Case 6:22-cv-00149-ADA Document 55 Filed 11/16/22 Page 1 of 12
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`SPACETIME3D, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 6:22-cv-00149-ADA
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.’S OPPOSED MOTION TO STAY PENDING TRANSFER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE 1049
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00149-ADA Document 55 Filed 11/16/22 Page 2 of 12
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Apple respectfully moves to stay all case activity pending a decision on Apple’s pending
`
`Motion for Intra-District Transfer to the Austin Division of the Western District of Texas (Dkt.
`
`34). Apple further requests an interim postponement of the Markman hearing scheduled for
`
`tomorrow, November 17, 2022, by at least 14 days, to allow for full briefing and a hearing on
`
`this motion for stay before any further substantive proceedings, including an order on claim
`
`construction, occur in this suit.
`
`Both the Federal Circuit and the Fifth Circuit have instructed district courts to prioritize
`
`transfer motions and address transfer before addressing other substantive issues. Indeed, the
`
`Federal Circuit recently reinforced this directive in granting three mandamus petitions involving
`
`unresolved motions to transfer before this Court and “directed [the Court] to postpone fact
`
`discovery and other substantive proceedings until after consideration on Apple’s motion for
`
`transfer.” In re Apple Inc., No. 2022-162, ___ F.4th ___, 2022 WL 16753325, at *3 (Fed. Cir.
`
`Nov. 8, 2022). This Court has subsequently stayed those cases pending resolution of those
`
`motions to transfer. See Aire Tech. Ltd., v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:21-cv-01101-ADA, Dkt. 71
`
`(W.D. Tex. Nov. 8, 2022); Scramoge Tech. Ltd. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:21-cv-01071-ADA,
`
`Dkt. 68 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 8, 2022); XR Commc’ns LLC v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:21-cv-00620-
`
`ADA, Dkt. 83 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 8, 2022). Although those cases involved inter-district transfer,
`
`the need to prioritize transfer motions applies equally to intra-district transfer; Apple is not aware
`
`of any rationale or precedent suggesting otherwise. See In re Radmax, Ltd., 720 F.3d 285, 288
`
`(5th Cir. 2013).
`
`The need to stay this case is just as strong given the substantive matters soon
`
`approaching. Apple’s motion to transfer has been fully briefed since November 7, 2022, venue
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00149-ADA Document 55 Filed 11/16/22 Page 3 of 12
`
`discovery is complete1, fact discovery only just opened this week, the Markman hearing is
`
`tomorrow, November 17, and final infringement and invalidity contentions will be due in less
`
`than two months. Despite the overwhelming Federal Circuit precedent, however, Plaintiff
`
`SpaceTime3D, Inc. (“SpaceTime”) is unwilling to consent to a stay to allow for resolution of
`
`Apple’s pending transfer motion. Instead, SpaceTime insists on expending resources of the
`
`parties and this Court on the Markman hearing, final contentions, and fact discovery. In view of
`
`the appellate mandate to make transfer a “top priority” and the prejudice associated with
`
`proceeding into merits discovery without resolution of the motion to transfer, any further
`
`proceedings should be stayed pending a decision on transfer. In re Apple Inc., 979 F.3d 1332,
`
`1337 (2020); In re Horseshoe Entm’t, 337 F.3d 429, 433 (5th Cir. 2003).
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`SpaceTime asserts that Apple’s iPhone, iPad, iPod touch, and Apple Watch devices
`
`infringe the three asserted patents because SpaceTime alleges, among other things, that these
`
`products display images of open applications or websites in a three-dimensional space and allow
`
`users to switch between those applications or websites. See Dkt 1 ¶¶ 46–55.
`
`On July 14, 2022, Apple moved for intra-district transfer to the Austin Division of the
`
`Western District of Texas. Dkt. 34. On November 14, 2022, fact discovery opened for all
`
`purposes. Dkt. 31 at 3. The Markman hearing is scheduled for tomorrow, November 17, 2022.
`
`Dkt. 51. Final infringement and invalidity contentions will be due on January 5, 2023. Dkt. 31
`
`at 3. On November 16, Plaintiff indicated by email that it opposes this motion for stay.
