Case: 22-162 Document: 9 Page: 1 Filed: 09/09/2022
`
`No. 22-162
`
`IN THE
`United States Court of Appeals
`FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`IN RE: APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court
`for the Western District of Texas, No. 6:21-cv-01101-ADA
`
`
`
`AIRE TECHNOLOGY LIMITED RESPONSE TO APPLE’S
`PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
`
`
`
`Brett Cooper
` Counsel of Record
`Jonathan Yim
`BC LAW GROUP, P.C.
`200 Madison Avenue, 24th Floor
`New York, NY 10016
`Telephone: (516) 359-9668
`bcooper@b-clg.com
`
`Counsel for Respondent Aire Technology Limited
`
`
`
`No. 22-162
`
`IN THE
`United States Court of Appeals
`FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`IN RE: APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court
`for the Western District of Texas, No. 6:21-cv-01101-ADA
`
`
`
`AIRE TECHNOLOGY LIMITED RESPONSE TO APPLE’S
`PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
`
`
`
`Brett Cooper
` Counsel of Record
`Jonathan Yim
`BC LAW GROUP, P.C.
`200 Madison Avenue, 24th Floor
`New York, NY 10016
`Telephone: (516) 359-9668
`bcooper@b-clg.com
`
`Counsel for Respondent Aire Technology Limited
`
`
`
`Case: 22-162 Document: 9 Page: 2 Filed: 09/09/2022
`
`FORM 9. Certificate of Interest
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
`
`
`Form 9 (p. 1)
`July 2020
`
`
`Case Number
`Short Case Caption
`Filing Party/Entity
`
`
`
`
`
`Instructions: Complete each section of the form. In answering items 2 and 3, be
`specific as to which represented entities the answers apply; lack of specificity may
`result in non-compliance. Please enter only one item per box; attach
`additional pages as needed and check the relevant box. Counsel must
`immediately file an amended Certificate of Interest if information changes. Fed.
`Cir. R. 47.4(b).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I certify the following information and any attached sheets are accurate and
`complete to the best of my knowledge.
`
`
`Date: _________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Signature:
`
`Name:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`22-162
`
`In re Apple Inc.
`
`Aire Technology Limited
`
`Brett Cooper
`
`/s/ Brett Cooper
`
`09/09/2022
`
`
`
`Case: 22-162 Document: 9 Page: 3 Filed: 09/09/2022
`
`FORM 9. Certificate of Interest
`
`1. Represented
`Entities.
`Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(1).
`Provide the full names of
`all entities represented
`by undersigned counsel in
`this case.
`
`Form 9 (p. 2)
`July 2020
`
`2. Real Party in
`Interest.
`Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(2).
`Provide the full names of
`all real parties in interest
`for the entities. Do not
`list the real parties if
`they are the same as the
`entities.
`
`3. Parent Corporations
`and Stockholders.
`Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(3).
`Provide the full names of
`all parent corporations
`for the entities and all
`publicly held companies
`that own 10% or more
`stock in the entities.
`
`☐ None/Not Applicable ☐ None/Not Applicable
`
`Additional pages attached
`
`4
`
`4
`
`Aire Technology Limited
`
`
`
`Case: 22-162 Document: 9 Page: 4 Filed: 09/09/2022
`
`FORM 9. Certificate of Interest
`
`Form 9 (p. 3)
`July 2020
`
`4. Legal Representatives. List all law firms, partners, and associates that (a)
`appeared for the entities in the originating court or agency or (b) are expected to
`appear in this court for the entities. Do not include those who have already
`entered an appearance in this court. Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(4).
`None/Not Applicable
`Additional pages attached
`
`5. Related Cases. Provide the case titles and numbers of any case known to be
`pending in this court or any other court or agency that will directly affect or be
`directly affected by this court’s decision in the pending appeal. Do not include the
`originating case number(s) for this case. Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(5). See also Fed. Cir.
`R. 47.5(b).
`None/Not Applicable
`
`Additional pages attached
`
`6. Organizational Victims and Bankruptcy Cases. Provide any information
`required under Fed. R. App. P. 26.1(b) (organizational victims in criminal cases)
`and 26.1(c) (bankruptcy case debtors and trustees). Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(6).
