Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 127 Filed 09/27/21 Page 1 of 6
`
`ijklmÿopqprsÿÿÿÿÿÿtuvwxlyzmÿo{ÿÿÿÿÿ|j}lmÿpÿÿÿÿÿ~€lmÿ‚{ƒo„ƒo‚op
`ÿÿ !ÿ"ÿ#$$%ÿ
`"!ÿ&ÿ'!%ÿ!( ÿ
`  ÿÿ ÿ
`

`ÿÿ 
`





ÿ
`ÿÿ
`))))))))))))))))))))))ÿ
`+,ÿ-./ÿÿ+0123ÿ45675681+509ÿ
`:;<=<=>?;@ÿ
`))))))))))))))))))))))ÿ
`ÿABACDCEFÿ
`))))))))))))))))))))))ÿ
`ÿ
` ÿG

 ÿH
`ÿI
`ÿ HÿJ KLÿ ÿ

ÿM 

ÿN

ÿ
`O
`ÿP L
`ÿH
`ÿ

ÿI



` ÿO
`ÿ Hÿ

Qÿ ÿ ÿEABD
`RDBBESTDUOUVÿWLX

ÿU ÿOÿUY
`Xÿ
`DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDÿ
`ÿ
`+,ÿ-./ÿÿZ8[Z\0]ÿ23241650+4Zÿ45^9ÿ31_^9ÿ`ÿabc
`-.`,ÿ4bde`,f9ÿZ8[Z\0]ÿ23241650+4Zÿ
`8[26+489ÿ+04^9ÿZ8[Z\0]ÿZ2[+450_\41569ÿ
`+04^9ÿZ8[Z\0]ÿ8\Z1+0ÿZ2[+450_\41569ÿ3349ÿ
`:;<=<=>?;@gÿ
`))))))))))))))))))))))ÿ
`ÿABACDCEhÿ
`))))))))))))))))))))))ÿ
`ÿ
` ÿG

 ÿH
`ÿI
`ÿ HÿJ KLÿ ÿ

ÿM 

ÿN

ÿ
`O
`ÿP L
`ÿH
`ÿ

ÿI



` ÿO
`ÿ Hÿ

Qÿ ÿ ÿEABD
`RDBBESEDUOUVÿWLX

ÿU ÿOÿUY
`Xÿ
`))))))))))))))))))))))ÿ
`ÿ
`50ÿ721+1+50ÿ80_ÿ[51+50ÿ
`))))))))))))))))))))))ÿ
`ÿ
`ÿÿÿ
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 127 Filed 09/27/21 Page 2 of 6
`of 6
`Cas€€as8-21-06636-AlmtuBentiAent
`PageFRed GHat/29/27PRNP?
`
`2
`
`IN RE: INTEL CORPORATION
`
`Before LOURIE, BRYSON, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.
`
`HIJKLÿNOPOQRÿÿÿÿÿÿSTUVWKXYLÿNZÿÿÿÿÿ[I\KLÿNÿÿÿÿÿ]^_K`LÿaZbNcbNaNO
`
`
` ÿ ÿ ÿ
`  ÿÿ