`
`Earlier today, November 16, 2022, Apple received an email from this Court’s Law Clerk
`
`regarding the status of the Court’s consideration of Apple’s transfer motion. The Clerk’s email
`
`
`1 SpaceTime has not requested any additional venue discovery.
`
`2
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00149-ADA Document 55 Filed 11/16/22 Page 4 of 12
`
`indicated that the Court will not be ruling on Apple’s motion for transfer prior to tomorrow’s
`
`Markman hearing in this case. Ex A at 1.
`
`III. THE CASE SHOULD BE STAYED PENDING RESOLUTION OF APPLE’S
`MOTION TO TRANSFER
`
`A. Just as with Other Cases Before This Court, Apple’s Motion for Intra-
`District Transfer Should Be Given Top Priority
`
`“The power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to
`
`control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for
`
`counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254–55, 57 S. Ct. 163 (1936).
`
`Both the Federal Circuit and the Fifth Circuit have instructed district courts to prioritize transfer
`
`motions and to address transfer before addressing other substantive issues. Indeed, in In re
`
`Apple, the Federal Circuit made clear that transfer should be handled before other substantive
`
`tasks—including Markman: “Although district courts have discretion as to how to handle their
`
`dockets, once a party files a transfer motion, disposing of that motion should unquestionably take
`
`top priority.” In re Apple, 979 F.3d at 1337; Horseshoe, 337 F.3d at 433 (“[I]n our view
`
`disposition of that [transfer] motion should have taken a top priority in handling of this case by
`
`the . . . District Court.”); In re TracFone Wireless, Inc., 848 F. App’x 899, 900–01 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2021) (citing Horseshoe, 337 F.3d at 433); In re SK Hynix Inc., 835 F. App’x 600, 600–01 (Fed.
`
`Cir. 2021); In re Google Inc., No. 2015-138, 2015 WL 5294800, at *1–2 (Fed. Cir. July 16,
`
`2015); see also In re EMC Corp., 501 F. App’x 973, 975–76 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (“Congress’ intent
`
`to prevent the waste of time, energy and money and to protect litigants, witnesses and the public
`
`against unnecessary inconvenience and expense . . . may be thwarted where, as here, defendants
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00149-ADA Document 55 Filed 11/16/22 Page 5 of 12
`
`must partake in years of litigation prior to a determination on a transfer motion.” (internal
`
`quotation marks and citation omitted)).2
`
`The Federal Circuit recently reinforced this directive in granting three mandamus
`
`petitions filed by Apple involving motions to transfer before this Court. See In re Apple, 2022
`
`WL 16753325; In re Apple Inc., No. 2022-163, 2022 WL 16754376 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 8, 2022); In
`
`re Apple Inc., No. 2022-164, 2022 WL 16754153 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 8, 2022). In each of these
`
`cases, Apple had pending a fully briefed motion to transfer, yet was ordered to proceed to fact
`
`discovery without resolution of its motion. See id. The Federal Circuit found that “precedent
`
`entitles parties to have their venue motions prioritized,” that a “decision of a transfer motion
`
`must proceed expeditiously as the first order of business and that venue discovery must proceed
`
`immediately to enable such a prompt decision of the transfer motion.” In re Apple, 2022 WL
`
`16753325, at *2. The Federal Circuit then instructed the Court to “postpone fact discovery and
`
`other substantive proceedings until after consideration of Apple’s motion for transfer.” Id. at *3.
`
`Following these orders, the Court proceeded to issue orders in each of the underlying cases
`
`staying all deadlines, including fact discovery, pending resolution of the motions to transfer. See
`
`Aire Tech. Ltd., v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:21-cv-01101-ADA, Dkt. 71 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 8, 2022);
`
`Scramoge Tech. Ltd. v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:21-cv-01071-ADA, Dkt. 68 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 8,
`
`2022); XR Commc’ns LLC v. Apple Inc., Case No. 6:21-cv-00620-ADA, Dkt. 83 (W.D. Tex.
