- within International Law topic(s)
Key Takeaway: Comcast has asked the Federal Circuit to weigh in on how patent venue applies to method claims.1 The company's recent mandamus petition challenges how the Eastern District of Texas applied the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), and could reshape where tech companies face suit when their products rely on distributed software or cloud-based systems.
The Dispute: How Many Steps Does It Take to Land in
Texas?
The patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b),
provides that patent infringement actions may be brought where
"the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a
regular and established place of business."2 For
method claims, the pivotal question here is: does performing one
step of a multi-step method in a district constitute "acts of
infringement" for venue purposes?3
In the underlying case, Sandpiper CDN sued Comcast in the Eastern District of Texas, claiming Comcast infringed method claims related to content delivery networks.4 Comcast pushed back, arguing that none of its servers were located in the district and that no steps of the claimed methods were performed there.5 Judge Gilstrap disagreed with Comcast, finding that Sandpiper had alleged Comcast performed at least one step in the district—and, under that interpretation, one step was enough to make venue proper.6 Comcast has now taken that question to the Federal Circuit.
The Split: One-Step vs. All-Steps
District courts are divided on what counts as "acts
of infringement" for method claims.
- The One-Step Rule – Judges Gilstrap (E.D. Tex.) and Albright (W.D. Tex.) have held that performing even a single step of a claimed method in the district is enough to establish venue.7
- The All-Steps Rule – Other courts, such as Judge Jordan (also in E.D. Tex.), require that all steps of a method be performed in the district.8 That approach stems from NTP, Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd., where the Federal Circuit held that a method is not "used within the United States" unless every step occurs domestically.9
The split has created inconsistent results—and more forum shopping.10 Plaintiffs can exploit the one-step rule to stay in what has historically been perceived to be plaintiff-friendly districts, while defendants may end up litigating far from home or where their actual operations take place.11In its amicus brief, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce urged the Federal Circuit to take up Comcast's petition.12 The Chamber flagged that non-practicing entities (NPEs) file over 60% of all patent lawsuits, about 43% of which get filed in the Eastern District of Texas alone.13 These NPEs often assert software patents with method claims, accusing defendants of hosting a combination of servers that deliver content to users across the country.14 The venue question is critical for determining where these patent disputes will be litigated.
Comcast's Argument: It's Time for Texas Courts
to Stop Dancing Around Venue Rules
Comcast and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are asking the
Federal Circuit to adopt the all-steps rule.15 Comcast
argues that "acts of infringement" under § 1400(b)
must align with how infringement is defined in §
271—which requires all steps of a method to be
performed.16 Comcast also contends that the one-step
rule invites the same forum shopping that TC Heartland was
meant to prevent.17
Sandpiper and others defending the one-step rule say the opposite: that requiring all steps in one district would make venue nearly impossible for modern, distributed technologies—essentially limiting suits to a defendant's home forum or state of incorporation.18
What's at Stake
If the Federal Circuit sides with Comcast and adopts the
all-steps rule, expect:
- Narrower Venue Options: Plaintiffs would need to show every step of a method happens in one district—a tough hurdle for cloud-based systems spread across data centers.
- Less Forum Shopping: Patent suits may become less concentrated in districts like the Eastern District of Texas.
- Impacts on Cloud and SaaS Companies: For distributed systems, proving venue could become nearly impossible outside a company's home base or state of incorporation.
- Strategic Shifts: Plaintiffs may assert system claims instead of method claims, despite marking concerns, to keep one foot in districts like the Eastern District of Texas.
If the Federal Circuit instead endorses the one-step rule:
- Broader Venue Options: Plaintiffs could file wherever any step of a method is performed, no matter how small, so long as the "regular and established place of business" element is also met.
- More Forum Shopping: Expect plaintiffs to keep steering cases to historically favorable districts.
- Infrastructure Decisions: Tech companies may rethink where their servers are located, choosing cloud regions with venue risks in mind.
Looking Ahead
The Federal Circuit's decision could reset the patent
venue landscape, at least for method claims. For technology
companies that rely on distributed software and cloud computing,
this case may shape not just where they litigate—but where
they build and operate their systems for years to come.
*Jaemin Sung, a Law Clerk at Baker Botts, assisted with the preparation of this article.
Footnotes
1. In re Comcast Cable Commc'ns, LLC, No. 26-104, Dkt. No. 2-1 (Fed. Cir. filed Oct. 21, 2025) ("Dkt. 2-1").
2. 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).
3. Dkt. 2-1 at 2.
4. Id. at 2-3.
5. See id. at 7-9.
6. See id. at 10-11.
7. See id. at 23-24.
8. Id. at 23.
9. Id. at 14 (citing NTP, Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2005)).
10. See Dkt. 2-1 at 26-27.
11. See id.
12. Brief of the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners at 3, In re Comcast Cable Commc'ns, LLC, No. 26-104, Dkt. No. 16-2 (Fed. Cir. filed Oct. 27, 2025).
13. Id. at 10-11.
14. Id. at 11.
15. See id. at 4-5; see Dkt. 2-1 at 3-4.
16. Dkt. 2-1 at 12-13 ("a party's actions established venue under Section 1400(b) because they were a 'use[]' under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a) and, '[f]or that reason,' 'an infringing act . . . in the district.'" (quoting BASF Plant Sci., LP v. Commonwealth Sci. & Indus. Rsch. Organisation, 28 F.4th 1247, 1263-64 (Fed. Cir. 2022))); Dkt. 2-1at 14.
17. See id. at 20 (citing TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC, 581 U.S. 258, 261-62 (2017)).
18. See Sandpiper's Opposition to Comcast's Motion to Dismiss or Transfer at 11, Sandpiper CDN, LLC v. Comcast Cable Commc'ns, LLC, No. 2:24-cv-00886-JRG-RSP, Dkt. No. 53 (E.D. Tex. Filed June 3, 2025).
