throbber
Case: 20-123 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 06/18/2020
`
`NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`In re: SEATTLE SPINCO, INC., MICRO FOCUS
`LLC, MICRO FOCUS INTERACTIVE ISRAEL LTD.,
`MICRO FOCUS GOVERNMENT SOLUTIONS LLC,
`MICRO FOCUS (US) INC.,
`Petitioners
`______________________
`
`2020-123
`______________________
`
`On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
`District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in No. 4:18-
`cv-00469-ALM, Judge Amos L. Mazzant III.
`______________________
`
`ON PETITION
`______________________
`
`Before O’MALLEY, WALLACH, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
`STOLL, Circuit Judge.
`
`O R D E R
` Petitioners Seattle SpinCo, Inc. et al. (collectively,
`“SSI”) petition for a writ of mandamus directing the United
`States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas to
`transfer this case to the United States District Court for
`the District of Delaware. Wapp Tech Limited Partnership
`and Wapp Tech Corp. (collectively, “Wapp”) oppose. We
`deny the petition.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 20-123 Document: 16 Page: 2 Filed: 06/18/2020
`
`2
`
`
`
`IN RE: SEATTLE SPINCO, INC.
`
`BACKGROUND
`In July 2018, Wapp filed this suit in the Eastern Dis-
`trict of Texas against Micro Focus International plc (“MF
`plc”). The complaint alleged that MF plc, a software com-
`pany headquartered in the United Kingdom, infringed
`three of Wapp’s patents by making, using, selling, and of-
`fering for sale certain accused software products.
`On October 15, 2018, two of MF plc’s U.S. subsidiaries,
`Seattle SpinCo, Inc. and Micro Focus LLC, filed a declara-
`tory judgment action in the District of Delaware, seeking
`judgments that the same Wapp patents that were asserted
`in the Texas action were invalid and that the accused soft-
`ware did not infringe those patents.
`Back in the Texas action, MF plc moved to dismiss for
`lack of personal jurisdiction, arguing that MF plc is a for-
`eign corporation without ties to Texas. The Texas court
`ordered jurisdictional discovery. On June 10, 2019, Wapp
`filed a motion for leave to file an amended complaint to add
`five subsidiaries of MF plc as defendants.
`In August 2019, the Texas court granted MF plc’s mo-
`tion to dismiss upon finding that MF plc, the sole defendant
`in the case at the time, was not subject to personal juris-
`diction in Texas. In the same order, however, the court
`granted leave for Wapp to amend the complaint to remove
`allegations against MF plc and to add the five subsidiaries
`of MF plc (petitioners here).
`MF plc then filed a motion to transfer the Texas action
`to Delaware, invoking the first-to-file rule, and argued that
`the Delaware action and not the Texas action should be
`considered the first-filed because it was the first court to
`obtain personal jurisdiction over the parties.
`The Texas court denied the motion to transfer, finding
`that “[t]he argument’s threshold premise—that the Court
`could not possess this controversy for purposes of the first-
`to-file rule until the date of the amended complaint because
`
`

`

`Case: 20-123 Document: 16 Page: 3 Filed: 06/18/2020
`
`IN RE: SEATTLE SPINCO, INC.
`
` 3
`
`it did not have personal jurisdiction over [MF plc]—is erro-
`neous.” This petition followed.
`We note that the Texas court recently issued its claim
`construction order. See Wapp Tech Ltd. P’ship v. Micro Fo-
`cus Int’l PLC, No. 4:18-cv-00469-ALM, ECF No. 176 (Apr.
`27, 2020). Meanwhile, the Delaware court has stayed its
`action, noting its belief that “[i]t certainly looks like the
`case in Texas is the first filed case.”
`DISCUSSION
`A writ of mandamus is a “drastic and extraordinary
`remedy reserved for really extraordinary causes.” Cheney
`v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 380
`(2004) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A
`petitioner must satisfy three requirements: (1) the peti-
`tioner must “have no other adequate means to attain the
`relief” desired; (2) the petitioner must show that the “right
`to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable”; and (3)
`the petitioner must convince the court that the writ is “ap-
`propriate under the circumstances.” Id. at 380–81 (inter-
`nal quotation marks and citations omitted).
`SSI cites several cases dealing with the first-to-file
`rule, which “generally favors pursuing only the first-filed
`action when multiple lawsuits involving the same claims
`are filed in different jurisdictions.” Merial Ltd. v. Cipla
`Ltd., 681 F.3d 1283, 1299 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citation omit-
`ted); see also West Gulf Mar. Ass’n v. ILA Deep Sea Local
`24, 751 F.2d 721, 730 (5th Cir. 1985) (noting that the usual
`rule is for the court of first jurisdiction to resolve the issues
`when cases before two different federal district courts are
`the same or very similar).1 But SSI cites no appellate court
`
`1 We need not decide whether to apply regional or
`Federal Circuit law in evaluating the district court’s anal-
`ysis of the first-to-file rule, as the parties have not shown
`any material difference between the circuits here.
`
`