`
`
`2 The Federal Circuit has recognized the importance of staying cases during the pendency of
`transfer motions as a means of upholding 28 U.S.C. 1404(a)’s intent to “prevent the waste ‘of
`time, energy, and money’ and protect litigants, witnesses and the public against unnecessary
`inconvenience and expense [. . . ] when defendants are forced to expend resources litigating
`substantive matters in an inconvenient venue while a motion to transfer lingers unnecessarily on
`the docket.” In re Google, 2015 WL 5294800, at *1–2 (internal citation omitted) (granting writ
`of mandamus and ordering a magistrate judge in the Eastern District of Texas to stay
`proceedings pending final resolution of a transfer motion filed 8 months prior and issue a
`decision on transfer within 30 days).
`
`
`
`4
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00149-ADA Document 55 Filed 11/16/22 Page 6 of 12
`
`Nov. 8, 2022). The need for a stay is just as strong here, given the soon-approaching Markman
`
`hearing, what is expected to be extensive fact discovery, and final contentions.
`
`To the extent SpaceTime attempts to distinguish this case from those that were subject to
`
`mandamus on the basis that Apple here seeks intra-district versus inter-district transfer, such
`
`argument would lack merit. The need to prioritize transfer motions applies equally to intra-
`
`district transfer, and Apple is not aware of any rationale or precedent suggesting otherwise. See
`
`In re Radmax, 720 F.3d at 288 (noting that 1404(a) “appl[ies] as much to transfers between
`
`divisions of the same district as to transfers from one district to another”). In fact, on multiple
`
`occasions, this Court has stayed cases pending resolution of intra-district transfer motions. See,
`
`e.g., Sonrai Memory Ltd. v. Oracle Corp., Case No. 6:21-cv-00116-ADA, Text Order (W.D.
`
`Tex. Jan. 02, 2022); Sensor Elec. Tech., Inc. v. Lite-On Tech. Corp., Case No. 21-cv-00322-
`
`ADA, Dkt. 65 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 25, 2022); Nitek, Inc. v. Lite-On Tech. Corp., 21-cv-00794-
`
`ADA, Dkt. 56 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 25, 2022).
`
`B. All Relevant Factors Favor a Stay Pending a Decision on Transfer
`In this District, courts typically consider three factors in determining whether a stay is
`
`warranted: (1) any potential prejudice to the non-moving party; (2) the hardship and inequity to
`
`the moving party if the action is not stayed; and (3) the judicial resources saved by avoiding
`
`duplicative litigation. Yeti Coolers, LLC v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., 1:17-cv-342, 2018 WL
`
`2122868, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 8, 2018); B & D Produce Sales, LLC v. Packman1, Inc., No. SA-
`
`16-CV-99-XR, 2016 WL 4435275, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Aug. 19, 2016). Here, all three factors
`
`favor a stay.
`
`1. Factor One: A Stay Will Not Prejudice SpaceTime
`SpaceTime will not suffer any meaningful prejudice as a result of a stay pending a
`
`decision on transfer. The stay would not be indefinite or necessarily even lengthy; it would last
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00149-ADA Document 55 Filed 11/16/22 Page 7 of 12
`
`only until Apple’s motion for transfer is resolved by this Court. SpaceTime’s own long-delayed
`
`enforcement of its asserted patents demonstrates that it would not be prejudiced by a short stay.
`
`Indeed, SpaceTime’s asserted patents issued as early as 2014 and SpaceTime purports to accuse
`
`Apple products dating back to “at least” 2016, yet SpaceTime did not bring this suit until 2022—
`
`at least six years after it purports to have had an infringement claim against Apple. See Dkt. 1
`
`¶¶ 16, 46.
`
`SpaceTime may argue that even a short stay will cause prejudice by delaying recovery of
`
`the damages SpaceTime is seeking. But this argument lacks merit for several reasons. First, a
`
`delay in recovering money damages cannot, of itself, constitute sufficient prejudice to deny a
`
`stay because a plaintiff will always face that possibility when a stay is ordered. SanDisk Corp. v.
