Key Takeaway: On December 9, 2025, the Federal Circuit denied Comcast’s petition for a writ of mandamus in In re Comcast Cable Communications, LLC.[1] The nonprecedential order leaves the contentious “one-step rule” for patent venue intact—at least for now—allowing district courts to continue finding venue proper where even a single step of a patented method is performed. For tech companies facing patent infringement suits involving distributed systems and cloud-based infrastructure, the landscape remains as uncertain as before.

The Federal Circuit’s Order: No Immediate Relief
As discussed in our previous article, Comcast sought mandamus relief after Judge Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas denied the company’s motion to dismiss or transfer for improper venue.[2] Comcast argued that it does not “reside” in the Eastern District of Texas and that no “acts of infringement” occurred there because none of Comcast’s servers were located in the district.[3]

A three-judge panel—Judges Prost, Chen, and Hughes—rejected Comcast’s petition, finding that Comcast failed to meet the standard for mandamus relief.[4] The court held that Comcast had not demonstrated that post-judgment appellate review of this issue would be “inadequate” under the circumstances.[5] Despite the district court split, the panel appeared poised to “allow the issue to percolate in the district courts as to more clearly define the importance, scope, and nature of the issue.”[6]

What the Order Does—and Does Not—Decide
The Federal Circuit’s order is deliberately narrow. It does not resolve the underlying legal question: whether performing a single step of a multi-step method in a judicial district constitutes “acts of infringement” sufficient to establish venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).

Instead, the court simply found that mandamus—an extraordinary remedy reserved for clear errors with no adequate alternative means of relief—was not warranted here.[7] The door remains open for Comcast (or another party) to raise this issue on appeal from a final judgment or in another case.

The District Court Split Persists
With no precedential guidance from the Federal Circuit, the existing split remains unchanged:

• The One-Step Rule – Judges Gilstrap (E.D. Tex.) and Albright (W.D. Tex.) continue to hold that performing even one step of a claimed method in the district satisfies the “acts of infringement” requirement for venue.[8]
• The All-Steps Rule – Other judges, including Judge Jordan [LD1](E.D. Tex.), require that all steps of a method be performed in the district, consistent with the Federal Circuit’s holding in NTP, Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd. that a method is not “used” domestically unless every step occurs within the United States.[9]

This district split—and even intra-district divergence—ensures that forum selection remains highly strategic for both plaintiffs and defendants in patent cases involving method claims.

Strategic Implications for Tech Companies
The Federal Circuit’s decision to let the issue “percolate” has several practical consequences for tech companies:

• Forum Shopping Continues. Plaintiffs asserting method claims against companies with distributed infrastructure can continue to exploit the one-step rule to establish venue in historically plaintiff-favorable districts like the Eastern District of Texas. As the U.S. Chamber of Commerce highlighted in its amicus brief, over 60% of patent lawsuits are filed by non-practicing entities, with about 43% of which landing in the Eastern District of Texas.[10]
• Venue Battles Will Intensify. Without binding precedent, defendants should expect continued litigation over venue at the pleadings stage. Companies facing suit would be wise to build a comprehensive factual record demonstrating where—or where not—each step of the accused method is performed.
• Infrastructure Decisions Carry Legal Weight. For cloud and SaaS providers, the physical location of servers and the geographic distribution of processing steps may factor into litigation risk assessments. Under the one-step rule, even incidental data processing in a particular district could expose companies to suit there.
• Claim Drafting Remains Critical. Patent prosecutors should consider how method claims may interact with venue rules. Plaintiffs may increasingly pivot toward system claims—which do not implicate the same multi-step analysis—though such claims carry their own strategic trade-offs, including potential marking requirements.

Looking Ahead: A Future Reckoning?
While the Federal Circuit declined to intervene now, the court’s reasoning suggests it may be willing to address this issue on appeal from a final judgment—particularly as the split continues to produce “disparate results” across district courts.[11] The court’s reference to allowing the issue to “percolate” signals that it views further development of the record and reasoning at the trial court level as beneficial before establishing binding precedent.[12]

For now, the one-step rule survives in certain forums. Tech companies operating distributed systems would be prudent to monitor developments in this space and factor venue considerations into both litigation strategy and infrastructure planning.

ABOUT BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
Baker Botts is an international law firm whose lawyers practice throughout a network of offices around the globe. Based on our experience and knowledge of our clients' industries, we are recognized as a leading firm in the energy, technology and life sciences sectors. Since 1840, we have provided creative and effective legal solutions for our clients while demonstrating an unrelenting commitment to excellence. For more information, please visit bakerbotts.com.