`None/Not Applicable
`Additional pages attached
`
`Seth Hasenour
`
`Drew Hollander
`
`4
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case: 22-162 Document: 9 Page: 5 Filed: 09/09/2022
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`INTRODUCTION …………………………………………………………………1
`
`REASONS FOR DENYING THE PETITION ……………………………………3
`
`
`I.
`
`The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Granting
`Apple’s Motion to Supplement ………………………………………….4
`
`II. Apple Can Seek Alternate Relief that It Has Yet to Request ……………8
`
`III. Under No Circumstances Is a Stay Warranted ……………………...….10
`
`
`CONCLUSION ………………………………………………………………..…11
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`Case: 22-162 Document: 9 Page: 6 Filed: 09/09/2022
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Cases
`Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for Dist. Of Columbia,
`542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004) ...................................................................................... 3
`CPC Pat. Techs. Pty Ltd. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 6:21-cv-00165, Dkt. No. 82 (W.D. Tex. Feb. 8, 2022) .................................. 6
`
`GUI Global Prods., Ltd. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 4:20-cv-02652, Dkt. No. 40 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 3, 2020). ................................ 6
`GUI Glob. Prod., Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`No. 4:20-CV-2624, 2021 WL 3705005 (S.D. Tex. May 28, 2021) ..................... 6
`In re Apple Inc., 979 F.3d 1332, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ........................................... 5
`In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................. 3
`In re Google Inc., No. 2015-138, 2015 WL 5294800 (Fed. Cir. July 16, 2015) ...... 8
`In re Hewlett Packard Enter. Co.,
`No. 2022-154, 2022 WL 3209326, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 9, 2022) ....................... 7
`In re HTC Corp., 889 F.3d 1349, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ......................................... 3
`In re Superior Crewboats, Inc., 374 F.3d 330, 334 (5th Cir. 2004) ....................... 11
`In re Vistaprint Ltd., 628 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................... 3
`In re Volkswagen of Am. Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 319 (5th Cir. 2008) ........................... 8
`
`In re Volkswagen of Am. Inc., 566 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ...................... 3
`Scramoge Tech. Ltd. v. Apple Inc.,
` No. 6:21-cv-00579 WL 1667561 (W.D. Tex. May 25, 2022) ....................... 5,6,7
`Scramoge Tech. Ltd. v. Apple Inc.,
` No. 3:22-cv-03041, Dkt. No. 113 (N.D. Cal. July 28, 2022) ............................... 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case: 22-162 Document: 9 Page: 7 Filed: 09/09/2022
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The petition concerns no garden-variety transfer situation; rather, this is an
`
`unusual request stemming wholly from Apple’s failure to submit all of its supporting
`
`evidence when filing its transfer motion. Apple added seven employee declarations
`
`to bolster its transfer motion just as venue discovery was closing, more than two
`
`months after filing its transfer motion. The District Court could have simply rejected
`
`this new evidence as untimely, and Apple would have had no room to complain.
`
`Instead, the District Court gave Apple everything it wanted: relying on Apple’s
`
`representation that it would not oppose a continuance, it accepted the seven late
`
`declarations and ordered the parties to submit a new schedule to resolve the transfer
`
`motion. Notably, the District Court’s order specifically defers the Markman hearing
`
`until after resolution of the transfer motion.
`
`This was a proper exercise of the District Court’s discretion to accept untimely
`
`evidence and manage its docket, and follows all applicable precedent from this Court
`
`and the Fifth Circuit. What is improper is Apple’s attempt to delay this case on
`
`account of its own negligence. Aire seeks prompt resolution of Apple’s transfer
`
`motion and opposed Apple’s request to supplement with the seven declarations
`
`precisely because it would invite delay. Aire’s investigation has already revealed
`
`strong witness and evidentiary contacts with the Western District of Texas, and Aire
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case: 22-162 Document: 9 Page: 8 Filed: 09/09/2022
`
`is prepared to stand on its existing transfer briefing.1 Aire therefore consents to
`
`resolving Apple’s transfer motion at any time, provided that no stay interfere with
`
`discovery, Markman proceedings, or the preparation of this case for trial.
