Federal Circuit disposition — 23-136

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
2023-136
In re: CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
Petitioner
______________________
2023-136
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in No. 2:22-
cv-00125-JRG, Chief Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
Before D YK, C UNNINGHAM , and STARK, Circuit Judges.
CUNNINGHAM , Circuit Judge.
O R D E R
Charter Communications, Inc. (“CCI”) petitions this
court for a writ of mandamus directing the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to dismiss
this case for improper venue. Entropic Communications,
LLC (“Entropic”) opposes the petition. For the following
reasons, we deny the petition.
The following facts appear undisputed: CCI, which is
a Delaware corporation, manages a large network of sub-
sidiary companies that provide cable television and inter-
net services to customers under the “Spectrum” brand
Case: 23-136 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 09/05/2023

-- 1 of 4 --

IN RE: CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 2
through the lease, sale, or distribution of set top boxes and
cable modems. Spectrum Gulf Coast, LLC (“SGC”) pro-
vides the services to customers in the Eastern District of
Texas. Charter Communications, LLC (“CCL”) employs all
individuals who perform work for CCI’s subsidiaries, in-
cluding SGC. CCI’s officers are also the officers of the sub-
sidiaries.
Entropic brought this suit in the Eastern District of
Texas, alleging that CCI’s products and services infringe
Entropic’s patents. CCI moved to dismiss for improper
venue. On May 3, 2023, the district court denied that mo-
tion, concluding that CCI “committed acts of infringement
and has a regular and established place of business” in the
Eastern District of Texas, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), relying on
in-district Spectrum-branded stores operated by SGC. See
App. 1–20. In finding venue proper, the district court re-
jected CCI’s argument that its business was not being car-
ried out from those in-district locations, finding that CCI
was “actually operating the business” and “engaged in the
challenged conduct” at the in-district stores. App. 5–6, 14.
The district court also found that the employees working
for CCL were acting as agents of CCI from those locations
pursuant to management agreements that gave CCI mate-
rial control over the operation of those stores. App. 10–12.
The district court further found that CCI had ratified those
locations as its own, explaining that CCI’s nationwide web-
site advertises the store locations and services and that
CCI had negotiated and signed the lease agreements for
the stores. App. 15–16. Alternatively, the district court
found that the in-district activities of CCL and SGC “may
be properly imputed to” CCI, explaining that CCI “una-
bashedly holds itself out to the world as a single enterprise”
and the lines between the different corporations were
simply “legal formalities.” App. 16–19.
CCI now petitions this court for a writ of mandamus
challenging that order. We have jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. § 1651(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). To establish
Case: 23-136 Document: 14 Page: 2 Filed: 09/05/2023

-- 2 of 4 --

IN RE: CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 3
entitlement to the “extraordinary remedy” of a writ of man-
damus, a petitioner is required to show that: (1) it has “no
other adequate means to attain the relief [it] desires;” (2)
the right to the writ is “clear and indisputable;” 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) (cita-
tions omitted). Under that demanding standard, “ordinar-
ily, mandamus relief is not available for rulings on
improper venue motions . . . because post-judgment appeal
is often an adequate alternative means for attaining relief.”
In re Monolithic Power Sys., Inc., 50 F.4th 157, 159 (Fed.
Cir. 2022) (cleaned up).
CCI has not shown that our intervention is necessary
at this time. CCI primarily contends that the district court
erroneously imputed the locations and business of its sub-
sidiaries by focusing too much on whether CCI and its sub-
sidiaries function as essentially a single entity and not
properly considering other factors relevant under applica-
ble regional circuit law. At most, CCI’s arguments present
a record-specific dispute: whether CCI exerts control suf-
ficient to impute its subsidiaries’ in-district operations to
CCI under Fifth Circuit law. See Dalton v. R&W Marine,
Inc., 897 F.2d 1359, 1363 (5th Cir. 1990) (explaining “there
may be instances in which the parent so dominates the sub-
sidiary that they do not in reality constitute separate and
distinct corporate entities” (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted)). CCI’s petition does not raise “the type
of broad, fundamental, and recurring legal question” or
other considerations that might warrant mandamus re-
view. Monolithic, 50 F.4th at 160. We have considered
CCI’s remaining arguments, which we similarly conclude
do not demonstrate sufficient justification for immediate
review.
Accordingly,
Case: 23-136 Document: 14 Page: 3 Filed: 09/05/2023

-- 3 of 4 --

IN RE: CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC. 4
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
The petition is denied.
September 5, 2023
Date
F OR THE COURT
/s/ Jarrett B. Perlow
Jarrett B. Perlow
Clerk of Court
Case: 23-136 Document: 14 Page: 4 Filed: 09/05/2023

-- 4 of 4 --