ÿ ÿ  ÿ  ÿÿ  ÿÿ !"#$%ÿ
`
` ÿ &%ÿ
`'ÿ)ÿ*ÿ+ÿ)ÿ
`ÿÿ ,-ÿ.,/ÿÿ0123ÿ-4,/41ÿ%ÿ,%ÿ,ÿ
`-%ÿ501236ÿ47ÿ.,/,/ÿ,7/1ÿ42,ÿÿÿ8/,ÿÿ09
`021ÿ/4,/3ÿ,7ÿ/,ÿ,,1ÿ:/1,/4,ÿ2,ÿÿ,7ÿ
`;1,ÿ:/1,/4,ÿÿ<1ÿ,ÿ,1ÿ,71ÿ-,ÿ411ÿ,ÿ
`,7ÿ/,ÿ,,1ÿ:/1,/4,ÿ2,ÿÿ,7ÿ,7ÿ:/1,/4,ÿ
`ÿ-//%ÿÿ:0=ÿÿ..11ÿÿ0>1ÿÿ->ÿ
`,ÿ/-ÿÿ129.-=%ÿ
`ÿ:0=ÿ71ÿ12ÿ?,7ÿ ,-ÿÿ0123ÿ/ÿ,7ÿ
`;1,ÿ:/1,/4,ÿÿ<1ÿÿ//30,ÿÿ,8ÿ.,,1ÿ
`/4,ÿ,ÿ,7ÿ4/32,/ÿÿ21ÿÿ10/424,ÿ?9
`/4,/ÿ4,1%ÿÿ-,7237ÿ ,-ÿÿ0123ÿ7>ÿ?ÿ
`12ÿ1.,-=ÿ,7=ÿÿ4-1-=ÿ-/3ÿ/ÿ,71ÿ411ÿ?9
`421ÿ,7ÿ4,1ÿ,7,ÿ0ÿ,7ÿ?1/1ÿÿ:0=@1ÿ/9
`/30,ÿ--3,/1ÿÿ12..-/ÿ,ÿ ,-ÿÿ0123ÿ
`?=ÿ..-/ÿ&,/-1ÿ 4%ÿÿ..-/ÿ/1ÿ7A2,ÿ/ÿ,7ÿ
`,7ÿ:/1,/4,ÿÿ-//ÿ?2,ÿ71ÿÿ-3ÿ024,29
`/3ÿ4/-/,=ÿ/ÿ21,/ÿ<1ÿ/ÿ,7ÿ;1,ÿ:/1,/4,ÿÿ
`<1%ÿÿ21,/ÿ/1ÿ-1ÿ,7ÿ-4,/ÿÿ0123@1ÿ01,/4ÿ
`10/424,ÿ?/4,/ÿ4/-/,/1ÿ,7,ÿÿ4421ÿÿ/9
`/30,%ÿÿ-,7237ÿ ,-ÿ71ÿ/,//ÿ0.-=1ÿ
`B8-3?-ÿ?2,ÿ/,1ÿ442,ÿ8/,7ÿ..-/ÿÿ->,ÿ
`/4/-ÿ/0,/ÿ/ÿ,7ÿ,7ÿ:/1,/4,ÿÿ-/9
`/ÿ/,ÿ..1ÿ,7,ÿ ,-@1ÿ?/4,/ÿ.,/1ÿÿ09
`.-=1ÿB8-3?-ÿ?2,ÿ,7ÿ147ÿÿ
`>-.0,ÿÿ,7ÿ4421ÿ4,ÿ4/32,/1ÿÿ2,9
`1/ÿ?,7ÿ,7ÿ,7ÿ:/1,/4,ÿÿ-//ÿÿ,7ÿ;1,9
`ÿ:/1,/4,ÿÿ<1%ÿÿ
`ÿ:0=ÿ/-ÿ,71ÿ4,/1ÿ/ÿ,7ÿ;1,ÿ:/1,/4,ÿÿ
`<1ÿÿC2-=ÿDEÿ

F

F%ÿÿÿ0,7ÿ-,ÿ..-/ÿ/-ÿÿ
`4,/ÿ/ÿ,7ÿ,7ÿ:/1,/4,ÿÿ-//ÿ1B/3ÿÿ9
`4-,=ÿG230,ÿÿ9//30,ÿÿ,7ÿ10ÿ,8ÿ
`.,,1ÿ,7,ÿ:0=ÿ7ÿ11,ÿ3/1,ÿ0123ÿÿ
`
`Intel Corporation and SamsungElectronics Co., Ltd. et
`al. (Samsung)eachpetition this court for a writ of manda-
`mus
`directing the United States District Court for the
`Western District of Texas to transfer these related cases to
`the United States District Court for the Northern District
`of California. Demaray LLC opposes and movesfor leave
`to file a
`sur-reply.
`Demaray has sued both Intel and Samsung in the
`Western District of Texas for infringement of two patents
`directed to the configuration and use of semiconductorfab-
`rication reactors.
`Although Intel and Samsung have been
`are
`closely aligned in thesecases be-
`sued separately, they
`cause the reactors that form the basis of Demaray’s in-
`are
`to Intel and Samsung
`supplied
`fringement allegations
`by Applied Materials, Inc. Applied is headquartered in the
`Northern District of California but has a
`large manufactur-
`in Austin, Texas, in the Western District of
`ing facility
`Texas. Austin is also the location of Samsung’s domestic
`semiconductor fabrication facilities that are accusedof in-
`fringement. Although Intel has identified employees
`knowledgeable about its account with Applied and relevant
`financial information in the Northern District of Califor-
`nia, it appears that Intel’s fabrication operations and em-
`about
`the
`research
`and
`ployees
`knowledgeable
`are out-
`developmentof the accused reactor
`configurations
`side both the Northern District of California and the West-
`ern District of Texas.
`
`PER CURIAM.
`
`ORDER
`
`Demarayfiled these actions in the Western District of
`Texas on
`July 14, 2020. A month later, Applied filed an
`a de-
`action in the Northern District of California seeking
`claratory judgment of non-infringement of the same two
`patents that Demaray hadasserted against Samsung and
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 127 Filed 09/27/21 Page 3 of 6
`Cas€€as8-21-06636-AlmteuBentiA8nt Pageried GFHEH/29/272D? 4 of 6
`
`IN RE: INTEL CORPORATION
`
`3
`
`CDEFGÿIJKJLMÿÿÿÿÿÿNOPQRFSTGÿIUÿÿÿÿÿVDWFGÿXÿÿÿÿÿYZ[F\Gÿ]U^I_^I]IJ
` ÿ ÿ ÿ
`  ÿ
`ÿ

