Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 58 Filed 09/09/22 Page 1 of 10
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`
`AIRE TECHNOLOGY LTD.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-01101-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`PLAINTIFF AIRE TECHNOLOGY LTD.’S RESPONSE TO
`DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S S OPPOSED MOTION TO STAY
`PROCEDING PENDING MANDAMUS REVIEW
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 58 Filed 09/09/22 Page 2 of 10
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
`LEGAL STANDARDS ....................................................................................................... 1
`ARGUMENT ....................................................................................................................... 2
`
`Apple’s Mandamus Petition is Weak. ..................................................................... 2
`A.
`The Remaining Factors Do Not Favor a Stay. ......................................................... 3
`B.
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 5
`
`I.
`II.
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 58 Filed 09/09/22 Page 3 of 10
`
`
`
`Cases
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997) ..................................................................................... 1
`
`Health Choice Grp., LLC v. Bayer Corp.,
`No. 5:17-CV-126, 2018 WL 5728515 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 25, 2018) .............................................. 2
`
`In re Google Inc., No. 2015-138, 2015 WL 5294800 (Fed. Cir. July 16, 2015) ............................. 3
`
`In re Ramu Corp., 903 F.2d 312, 318 (5th Cir. 1990) ..................................................................... 1
`
`In re Superior Crewboats, Inc., 374 F.3d 330, 334 (5th Cir. 2004) ................................................ 4
`
`In re Volkswagen of Am. Inc., 566 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009) ............................................. 2
`
`Neodron Ltd. v. Dell Techs. Inc.,
`9 No. 1:19-CV-819, 2019 WL 9633629 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 16, 2019) .......................................... 1
`
`Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. FedEx Corp.,
` No. 2:16-cv-00980-JRG, 2017 WL 6559172, (E.D. Tex. Dec. 22, 2017) ........................... 2,4,5
`
`Mullenix v. Univ. of Texas at Austin,
`No. 1-19-CV-1203-LY, 2021 WL 5416996 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 19, 2021) ................................... 4
`
`Multimedia Content Mgmt. LLC v. DISH Network L.L.C.,
`No. 6:18-CV-00207, Dkt. No. 73 (W.D. Tex. May 30, 2019) .................................................... 4
`
`Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 427 (2009) ...................................................................................... 2
`
`Scramoge Tech. Ltd. v. Google LLC,
` No. 6:21-cv-00616, Dkt. No. 72 (W.D. Tex. May 20, 2022) ..................................................... 4
`
`Scramoge Tech. Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.,
` No. 6:21-cv-00454, Dkt. No. 92 (W.D. Tex. May 23, 2022) ..................................................... 4
`
`Smartflash LLC v. Google, Inc.,
` No. 6:14-cv-435-JRG-KNM, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192373 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 6, 2015) .... 2,4,5
`
`Team Worldwide Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
` No. 2:17-CV-235, 2018 WL 2722051 (E.D. Tex. June 6, 2018) ............................................... 1
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc.,
` o. 2:19-cv-00259-JRG-RSP, 2020 WL 1433960, (E.D. Tex. Mar. 24, 2020) ...................... 1,4,5
`
`Van Dusen v. Barrack,
`376 U.S. 612 (1964) .................................................................................................................... 3
`
`
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 58 Filed 09/09/22 Page 4 of 10
`
`
`
`Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) ......................................................................................................................... 3
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 58 Filed 09/09/22 Page 5 of 10
`
`
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Aire opposes Apple’s motion to stay proceedings pending mandamus review. Apple’s
`
`motion is premised primarily on the assertion that the Court erred in granting Apple’s motion to
`
`supplement its transfer motion with its late declarations (Dkt. No. 54, “Order”), which resulted in
`
`delaying resolution of the transfer motion. Apple filed a petition for writ of mandamus with the
`
`Federal Circuit to contest the Order. On that basis, Apple now believes that a stay is warranted
`
`and that this case should be further delayed. Apple is wrong on the facts and the law. Apple has
`
`been granted enough leeway in missing deadlines, and Aire should not continue to suffer harm
`
`from Apple’s dilatory behavior. The motion should be denied.
`
`II.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`District courts possess an inherent power to manage their own docket, including the
`
`discretionary power to decide whether to stay proceedings. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706
`
`(1997); In re Ramu Corp., 903 F.2d 312, 318 (5th Cir. 1990). Stays are not awarded as a matter
`
`of right. Team Worldwide Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 2:17-CV-235, 2018 WL 2722051,
`
`at *2 (E.D. Tex. June 6, 2018). The “standard is a demanding one,” in that “a stay ‘is an intrusion
`
`into the ordinary processes of administration and judicial review.’” Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Samsung
`
`Elecs. Am., Inc., No. 2:19-cv-00259-JRG-RSP, 2020 WL 1433960, at *2-3 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 24,
`
`2020).