`

`Case: 20-123 Document: 16 Page: 4 Filed: 06/18/2020
`
`4
`
`
`
`IN RE: SEATTLE SPINCO, INC.
`
`case that has held that first-filed status is determined by
`which court first secures personal jurisdiction over the par-
`ties.
`Nor are we aware of any appellate case that has spoken
`of the first-filed rule in such terms. See, e.g., Save Power
`Ltd. v. Syntek Fin. Corp., 121 F.3d 947, 950 (5th Cir. 1997)
`(emphasizing priority for the court that first “seized of the
`issues” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted));
`Mann Mfg., Inc. v. Hortex, Inc., 439 F.2d 403, 407 (5th Cir.
`1971) (explaining generally that “the court initially seized
`of a controversy should be the one to decide whether it will
`try the case”); see also Penn Gen. Cas. Co. v. Pennsylvania,
`294 U.S. 189, 196 (1935) (giving preference to the court
`“whose jurisdiction and process are first invoked by the fil-
`ing of the bill”); Smith v. McIver, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 532
`(1824) (“In all cases of concurrent jurisdiction, the Court
`which first has possession of the subject, must decide it con-
`clusively.”); see also Cadle Co. v. Whataburger of Alice, Inc.,
`174 F.3d 599 (5th Cir. 1999) (refusing to incorporate a ju-
`risdictional analysis into the rule).
`At best, SSI has shown that different district courts
`have appeared to reach contrasting views on whether to
`adopt such an approach. Compare Mallinckrodt Med. Inc.
`v. Nycomed Imaging AS, No. 4:98CV444 ERW, 1998 WL
`962203, at *5 (E.D. Mo. Nov. 13, 1998) (transferring under
`circumstances similar to those in this case); with Advanta
`Corp. v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., No. 96-7940, 1997 WL 88906, at
`*3 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 19, 1997) (“The first-filed rule turns on
`which court first obtains possession of the subject of the
`dispute, not the parties of the dispute.”); and Schering
`Corp. v. Amgen Inc., 969 F. Supp. 258, 267 (D. Del. 1997)
`(“This Court first acquired subject matter jurisdiction over
`the dispute in December of 1996. Accordingly, the Dela-
`ware action is considered first-filed, regardless of the addi-
`tion of a new party in February.”).
`
`

`

`Case: 20-123 Document: 16 Page: 5 Filed: 06/18/2020
`
`IN RE: SEATTLE SPINCO, INC.
`
` 5
`
`At a minimum, the above-noted disagreement and lack
`of precedential support means that SSI’s right to transfer
`based on the first-to-file rule is not clear and indisputable.
`In addition, the extraordinary nature of the remedy, appar-
`ent agreement between the Delaware and Texas courts,
`and stay of the Delaware proceedings, belies any need for
`this court to give any strong consideration to weighing in
`on whether to adopt such a rule here. See Futurewei
`Techs., Inc. v. Acacia Research Corp., 737 F.3d 704, 708
`(Fed. Cir. 2013) (purpose of the first-to-file rule is to “avoid
`conflicting decisions and promote judicial efficiency” (inter-
`nal quotation marks and citation omitted)). We therefore
`deny SSI’s request for mandamus.
`
`Accordingly,
`
`IT IS ORDERED THAT:
`
`The petition is denied.
`
`
`June 18, 2020
`Date
`
`FOR THE COURT
`
`/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
`Peter R. Marksteiner
`Clerk of Court
`
`s35
`
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket