Case: 20-112 Document: 2 Page: 1 Filed: 01/08/2020
`
`No.
`United States Court Of Appeals
`For The Federal Circuit
`
`IN RE APPLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`__________
`
`ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO
`THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS,
`CASE NO. 2:19-CV-00025, JUDGE RODNEY GILSTRAP
`__________
`NON-CONFIDENTIAL PETITION AND APPENDIX
` FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
`
`Douglas Hallward-Driemeier
`Kathryn Thornton
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`2099 Pennsylvania Ave. NW
`Washington, DC 20037
`Phone: (202) 508-4600
`Fax: (202) 508-6807
`
`Dated: January 7, 2020
`
`James R. Batchelder
`Mark D. Rowland
`Gabrielle E. Higgins
`Henry Huang
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303-2284
`Tel: (650) 617-4000
`Fax: (650) 617-4090
`Attorneys for the Petitioner
`
`Rembrandt Wireless
`Ex. 2010
`Apple Inc. v. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP, IPR2020-00033
`Page 1 of 345
`
`

`

`Case: 20-112 Document: 2 Page: 2 Filed: 01/08/2020
`
`Rembrandt Wireless
`Ex. 2010
`Apple Inc. v. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP, IPR2020-00033
`Page 2 of 345
`
`

`

`Case: 20-112 Document: 2 Page: 3 Filed: 01/08/2020
`
`Rembrandt Wireless
`Ex. 2010
`Apple Inc. v. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP, IPR2020-00033
`Page 3 of 345
`
`

`

`Case: 20-112 Document: 2 Page: 4 Filed: 01/08/2020
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`II.
`
`A.
`
`B.
`C.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... 3
`STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................. 3
`Rembrandt Sued Chip Manufacturers Broadcom and
`Qualcomm in California, Shortly After Suing Their
`Customer Apple in Texas Under The Same Infringement
`Theory ................................................................................................... 3
`The Apple Litigation Has No Connection to EDTX ........................ 5
`The District Court Refused To Transfer or Stay This Case,
`Despite Duplicative Litigation in California ..................................... 7
`STANDARD OF REVIEW ..............................................................11
`III.
`REASONS THE WRIT SHOULD ISSUE ......................................11
`IV.
`MOTION TO STAY ..............................................................................................12
`A.
`The District Court Committed Legal Error in Denying a
`Stay Based on Apple’s Supposed Lack of “Clean Hands” for
`Having Filed IPR Petitions. ..............................................................12
`The District Court Committed Legal Error by Applying the
`Customer-Suit Exception Too Narrowly and Disregarding
`the Extensive Overlap Between the EDTX and CDCA
`Litigations. ..........................................................................................14
`1.
`The customer-suit exception does not require precisely
`coextensive litigation, but merely “substantial overlap.” .......14
`The California litigations will be dispositive as to the
`vast majority of Apple products, which use Broadcom
`and Qualcomm chips. ..............................................................16
`The California litigations will further resolve and
`narrow issues for Apple’s remaining products, which
`use Apple chips. ........................................................................18
`MOTION TO TRANSFER ...................................................................................20
`C.
`The District Court Legally Erred by Refusing to Consider
`the Later-Filed Broadcom and Qualcomm Cases in
`Assessing Transfer .............................................................................21
`
`B.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`iii
`
`Rembrandt Wireless
`Ex. 2010
`Apple Inc. v. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP, IPR2020-00033
`Page 4 of 345
`
`