ÿ
` ÿÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿ  ÿÿÿ
`
`  ÿ! ÿ ÿ  ÿÿÿ ÿÿ ÿ
`ÿ ÿ ÿ  ÿ" ÿ#ÿ! ÿ
` $ÿÿ ÿ %ÿ&'&'(ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿÿ
`
` ÿ ÿ)ÿ ÿ ) !ÿ*+,-.ÿ01.,-2ÿÿ
`ÿÿ  ÿÿ ÿÿ (ÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ
`3  !ÿ ÿÿ ÿ ÿ  ÿÿ ÿ4#ÿ55(ÿ&'&5(ÿÿ
`
` ÿ ÿ! ÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÿÿ
` ÿ ! ÿÿ ! !ÿ%ÿÿ
` ÿ ÿÿ
`ÿ ÿ %ÿ&'&'(ÿ3  !ÿ ÿ ÿÿÿ 6
`ÿÿ ÿÿ7  ÿ8 ÿÿ9 ÿÿ ÿ ÿ
`  ÿÿÿ  ÿ8 ÿÿ ÿ ÿ:#ÿ5(ÿ
`&'&5(ÿÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿ6
` (ÿÿÿÿÿ ÿ3  !ÿ ÿ ÿÿ
` % ÿÿÿ  ÿ8 ÿÿ ÿ ÿÿ
`#ÿÿ   ÿÿ ÿÿ7  ÿ8 ÿÿ
`9 (ÿÿ " ÿ  ÿÿÿÿÿ
` ÿÿ3  !ÿ (ÿÿ ÿÿ! ;ÿÿ
` ÿ3  !ÿ ÿÿ# ÿ ÿÿ   ÿ
`ÿÿ ÿÿ  ÿ8 ÿÿ ÿÿ  6
` (ÿÿÿ!ÿÿ   6666
`   ÿÿ ÿ ÿÿÿÿ% ÿÿ3  !ÿ
`# ÿ ÿ  ÿ<ÿ) !%ÿ%ÿÿ!6
`#ÿ  ! !ÿ ÿ ÿÿ=ÿÿ #ÿ%ÿ
` ÿ  ÿÿ>ÿÿ?ÿÿ ÿ (ÿÿÿ
` ÿÿ<" ÿ  ÿ  !ÿ  ÿÿ
` ÿÿ3  !" ÿ ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿ
` ! ÿ ÿ" ÿ  ÿÿÿ ÿ
` ÿÿÿ3  !ÿ >ÿÿÿ@A?ÿÿB6
`(ÿÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ   (ÿ  !ÿ
`3  !ÿ# ÿ ÿ   (ÿÿ%ÿ !ÿÿ
` ÿ%ÿ  ÿ
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ
`$ÿÿÿ % = #ÿÿ ÿ#ÿ
`! ÿ ÿ ÿ (ÿÿ ÿ ÿ  !ÿÿÿ
`
`enjoin the two
`Intel. Applied moved the California court to
`suits against its customers. The California court denied
`that motion and dismissed Allied’s declaratory judgment
`action.” In October 2020, Applied filed a
`petition with the
`Patent and Trademark Office seeking inter partes review
`In that petition, Allied named Intel and
`of the patents.
`Samsungasreal parties in interest. On May 11, 2021, the
`Patent Office granted the petitions and instituted review.
`are
`Those proceedings
`ongoing before the Patent Office.
`In November 2020, Samsung and Intel movedthedis-
`trict court in the Western District of Texas to transfer these
`cases to the Northern District of California. On July 1,
`or-
`2021, the court denied those motions. In two separate
`nor Intel had
`ders, the court ruled that neither Samsung
`established that the Northern District of California was a
`more convenient forum than the Western District of
`clearly
`Texas, the plaintiff's chosen forum.
`In the Samsungcase,the district court
`recognized that
`some
`Samsung and Applied employees and two inventors
`are located in the Northern District of California. None-
`the court
`regarded the convenience-of-the-wit-
`theless,
`nesses factor as neutral. The court observed that Samsung
`employees in Austin “are knowledgeable about the alleg-
`edly infringing process and are
`to
`testify about
`qualified
`those processes at trial.” App. 9.
`In addition, the court
`are
`found that “Applied’s Austin manufacturing personnel
`accuseduseof the claimed reactor
`involved with Samsung’s
`configurations and Applied’s Austin office provided support
`staff for the Samsungrelationship.” App. 8-9. Further-
`more, the court
`out that other witnesses, including
`pointed
`Samsung employees and inventors, would be coming from
`outside both districts.
`
`*
`
`Applied subsequently filed another declaratory
`judgmentaction in California, whichis still pending.
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 127 Filed 09/27/21 Page 4 of 6
`of 6
`Cas€as®-21-06636-AlmtuBentiZent PageFded GHat/29/272024
`
`4
`
`IN RE: INTEL CORPORATION
`
`NOPQRÿTUVUWXÿÿÿÿÿÿYZ[\]Q^_RÿT`ÿÿÿÿÿaObQRÿcÿÿÿÿÿdefQgRÿh`iTjiThTU
`
`
` ÿ ÿ ÿ
`  ÿÿ

ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿ ÿ ÿ
`ÿÿÿ ÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿ
` ÿÿ!"ÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ!ÿ
`ÿÿÿ ÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿ ÿ
`#ÿ ÿÿ#"ÿ ÿ"ÿÿÿÿÿ!
`ÿ ÿÿÿÿ#ÿÿÿ$
`"ÿÿÿÿÿ%ÿ!ÿÿ ÿ
`&ÿ'ÿÿ( ÿÿ ÿÿÿ ÿ ÿ&
`ÿ'ÿÿ(ÿ ÿÿ" ÿ#"ÿ ÿ"ÿÿ
` ÿÿÿ)ÿ"#ÿ ÿ$"*ÿÿ
`ÿ!ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿ ÿÿ
`ÿÿ ÿÿ$"*ÿÿÿÿÿ
`)ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿ+ÿÿ
` ÿ"ÿ"ÿÿÿ ÿ,-./0ÿ230./4ÿ
`#)ÿ  ÿÿÿ ÿ ÿÿ
`5#"ÿÿ ÿ'*ÿÿ"ÿ$
`"ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿ&ÿ'ÿÿ()ÿ ÿ
`ÿÿ ÿÿÿ *ÿ ÿÿ ÿÿ
`ÿ ÿ6ÿÿÿ" ÿ
`"ÿÿÿ ÿÿ"ÿ  ÿÿ ÿÿ!
`#ÿ ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿ!ÿÿÿÿ
`ÿ"ÿÿÿ ÿ #"ÿ ÿÿÿ
`ÿ!ÿÿÿÿÿÿ!ÿ)ÿ
`"#ÿ ÿ ÿ##ÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿ
`"ÿ " ÿÿ ÿÿÿÿ ÿÿ
`ÿ+ÿ#ÿ ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿ ÿÿ
` ÿÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿÿ ÿ ÿ
`
`#ÿÿÿ#ÿÿÿ" ÿÿ ÿ
`ÿÿ*ÿÿÿ#ÿÿ ÿ&ÿ
`'ÿÿ( ÿÿ ÿÿ"ÿÿÿ *ÿ
` ÿ ÿÿÿÿÿÿ" ÿÿÿ
`ÿÿ! )ÿ"ÿ ÿ ")ÿ ÿÿ ÿÿ
`ÿÿ!ÿ"ÿ" ÿÿ ÿÿ78/-/9ÿ:;ÿ<;=;ÿ
`>,4.;ÿ7.;ÿ?@0ÿ>;7 )ÿA

