); Abelesz v. OTP Bank, 692 F.3d 638 (7th Cir. 2012). This use of
`
`mandamus comports with its “traditional use . . . to confine an inferior court to a
`
`lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction.” Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass’n, 319
`
`U.S. 21, 26 (1943); United States v. Lapi, 458 F.3d 555, 560–61 (7th Cir. 2006); 16
`
`Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3933.1
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case: 25-112 Document: 2 Page: 21 Filed: 12/19/2024
`
`
`
`(3d ed. 2023). Indeed, the Supreme Court’s landmark decision on the “stream of
`
`commerce” theory of personal jurisdiction arose via a writ of mandamus from state
`
`court. Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Super. Ct. of Cal., 480 U.S. 102, 107–08 (1987).
`
`Moreover, mandamus may be used “in narrow circumstances where doing so
`
`is important to ‘proper judicial administration.’” In re Stingray IP Sols., LLC, 56
`
`F.4th 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (citations omitted). Such circumstances include
`
`where an appellate court corrects a district court’s answers to “basic, undecided”
`
`legal questions concerning judicial administration, especially where a district court’s
`
`decisions are in conflict. Id. (citations omitted). Under the “administration of
`
`justice” standard, a petitioner is not required to satisfy the Cheney requirements. Id.
`
`This Court has granted mandamus under this standard on issues concerning lack of
`
`personal jurisdiction or improper venue. Id. at 1383–84; In re Volkswagen Grp. of
`
`Am., Inc., 28 F.4th 1203, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
`
`I.
`
`The Writ Is Proper Because It Raises Broad, Fundamental, and
`Recurring Legal Questions.
`
`Whether a defendant in a patent suit has been properly sued in a particular
`
`forum is a fundamental issue in patent law. See Beverly Hills Fan Co. v. Royal
`
`Sovereign Corp., 21 F.3d 1558, 1564 (Fed. Cir. 1994). This issue has been raised—
`
`and addressed in the context of venue—in repeated mandamus petitions filed with
`
`this Court and in the seminal case of TC Heartland. Indeed, prior decisions have
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case: 25-112 Document: 2 Page: 22 Filed: 12/19/2024
`
`
`
`found that venue is not proper in the Western District of Texas for Lenovo US.7
`
`Stymied by these rulings, plaintiffs have developed a new tactic for forum shopping:
`
`ignore the domestic subsidiaries who actually make, sell, or import the accused
`
`products and instead sue foreign parent companies using threadbare allegations of
`
`“stream of commerce” jurisdiction to permit the choice of their preferred forum.
`
`A. The “stream of commerce” theory of personal jurisdiction
`presents basic, unsettled legal questions