`

`Case: 20-112 Document: 2 Page: 5 Filed: 01/08/2020
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`The district court incorrectly relied on Hoffman v.
`Blaski for the proposition that transfer determinations
`must ignore later-filed actions. ................................................22
`Failure to consider ongoing litigation during a motion
`to transfer risks contradictory results and unnecessary
`inconvenience to litigants and non-party witnesses. ..............24
`By Ignoring the Substantial Inconvenience to the Parties
`and Non-Party Witnesses of Proceeding with Three Cases in
`Two Fora and by Overemphasizing Its Own Location,
`Experience, and Interest, the District Court Clearly Abused
`its Discretion in Considering the § 1404(a) Factors. ......................25
`1.
`Because a substantial number of witnesses are outside
`the compulsory process power of EDTX, this factor
`strongly weighs in favor of transfer. .......................................28
`With the vast majority of evidence in California and
`other witnesses far flung from both potential venues,
`the convenience of the witnesses and parties also
`weighs in favor of transfer. ......................................................29
`CDCA’s interest in resolving this dispute concerning
`several companies located therein weighs in favor of
`transfer. .....................................................................................32
`The district court’s past experience with these patents
`does not outweigh the co-pending cases in CDCA. ................32
`MANDAMUS IS APPROPRIATE ..................................................33
`CONCLUSION ..................................................................................34
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`D.
`
`V.
`VI.
`
`Confidential Material Omitted
`The material redacted from this brief is subject to a protective order and
`an order to seal. The confidential information on pages 1, 5, 6, 16, 17, 18, 19,
`and 28 contains, references, and/or describes Broadcom and Apple employees,
`details of
`the supply agreements between Apple and Broadcom, and/or
`percentages of accused products with chipsets that Apple receives from particular
`suppliers. This material has been produced and designated by Apple as
`“Confidential – Attorneys’ Eyes Only,” was filed under seal pursuant to the
`District Court’s Protective Order dated June 21, 2019, and/or was filed under
`seal pursuant to the District Court’s Order Granting Apple’s Motion to Seal
`dated May 23, 2019.
`
`iv
`
`Rembrandt Wireless
`Ex. 2010
`Apple Inc. v. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP, IPR2020-00033
`Page 5 of 345
`
`

`

`Case: 20-112 Document: 2 Page: 6 Filed: 01/08/2020
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`In re Apple,
`581 F. App’x 886 (Fed. Cir. 2014) .................................................................... 27
`Audi AG v. Izumi,
`204 F. Supp. 2d 1014 (E.D. Mich. 2002) ........................................................... 26
`In re Biosearch Techs., Inc.,
`452 F. App’x 986 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ..................................................................... 31
`In re BP Lubricants USA Inc.,
`637 F.3d 1307 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .......................................................................... 34
`Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for D.C.,
`542 U.S. 367 (2004) ............................................................................................ 11
`Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States,
`424 U.S. 800 (1976) ............................................................................................ 15
`ColorQuick, LLC v. Vistaprint Ltd.,
`No. 6:09-CV-323, 2010 WL 5136050 (E.D. Tex. July 22, 2010) ...................... 23
`Continental Grain Co. v. The FBL-585,
`364 U.S. 19 (1960) .................................................................................. 24, 27, 33
`Cooper v. Farmers New Century Ins. Co.,
`593 F. Supp. 2d 14 (D.D.C. 2008) ...................................................................... 26
`Diem LLC v. BigCommerce, Inc.,
`No. 6:17-CV-00186-JRG, 2017 WL 6729907 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 28,
`2017) ................................................................................................................... 23
`Dyson, Inc. v. Maytag Corp.,
`No. 06-cv-6576(DLC), 2006 WL 2884921 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 11,
`2006) ................................................................................................................... 30
`In re EMC Corp.,
`677 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012) .......................................................................... 11
`
`v
`
`Rembrandt Wireless
`Ex. 2010
`Apple Inc. v. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP, IPR2020-00033
`Page 6 of 345
`
`

