throbber
Case: 22-164 Document: 2-1 Page: 1 Filed: 09/08/2022
`
`Miscellaneous Docket No. ___
`
`
`
`IN THE
`United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
`
`
`
`
`IN RE APPLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner.
`
`
`
`
`On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the
`United States District Court for the
`Western District of Texas
`No. 6:21-cv-01071-ADA, Hon. Alan D Albright
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.’S PETITION FOR
`WRIT OF MANDAMUS
`
`
`
`Melanie L. Bostwick
`Jonas Q. Wang
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON &
` SUTCLIFFE LLP
`1152 15th Street NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`(202) 339-8400
`
`
`
`Steven D. Moore
`KILPATRICK TOWNSEND &
` STOCKTON LLP
`Two Embarcadero Center
`Suite 1900
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`
`Mansi Shah
`KILPATRICK TOWNSEND &
` STOCKTON LLP
`1302 El Camino Real, Suite 175
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`
`Alton L. Absher III
`KILPATRICK TOWNSEND &
` STOCKTON LLP
`1001 West Fourth Street
`Winston-Salem, NC 27101
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 22-164 Document: 2-1 Page: 2 Filed: 09/08/2022
`
`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
`
`
`
`In re Apple Inc.
`
`Apple Inc.
`
`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.
`
`
`09/08/2022
`Date: _________________
`
`
`
`
`Signature:
`
`/s/ Melanie L. Bostwick
`
`
`
`
`
`Name:
`
`Melanie L. Bostwick
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case: 22-164 Document: 2-1 Page: 3 Filed: 09/08/2022
`
`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.
`
`(cid:1798) None/Not Applicable (cid:1798) None/Not Applicable
`
`✔
`
`✔
`
`Apple Inc.
`
`Additional pages attached
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case: 22-164 Document: 2-1 Page: 4 Filed: 09/08/2022
`
`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
`
`Kelly Hart & Hallman LLP
`
`J. Stephen Ravel
`
`Rishi Gupta
`
`Andrew W. Rinehart
`
`Amanda N. Brouillette
`
`Kasey E. Koballa
`
`Christopher P. Schaffer
`
`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
`
`In re Apple Inc., No. 22-162 (Fed. Cir.)
`
`In re Apple Inc., No. 22-163 (Fed. Cir.)
`
`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
`
`✔
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case: 22-164 Document: 2-1 Page: 5 Filed: 09/08/2022
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST ................................................................. i
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ..................................................................... vi
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES ...................................................... 1
`INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 2
`RELIEF SOUGHT ..................................................................................... 4
`ISSUE PRESENTED ................................................................................ 5
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ................ 5
`Scramoge sues Apple for patent infringement in the Western
`District of Texas despite having no connection to that
`district ..................................................................................... 5
`Apple moves to transfer the suit to the Northern District of
`California, and venue discovery proceeds .............................. 7
`The district court sua sponte orders the parties to complete
`fact discovery and “re-brief” Apple’s transfer motion
`before it will consider whether to transfer venue ................ 14
`REASONS FOR ISSUING THE WRIT .................................................. 16
`I.
`Apple Has A Clear And Indisputable Right To The
`Writ. ....................................................................................... 17
`A.
`The district court clearly abused its discretion by
`violating binding precedent requiring courts to
`prioritize transfer motions. .......................................... 17
`The district court’s stated reasons for its
`extraordinary order cannot justify its departure
`from precedent. ............................................................ 23
`II. Apple Has No Other Adequate Means To Obtain Relief. ..... 29
`III. Mandamus Is Appropriate Here Because Apple Has A
`Strong Case For Transfer And The Equities Heavily
`Favor Apple. .......................................................................... 32
`
`B.
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case: 22-164 Document: 2-1 Page: 6 Filed: 09/08/2022
`
`A.
`
`The clearly superior convenience of the Northern
`District of California makes the court-mandated
`delay especially unjustified. ......................................... 32
`1.
`The private-interest factors strongly favor
`transfer. ............................................................... 33
`The public-interest factors also favor transfer. .. 37
`2.