`
`Phison Elecs. Corp., 538 F. Supp. 2d 1060, 1067 (W.D. Wisc. 2008) (“plaintiff’s only real
`
`‘injury’ is that it will have to wait for any money damages, which is always the case when a stay
`
`is imposed”). Second, SpaceTime does not compete with Apple in the market. Indeed,
`
`SpaceTime is not seeking an injunction in this case. See Dkt. 1. Third, SpaceTime apparently
`
`“does not . . . sell any product that practices the claimed invention [and i]t therefore is not in
`
`need of a quick resolution of this case because its position in the market is threatened.” See In re
`
`Morgan Stanley, 417 F. App’x 947, 950 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Fourth, Apple is seeking a stay limited
`
`to the time involved in the Court’s consideration of Apple’s Motion to Transfer, such that
`
`transfer issues are decided before other substantive issues are addressed and further fact and
`
`expert discovery is undertaken. See In re Apple, 2022 WL 16753325, at *2–3 (“decision of a
`
`transfer motion must proceed expeditiously as the first order of business . . . [;] the district court
`
`is directed to postpone fact discovery and other substantive proceedings until after consideration
`
`of Apple’s motion for transfer”). To the extent SpaceTime contends that it will suffer any
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00149-ADA Document 55 Filed 11/16/22 Page 8 of 12
`
`economic disadvantage from a stay, it has a simple remedy if ultimately successful on the merits
`
`in the form of prejudgment interest. See Underwater Devices Inc. v. Morrison-Knudsen Co., 717
`
`F.2d 1380, 1389 (Fed. Cir. 1983), overruled on other grounds by In re Seagate Tech., LLC, 497
`
`F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Transmatic, Inc. v. Gulton Indus., Inc., 180 F.3d 1343,
`
`1347–48 (Fed. Cir. 1999). Therefore, this factor strongly favors a stay.
`
`2. Factor Two: Apple Will Suffer Hardship Absent a Stay
`The Federal Circuit and Fifth Circuit agree that deciding transfer should be the Court’s
`
`top priority in handling the case. In re Apple, 2022 WL 16753325, at *2–3 (“decision of a
`
`transfer motion must proceed expeditiously as the first order of business”); In re Apple, 979 F.3d
`
`at 1337; EMC, 501 F. App’x at 975-76; Horseshoe, 337 F.3d at 433. Moving forward now with
`
`the Markman hearing and fact discovery will risk the very same “waste of time, energy and
`
`money” the Federal Circuit cautioned against in EMC, Apple, and In re Google. See In re Apple,
`
`979 F.3d at 1337; EMC, 501 F. App’x at 975–76; In re Google, 2015 WL 5294800, at *1–2.
`
`Here, Apple will suffer hardship if a stay is not granted: being unnecessarily “forced to
`
`expend resources litigating substantive matters in an inconvenient venue while a motion to
`
`transfer” is pending. See In re Google, 2015 WL 5294800, at *1. For example, Apple is
`
`suffering continued prejudice given that it has been preparing for an imminent Markman hearing
`
`and is now embarking on what is expected to be intensive fact discovery. SpaceTime already
`
`named 31 Apple employees in its Initial Disclosures earlier this week, and just served 20
`
`interrogatories and 59 requests for production on Apple this evening. Apple now must respond
`
`to those discovery requests in writing, and will have a continuing obligation to supplement its
`
`responses and productions. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33, 34, 26(e). Additionally, the parties’ final
`
`infringement and invalidity contentions will be due on January 5, 2023, after which leave of
`
`Court will be required for any amendments. See In re Apple, 2022 WL 16753325, at *1. But if
`
`7
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00149-ADA Document 55 Filed 11/16/22 Page 9 of 12
`
`this case is transferred to the Austin Division, that Division has its own procedures for cases that
`
`can differ significantly from those employed by this Court. In addition, denying a stay would
`
`result in the scheduled Markman hearing going forward, while a transferee court may wish to
`
`conduct its own claim construction analysis, thus causing additional burden and expense.
`
`Appellate courts have indicated that these are the very types of activities that should not proceed
`
`pending a transfer decision. See In re Apple, 2022 WL 16753325, at *3 (“direct[ing] [the Court]
`
`to postpone fact discovery and other substantive proceedings until after consideration on Apple’s
`
`motion for transfer”); see also EMC, 501 F. App’x at 975–76; In re Google, 2015 WL 5294800,
`
`at *1–2.
