CAFC Denies Mandamus Petition Arguing District Court Should Not Have Reconsidered Initial Transfer Ruling

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Thursday denied two petitions for writ of mandamus arguing the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia abused its discretion in transferring three related patent infringement suits to the Northern District of Illinois.

In November and December 2025, Fleet Connect Solutions LLC and OBD Sensor Solutions LLC, both based in Texas, sued Xirgo Technologies, LLC and Xirgo Holdings, Inc. both based in Illinois, for patent infringement, and Xirgo moved to transfer the November cases to Illinois. The district court initially denied the transfer motion due to Xirgo’s failure to request transfer of the December case, thereby “creating a risk of inconsistent judgments and potential waste of judicial economy,” according to the CAFC order. However, Xirgo subsequently moved to transfer the December case and sought reconsideration, and the district court ultimately granted transfer of all three cases. Both Fleet and OBD then filed writs of mandamus, arguing the district court abused its discretion in granting reconsideration as well as the requests for transfer.

Fleet and OBD did not directly challenge the substance of the decisions to transfer, but rather argued that the court abused its discretion in first denying, and then reconsidering, its initial decisions. They contended that the district court “committed legal error by granting reconsideration under Rule 54(b)” and by giving weight to “movant’s own voluntary, post-ruling litigation” actions, noted the CAFC.

Fleet and OBD argued that “a district court may revisit an interlocutory ruling only in three circumstances that authorize departing from the law of the case: (1) when new material evidence is discovered during the litigation; (2) when there has been a change in applicable law; and (3) when there has been clear error causing manifest injustice,” and that Xirgo’s motion to transfer the December case does not meet any of those criteria.

However, the CAFC determined that district courts generally have broad discretion to revisit cases and that Fleet and OBD “cite no authority that shows the district court exceeded its discretion here.” The petitioners relied on Phoenix v. Amonette (4th Cir. 2024) and Carlson v. Boston Sci. Corp. (4th Cir. 2017) for their argument, but the CAFC said “Phoenix and Carlson support a district court’s decision to deny reconsideration when the district court concludes that the movant is improperly attempting to get a second bite at the apple or the evidence presented in support is insufficient to warrant reconsideration.” And here, the district court considered and rejected Fleet’s and OBD’s arguments under those principles and the CAFC declined to question that conclusion “on limited mandamus review.”

Fleet also argued in its petition challenging transfer of the December action that transfer only “became possible only after the District Court treated a voluntary procedural act as a changed circumstance and then used that changed circumstance to recast the balance,” but the CAFC said that reasoning “rises or falls with the district court’s decision on reconsideration that ‘the interests of justice dictate that the same forum should resolve these disputes.’”