`The equities heavily favor Apple. ................................ 38
`B.
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................ 42
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case: 22-164 Document: 2-1 Page: 7 Filed: 09/08/2022
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`In re Acer Am. Corp.,
`626 F.3d 1252 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ........................................................... 34
`In re Apple Inc.,
`979 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ............ 18, 20, 21, 30, 31, 34, 38, 39, 40
`In re Apple Inc.,
`No. 2021-181, 2021 WL 5291804 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2021) ............... 35
`Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct.,
`542 U.S. 367 (2004) ....................................................................... 16, 32
`Cont’l Grain Co. v. The Barge FBL-585,
`364 U.S. 19 (1960) ............................................................................... 17
`In re EMC Corp.,
`501 F. App’x 973 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ................................................. 18, 21
`In re Fusion-IO, Inc.,
`489 F. App’x 465 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ....................................................... 21
`In re Genentech, Inc.,
`566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................... 34, 35, 36
`In re Google Inc.,
`No. 2015-138, 2015 WL 5294800 (Fed. Cir. July
`16, 2015) ........................................................... 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 30, 39
`In re Hoffman-La Roche, Inc.,
`587 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ........................................................... 35
`In re Horseshoe Ent.,
`337 F.3d 429 (5th Cir. 2003) ......................................................... 19, 22
`In re Juniper Networks, Inc.,
`14 F. 4th 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ......................................... 25, 34, 36, 38
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case: 22-164 Document: 2-1 Page: 8 Filed: 09/08/2022
`
`McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Polin,
`429 F.2d 30 (3d Cir. 1970) ................................................ 18, 21, 25, 40
`In re Netflix, Inc.,
`No. 2021-190, 2021 WL 4944826 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 25, 2021) ................ 19
`In re Nintendo Co.,
`544 F. App’x 934 (Fed. Cir. 2013) ................................................. 18, 21
`In re Nintendo Co.,
`589 F.3d 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ..................................................... 33, 36
`In re Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`2 F.4th 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ........................................................ 36, 38
`In re SK hynix Inc.,
`835 F. App’x 600 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................... 19, 20, 22, 30, 31
`In re TracFone Wireless, Inc.,
`848 F. App’x 899 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ........................................... 19, 22, 31
`Van Dusen v. Barrack,
`376 U.S. 612 (1964) ....................................................................... 30, 39
`In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc.,
`545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) ................................. 16, 32, 33, 37, 39, 41
`In re Wyeth,
`406 F. App’x 475 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ....................................................... 18
`Statutes
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) ............................................. 2, 3, 19, 20, 30, 32, 37, 39
`Rules and Regulations
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(6) .............................................................................. 8
`Other Authorities
`Apple’s Response to Petition for Rehearing En Banc, In re
`Apple Inc., No. 20-135, Dkt. 70 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 29, 2020) .................. 28
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case: 22-164 Document: 2-1 Page: 9 Filed: 09/08/2022
`
`Discovery and Scheduling Order, Aire Tech. Ltd. v. Apple
`Inc., 6:21-cv-01101-ADA, Dkt. No. 54 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 22,
`2022) .................................................................................................... 16
`Discovery and Scheduling Order, XR Commc’ns LLC v.
`Apple, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00620-ADA, Dkt. No. 68 (W.D.
`Tex. Aug. 25, 2022) ............................................................................. 16
`Discovery and Scheduling Order, XR Commc’ns v. Asustek
`Comput. Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00622-ADA, Dkt. 55 (W.D. Tex.
`Aug. 25, 2022) ..................................................................................... 16
`Joint Stipulation of Dismissal, Koss Corp. v. Apple Inc., No.
`6:20-cv-00665-ADA, Dkt. 303 (W.D. Tex. July 23, 2022) ................... 26
`Order of Dismissal, Koss Corp. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:20-cv-
`00665-ADA, Dkt. 304 (W.D. Tex. July 23, 2022)................................ 26
`
`
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case: 22-164 Document: 2-1 Page: 10 Filed: 09/08/2022
`
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
`No other appeal in or from the same proceeding the Waco Division
`
`of the Western District of Texas was previously before this or any other
`
`appellate court.