`
`This is not an extraordinary situation that requires the extraordinary remedy
`
`of mandamus. This is an ordinary docket management issue that Apple precipitated,
`
`not Aire or the District Court. Apple prevailed on its motion to supplement with its
`
`new declarations, but Apple never made a request to Aire or the District Court to
`
`adjust the relief it was granted—had it done so, Aire would not have opposed a
`
`prompt transfer ruling. This availability of alternate relief precludes mandamus.
`
`Moreover, mandamus is inappropriate because Apple has only itself to blame for its
`
`decision to initially source all Apple transfer evidence to just one person, whose
`
`declaration revealed serious vulnerabilities in Apple’s arguments. Apple’s later
`
`realization of this strategic blunder and belated attempt to fix it is not the type of
`
`mandamus case that warrants this Court’s attention.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Apple’s assertion that “this case lacks any connection to the Western District
`of Texas” ignores Aire’s showing of relevant witnesses and evidence in the district.
`Pet. at 6. Although Apple acknowledges that Aire accuses Apple of “infringing its
`patents by virtue of their Apple Pay contactless payment features,” Apple failed to
`identify its many Apple Pay employees in Austin, Texas. Pet. at 5. Aire’s
`investigation revealed more than two dozen Apple Pay employees in Austin with
`relevant knowledge. Appx216-219.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case: 22-162 Document: 9 Page: 9 Filed: 09/09/2022
`
`REASONS FOR DENYING THE PETITION
`
`Apple bears a heavy burden to prevail on its petition. 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). This Court holds that “[t]he writ of
`
`mandamus is available in extraordinary situations to correct a clear abuse of
`
`discretion or usurpation of judicial power.” In re Volkswagen of Am. Inc., 566 F.3d
`
`1349, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`
`A writ of mandamus may issue only if the petitioner satisfies three
`
`requirements: (1) the petitioner 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 show that the writ is
`
`“appropriate under the circumstances.” In re HTC Corp., 889 F.3d 1349, 1352 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2018). The petition should be denied “[i]f the facts and circumstances are
`
`rationally capable of providing reasons for what the district court has done.” In re
`
`Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citation omitted); In re
`
`Vistaprint Ltd., 628 F.3d 1342, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (holding that mandamus is
`
`inappropriate where there is “plausible support of record” for the district court’s
`
`decision).
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case: 22-162 Document: 9 Page: 10 Filed: 09/09/2022
`
`Apple fails to meet these stringent requirements. This is an unusual case that
`
`does not hew closely to precedent—seldom does the prevailing party in district court
`
`enlist the help of this Court to undo what it has won. In this situation without clear
`
`analogy, it cannot be said that the District Court committed an abuse of discretion,
`
`much less a clear abuse as required by the mandamus standard. The petition should
`
`additionally be denied because Aire consents to the determination of the transfer
`
`motion now. Finally, although Apple requests a stay pending resolution of the
`
`transfer motion, the petition fails to explain why a stay would be warranted. The
`
`petition should be denied.
`
`I.
`
`The District Court Did Not Abuse Its Discretion in Granting
`Apple’s Motion to Supplement
`
`Apple fails to show how the District Court committed an abuse of discretion
`
`when it ruled in Apple’s favor and granted leave to submit untimely transfer
`
`evidence. Specifically, Apple now complains about the delay that Apple injected
`
`into the transfer briefing process at the very end of venue discovery. This Court
`
`should not allow Apple to pass that blame onto the District Court, which has
`
`established procedures to dispose of transfer motions in a timely, orderly fashion.
`
`Apple is solely responsible for the delay, and it was not an abuse of discretion for
`
`the District Court to attempt to accommodate Apple’s delay.