`
`3. Factor Three: A Stay Will Conserve Judicial Resources
`A stay pending a decision on transfer will also conserve judicial resources as it minimizes
`
`the need for duplicative proceedings in both the transferor and transferee courts. See In re Apple,
`
`2022 WL 16753325, at *2. Several significant events in the litigation are soon approaching,
`
`including the imminent Markman hearing and final infringement and invalidity contentions, and
`
`fact discovery just opened this week. As the Federal Circuit explained, “judicial economy
`
`requires that another district court should not burden itself with the merits of the action until it is
`
`decided that a transfer should be effected and such consideration additionally requires that the
`
`court which ultimately decides the merits of the action should also decide the various questions
`
`which arise during the pendency of the suit instead of considering it in two courts.” Id. A stay
`
`will also avoid a situation where the parties proceed under this Court’s Order Governing
`
`Proceedings only to have different rules and procedures apply in the transferee forum.
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00149-ADA Document 55 Filed 11/16/22 Page 10 of 12
`
`IV. THE COURT SHOULD POSTPONE THE MARKMAN HEARING BY 14 DAYS
`TO ALLOW SPACETIME THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THIS
`MOTION
`
`In view of the questions to be resolved by this stay motion, including whether the Federal
`
`Circuit’s recent mandamus orders apply equally to motions for intra-district transfer as Apple
`
`has filed here, and to avoid the prejudice of Markman being decided prior to the resolution of
`
`Apple’s transfer motion, Apple respectfully proposes that tomorrow’s Markman hearing be
`
`postponed until after this motion for stay has been fully briefed to, and heard by, the Court.
`
`Specifically, Apple proposes that SpaceTime be given one week, until November 23, to file an
`
`opposition to this motion for stay. Apple further proposes that, in lieu of Apple filing a reply, the
`
`Court hold a hearing on this motion for stay early the week of November 28, in advance of a
`
`postponed Markman hearing.
`
`V. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, the Court should stay all case activity until a decision on
`
`Apple’s motion for intra-district transfer has been rendered. In addition, Apple respectfully
`
`requests that the Court issue an interim postponement of tomorrow’s Markman hearing by at
`
`least 14 days, allow SpaceTime until November 23 to file an opposition to this motion for stay,
`
`and hold a hearing on this motion for stay early the week of November 28 in advance of the
`
`postponed Markman hearing.
`
`
`
`Dated: November 16, 2022
`
`
`By:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`/s/ J. Stephen Ravel
`J. Stephen Ravel
`Texas State Bar No. 16584975
`KELLY HART & HALLMAN LLP
`303 Colorado, Suite 2000
`Austin, Texas 78701
`Tel: (512) 495-6429
`Email: steve.ravel@kellyhart.com
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00149-ADA Document 55 Filed 11/16/22 Page 11 of 12
`
`Brian Rosenthal (pro hac vice)
`Katherine Q. Dominguez (pro hac vice)
`Allen Kathir (pro hac vice)
`Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, New York 10166
`Tel: (212) 351-4000
`Fax: (212) 716-0839
`Email: brosenthal@gibsondunn.com
`Email: kdominguez@gibsondunn.com
`Email: akathir@gibsondunn.com
`
`Neema Jalali (pro hac vice)
`Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
`555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
`San Francisco, CA 94105-0921
`Tel: (415) 393-8200
`Fax: (415) 374-8409
`Email: njalali@gibsondunn.com
`
`
`Ryan K. Iwahashi (pro hac vice)
`Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
`1881 Page Mill Road
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1211
`Tel: (650) 849-5300
`Fax: (650) 849-5067
`Email: riwahashi@gibsondunn.com
`
`Wendy W. Cai (pro hac vice)
`Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
`1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, DC 20036-5306
`Tel: (202) 955-8295
`Fax: (202) 831-6106
`Email: wcai@gibsondunn.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Apple Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00149-ADA Document 55 Filed 11/16/22 Page 12 of 12
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Local Rule CV-7(i), counsel for Apple has conferred with counsel for
`
`SpaceTime in a good-faith effort to resolve the matter presented herein. Plaintiff Space Time
`
`opposes the relief sought. Accordingly, the motion is presented to the Court for resolution.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ J. Stephen Ravel
`J. Stephen Ravel
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned certifies that on this 16th day of November, 2022, all counsel of record
`
`are being served with a copy of this document through the Court’s CM/ECF system.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ J. Stephen Ravel
`J. Stephen Ravel
`
`
`11
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00149-ADA Document 55-1 Filed 11/16/22 Page 1 of 5
`
`][IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`SPACETIME3D, INC.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No. 6:22-cv-00149-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`DECLARATION OF J. STEPHEN RAVEL IN SUPPORT OF APPLE INC.’S OPPOSED
`MOTION TO STAY PENDING TRANSFER
`
`I, J. Stephen Ravel, hereby declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am an attorney with Kelly, Hart & Hallman LLP and a member of the Texas state
`
`bar. I represent Defendant Apple Inc. in the above-captioned case.