`
`Apple is aware of two cases that may directly affect or be directly
`
`affected by the Court’s resolution of this mandamus petition. Those
`
`cases involve similar facts as this one, and the district court entered
`
`substantively identical orders to the one at issue in this petition. Apple
`
`previously filed petitions for a writ of mandamus in each of those cases;
`
`those petitions are pending before this Court as In re Apple Inc., No. 22-
`
`162 (Fed. Cir.), and In re Apple Inc., No. 22-163 (Fed. Cir.).
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case: 22-164 Document: 2-1 Page: 11 Filed: 09/08/2022
`
`INTRODUCTION
`This Court has held that motions to transfer venue under 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1404(a) must be decided promptly, at the outset of litigation,
`
`before the case has progressed substantially on the merits. Indeed, the
`
`purpose of § 1404(a) transfer is to ensure that litigation takes place in a
`
`convenient forum with some meaningful connection to the dispute.
`
`Delaying a transfer ruling beyond decisions that affect the substantive
`
`issues in the litigation undermines that purpose by forcing litigants and
`
`a district court to spend time and resources proceeding in a forum that
`
`may not ultimately try the case. Thus, this Court has granted
`
`mandamus relief to order district courts to decide a transfer motion that
`
`has lingered on the docket while the case matures into substantive
`
`steps like discovery, claim construction, and other merits matters.
`
`Here, without ruling on Apple’s fully briefed transfer motion, the
`
`district court affirmatively ordered the parties to complete fact
`
`discovery and otherwise press forward on the merits, after which they
`
`must “renew” briefing on the transfer issue. Only then will the district
`
`court take up transfer. At that point, eleven months will have passed
`
`since Apple first filed its transfer motion—and since the transfer of
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 22-164 Document: 2-1 Page: 12 Filed: 09/08/2022
`
`another case involving the same parties and similar accused features to
`
`the Northern District of California. The parties will not only have
`
`completed fact discovery (with the district court resolving all discovery
`
`disputes), they will also have served final infringement and invalidity
`
`contentions, narrowed the asserted claims and prior art, and even
`
`exchanged their preliminary exhibit and witness lists for trial—all in a
`
`forum that this district court has already determined to be inconvenient
`
`in a case involving the same parties and a nearly identical § 1404(a)
`
`analysis.
`
`The district court entered the same scheduling order in two other
`
`cases, in which Apple has already sought this Court’s mandamus
`
`review. See In re Apple Inc., No. 22-162 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 1, 2022); In re
`
`Apple Inc., No. 22-163 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 6, 2022). Here, as in those cases,
`
`mandamus relief is warranted. Indeed, the district court’s substantial
`
`change in the schedule, and its violation of precedent, is even more
`
`perplexing in this case. Unlike in Apple’s two co-pending mandamus
`
`petitions, neither party sought to supplement the venue record here.
`
`The district court had even denied an unopposed request for a two-day
`
`extension on Apple’s transfer reply, citing the impending Markman
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 22-164 Document: 2-1 Page: 13 Filed: 09/08/2022
`
`hearing. Yet in its unprompted scheduling order issued just two weeks
`
`later, the court postponed the Markman hearing for nearly a year.
`
`The impetus for that about-face was plaintiff Scramoge’s motion to
`
`strike certain evidence from Apple’s transfer reply. But that evidence
`
`was responsive to new assertions by Scramoge in its transfer opposition
`
`brief. Moreover, Scramoge did not seek a delay in the resolution of
`
`transfer, and there was no basis to impose it. Indeed, that delay is
`
`particularly problematic here, since the parties’ related litigation will
`
`continue proceeding in the Northern District of California while this
`
`case proceeds in parallel, at least for the time being, in Texas.
`
`Mandamus is urgently needed to address the district court’s
`
`unlawful scheduling order, which has now been entered in at least four
`
`cases—three of them involving Apple. The Court should grant
`
`mandamus to ensure that transfer motions receive the priority they
`
`deserve.