`

`Case: 20-112 Document: 2 Page: 7 Filed: 01/08/2020
`
`Erfindergemeinschaft Uropep GbR v. Eli Lilly & Co,
`No. 2:15-cv-1202-WCB, 2016 WL 1659924 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 26,
`2016) ................................................................................................................... 18
`Fujitsu Ltd. v. Tellabs, Inc.,
`639 F. Supp. 2d 761 (E.D. Tex. 2009) ................................................................ 33
`In re Genentech,
`566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................................... 28, 31
`In re Google, Inc.,
`588 F. App’x 988 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ..............................................................passim
`Hoffman v. Blaski,
`363 U.S. 335 (1960) ................................................................................ 21, 22, 23
`In re Hoffman-La Roche,
`587 F.3d at 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .......................................................... 21, 32, 34
`Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct.,
`790 F.2d 69 (10th Cir. 1986) .............................................................................. 27
`Katz v. Lear Siegler, Inc.,
`909 F.2d 1459 (Fed. Cir. 1990) .............................................................. 14, 17, 19
`
`Keystone Drilling Co. v. Gen. Excavator Co.,
`290 U.S. 240 (1933) ...................................................................................... 12, 13
`In re LimitNone, LLC,
`551 F.3d 572 (7th Cir. 2008) .............................................................................. 27
`In re Link_A_Media Devices Corp.,
`662 F.3d 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .................................................................... 11, 21
`Minn. Min. and Mfg. Co. v. Norton Co.,
`929 F.2d 670 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ............................................................................ 11
`In re Nintendo of Am., Inc.,
`756 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2014) ...................................................................passim
`In re Nintendo Co., Ltd.,
`589 F.3d 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2009) .................................................................... 27, 32
`
`vi
`
`Rembrandt Wireless
`Ex. 2010
`Apple Inc. v. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP, IPR2020-00033
`Page 7 of 345
`
`

`

`Case: 20-112 Document: 2 Page: 8 Filed: 01/08/2020
`
`Norwood v. Kirkpatrick,
`349 U.S. 29 (1955) .............................................................................................. 26
`Omni Medsci, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. 18-cv-00429-RWS (E.D. Tex. Aug. 23, 2019) (ECF No. 163) ................... 31
`In re Rembrandt Techs. LP Patent Litig.,
`899 F.3d 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ............................................................................ 7
`Ricoh Co., Ltd. v. Aeroflux Inc.,
`279 F. Supp. 2d 554 (D. Del. 2003).................................................................... 25
`Sleepy Lagoon, Ltd., v. Tower Grp., Inc.,
`809 F. Supp. 2d 1300 (N.D. Okla. 2011) ............................................................ 26
`Spread Spectrum Screening LLC v. Eastman Kodak Co.,
`657 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2011) .............................................................. 14, 15, 18
`Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp.,
`487 U.S. 22 (1988) ........................................................................................ 26, 27
`The Lincoln Elec. Co. v. Seabery Soluciones,
`No. 1:15-cv-1575, 2017 WL 159132 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 13, 2017) ....................... 13
`In re TS Tech USA Corp.,
`551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2008) .......................................................................... 21
`In re Verizon Bus. Network Servs. Inc.,
`635 F.3d 559 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ............................................................................ 32
`In re Vistaprint, Ltd.,
`628 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2010) .................................................................... 23, 33
`In re Volkswagen AG,
`371 F.3d 201 (5th Cir. 2004) .............................................................................. 22
`In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc.,
`545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) .................................................................. 22, 26, 34
`William Gluckin & Co. v. Int’l Playtex Corp.,
`407 F.2d 177 (2d Cir. 1969) ......................................................................... 14, 15
`
`vii
`
`Rembrandt Wireless
`Ex. 2010
`Apple Inc. v. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP, IPR2020-00033
`Page 8 of 345
`
`

`

`Case: 20-112 Document: 2 Page: 9 Filed: 01/08/2020
`
`Statutes
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) ..........................................................................................passim
`35 U.S.C. § 311 ........................................................................................................ 13
`Other Authorities
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3) ............................................................................................ 26
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(1) ............................................................................................ 29
`
`
`
`viii
`
`Rembrandt Wireless
`Ex. 2010
`Apple Inc. v. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP, IPR2020-00033
`Page 9 of 345
`
`

