In re: ZTE CORPORATION v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 309 1989 , that the right to…

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In re: ZTE CORPORATION,
Petitioner
______________________
2022-147, 2022-148, 2022-149, 2022-150
______________________
On Petitions for Writs of Mandamus to the United
States District Court for the Western District of Texas in
Nos. 6:22-cv-00136-ADA, 6:22-cv-00137-ADA, 6:22-cv-
00138-ADA, and 6:22-cv-00139-ADA, Judge Alan D. Al-
bright.
______________________
ON PETITIONS
______________________
Before L OURIE, B RYSON, and P ROST , Circuit Judges.
P ROST , Circuit Judge.
O R D E R
In these patent infringement cases, the district court
entered an order granting a motion by the plaintiff WSOU
Investments LLC d/b/a Brazos Licensing and Development
(“Brazos”) for alternative service. ZTE Corporation
(“ZTE”), the foreign defendant in these actions, now peti-
tions this court for a writ of mandamus reversing the dis-
trict court’s order and directing dismissal. Brazos opposes.
Case: 22-147 Document: 15 Page: 1 Filed: 06/28/2022

-- 1 of 2 --

IN RE: ZTE CORPORATION 2
To obtain mandamus relief, this court must be satisfied
that a petitioner has no “adequate alternative” means to
obtain the desired relief, Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S.
Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 309 (1989), that the right to
issuance of the writ is “clear and indisputable,” Will v. Cal-
vert Fire Ins. Co., 437 U.S. 655, 666 (1978) (internal quota-
tion marks omitted), and that the issuance of the writ is
appropriate under the circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist.
Ct. for the Dist. of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 381 (2004).
After these petitions were filed, the district court sua
sponte vacated its order authorizing alternative service,
concluding that Brazos’s motion “warrants reconsideration
because the Court did not address important arguments
and authorities” raised in ZTE’s petitions but not in its
original opposition to Brazos’s motion. ECF No. 13, Ex. A
at 2–3. The court set a briefing schedule and denied ZTE’s
motion to dismiss without prejudice to refiling after the
court’s decision on the motion for alternative service.
In light of the district court’s intervening order, the
court deems it the appropriate course here to deny manda-
mus to allow the district court to reconsider the matter and
any renewed motion to dismiss. Any future petitions for
mandamus arising from the rulings on reconsideration or
motion to dismiss will be considered on their own merits.
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
The petitions are denied.
F OR THE COURT
June 28, 2022 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Date Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
Case: 22-147 Document: 15 Page: 2 Filed: 06/28/2022

-- 2 of 2 --