`
`RELIEF SOUGHT
`Apple respectfully requests that the Court issue a writ of
`
`mandamus directing the district court to vacate its scheduling order,
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 22-164 Document: 2-1 Page: 14 Filed: 09/08/2022
`
`promptly rule on Apple’s pending transfer motion, and stay all district-
`
`court proceedings on the merits until transfer has been resolved.
`
`ISSUE PRESENTED
`Whether Apple is entitled to a writ of mandamus to correct the
`
`district court’s clear abuse of discretion in requiring the parties to
`
`complete full fact discovery and otherwise move the litigation forward
`
`on the merits for another eight months before the district court will
`
`consider whether to transfer this case.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
`
`Scramoge sues Apple for patent infringement in the Western
`District of Texas despite having no connection to that district
`Scramoge is an Irish patent-holding company headquartered in
`
`Dublin. Appx16-17. Scramoge has no ties to the Western District of
`
`Texas. See Appx52; Appx58.
`
`Nonetheless, in June and October 2021, Scramoge filed two patent
`
`lawsuits against Apple in the Waco Division of the Western District of
`
`Texas. See Appx16-28; Appx53; Appx173-183. In the first, Scramoge
`
`Technology Ltd. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00579-ADA (W.D. Tex. June
`
`7, 2021) (Scramoge I), Scramoge accused various models of Apple’s
`
`iPhone and AirPods products of infringing its patents covering aspects
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 22-164 Document: 2-1 Page: 15 Filed: 09/08/2022
`
`of wireless charging technology. Appx228. Because there was no
`
`meaningful connection to the Western District of Texas, Apple filed a
`
`motion to transfer on November 12, 2021. Appx184-206. The district
`
`court granted Apple’s motion on May 17, 2022, and transferred the case
`
`to the Northern District of California. Appx228-252.
`
`In the second suit—the case giving rise to this appeal—Scramoge
`
`Technology Ltd. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:21-cv-01071-ADA (W.D. Tex. Oct.
`
`14, 2021) (Scramoge II), Scramoge accused various models of Apple’s
`
`MagSafe Chargers and Apple Watch products of infringing its patents
`
`by virtue of their wireless inductive charging features. Appx16;
`
`Appx18-20; Appx24-25. As with Scramoge I, nothing about this
`
`litigation has any meaningful connection to Texas, much less the Waco
`
`Division of the Western District of Texas. Apple’s research, design,
`
`development, marketing, and finance operations for the accused
`
`features primarily take place in the Northern District of California,
`
`where Apple is headquartered. Appx75; Appx77. Apple’s likely trial
`
`witnesses are in California, including Apple employees who can explain
`
`the accused features to the jury and Apple engineers who participated
`
`in or are knowledgeable about the research, design, and development of
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 22-164 Document: 2-1 Page: 16 Filed: 09/08/2022
`
`the accused features. Appx76-78; Appx80-81. Indeed, two of the Apple
`
`employees identified as likely trial witnesses in this case were
`
`previously identified in Apple’s successful motion to transfer in
`
`Scramoge I—and the overlap of likely trial witnesses in Scramoge I and
`
`II is unsurprising, since the accused features in both cases concern
`
`wireless charging. Appx210-211; Appx77-78. Additionally, Apple has
`
`identified five prior art references in this case, for which the inventor or
`
`assignees are located in the Northern District of California. Appx108.
`
`Apple moves to transfer the suit to the Northern District of
`California, and venue discovery proceeds
`Because this case lacks any connection to the Western District of
`
`Texas, on May 11, 2022, Apple filed a motion to transfer the case to the
`
`Northern District of California. See Appx47-73. Venue discovery
`
`started shortly thereafter. See Appx33.
`
`Apple’s transfer motion explained that relevant documents and
`
`likely witnesses are located in the Northern District of California,
`
`where the accused technology was developed, and that neither
`
`Scramoge nor this litigation has any connection to the Western District
`
`of Texas. Appx53-58. The Northern District of California is where
`
`Apple is headquartered, where Apple’s management and primary
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case: 22-164 Document: 2-1 Page: 17 Filed: 09/08/2022
`
`research and development facilities are located, where Apple’s primary
`
`operation, marketing, sales, and finance decisions take place, and where
`
`more than 35,000 Apple employees work, including nearly all of Apple’s
`
`engineers who are knowledgeable about the accused features. Appx75-
`
`81. In contrast, Apple is unaware of any relevant documents or
`
`anticipated Apple witnesses in the Western District of Texas. Appx80.