`
`The District Court has a standing order that specifically prioritizes transfer
`
`decisions before Markman proceedings, so as to avoid the very timing issues
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case: 22-162 Document: 9 Page: 11 Filed: 09/09/2022
`
`previously addressed by this Court. Appx162-163; see In re Apple Inc., 979 F.3d
`
`1332, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (holding that deciding a transfer motion “should take
`
`‘top priority,’ in advance of “a Markman hearing and claim construction order[,
`
`which] are two of the most important and time-intensive substantive tasks a district
`
`court undertakes in a patent case”). The standing order also limits venue discovery
`
`to no later than ten weeks after the filing of a transfer motion, after which the non-
`
`movant is required to file a transfer response within two weeks. Appx162.
`
`Venue issues in this case were on track to be promptly resolved until Apple
`
`decided to supplement its transfer motion with the seven new declarations, to back
`
`up the statements in the sole Apple employee declaration submitted in support
`
`thereof—the declaration of Mr. Rollins. Appx176. Apple’s justification for this was
`
`that, about one month after filing its transfer motion in this case, an order in
`
`Scramoge Technology Ltd. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00579 (W.D. Tex. May 25,
`
`2022), “criticized statements Mr. Rollins had made in other cases.” Pet. at 8. Apple
`
`represents to this Court that prior to the May 25, 2022 Scramoge order criticizing
`
`Mr. Rollins, “Apple had no reason to know that the district court would take issue
`
`with this manner of presenting corporate information in support of a transfer
`
`motion.” Pet. at 8-9.
`
`That representation is factually incorrect. Several court opinions had already
`
`criticized Mr. Rollins for his vague, unsupported declarations in advance of the May
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case: 22-162 Document: 9 Page: 12 Filed: 09/09/2022
`
`25, 2022 Scramoge order and Apple’s April 14, 2022 transfer motion in this case.
`
`See, e.g., Scramoge Tech. Ltd. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:21-CV-00579-ADA, 2022 WL
`
`1667561, at *4 n.3 (W.D. Tex. May 25, 2022) (“this Court noticed Mr. Rollins’s
`
`offenses across many cases and has long treated Mr. Rollins with skepticism,
`
`especially given Apple’s history of avoiding discovery obligations”); CPC Pat.
`
`Techs. Pty Ltd. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00165, Dkt. No. 82, at 7 (W.D. Tex. Feb.
`
`8, 2022) (finding “that no relevant physical evidence exists” given that “Mr. Rollins
`
`does not provide the basis of his understanding, explain the process he used to search
`
`for physical documents, or identify a relevant business practice of keeping physical
`
`documents for the accused products”); GUI Glob. Prod., Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`
`No. 4:20-CV-2624, 2021 WL 3705005, at *2 (S.D. Tex. May 28, 2021) (holding
`
`that, “[b]ased on Rollins’ vague assertions as to the actual location of Defendant’s
`
`physical sources of proof, the Court is unable to determine that such evidence
`
`supports transfer to the Northern District of California,” and “Rollins’ declaration
`
`merely relies on assertions from third-party individuals who themselves have not
`
`submitted sworn testimony to this Court.”).2
`
`
`2 This opinion erroneously identified Mr. Rollins’s first name as “Michael.” Apple’s
`motion to transfer that case relies on the “Declaration of Mark Rollins.” GUI Global
`Prods., Ltd. v. Apple Inc., No. 4:20-cv-02652, Dkt. No. 40, at 4 (S.D. Tex. Nov. 3,
`2020).
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case: 22-162 Document: 9 Page: 13 Filed: 09/09/2022
`
`Nor was the District Court incorrect in finding that “Mr. Rollins routinely
`
`offers information about topics a financial manager would typically not know.”
`
`Scramoge, 2022 WL 1667561, at *3 (“The Rollins Declaration purports to state the
`
`locations of technical and marketing data stored typically known only to respective
`
`custodians of those documents, such as engineers and marketing personnel.”). After
`
`Apple succeeded in transferring Scramoge to the Northern District of California,
`
`Apple moved to vacate the District Court’s findings as to Mr. Rollins on the basis
`
`that its “credibility determination is baseless and contravenes basic corporate
`
`representative practices.” Appx384. The motion was denied. Scramoge Tech. Ltd.