BÿC $ ÿDEF)ÿDGHÿIBJJ

KÿIÿ
`K ÿÿ&ÿ #ÿ"Lÿ ÿÿÿ6ÿM!ÿ
`ÿÿÿÿÿÿBGÿC $  ÿ
`
`The district court also found that the compulsory-pro-
`cess factor was neutral. The court
`out that Applied
`pointed
`to the defendants and could be
`had indemnity obligations
`counted on to appear. The court also found that neither
`venue had an
`to sources of proof be-
`advantage with regard
`cause the accusedreactors and relevant documents of Sam-
`were in and/or accessible from the
`sung and Applied
`Western District of Texas. The court addedthat the West-
`ern District of Texas had a
`to
`slight advantage with regard
`the local interest factor, given that Samsung’s only domes-
`tic fabrication facilities were in Austin. The court addition-
`case were transferred to
`ally speculated that if Samsung’s
`California, the California district court would likely stay
`re-
`the litigation pending completion of the inter partes
`views, which would delaythetrial.
`Having concluded that Demaray’s suit against Sam-
`sung should remain in the Western District of Texas, the
`district court then turned to Intel’s motion. The court
`found that
`economy considerations weighed
`judicial
`against transfer of the case
`against Intel. The court ob-
`served that the two cases had been coordinatedforall pre-
`trial proceedings and found that having the two cases
`twodifferent district courts would beinefficient,
`decided by
`given that they involve the same
`patents and the same un-
`derlying technology. The court
`additionally found that it
`could likely resolve the Intel case faster than the California
`court. The district court was also not
`persuaded that the
`private interest factors favored transferin light of the pres-
`ence of Applied’s employees and evidence in the Western
`District of Texas. The court
`accordingly also denied Intel’s
`motion.
`
`The standard for mandamusrelief is demanding. A pe-
`titioner must establish, among other things, that it has a
`v. U.S.
`to relief. Cheney
`clear and indisputable legal right
`Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 381 (2004) (citation omit-
`ted). We have recognized that district courts
`enjoy “broad
`discretion in transfer decisions pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 127 Filed 09/27/21 Page 5 of 6
`
`fghijÿlmnmopÿÿÿÿÿÿqrstuivwjÿlxÿÿÿÿÿygzijÿ{ÿÿÿÿÿ|}~ijÿ€xl‚l€lm
` ÿ ÿ ÿ
`  ÿ
`ÿ

ÿ
` ÿÿÿÿÿ ÿ!"#$ÿ%&'ÿ()*ÿ)&$ÿ)ÿ(+*ÿ
`,-ÿ&ÿÿ .ÿ/.*/01$ÿ2+ÿ-+3,+2ÿ4.56ÿ74-ÿ895+-ÿ:01+1ÿ
`47ÿ*,19-+;,4.ÿ;<;ÿ=-4*09+ÿ=;+.;56ÿ+--4.+401ÿ-+105;1ÿÿÿ
`ÿ>?@ABÿ>CÿDE#FÿG#$ÿ



ÿ()*ÿ)$ÿ)&ÿ

;<ÿ,-ÿ
`&'ÿ+.ÿ:.9ÿÿH+ÿ9..4;ÿ16ÿ;<;ÿ1;.*-*ÿ,1ÿ/+;ÿ<+-+ÿÿ
`ÿ4ÿ:+ÿ10-+$ÿ;<+ÿ*,1;-,9;ÿ940-;ÿ+--+*ÿ,.ÿ2+,I<,.IÿI,.1;ÿ
`;-.17+-ÿ;<+ÿ5,J+5,<44*ÿ;<;ÿ;<+ÿ5,74-.,ÿ940-;ÿ2405*ÿ1;6ÿ
`=-49++*,.I1ÿ=+.*,.Iÿ;<+ÿ
`;+.;ÿ 77,9+K1ÿ-+3,+2ÿÿ<+ÿ(,7;<ÿ
`,-90,;ÿ<1ÿ<+5*ÿ;<;ÿ4.56ÿ8,.ÿ--+ÿ.*ÿ1=+9,5ÿ9,-90/L
`1;.9+1ÿ2405*ÿ8*+56ÿ4-ÿ8=-+M0*,9+ÿ-+105;,.Iÿ7-4/ÿ;-.1L
`7+-ÿ:+ÿ8-+5+3.;ÿ,.ÿ*+9,*,.Iÿÿ/4;,4.ÿÿÿÿN>O>ÿP$ÿ
`))Qÿ()*ÿ&R$ÿ)ÿ