`
`In support of its transfer motion, Apple relied on the declaration of
`
`Mark Rollins, a finance manager at Apple, to establish certain facts,
`
`such as the relevance, role, and locations of witnesses and their teams,
`
`as well as the relevance and locations of various categories of
`
`documents. Appx54-57. Mr. Rollins provided this information on behalf
`
`of Apple as a corporation—akin to a Rule 30(b)(6) deponent. See
`
`Appx75.
`
`In its opposition to Apple’s transfer motion, Scramoge made little
`
`attempt to show any connection to, or convenience in, the Texas forum
`
`it chose. Instead, Scramoge principally attacked the credibility of Apple
`
`and its corporate declarant, Mr. Rollins. Scramoge’s attacks relied
`
`heavily on an order the same district court entered in Scramoge I just
`
`days after Apple filed its transfer motion in this case. In the Scramoge
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case: 22-164 Document: 2-1 Page: 18 Filed: 09/08/2022
`
`I order, the district court granted Apple’s motion to transfer to the
`
`Northern District of California. Appx228-252. In doing so, the district
`
`court sua sponte ruled on the “credibility” of Mr. Rollins, who had
`
`provided a similar declaration this case. Appx228; Appx230-236.
`
`Apple has elsewhere demonstrated that the district court’s ruling
`
`in Scramoge I identified no misstatements or other credibility
`
`deficiencies in the testimony given by Mr. Rollins. See Appx253-262
`
`(Apple’s motion to seal portions of the Scramoge I transfer order);
`
`Appx264-281 (Apple’s motion to vacate portions of the Scramoge I
`
`transfer order). Instead, the district court faulted Mr. Rollins for doing
`
`exactly what corporate witnesses are obligated to do: gathering
`
`information from individuals within Apple and relaying that
`
`information on behalf of the company. See generally Appx228-252.
`
`Seeking to capitalize on the Scramoge I order, however, Scramoge
`
`requested in its transfer opposition in this case that the district court
`
`draw adverse inferences against Apple in light of Apple’s reliance on a
`
`corporate declaration provided by Mr. Rollins. Appx92-95. Scramoge
`
`also raised a number of new factual speculations regarding the location
`
`of (i) potential third-party witnesses employed by Apple suppliers Texas
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case: 22-164 Document: 2-1 Page: 19 Filed: 09/08/2022
`
`Instruments and STMicroelectronics and (ii) a handful of Austin-based
`
`Apple employees that Scramoge asserted had relevant knowledge.
`
`Appx92; Appx95-100.
`
`To rebut Scramoge’s misplaced reliance on the Scramoge I order
`
`and to correct Scramoge’s newly raised factual assertions and
`
`arguments, Apple acted promptly to investigate and obtain declarations
`
`from Apple employees whom Scramoge put at issue in its opposition.
`
`Appx118-120; Appx124-126. For example, in its motion to transfer and
`
`in Mr. Rollins’s declaration, Apple explained that Rohan Dayal, who is a
`
`Hardware Development Manager in the Wireless Charging Technology
`
`Group responsible for the wireless charging circuitry for the Apple
`
`Watch, does not work in the Western District of Texas, and that his
`
`workplace is instead located in the Northern District of California.
`
`Appx77. Apple also provided evidence regarding the responsibilities of
`
`Mr. Dayal and his team and the location of relevant team members—
`
`including the fact that none are in Texas. Appx77-78. In its opposition,
`
`Scramoge raised a number of unfounded suppositions, including that
`
`“Mr. Rollins’s investigation was incomplete” regarding the venue
`
`convenience for witnesses like Mr. Dayal. Appx97. Accordingly, in
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case: 22-164 Document: 2-1 Page: 20 Filed: 09/08/2022
`
`reply, instead of submitting a second declaration from Mr. Rollins,
`
`Apple obtained a declaration directly from Mr. Dayal confirming Mr.
