How the cases moved
According to the order, Fleet Connect Solutions LLC and OBD Sensor Solutions LLC, both Texas entities, filed three related patent infringement suits against Xirgo, which is headquartered in Illinois, in the Eastern District of Virginia in November and December 2025: Nos. 2:25-cv-00712 and 2:25-cv-00837 (Fleet Connect) and No. 2:25-cv-00713 (OBD Sensor). Xirgo moved under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) to transfer the two November actions to the Northern District of Illinois. On June 1, 2026, the district court denied those motions because Xirgo had not moved to transfer the December action, creating a risk of inconsistent judgments and potential waste of judicial economy. At that time, according to the order, Xirgo had a pending motion to dismiss the December action under 35 U.S.C. 101. On June 29, 2026, Xirgo moved to transfer the December action and sought reconsideration, and on July 30, 2026, the district court granted reconsideration and transferred all three cases.
The petitions and the ruling
The court applied Fourth Circuit law, under In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2008), and reviewed both the Rule 54(b) reconsideration and the section 1404(a) transfer for abuse of discretion, adding the mandamus requirement of a "clear and indisputable" right to relief from Cheney v. U.S. District Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367 (2004). The petitioners did not directly challenge the district court's revised findings on the transfer factors. They argued that the court committed legal error by granting reconsideration and by giving weight to the movant's own post-ruling litigation conduct, and that under Phoenix v. Amonette, 95 F.4th 852 (4th Cir. 2024), and Carlson v. Boston Scientific Corp., 856 F.3d 320 (4th Cir. 2017), an interlocutory ruling may be revisited only for new evidence, a change in law, or clear error causing manifest injustice.
The panel was not persuaded. Citing Nadendla v. WakeMed, 24 F.4th 299 (4th Cir. 2022), and American Canoe Ass'n v. Murphy Farms, Inc., 326 F.3d 505 (4th Cir. 2003), it said that, generally, a "district court possesses broad discretion to revisit a prior ruling," and that petitioners cited no authority showing the district court exceeded its discretion. Phoenix and Carlson, the panel said, support a decision to deny reconsideration when the movant is improperly attempting to get a second bite at the apple or the supporting evidence is insufficient, but the district court considered and rejected petitioners' arguments based on those principles, and the panel was "not prepared to reach a different conclusion on limited mandamus review." Fleet Connect's separate petition on the December action rose or fell with the district court's decision on reconsideration that "the interests of justice dictate that the same forum should resolve these disputes." Citing the district court's discretion under In re Vistaprint Ltd., 628 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2010), and its own conclusions on reconsideration, the panel concluded that Fleet Connect had not shown entitlement to relief. The petitions were denied.
Practice pointers
Here, a defendant that lost its transfer motions because a related case remained behind moved to transfer that case and sought reconsideration, and the resulting transfer survived mandamus review. The panel applied the Fourth Circuit's view that a district court has broad discretion to revisit interlocutory rulings, and it treated the December petition as rising or falling with the reconsideration ruling, so the three related suits moved as a group. The order is nonprecedential.
What to watch next
Watch for the schedule in the three transferred cases in the Northern District of Illinois.