`

`Case: 20-112 Document: 2 Page: 10 Filed: 01/08/2020
`
`STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES
`
`Pursuant to Federal Circuit Rule 47.5(a), counsel for Petitioner Apple, Inc. is
`
`
`
`
`unaware of any appeal in or from the same proceeding in the United States District
`
`Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
`
`Pursuant to Federal Circuit Rule 47.5(b), counsel for Petitioner Apple, Inc.
`
`informs the Court that U.S. Patent Nos. 8,457,228 (the “’228 patent”) and 8,023,580
`
`(the “’580 patent”) are asserted in co-pending litigations Rembrandt Wireless
`
`Technologies, LP v. Qualcomm Inc., Case No. 19-cv-0705 and Rembrandt Wireless
`
`Technologies, LP v. Broadcom Inc., Case No. 19-cv-0708 in the U.S. District Court
`
`for the Central District of California filed on April 15, 2019. On November 5, 2019,
`
`Apple filed petitions for inter partes review against the ’580 Patent in IPR2020-
`
`00033 and IPR2020-00034 and against the ’228 Patent in IPR2020-00036 and
`
`IPR2020-00037. Counsel is unaware of any other case that may directly affect or
`
`be affected by the Court’s decision in this appeal.
`
`
`
`ix
`
`Rembrandt Wireless
`Ex. 2010
`Apple Inc. v. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP, IPR2020-00033
`Page 10 of 345
`
`

`

`Case: 20-112 Document: 2 Page: 11 Filed: 01/08/2020
`
`STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
`This Court has jurisdiction to grant mandamus relief under the All Writs Act,
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1651. See, e.g., In re Link_A_Media Devices Corp., 662 F.3d 1221
`
`(Fed. Cir. 2011).
`
`RELIEF SOUGHT
`Petitioner Apple Inc. seeks an order directing the district court either to stay
`
`proceedings in this case brought in the Eastern District of Texas (“EDTX”) until
`
`related matters in the Central District of California (“CDCA”) are resolved, or to
`
`transfer the case to CDCA.
`
`ISSUES PRESENTED
`In separate suits, with identically worded causes of action, respondent
`
`Rembrandt sued Apple and two of its chip suppliers—Broadcom and Qualcomm—
`
`alleging infringement by those chips of patents contending to cover Bluetooth
`
`technology. Rembrandt sued Broadcom and Qualcomm in California, where
`
`relevant evidence and defendant and non-party witnesses are located; it sued their
`
`customer, Apple, in Texas, where no relevant evidence or witnesses are located.
`
`Together, Broadcom and Qualcomm make
`
` of the accused chips in the Apple
`
`case. Apple moved to transfer and later to stay the suit against it, to avoid
`
`unnecessary duplication of litigation and inconsistent results. The court rejected
`
`both motions. The issues presented are:
`
`1
`
`CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL OMITTED
`
`Rembrandt Wireless
`Ex. 2010
`Apple Inc. v. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP, IPR2020-00033
`Page 11 of 345
`
`

`

`Case: 20-112 Document: 2 Page: 12 Filed: 01/08/2020
`
`1.
`
`Did the district court commit legal error by denying Apple’s motion to
`
`stay under the customer-suit exception in part because Apple allegedly had “unclean
`
`hands” due to seeking inter partes review against Rembrandt’s patents-in-suit?
`
`2.
`
`Did the district court commit legal error in applying the customer-suit
`
`exception by relying on minor differences between the lawsuits, when the doctrine
`
`requires only substantial overlap and potential to resolve major issues, and despite
`
`nearly identical allegations against Apple and its suppliers?
`
`3.
`
`Did the district court commit legal error when it denied Apple’s motion
`
`to transfer in part because it “cannot consider the existence of the later-filed
`
`Rembrandt and Qualcomm lawsuits in its venue analysis”?
`
`4.
`
`Did the district court commit a clear abuse of discretion in weighing the
`
`public and private factors affecting transfer when it treated EDTX as equally
`
`convenient to CDCA, notwithstanding that the fact that no witnesses or evidence are
`
`in EDTX, whereas many non-party witnesses and virtually all evidence regarding
`
`the accused chips are present in California, where Rembrandt is litigating duplicative
`
`suits?
`
`
`
`2
`
`Rembrandt Wireless
`Ex. 2010
`Apple Inc. v. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP, IPR2020-00033
`Page 12 of 345
`
`