;<ÿ,-ÿ&)ÿ,.;+-.5ÿS04;;,4.ÿ/-J1ÿ
`4/,;;+*ÿÿ<+ÿ=411,:,5,;6ÿ47ÿÿ1;6ÿ=+.*,.Iÿ;<+ÿ
`;+.;ÿ 7L
`7,9+K1ÿ-+3,+2ÿ7;+-ÿ;-.17+-ÿ7551ÿ7-ÿ1<4-;ÿ47ÿ1;,176,.Iÿ;<;ÿ
`1;.*-*ÿÿÿ
`T4-+43+-$ÿ;<+ÿ*,1;-,9;ÿ940-;ÿ1<405*ÿ.4;ÿ<3+ÿ-+I-*+*ÿ
`;<+ÿ=411,:,5,;6ÿ;<;ÿ;<+ÿ;-.17+-++ÿ940-;ÿ2405*ÿ,110+ÿÿ1;6ÿ
`=+.*,.Iÿÿ ÿ-+3,+2ÿ1ÿ2+,I<,.IÿI,.1;ÿ;-.17+-ÿÿ
`<+ÿÿ ÿ-+3,+2ÿ=-49+11$ÿ5,J+ÿ4;<+-ÿ=41;L,110.9+ÿ-+L
`3,+2ÿ=-49++*,.I1$ÿ21ÿ*+1,I.+*ÿ;4ÿI,3+ÿ;<+ÿI+.96ÿ.ÿ4=L
`=4-;0.,;6ÿ;4ÿ94--+9;ÿ,;1ÿ/,1;J+1$ÿ;4ÿI,3+ÿ940-;1ÿ;<+ÿ:+.+7,;ÿ
`47ÿ;<+ÿI+.96K1ÿ94.1,*+-;,4.ÿ47ÿ;<+ÿ+77+9;ÿ47ÿ=-,4-ÿ-;ÿ4.ÿ=L
`;+.;1ÿ:+,.Iÿ11+-;+*ÿ,.ÿ5,;,I;,4.$ÿ.*ÿ;4ÿ-+*09+ÿ;<+ÿ:0-*+.ÿ
`47ÿ5,;,I;,4.ÿ4.ÿ;<+ÿ=-;,+1ÿ.*ÿ;<+ÿ940-;1ÿÿUÿVWÿ
`VGO#ÿXUDÿY#ÿZCW@Wÿ[> #$ÿ')ÿ()*ÿ)

Q$ÿ)%&ÿ(+*ÿ
`,-ÿ&%\ÿ]^[ÿ_GO#ÿ!![ÿY#ÿN_[ÿDE#FÿG#$ÿ 4ÿ&)L93L
`

'$ÿ&

ÿHÿ%R$ÿ;ÿ`&$ÿa

ÿbÿ+cÿT-ÿ$ÿ
`&

\ÿÿ?>ÿW?ÿDB?dÿG#ÿY#ÿU?^>G#G>EFÿG#$ÿ
`Q

Rÿ()*ÿ)Q$ÿ)ÿ(+*ÿ,-ÿ&\ÿÿÿP$ÿQ

%ÿ(&*ÿ
`'

&$ÿ'

Qÿ(+*ÿ,-ÿR'

\ÿe>W?"ÿY#ÿ[>>?ÿ!ÿ[> #$ÿQ

ÿ
`(&*ÿ)$ÿ)&ÿ(+*ÿ,-ÿR')ÿ8 .+ÿ=0-=41+ÿ47ÿ;<+ÿ-++cL
`/,.;,4.ÿ=-49+*0-+ÿ,1ÿ;4ÿ+5,/,.;+ÿ;-,5ÿ47ÿ;<;ÿ,110+ÿÿÿÿ
`4-ÿ79,5,;;+ÿ;-,5ÿ47ÿ;<;ÿ,110+ÿ:6ÿ=-43,*,.Iÿ;<+ÿ*,1;-,9;ÿ
`940-;ÿ2,;<ÿ;<+ÿ+c=+-;ÿ3,+2ÿ47ÿ;<+ÿ
` ÿÿÿÿÿÿ(4-ÿ;<;ÿ-+L
`14.$ÿ;<+ÿ2,55,.I.+11ÿ47ÿÿ940-;ÿ,.ÿ;<+ÿ;-.17+-++ÿ74-0/ÿ;4ÿ
`94.1,*+-ÿI-.;,.Iÿ1;61ÿ=+.*,.Iÿÿ ÿ-+3,+2ÿ.*ÿ
`
`