`
`2.
`
`I submit this declaration in support of Apple Inc’s Opposed Motion to Stay Pending
`
`Transfer in the above-captioned litigation. I make this Declaration of my own personal
`
`knowledge, and I could and would testify competently thereto if called as a witness.
`
`3.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of an email I received from
`
`this Court’s Law Clerk at 9:55 am central standard time on November 16, 2022.
`
`Executed this 16th day of November, 2022.
`
`/s/ J. Stephen Ravel
`J. Stephen Ravel
`
`1
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00149-ADA Document 55-1 Filed 11/16/22 Page 2 of 5
`Case 6:22-cv-00149-ADA Document 55-1 Filed 11/16/22 Page 2 of5
`
`(cid:40)(cid:59)(cid:43)(cid:44)(cid:37)(cid:44)(cid:55)(cid:3)(cid:36)(cid:3)
`EXHIBIT A
`
`14
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00149-ADA Document 55-1 Filed 11/16/22 Page 3 of 5
`
`From:
`To:
`Cc:
`
`Subject:
`Date:
`Attachments:
`
`Nolan Mcqueen
`Cai, Wendy W.; Steve Ravel; Adam Tisdall
`Jalali, Neema; Meng Xi; Matthew R. Berry; MTRIBBLE@SusmanGodfrey.com; SSCHULZE@SusmanGodfrey.com;
`Tammie DeNio; Gloria Park; Calvin Capshaw; *** Apple-Spacetime3D
`RE: Spacetime3D v. Apple, Case No. 6:22-cv-00149
`Wednesday, November 16, 2022 9:55:38 AM
`image001.png
`
`[WARNING: External Email]
`Counsel:
`
`Pursuant to the OGP, the Second Amened Standing Order Regarding Motions for Inter-District
`Transfer, and the Court’s typical practice, the Court will not be ruling on Apple’s pending Motion for
`Intra-District Transfer prior to the Markman hearing in the above captioned case. Please let me
`know if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you.
`
`Best regards,
`
`Nolan
`
`
`Nolan McQueen
`Law Clerk to the
`Hon. Alan D Albright
`U.S. District Court
`Western District of Texas
`Office: 254-750-1517
`
`
`
`From: Cai, Wendy W. <WCai@gibsondunn.com>
`Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2022 9:13 PM
`To: Steve Ravel <steve.ravel@kellyhart.com>; Adam Tisdall <ATisdall@susmangodfrey.com>;
`TXWDml_LawClerks_WA_JudgeAlbright
`<TXWDml_LawClerks_WA_JudgeAlbright@txwd.uscourts.gov>
`Cc: Jalali, Neema <NJalali@gibsondunn.com>; Meng Xi <MXi@susmangodfrey.com>; Matthew R.
`Berry <mberry@susmangodfrey.com>; MTRIBBLE@SusmanGodfrey.com;
`SSCHULZE@SusmanGodfrey.com; Tammie DeNio <tdenio@susmangodfrey.com>; Gloria Park
`<GPark@susmangodfrey.com>; Calvin Capshaw <ccapshaw@capshawlaw.com>; *** Apple-
`Spacetime3D <Apple-Spacetime3D@gibsondunn.com>
`Subject: RE: Spacetime3D v. Apple, Case No. 6:22-cv-00149
`
`CAUTION - EXTERNAL:
`
`To the Court’s Law Clerks:
`
`The Markman hearing in SpaceTime3D v. Apple is scheduled for this Thursday, November 17. Apple
`provides a status update regarding its Motion for Intra-District Transfer (Dkt. 34), which has been
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00149-ADA Document 55-1 Filed 11/16/22 Page 4 of 5
`
`fully briefed as of November 7, and is pending in front of the Court.