`
`v. Apple Inc., No. 3:22-cv-03041, Dkt. No. 113 (N.D. Cal. July 28, 2022). Requiring
`
`that evidentiary assertions in transfer motions be supported by declarants with
`
`personal knowledge is a common requirement that should not have caught Apple by
`
`surprise. See In re Hewlett Packard Enter. Co., No. 2022-154, 2022 WL 3209326,
`
`at *2 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 9, 2022) (faulting the movant-petitioner for relying on a
`
`declaration stating that “technical documents were located ‘primarily with the
`
`persons that design, develop, and test it,’” instead of “declarations from any
`
`employee confirming possession of such technical documents”).
`
`Apple was aware of the problems with relying so heavily on Mr. Rollins and
`
`should have sourced its transfer evidence in a more reliable and timely fashion.
`
`Because Apple cannot argue that it was caught off guard by the Scramoge ruling on
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Case: 22-162 Document: 9 Page: 14 Filed: 09/09/2022
`
`Mr. Rollins, Apple attempts to rely on In re Google Inc., No. 2015-138, 2015 WL
`
`5294800 (Fed. Cir. July 16, 2015), in support of its argument that “a defendant’s
`
`motion to supplement the transfer record” cannot justify what the District Court did
`
`here. Pet. at 23. But Apple’s petition omits a key fact from the holding: Google did
`
`not want any further delay as a result of its supplementation request. Google, 2015
`
`WL 5294800, at *1 (“Google expressly asked the district court to deny the request
`
`if it meant further delay on the transfer motion”). This case thus cuts against Apple’s
`
`argument because Apple’s motion to supplement not only failed to make the same
`
`request as in Google, but it expressly assured the District Court that a resulting
`
`“continuance would not affect the overall trajectory of this case,” which the District
`
`Court relied on. Appx181; Appx2. Apple cannot have it both ways.3
`
`II. Apple Can Seek Alternate Relief that It Has Yet to Request
`
`In the typical transfer petition heard by this Court, the movant has failed to
`
`convince the non-movant and the district court that another venue is clearly more
`
`convenient. Faced with such combined opposition, there is no alternate relief for the
`
`movant, who must seek mandamus review from this Court to avoid “the harm—
`
`inconvenience to witnesses, parties and other—[that] will already have been done
`
`
`3 Because the District Court did not abuse its discretion in granting Apple’s
`motion and allowing both parties to supplement the transfer record, Aire need not
`address Apple’s second criticism of the District Court’s opinion that “speculation
`and incomplete[] discovery often plagues early transfer motions.” Pet. at 24.
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Case: 22-162 Document: 9 Page: 15 Filed: 09/09/2022
`
`by the time the case is tried and appealed.” In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d
`
`304, 319 (5th Cir. 2008).
`
`This is not that typical transfer petition. Apple raced to file its petition without
`
`inquiring as to Aire’s position on the transfer briefing schedule. Had Apple done so,
`
`Aire would have agreed that the transfer motion should have been promptly decided
`
`in advance of the then-scheduled September 1, 2022 Markman hearing, as
`
`contemplated by the District Court’s standing order. Appx163. Apple knows this—
`
`Aire’s opposition to Apple’s supplemental transfer declarations was based in part on
`
`“the need for the Court to decide transfer issues in advance of the Markman hearing.”
`
`Appx198. Aire also argued “A Continuance Would Not Be Feasible” in view of the
`
`District Court’s standing order providing that the “Court will not conduct a Markman
`
`hearing until it has resolved the pending motion to transfer”; it was Aire’s adamant
`
`desire to avoid “yet another extension of the Markman hearing” because of
`
`unresolved transfer issues. Appx206.
`
`Aire’s non-opposition to the District Court’s prompt ruling on the transfer
`
`motion provides Apple an alternate path for relief. Apple similarly admits that it
`
`could “withdraw its requested supplement” to avoid further delay. Pet. at 24 n.4.
`
`This possibility of relief alone precludes the issuance of the writ of mandamus as
`
`sought by the petition.
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Case: 22-162 Document: 9 Page: 16 Filed: 09/09/2022
`
`III. Under No Circumstances Is a Stay Warranted
`
`Apple seeks “a writ of mandamus directing the district court to [1] vacate its
`
`scheduling order, [2] promptly rule on Apple’s pending transfer motion, and [3] stay
`
`all district court proceedings on the merits until the transfer has been resolved.” Pet.