`

`Case 6:20-cv-00636-ADA Document 127 Filed 09/27/21 Page 6 of 6
`Cas€as8-21-06636-AlmtuBentiAent PageFied GHat/29/2720? 6 of 6
`
`6
`
`IN RE: INTEL CORPORATION
`
`the disposition of the transferor court not to grant such
`stays) is not a
`justification for denying transfer.
`Nonetheless, Intel and Samsung have not shown a
`to transfer. Mindful of the
`clear and indisputable right
`we are not
`to
`standard of review,
`second-guess
`prepared
`the district court’s findings that Samsung’s and Applied’s
`operations within the Western District of Texasare
`likely
`sources of evidence and witnesses in Sam-
`to be important
`case. Thedistrict court also reasonably found that
`sung’s
`keeping the cases
`against Samsung and Intel before one
`court would preserve judicial economy and minimize the
`potential for inconsistent judgments. And we cannot say
`that Intel has shownthat the transferee venueis so
`clearly
`more convenient as to override those benefits in its case.
`The petitioners make much of Applied’s pending declara-
`tion judgment suit in the Northern District of California,
`but that suit was filed after these complaints, and we see
`no clear error in the district court’s assessmentof the pen-
`dencyof that case based on the information available at the
`timeof its decision on the transfer motions.
`
`9:;<=ÿ?@A@BCÿÿÿÿÿÿDEFGH<IJ=ÿ?KÿÿÿÿÿL:M<=ÿBÿÿÿÿÿNOP<Q=ÿRKS?TS?R?@
`
`
` ÿ ÿ ÿ
`  ÿÿ

ÿ ÿ ÿÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÿ
` ÿÿ ÿÿ  ÿÿÿ ÿ
`ÿ  !ÿ   ÿÿ"#ÿ$ÿ ÿ%ÿÿ
` ÿÿ & ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿÿ' ÿÿ ÿ
` ÿÿ$%!ÿ%ÿÿ ÿÿ ÿ(ÿ
` ÿ  ÿ )ÿÿ  ÿ"#)ÿÿ )ÿ
` ÿ% ÿ ÿ* ÿ+  ÿÿ,ÿÿ - ÿ
` ÿ&ÿ#  ÿÿÿ$ÿÿ% ÿÿ"#(
`)ÿÿÿÿ  ÿ ÿ ÿ& ÿÿ  ÿ
`-ÿ ÿÿ ÿ"#ÿÿ   ÿ&ÿÿ
` ÿ% ÿ$ÿ ÿ#ÿÿ##.ÿ ÿ
`   ÿÿ  ÿ# ÿÿÿ%ÿ ÿÿ
`  ÿ   ÿÿ%ÿ  ÿ ÿ ÿ$ÿÿÿ  ÿ
`#ÿ$ ÿÿ ÿ$ÿ ÿ& ÿÿ ÿÿÿ
`ÿ  ÿ#-ÿ#ÿÿ )ÿÿ (
` ÿ# ÿ ÿÿ ÿ ÿ+  ÿÿ !ÿ
`& ÿ  ÿ ÿ%ÿ ÿ ÿ ÿ#  !ÿÿ%ÿÿ
`ÿ ÿÿÿ ÿ  ÿ )ÿ# ÿÿ ÿ(
`ÿÿ  ÿÿ&ÿÿ ÿ# ÿ$ & ÿ ÿ ÿ
` #ÿÿ ÿÿÿ ÿ ÿ# ÿ
`
` !ÿ
`ÿ ÿ "ÿ + +ÿ/ÿ
`ÿ01ÿÿ  ÿÿÿÿ
`ÿ02ÿÿ# ÿ ÿ ÿÿ( ÿÿÿ
`5 ÿ/ÿ 6 ÿ
`ÿÿ
`ÿ77ÿ
` ÿ ÿ'- ÿ
`" #&ÿ23!ÿ2421ÿÿÿ
`+ ÿ
`
` ÿ ÿ'- ÿ
` -ÿÿ ÿ
`81ÿ
`
`Accordingly,
`
`IT IS ORDERED THAT:
`
`are denied.
`(1) The petitions
`(2) The motion to file a
`
`sur-reply is denied.
`FOR THE COURT
`
`September 27, 2021
`Date
`
`/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
`
`Peter R. Marksteiner
`
`Clerk of Court
`
`s3l1
`
`