`
`Sincerely,
`
`Wendy W. Cai*
`
`GIBSON DUNN
`
`Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
`1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20036-5306
`Tel +1 202.955.8295 • Cell +1 347 835 2873 • Fax +1 202.831.6106
`WCai@gibsondunn.com • www.gibsondunn.com
`*Admitted only in New York; practicing under the supervision of members of the District of Columbia Bar.
`
`From: Cai, Wendy W. <WCai@gibsondunn.com>
`Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2022 5:49 PM
`To: Steve Ravel <steve.ravel@kellyhart.com>; Adam Tisdall <ATisdall@susmangodfrey.com>;
`TXWDml_LawClerks_WA_JudgeAlbright@txwd.uscourts.gov
`Cc: Jalali, Neema <NJalali@gibsondunn.com>; Meng Xi <MXi@susmangodfrey.com>; Matthew R.
`Berry <mberry@susmangodfrey.com>; MTRIBBLE@SusmanGodfrey.com;
`SSCHULZE@SusmanGodfrey.com; Tammie DeNio <tdenio@susmangodfrey.com>; Gloria Park
`<GPark@susmangodfrey.com>; Calvin Capshaw <ccapshaw@capshawlaw.com>; *** Apple-
`Spacetime3D <Apple-Spacetime3D@gibsondunn.com>
`Subject: Re: Spacetime3D v. Apple, Case No. 6:22-cv-00149
`
`To the Court’s Law Clerks:
`
`The Markman hearing in SpaceTime3D v. Apple is scheduled for one week from
`today. The parties jointly provide a status update regarding Apple’s Motion for Intra-
`District Transfer (Dkt. 34), which is fully briefed and pending in front of the Court.
`
`
`Sincerely,
`
`
`Wendy W. Cai*
`
`GIBSON DUNN
`
`Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
`1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Washington, DC 20036-5306
`Tel +1 202.955.8295 • Cell +1 347 835 2873 • Fax +1 202.831.6106
`WCai@gibsondunn.com • www.gibsondunn.com
`
`
`*Admitted only in New York; practicing under the supervision of members of the District of Columbia Bar.
`
`On Nov 7, 2022, at 8:58 PM, Cai, Wendy W. <WCai@gibsondunn.com> wrote:
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00149-ADA Document 55-1 Filed 11/16/22 Page 5 of 5
`
`This message may contain confidential and privileged information for the sole use of the intended
`recipient. Any review, disclosure, distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is
`strictly prohibited. If it has been sent to you in error, please reply to advise the sender of the error
`and then immediately delete this message.
`
`Please see our website at https://www.gibsondunn.com/ for information regarding the firm and/or
`our privacy policy.
`
`CAUTION - EXTERNAL EMAIL: This email originated outside the Judiciary. Exercise caution
`when opening attachments or clicking on links.
`
`
`
`17
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00149-ADA Document 55-2 Filed 11/16/22 Page 1 of 1
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`Case No. 6:22-cv-00149-ADA
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`SPACETIME3D, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
` ORDER
`
`Before the Court is Apple Inc.’s (“Apple”) Motion to Stay. Having reviewed the motion
`
`and heard the argument of counsel, the Court enters the following interim order:
`
`
`
`IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Stay is GRANTED, and that all case activity in the
`
`above-captioned litigation is stayed until Apple’s Motion for Intra-District Transfer (Dkt. 34) is
`
`resolved by this Court.
`
`IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Markman hearing is postponed for 14 days until
`
`December 1, 2022.
`
`IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Response to Apple’s Motion to Stay is due
`
`on November 23, 2022.
`
`
`
`IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a final hearing on the Motion to Stay is set on the
`
`Court’s public zoom link for November 28, 2022 at 9:30 a.m.
`
`SIGNED THIS ____ day of ________, 2022.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`____________________________
`ALAN D. ALBRIGHT
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`18
`
`