`
`Rollins’s attestations that the Northern District of California was a
`
`more convenient venue. Among other things, and contrary to
`
`Scramoge’s arguments, Mr. Dayal averred that his “workplace is in the
`
`Northern District of California,” that he does “not work in the Western
`
`District of Texas,” and that the “design and development work on the
`
`Accused Features takes place in Apple’s physical labs located in
`
`Cupertino, California.” Appx119.
`
`Apple also provided declarations from additional Apple employees
`
`whom Scramoge had first identified in its transfer opposition, asserting
`
`that Apple had “inexplicably omit[ted] mention of” them. Appx98. But
`
`those employees, Apple explained, “have no relevance to this case.”
`
`Appx110-111. Each of these new witness declarations likewise relied on
`
`the declarant’s personal knowledge. Appx114-126. In other words,
`
`each piece of Apple’s reply evidence directly responded to an argument
`
`or factual assertion Scramoge put at issue in its opposition. Because
`
`Scramoge introduced a number of arguments and evidentiary issues in
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case: 22-164 Document: 2-1 Page: 21 Filed: 09/08/2022
`
`its opposition that it had not previously raised during venue discovery,
`
`Apple could not have anticipated those issues in its opening motion.
`
`On August 17, 2022, Apple served these additional declarations on
`
`Scramoge and filed them as exhibits to Apple’s reply brief in support of
`
`its transfer motion.1 Appx113. Apple’s reply explained how the
`
`declarations were directly responsive to arguments and assertions that
`
`Scramoge had raised for the first time in its transfer opposition. Apple
`
`further explained that, during the three months of venue discovery,
`
`Scramoge had declined to take the deposition of Mr. Rollins or any
`
`witness identified in his declaration. Appx163.
`
`Scramoge responded to Apple’s transfer reply by insisting that
`
`this “new” evidence was improper, and stating its intention to move to
`
`strike under the view that it lacked an opportunity to respond to
`
`Apple’s reply. Appx134-135; Appx152. Apple demonstrated how all of
`
`
`1 Limited to five pages and 14 days to respond to Scramoge’s 20-page
`opposition, which had exhibits numbering nearly 300 pages, Apple
`sought a one-week extension of time and five additional pages to reply.
`Appx142-145. Scramoge agreed to a two-day, two-page extension.
`Appx144-145. But the district court allowed only the two additional
`pages and denied any additional time, citing the upcoming Markman
`hearing that it later postponed, Appx142, inhibiting a full airing of the
`record and legal arguments.
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case: 22-164 Document: 2-1 Page: 22 Filed: 09/08/2022
`
`the evidence was proper rebuttal, but nonetheless offered Scramoge the
`
`opportunity to file a sur-reply. Appx164.
`
`Scramoge, however, did not take Apple up on its offer. Instead,
`
`Scramoge moved to strike what it alleged to be improper evidence in
`
`Apple’s transfer reply brief. Appx130. Scramoge asserted that Apple
`
`had “unilateral[ly] deci[ded] to inject new Apple evidence,” in
`
`“contraven[tion of] the Court’s procedures for deciding transfer and
`
`claim construction in fair, orderly, and expedient fashion.” Appx130.
`
`But Scramoge did not identify a single piece of evidence Apple provided
`
`in its reply that did not directly respond to an argument Scramoge
`
`introduced for the first time in its opposition. Appx163; Appx108-109.
`
`And notably absent from Scramoge’s motion to strike was any request
`
`for additional venue discovery, let alone any delay in resolving transfer.
`
`See Appx127-138.
`
`In opposing Scramoge’s motion to strike, Apple again
`
`demonstrated that the evidence Scramoge sought to strike responded
`
`directly to arguments raised by Scramoge in its response. Appx166.
`
`This included Scramoge’s unfounded speculation as to the location of
`
`potential witnesses, along with unverified and cherry-picked LinkedIn
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case: 22-164 Document: 2-1 Page: 23 Filed: 09/08/2022
`
`profiles of Apple employees provided in the voluminous exhibits
`
`attached to Scramoge’s opposition—all of which necessitated an
`
`evidentiary response. Appx163; Appx167.