`

`Case: 20-112 Document: 2 Page: 13 Filed: 01/08/2020
`
`INTRODUCTION
`I.
`The district court misapplied the law to retain jurisdiction over a case that
`
`convenience and judicial economy dictate should be either stayed or transferred to
`
`CDCA. Rembrandt’s identical claims against chip suppliers Broadcom and
`
`Qualcomm in CDCA will be largely, if not entirely, dispositive of Rembrandt’s case
`
`against Apple, which is sued as their customer. The customer-suit exception was
`
`developed for just this situation. Either stay or transfer would allow Rembrandt to
`
`pursue its infringement allegations in its chosen venue against the suppliers. Either
`
`stay or transfer would likewise avoid the duplication of effort, the need for Apple to
`
`litigate far from the relevant evidence without the benefit of compulsory process,
`
`and the risk of inconsistent results in proceeding with these suits simultaneously. By
`
`artificially and erroneously cabining each inquiry, the district court reached the least
`
`efficient outcome. This Court should issue a writ of mandamus to correct the district
`
`court’s errors.
`
`II.
`
`STATEMENT OF FACTS
`
`A.
`
`Rembrandt Sued Chip Manufacturers Broadcom and Qualcomm
`in California, Shortly After Suing Their Customer Apple in Texas
`Under The Same Infringement Theory
`In rapid succession, Rembrandt filed three lawsuits in two different states that
`
`collectively address whether Broadcom and Qualcomm Bluetooth chips infringe the
`
`asserted patents. On January 24, 2019, Rembrandt sued Apple in EDTX for
`
`3
`
`Rembrandt Wireless
`Ex. 2010
`Apple Inc. v. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP, IPR2020-00033
`Page 13 of 345
`
`

`

`Case: 20-112 Document: 2 Page: 14 Filed: 01/08/2020
`
`allegedly infringing three asserted claims from the ’228 and’580 patents. Appx100-
`
`104. Rembrandt accuses Apple products—including iPhones, iPads, iPods,
`
`Watches, headphones, and other products (the “Accused Products”)—that
`
`incorporate Broadcom and Qualcomm chips of practicing the Enhanced Data Rate
`
`(“EDR”) functionality under certain Bluetooth specifications. Appx100-101 (¶29).
`
`The case is proceeding through discovery and claim construction, with trial currently
`
`set for June 2020. See Appx26; Appx1938-1941.
`
`On April 15, 2019, Rembrandt filed separate suits against Broadcom and
`
`Qualcomm in CDCA, asserting the same patents and accusing the same chip-based
`
`functionality. See Appx123-127; Appx143-147. Rembrandt asserts that each
`
`defendant’s chips infringe the same asserted claims because they practice EDR
`
`under the same Bluetooth specifications. Appx123, Appx126, Appx143, Appx146.
`
`Rembrandt’s pleaded theory of infringement is identical across all three cases: “the
`
`manufacture, use, sale, importation, exportation, and/or offer for sale of products
`
`practicing any of the following Bluetooth specifications that support Enhanced Data
`
`Rate (‘EDR’): Version 2.0 + EDR, Version 2.1 + EDR, Version 3.0 + HS, Version
`
`4.0 + LE, Version 4.1, Version 4.2, or version 5.” Appx100 (¶28); Appx123 (¶27);
`
`Appx143 (¶28). Though not formally related, the California litigations are on the
`
`same schedule, proceeding through discovery and claim construction, with trials
`
`scheduled for late October 2020 in Santa Ana, California. Appx1609; Appx1613.
`
`4
`
`Rembrandt Wireless
`Ex. 2010
`Apple Inc. v. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP, IPR2020-00033
`Page 14 of 345
`
`

