`
`NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`In re: APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`______________________
`
`2020-112
`______________________
`
`On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
`District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in No. 2:19-
`cv-00025-JRG, Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap.
`______________________
`
`ON PETITION
`______________________
`
`PER CURIAM.
`
`O R D E R
`Apple Inc. filed a petition for a writ of mandamus ask-
`
`ing this court to direct the United States District Court for
`the Eastern District of Texas to stay proceedings pending
`the resolution of related matters in the United States Dis-
`trict Court for the Central District of California or transfer
`the case to the Central District of California.
`Upon consideration thereof,
`IT IS ORDERED THAT:
`(1) No later than March 18, 2020, the parties are di-
`rected to file supplemental briefs, not to exceed 15 double-
`
`Roku Exhibit 1030
`Roku, Inc. v. Canon Kabushiki Kaisha
`Page 00001
`
`
`
`Case: 20-112 Document: 28 Page: 2 Filed: 03/03/2020
`
`2
`
`
`
`IN RE: APPLE INC.
`
`spaced pages, addressing the proper time frame for consid-
`ering the judicial economy factor, i.e., should the court con-
`sider the situation that existed at the time of filing of the
`complaint, the time of filing of the transfer motion, or the
`time when the court decides the transfer motion? Specifi-
`cally, the parties must explain their reasons for picking one
`time frame over the others, providing support for their rea-
`soning based both on the law and on practical considera-
`tions. The parties are encouraged to address whether the
`court may ever consider facts occurring after the filing of
`the complaint. No extensions of time will be granted.
`
`(2) Oral argument is scheduled for March 23, 2020 at
`10 a.m. in courtroom 201.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` March 3, 2020
` Date
`
`s32
`
`
`/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
`Peter R. Marksteiner
`Clerk of Court
`
`
`
`FOR THE COURT
`
`Roku Exhibit 1030
`Page 00002
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
