`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO
`
`MAXELL, LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Case No. 6:20-cv-00646-ADA
`
`APPLE’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO STAY ACTION PURSUANT TO
`28 U.S.C. § 1659 PENDING PARALLEL ITC ACTION
`
`Maxell does not dispute this case should be stayed pending the parallel ITC Action.
`
`Maxell only (apparently) disputes how long the agreed stay should last. But Maxell’s “response”
`
`confirms that it believes the stay should last exactly as long as what Apple originally proposed:
`
`until any appeals of the parallel ITC Action are over. (Response at 2, agreeing that the Federal
`
`Circuit “has interpreted that statute to require a stay through any appeal in the action.”)
`
`Rather than simply agreeing to the unambiguous order Apple proposed reflecting this
`
`(consistent with controlling authority), Maxell injected ambiguity where there was none and
`
`blamed Apple for doing so. Indeed, after Apple sent Maxell a draft of what it anticipated would
`
`be a non-controversial and unopposed motion to stay, Maxell responded by deleting the very
`
`case law (In re Princo Corp.) Maxell now cites as correctly stating the law. (See Exhibit A,
`
`Maxell’s redline edits to Apple’s draft unopposed Motion to Stay; see also Response at 2.)
`
`Maxell ignored Apple’s repeated requests to explain its edits and why it had rejected the citation
`
`to In re Princo Corp., and forced Apple to seek Court intervention given the deadline required by
`
`section 1659.
`
`WEST\291845640.2
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00646-ADA Document 13 Filed 09/28/20 Page 2 of 3
`
`The language Apple proposes for the duration of the stay is not “surplus.” It faithfully
`
`tracks what Maxell agrees is controlling Federal Circuit authority. Apple’s proposal also ensures
`
`there is no ambiguity about when the stay can properly be lifted. Therefore, Apple submits that
`
`the Court enter an order of the form that Apple has proposed, staying this case until the ITC
`
`Action is no longer subject to judicial review, including all appeals from the ITC’s
`
`determination.
`
`Dated: September 28, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ John M. Guaragna
`John M. Guaragna
`Texas Bar No 24043308
`DLA PIPER LLP (US)
`401 Congress Avenue, Suite 2500
`Austin, TX 78701-3799
`Tel: 512.457.7125
`Fax: 512.457.7001
`john.guaragna@dlapiper.com
`
`ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT
`APPLE INC.
`
`WEST\291845640.2
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Case 6:20-cv-00646-ADA Document 13 Filed 09/28/20 Page 3 of 3
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on the 28th day of September 2020, I electronically filed the
`foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such
`filing via electronic mail to all counsel of record. Any other counsel of record will be served by
`first class U.S. mail.
`
`/s/ John M. Guaragna
`John M. Guaragna
`
`WEST\291845640.2
`
`-3-
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