`
`at 4. As discussed above, given that Aire also desires a prompt ruling on the transfer
`
`motion, Apple’s first two requests are not ripe for mandamus adjudication. Aire,
`
`however, opposes Apple’s request for a stay.
`
`No stay is warranted here because promptly resolving the transfer motion will
`
`alleviate any concerns of delay. Nor would a stay be warranted under the District
`
`Court’s existing order deferring resolution of the transfer motion. Although the
`
`petition specifically requests a stay, it does not even attempt to substantively argue
`
`that a stay is appropriate, and it should be denied. Pet. at 4.4 Apple only briefly lists
`
`common “steps” in patent litigation that would have to be completed in either the
`
`putative transferor or transferee venue. Pet. at 20-21.
`
`None of the steps identified by Apple implicate the convenience for Apple or
`
`its witnesses; nor do the steps implicate any decisions on the merits of the case.
`
`Claim construction briefing was completed on July 28, 2022, and there are no claim
`
`construction-related steps that will occur before the district court rules on the transfer
`
`
`4 Apple has filed a separate motion with this Court seeking a stay pending resolution
`of its mandamus petition. Dkt. No. 6. Aire will further explain why a stay is not
`warranted according to the Court’s order on that motion. Dkt. No. 8.
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Case: 22-162 Document: 9 Page: 17 Filed: 09/09/2022
`
`motion, given that the district court postponed the Markman hearing until after it
`
`rules on Apple’s transfer motion. Nor do any of the other steps identified by Apple
`
`implicate any decisions by the district court on the merits of the case. Rather, each
`
`of the steps involves typical deadlines in patent cases that would take place
`
`regardless of the venue. Moreover, these steps do not implicate Apple’s witnesses
`
`or inconvenience Apple with any travel.
`
`Finally, as noted above, Apple’s motion to supplement, which precipitated the
`
`delay Apple now complains of, assured the District Court that “fact discovery will
`
`commence on July 18 regardless of whether a continuance is or is not granted.”
`
`Appx181. Apple argued this to the District Court in the hopes of securing leave for
`
`its seven supplemental declarations. Now having achieved that goal, Apple is
`
`judicially estopped from arguing the contrary to put fact discovery on hold. See In
`
`re Superior Crewboats, Inc., 374 F.3d 330, 334 (5th Cir. 2004).
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`The Court should deny the petition.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Case: 22-162 Document: 9 Page: 18 Filed: 09/09/2022
`
`Dated: September 9, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/Brett Cooper
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Brett E. Cooper
`bcooper@b-clg.com
`Jonathan Yim
`jyim@b-clg.com
`BC LAW GROUP, P.C.
`200 Madison Avenue, 24th Floor
`New York, NY 10016
`Phone: (516) 359-9968
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Aire
`Technology Limited
`
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`Case: 22-162 Document: 9 Page: 19 Filed: 09/09/2022
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I certify that today, September 9, 2022, I electronically filed the foregoing
`
`document with the Clerk of the Court for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
`
`Circuit using the appellate CM/ECF system.
`
`I certify that today, September 9, 2022, I caused a copy of the foregoing to
`
`be served upon the district court via UPS:
`
`Hon. Alan D Albright
`United States District Court for the Western District of Texas
`800 Franklin Avenue, Room 301,
`Waco, Texas 76701
`Telephone: (254) 750-1501
`
`/s/Brett Cooper
`Brett E. Cooper
`Counsel for Aire Technology Limited
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 22-162 Document: 9 Page: 20 Filed: 09/09/2022
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`
`This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Fed. R. App. P.
`
`21(d)(1) because this brief contains 2,623 words, excluding the parts of the brief
`
`exempted by Fed. R. App. P. 32(f).
`
`This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(5)
`
`and the type-style requirements of Fed. R. App. P. 32(a)(6) because this brief has
`
`been prepared in a proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word in Times
`
`New Roman 14-point font.
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/Brett Cooper
`Brett E. Cooper
`Counsel for Aire Technology Limited
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