`

`Case: 20-112 Document: 2 Page: 15 Filed: 01/08/2020
`
`On November 5, 2019, Apple filed petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”)
`
`against Rembrandt’s asserted patents. IPR2020-00033, -00034, -00036, -00037.
`
`Rembrandt’s pre-institution responses are due February 13, 2020.
`
`The Apple Litigation Has No Connection to EDTX
`B.
`Neither Rembrandt nor Apple has any relevant witnesses, documents, or
`
`facilities in Texas, but most of that evidence is in California. Approximately
`
`
`
`of Apple’s Accused Products allegedly infringe because they contain Broadcom or
`
`Qualcomm chips.1 Apple lacks witnesses knowledgeable about the technical details
`
`of those chips and will need to rely on the suppliers’ non-party witnesses. Appx186
`
`(¶11). For those Accused Products incorporating
`
` chips,
`
` has
`
`. Appx314. Almost all sources of proof associated with
`
`Broadcom or Qualcomm2 are located in California. Broadcom’s headquarters are in
`
`San Jose, CA, with a large facility and employees knowledgeable about Bluetooth
`
`EDR functionality in Irvine, CA (within CDCA). Appx185-186 (¶¶6-7, 10).
`
`Specifically, Broadcom employee Burhan Masood works with products containing
`
`Bluetooth technology, including those provided by Broadcom to Apple, and
`
`“understand[s] the various capabilities of the Bluetooth Specifications, including
`
`
` have
`1 More specifically,
` contain Broadcom-designed Bluetooth chips,
`Qualcomm-designed chips, and only
` hold Apple-designed chips. Appx1524.
`
` Some of Qualcomm’s documents are located in the United Kingdom. Appx179-
`181 (¶¶14, 23).
`
` 2
`
`5
`
`CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL OMITTED
`
`Rembrandt Wireless
`Ex. 2010
`Apple Inc. v. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP, IPR2020-00033
`Page 15 of 345
`
`

`

`Case: 20-112 Document: 2 Page: 16 Filed: 01/08/2020
`
`those pertaining to Bluetooth EDR.” Appx1353. Also, Broadcom employee
`
`
`
` is “intimately familiar with the low-level architecture and operations of the
`
`Broadcom Bluetooth chips implicated in this dispute.” Id. Steven Hall, Broadcom’s
`
`former Technical Director involved in development of Broadcom chipsets, is also
`
`located in California. Appx186 (¶14); Appx226; Appx230.
`
`Only
`
` of the Apple Accused Products use a Bluetooth EDR chip designed
`
`by Apple, Appx1524; Appx178-179 (¶13), and Apple agreed to apply any
`
`infringement rulings against the Broadcom chips to its own chips. Even for its own
`
`chips, Apple has no documents, employees, or facilities involved in design,
`
`development, or implementation of the Accused Functionality in the Accused
`
`Products in Texas. Appx180-182 (¶¶20-21, 27-28). Apple employees who worked
`
`on EDR functionality, have relevant documents, or were involved in sales and
`
`marketing of the accused chips are near Cupertino and Culver City, CA. Appx176
`
`(¶6). These witnesses include Michael Jaynes, finance employee knowledgeable on
`
`sales and financial information;
`
`, Bluetooth Engineering Software
`
`Manager;
`
`, Senior Director of Engineering; and
`
`,
`
`Product Marketing Manager. Appx180-181 (¶¶22-24). Apple employees in Israel
`
`worked on Bluetooth in developing one Apple chip included in one Accused
`
`Product, as part of a team based in and directed from Cupertino. Appx1359-1361
`
`(¶¶9-12).
`
`6
`
`CONFIDENTIAL MATERIAL OMITTED
`
`Rembrandt Wireless
`Ex. 2010
`Apple Inc. v. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP, IPR2020-00033
`Page 16 of 345
`
`

