`
`
`N
`OTE : This order is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`In Re FINTIV, INC.,
`Petitioner
`______________________
`
`2025-142
`______________________
`
`On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
`District Court for the Western District of Texas in No. 1:21-
`cv-00896-ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright.
`______________________
`
`ON PETITION AND MOTION
`______________________
`Before TARANTO , CUNNINGHAM , and STARK , Circuit
`Judges .
`PER CURIAM .
`O R D E R
`Fintiv, Inc. petitions for a writ of mandamus direc ting
`the United States District Court for the Western District of
`Texas to postpone a trial scheduled for August 4, 2025, and
`moves to stay trial pending disposition of the petition. Spe-
`cifically, Fintiv argues that the district court er rs by pro-
`ceeding with trial (1) without first permitting it to take
`certain discovery and (2) despite Fintiv’s lead counsel hav-
`ing a scheduling conflict with a hearing in a different case.
`Apple Inc. opposes.
`Case: 25-142 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 08/01/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` IN RE FINTIV , INC . 2
`The remedy of mandamus is available only in “excep-
`tional” situations to correct a “clear abuse of dis cretion or
`usurpation of judicial power” by a trial court. In re Calmar,
`Inc. , 854 F.2d 461, 464 (Fed. Cir. 1988). A party seeking a
`writ bears the burden of proving that it has no “ad equate
`alternative” to obtain the same relief, Mallard v. U.S. Dist.
`Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa , 490 U.S. 296, 309 (1989), and
`that the right to issuance of the writ is “clear and indisput-
`able,” Will v. Calvert Fire Ins. , 437 U.S. 655, 666 (1978) (in-
`ternal quotation marks omitted). Fintiv has not me t that
`standard here. Fintiv indicated to the district court that it
`could proceed with the trial on the current date, even with
`its counsel’s scheduling conflict, if it received t he desired
`discovery. Appx031–32. And before this petition was filed,
`the other court rescheduled its hearing to four day s after
`this trial is anticipated to end. At a minimum, Fi ntiv has
`not shown that an appeal after final judgment would be in-
`adequate to raise its challenges to the district co urt’s rul-
`ings or shown a clear and indisputable right to rel ief from
`the current trial date under the circumstances.
`Accordingly,
` I T IS ORDERED THAT :
` The petition and motion to stay are denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`August 1, 2025
` Date
`FOR THE COURT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 25-142 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 08/01/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`