`
`The district court sua sponte orders the parties to complete fact
`discovery and “re-brief” Apple’s transfer motion before it will
`consider whether to transfer venue
`On August 26, 2022, the district court granted in part Scramoge’s
`
`motion to strike. Appx1-3. The district court ruled that, “in lieu of
`
`striking” Apple’s evidence and argument, it would “give Scramoge” “an
`
`opportunity to investigate and respond to the new facts and arguments”
`
`in Apple’s reply. Appx1; Appx3. In doing so, however, the district court
`
`also postponed ruling on Apple’s transfer motion—which at that point
`
`was fully briefed—until after the completion of fact discovery on the
`
`merits. The district court stated that “[f]ull fact discovery will allow the
`
`parties to provide the Court with the best evidence for ruling on a
`
`motion to transfer.” Appx2. Although neither party had asked for a
`
`revised schedule, the district court sua sponte issued a new discovery
`
`and scheduling order, which requires the parties to “re-brief the motion
`
`to transfer … after the parties conduct fact discovery and determine
`
`which witnesses and evidence they intend to call at trial.” Appx2.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case: 22-164 Document: 2-1 Page: 24 Filed: 09/08/2022
`
`The order provides for 30 weeks of fact discovery, to be followed by
`
`six weeks of additional briefing on the transfer motion. Appx6-7. In
`
`other words, the district court ordered the parties to engage in more
`
`than eight months of fact discovery and briefing before it will even
`
`consider whether to transfer venue. During this time, the parties also
`
`will be required to take other substantive steps in the litigation, all
`
`according to the district court’s particular rules and limitations (even if
`
`those rules differ from the ones in force in the ultimate transferee
`
`forum). These include: litigating discovery disputes; adding parties
`
`before the district court’s deadline passes; serving final infringement
`
`and invalidity contentions; amending pleadings; narrowing the asserted
`
`claims and prior art; litigating any dispute over that narrowing; and
`
`exchanging preliminary exhibit and witness lists for trial. See Appx4-6.
`
`Moreover, although the order states that the district court “finds it
`
`prudent to have the parties … re-brief the motion to transfer,” Appx2, it
`
`does not allow Apple to file a new motion to transfer accounting for any
`
`additional information gleaned in months of discovery. It instead
`
`allows Scramoge to file a new opposition and Apple to file a new reply,
`
`and permits Scramoge to file a sur-reply for the first time. Appx6-7.
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case: 22-164 Document: 2-1 Page: 25 Filed: 09/08/2022
`
`While unusual, the discovery and scheduling order in this case is
`
`not a one-off. Indeed, in the span of a week, the district court has
`
`entered nearly identical orders in at least three other patent-
`
`infringement cases (two against Apple) with pending motions to
`
`transfer venue. See, e.g., XR Commc’ns LLC v. Apple, Inc., No. 6:21-cv-
`
`00620-ADA, Dkt. No. 68 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 25, 2022), Appx384-386; XR
`
`Commc’ns v. Asustek Comput. Inc., No. 6:21-cv-00622-ADA, Dkt. 55
`
`(W.D. Tex. Aug. 25, 2022), Appx388-390; Aire Tech. Ltd. v. Apple Inc.,
`
`6:21-cv-01101-ADA, Dkt. No. 54 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 22, 2022), Appx282-
`
`288. Each of these orders requires the parties to complete fact
`
`discovery and additional briefing, again over the course of more than
`
`several months, before the district court will consider whether to
`
`transfer venue.
`
`REASONS FOR ISSUING THE WRIT
`A petitioner seeking mandamus relief must (1) show a “clear and
`
`indisputable” right to the writ; (2) have “no other adequate means to
`
`attain the relief [it] desires”; and (3) demonstrate that “the writ is
`
`appropriate under the circumstances.” In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc.,
`
`545 F.3d 304, 311 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (Volkswagen II) (quoting
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case: 22-164 Document: 2-1 Page: 2

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