`

`Case: 20-112 Document: 2 Page: 17 Filed: 01/08/2020
`
`Rembrandt’s sources of proof also lie outside Texas, either at its headquarters
`
`and attorneys’ offices in Pennsylvania, or with named inventor Gordon Bremer in
`
`Florida. E.g., Appx88 (¶1); Appx1198-1199. Paul Castor, a non-party witness who
`
`worked for Zhone Technologies, which previously owned the asserted patents, is
`
`located in California and may have information on conception, reduction to practice,
`
`or the destruction of evidence thereof. Appx221; Appx214; In re Rembrandt Techs.
`
`LP Patent Litig., 899 F.3d 1254, 1261-62, 1268 (Fed. Cir. 2018). In short, no
`
`relevant documents, witnesses, or facilities are located in Texas, but the vast
`
`majority of evidence is in California (including within CDCA), where Broadcom,
`
`Qualcomm, and Apple are located.
`
`C. The District Court Refused To Transfer or Stay This Case, Despite
`Duplicative Litigation in California
`On May 22, 2019, before substantive discovery, Apple moved to transfer the
`
`case to CDCA, based on the California litigations. See Appx23. The transfer motion
`
`was fully briefed by August 19, 2019. See Appx24. On November 1, 2019, with
`
`the transfer motion unresolved, Apple moved to stay this case under the customer-
`
`suit exception, contending that Rembrandt’s litigation against its suppliers should
`
`take precedence. Appx25; Appx1508-1509. As contemplated under the customer-
`
`suit exception, Apple filed a proposed stipulation, agreeing to be bound on issues of
`
`infringement and validity for the Accused Products with an Apple or Broadcom chip
`
`“by the final outcome in the litigation between Rembrandt and Broadcom” and
`
`7
`
`Rembrandt Wireless
`Ex. 2010
`Apple Inc. v. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP, IPR2020-00033
`Page 17 of 345
`
`

`

`Case: 20-112 Document: 2 Page: 18 Filed: 01/08/2020
`
`similarly for those with a Qualcomm chip “by the final outcome in the litigation
`
`between Rembrandt and Qualcomm.” Appx1604-1605.
`
`On November 27, 2019, the district court issued separate opinions refusing to
`
`transfer or stay the action. Appx1, Appx9. The court posited that a stay was
`
`inappropriate under the customer-suit exception because, based on Apple’s IPR
`
`petition, “Apple does not seek to remove the burdens of litigation from itself” and
`
`“has made it impossible for this Court to remove such burden.” Appx11. According
`
`to the court, filing IPR petitions deprived Apple of “clean hands” and “violate[d] the
`
`express purpose of the customer-suit exception.” Appx12. Without considering that
`
`Rembrandt brought suit in CDCA , the court found that a stay would unfairly deprive
`
`Rembrandt of its chosen forum. Id.
`
`The district court also found the customer-suit exception inapplicable.
`
`Appx12, Appx14-15. Specifically, the court found that Apple was not a “mere
`
`reseller” eligible for the customer-suit exception because: (1) Apple manufactures
`
`its own chips incorporated into the Accused products; and (2) Apple’s source code
`
`and manner of incorporating the Broadcom and Qualcomm chips could be relevant
`
`to infringement. Appx13-14. The court further found that Apple’s stipulation to be
`
`bound by the California litigations would deprive Rembrandt of arguments and
`
`theories of infringement applicable only to Apple. Appx13, Appx15. Although the
`
`court acknowledged that Rembrandt’s infringement contentions allege that the
`
`8
`
`Rembrandt Wireless
`Ex. 2010
`Apple Inc. v. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP, IPR2020-00033
`Page 18 of 345
`
`

