Case 2:12-cv-02866-JPM-tmp Document 38-2 Filed 02/07/13 Page 1 of 4 PageID 364
`
`(cid:221)¿›» (cid:238)(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:238)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:238)ØŒ(cid:231)(cid:243)(cid:214)—(cid:211)(cid:243)‹‡(cid:176) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ (cid:237)Ø(cid:243)(cid:238) (cid:218)•·»… (cid:240)(cid:239)æ(cid:237)(cid:239)æ(cid:239)(cid:237) —¿„» (cid:239) –” (cid:236) —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:237)(cid:240)(cid:239)
`
` Exhibit 1
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02866-JPM-tmp Document 38-2 Filed 02/07/13 Page 2 of 4 PageID 365
`
`(cid:221)¿›» (cid:238)(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:238)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:238)ØŒ(cid:231)(cid:243)(cid:214)—(cid:211)(cid:243)‹‡(cid:176) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ (cid:237)Ø(cid:243)(cid:238) (cid:218)•·»… (cid:240)(cid:239)æ(cid:237)(cid:239)æ(cid:239)(cid:237) —¿„» (cid:238) –” (cid:236) —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:237)(cid:240)(cid:238)
`
`”Westlaw Delivery Summary Report for ARMON,ORION
`
`'
`
`'
`
`C
`
`Date/Time of Request:
`Client Identifier:
`Database:
`Citation Text:
`Lines:
`Documents:
`
`Images:
`
`'
`
`Tuesday, January 29, 2013 11:02 Mountain
`309101-2035-12308
`C
`FEDFIND
`Slip Copy
`60
`1
`
`0
`
`The material accompanying this summary is subject to copyright. Usage is governed by contract with Thomson Reuters, West
`and their affiliates.
`'
`'
`«
`
`‘
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02866-JPM-tmp Document 38-2 Filed 02/07/13 Page 3 of 4 PageID 366
`
`(cid:221)¿›» (cid:238)(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:238)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:238)ØŒ(cid:231)(cid:243)(cid:214)—(cid:211)(cid:243)‹‡(cid:176) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ (cid:237)Ø(cid:243)(cid:238) (cid:218)•·»… (cid:240)(cid:239)æ(cid:237)(cid:239)æ(cid:239)(cid:237) —¿„» (cid:237) –” (cid:236) —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:237)(cid:240)(cid:237)
`
`Page 1
`
`purposes of pre—trial proceedings, and denied Fu-
`sion——IO‘s motion to transfer without prejudice to re-
`filing the same motion in the first-filed. case.
`
`Fusion-IO moved for reconsideration, but that
`motion was denied again without addressing the me-
`rits of the motion for ‘transfer. The court explained that
`its September 17, 2012 order was administrative in
`nature and that it will address each motion to transfer
`venue,
`including Fusion——IO's motion,
`in a timely
`manner.
`
`Fusion—IO now seeks from us a writ of manda-
`
`mus directing the district court to transfer the case to
`the District of Utah. To warrant that relief, Fusion—IO
`- must show (1) that it has no other adequate alternative
`means to attain the desired relief and (2) a “clear and
`indisputable” right
`to relief. Cheney v. U.S. Dist.
`Court; 542 U.S. 367 380-81, I24 S.Ct. 2576, 159
`L.Ed.2d 459 12004 1.
`
`Fusion—IO's petition asks us, in effect, to bypass
`the district court's weighing of the facts and consid—
`erations relevant to its transfer motion, which we
`decline to do. We fully expect, however, for Fu-
`sion-IO to promptly request transfer in the lead ease
`along with a motion‘ to stay proceedings pending
`disposition of the transfer motion, and for the district
`court to act on those motions before proceeding to any
`motion on the merits _of the action. See In re Horse-
`shoe Entm’t, 337‘F.3d 429, 433 (5th Cir.2003) (“As
`indicated earlier, Horseshoe filed its motion to transfer »
`timely and before it filed its answer and in our view
`disposition of that motion should have taken a top
`prioritylin the handling of this case[.]”); McDonnell
`Douglas Corp.
`v. Polin, 429 F.2d 30, 30-31 13d
`(“[I]t is not proper to postpone considera-
`tion of the application for transfer under § l404ga)
`until discovery on the merits is completed, since it is
`irrelevant
`to the determination of the preliminary
`question of transfer.”).
`
`Accordingly,
`
`IT IS ORDERED THAT:
`
`The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.
`
`Kit/téstléiizxr
`
`Slip C013)’, 2012 WL 6634939 (C.A.Fed. (Tex.))
`(Not Selected for publication in the Federal Reporter)
`(Cite as: 2012 WL 6634939 (C.A.Fed. (Tex.)))
`
`Q O
`
`nly the Westlaw citation is currently available.This
`case was not selected for publication in the Federal
`Reporter.
`
`‘
`
`Not for Publication in West's Federal Reporter See
`Fed. Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1 generally go~
`verningicitation ofjudicial decisions issued on or alter
`Jan. 1, 2007. See also Federal Circuit Rule 32.1 and
`Federal Circuit Local Rule 32.1. (Find CTAF Rule
`32.1)
`'
`
`.
`
`United States Court of Appeals,
`Federal Circuit.
`«
`In re FUSION——lO, INC., Petitioner.
`
`Misc. No. 139.
`Dec. 21, 2012.
`
`On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
`District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in case
`
`no. 1l—CV——0391,Rodney Gilstrap, Judge.
`
`Before NEWMAN, rnosr and WALLACH, Circuit
`Judges.
`'
`
`ORDER
`ON PETITION
`
`WAl..,I..ACH', Circuit Judge.
`*1 Fusion~IO, Inc. seeks a petition for a writ of
`mandamus directing the United States District Court
`for the Eastern District of Texas to transfer to the
`United States District Court for the District of Utah.
`
`"Solid State Storage Solutions, Inc. opposes the peti-
`tron.
`
`_
`
`. This petition arises out of a complaint brought by
`Solid State Storage in the Eastern District of Texas,
`charging Fusion~IO and eight other defendants with
`patent infringement. Fusion—lO moved to sever the
`infringement claims against
`it and transfer those
`claims to the District of Utah pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
`1404(ai. On September 17, 2012, the Eastern District
`of Texas granted the motion insofar; as severing the
`claims against Fusion~lO, consolidated the action
`against Fusion~IO with the originally—filed case for
`
`© 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
`
`
`
`

`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02866-JPM-tmp Document 38-2 Filed 02/07/13 Page 4 of 4 PageID 367
`
`(cid:221)¿›» (cid:238)(cid:230)(cid:239)(cid:238)(cid:243)‰“(cid:243)(cid:240)(cid:238)ØŒ(cid:231)(cid:243)(cid:214)—(cid:211)(cid:243)‹‡(cid:176) (cid:220)–‰«‡»†‹ (cid:237)Ø(cid:243)(cid:238) (cid:218)•·»… (cid:240)(cid:239)æ(cid:237)(cid:239)æ(cid:239)(cid:237) —¿„» (cid:236) –” (cid:236) —¿„»(cid:215)(cid:220) (cid:237)(cid:240)(cid:236)
`
`Page 2
`
`Slip COPY: 2012 WL 6634939 (C.A.Fed. (Tex.))
`(Not Selected for publication in the Federal Reporter)
`(Cite as: 2012 WL 6634939 (C.A.Fed. (Tex.)))
`
`C.A.Fed. (Tex.),20l2.
`In re Fusion-IO, Inc.
`
`Slip Copy, 2012 WL 6634939 (C.A.Fed. (Tex.))
`
`END OF DOCUMENT
`
`© 2013 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.