`

`Case: 20-112 Document: 2 Page: 19 Filed: 01/08/2020
`
`Broadcom and Qualcomm chipsets practice publicly available Bluetooth standards,
`
`it theorized that Rembrandt could amend those contentions upon receipt of Apple’s
`
`source code. Appx14-15. Finally, the district court found that Rembrandt’s
`
`allegations of indirect infringement in the California litigations differentiated them
`
`from this suit. Because a stay under the customer-suit exception in favor of the
`
`California litigations may not entirely resolve this case, the court denied Apple’s
`
`motion for a stay.
`
`The court also rejected the obvious alternative to stay—transferring the case
`
`to CDCA, gaining efficiencies by allowing Rembrandt’s cases to proceed
`
`simultaneously. The court reached that illogical result by artificially limiting its
`
`analysis to “the situation which existed when suit was instituted”—in other words,
`
`by refusing to consider the efficiencies of coordinating the supplier and customer
`
`suits before the same court. Appx3 (quoting Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 343
`
`(1960)).
`
`Notwithstanding that the vast bulk of relevant evidence is in California, no
`
`evidence is in Texas, and any remaining evidence is abroad or on the East Coast, the
`
`court nonetheless found that EDTX was “roughly equally convenient to all of these
`
`sources of proof.” Appx4. Ignoring that no witnesses or evidence of either party
`
`reside in EDTX, the court concluded that the convenience of the witnesses and
`
`parties weighed against transfer because any increased convenience to “Apple and
`
`9
`
`Rembrandt Wireless
`Ex. 2010
`Apple Inc. v. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP, IPR2020-00033
`Page 19 of 345
`
`

`

`Case: 20-112 Document: 2 Page: 20 Filed: 01/08/2020
`
`its potential witnesses would work a commensurate inconvenience on Rembrandt
`
`and its potential witnesses.” Appx6. Because it refused to consider the later-filed
`
`suits, the court assessed this factor without considering that Rembrandt’s witnesses
`
`would already need to travel to CDCA for the supplier litigations. Further,
`
`notwithstanding its acknowledgement that Broadcom and Qualcomm employees
`
`were generally subject to compulsory process in CDCA, and not EDTX, the court
`
`concluded that compulsory process only slightly favored transfer on the purported
`
`ground that “Apple does not identify” any such specific witnesses. Appx5.
`
`Reasoning that “[v]enue is determined at the time of the filing of the action,”
`
`the court categorically refused to consider the co-pending but later-filed California
`
`litigations in its analysis of the judicial economy factor as well, crediting instead its
`
`own prior experience with the asserted patents in litigation against a different
`
`consumer electronics company. Appx6 (citing Rembrandt Wireless Techs., LP v.
`
`Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 2:13-cv-312-JRG (E.D. Tex.)). Additionally, the district
`
`court ruled that California had no local interest in resolving the dispute, despite
`
`Broadcom’s and Qualcomm’s presence there. Appx7. Finding that most relevant
`
`factors disfavored transfer, the court denied Apple’s motion.
`
`As a result of the district court’s decisions, the Apple and California litigations
`
`continue to proceed in parallel. Both district courts are in the midst of claim
`
`construction, which could result in disparate, competing constructions of the same
`
`10
`
`Rembrandt Wireless
`Ex. 2010
`Apple Inc. v. Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP, IPR2020-00033
`Page 20 of 345
`
`

`

`Case: 20-112 Document: 2 Page: 21 Filed: 01/08/2020
`
`terms. Additionally, the Texas and California cases are scheduled for separate trials
`
`in 2020 only three months apart.
`
`III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
`A writ of mandamus is proper if: (1) the right to issuance of the writ is clear
`
`and indisputable; (2) there is no other adequate means to attain the relief; and (3) this
`
`Court is satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances. Cheney v.
`
`U.S. Dist. Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004). Mandamus may be employed
`
`to correct “a clear abuse of discretion or usurpation of judicial power.” In re Link,
`
`662 F.3d at 1222. Abuse of discretion exists when the district court “relies on an
`
`erroneous conclusion of law” or makes “clearly erroneous” findings. In re EMC
`
`Corp., 677 F.3d 1351, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Minn. Mining and Mfg. Co. v. Norton
`
`Co., 929 F.2d 670, 673 (Fed. Cir. 1991). Mandamus may be used to contest a
`
`patently erroneous error denying transfer or stay. See,