`
`Apple bears the heavy burden to “make out a clear case of hardship or inequity.” Neodron
`
`Ltd. v. Dell Techs. Inc., No. 1:19-CV-819, 2019 WL 9633629, at *1 (W.D. Tex. Dec. 16, 2019).
`
`Even when a dispositive motion is pending, the presumption is that the case will proceed unless
`
`the movant can show “good cause” for a stay. See Health Choice Grp., LLC v. Bayer Corp., No.
`
`5:17-CV-126, 2018 WL 5728515, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 25, 2018). A party filing a petition for a
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 58 Filed 09/09/22 Page 6 of 10
`
`
`
`writ of mandamus “seeks an extraordinary remedy from the Court’s exercise of discretion.”
`
`Smartflash LLC v. Google, Inc., No. 6:14-cv-435-JRG-KNM, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192373, at
`
`*30-31 (E.D. Tex. Apr. 6, 2015). As a result, courts “will not delay the normal litigation schedule
`
`to accommodate one party seeking this type of extraordinary remedy.” Id.
`
`When considering whether to stay proceedings pending mandamus review of a court’s
`
`order, four factors must be considered: (i) the movant has made a “strong showing that it is likely
`
`to succeed on the merits”; (ii) the movant has made a showing of irreparable injury if the stay is
`
`not granted; (iii) granting of the stay would substantially harm the other parties; and (iv) granting
`
`of the stay would serve the public interest. Health Choice Grp., LLC, 2018 WL 5728515, at *2
`
`(citing Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 427 (2009)); see also Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. FedEx
`
`Corp., No. 2:16-cv-00980-JRG, 2017 WL 6559172, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 22, 2017) (applying the
`
`Nken factors in the context of a mandamus petition).
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A. Apple’s Mandamus Petition Is Weak
`
`Apple cannot show that it is entitled to a writ of mandamus “to correct a clear abuse of
`
`discretion” by this Court. In re Volkswagen of Am. Inc., 566 F.3d 1349, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
`
`To begin with, the circumstances leading to the Order are not typical for transfer or mandamus
`
`cases. Namely, Apple waited until the end of venue discovery and more than two months after
`
`filing its April 14, 2022 transfer motion to move the Court for leave to supplement with seven new
`
`declarations on June 22, 2022. Dkt. No. 24; Dkt. No. 36. As the information in the declarations
`
`was known to Apple by the time Apple filed its transfer motion, Apple had no excuse for its
`
`tardiness. Dkt. No. 40 at 2. In order to persuade the Court that supplementation was proper, Apple
`
`represented to the Court that “a continuance would not affect the overall trajectory of this case.”
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 58 Filed 09/09/22 Page 7 of 10
`
`
`
`Dkt. No. 36 at 6. Now that the Court has granted Apple’s motion, Apple complains to the Federal
`
`Circuit that the Court should not have done so. It is difficult to imagine how this constitutes an
`
`abuse of the Court’s discretion.
`
`Apple’s argument omits these salient facts and instead focuses on general principles
`
`regarding priority for transfer motions. Mot. at 3-5. But for Apple’s untimely supplement, the
`
`Court would have resolved the transfer motion in advance of the then-scheduled September 1,
`
`2022 Markman hearing. Dkt. No. 46. Rather, Apple’s dilatory motion has prejudiced Aire by
`
`unnecessarily delaying the natural progression of this case. The only analogous binding
`
`precedential case Apple cites is In re Google Inc., No. 2015-138, 2015 WL 5294800 (Fed. Cir.
`
`July 16, 2015). That case concerned a mandamus petition as well as the fact that “Google moved
`
`to supplement its motion to transfer.” Id. at *1-2. However, Google did not seek to introduce any
`
`further delay as a result of its supplementation request. Id. at *1 (“Google expressly asked the
`
`district court to deny the request if it meant further delay on the transfer motion”). This case thus
`
`cuts against Apple’s argument because Apple’s motion to supplement not only failed to make the
`
`same request as in Google, but it expressly assured the Court that a resulting “continuance would
`
`not affect the overall trajectory of this case,” which the Court relied on when granting Apple’s
`
`motion. Dkt. No. 36 at 6; Dkt. No. 54 at 2. The Court should hold Apple to that representation.
`
`B. The Remaining Factors Do Not Favor a Stay
`
`Apple will not suffer irreparable injury in the absence of a stay. The convenience factors
`
`used to evaluate transfer motions concern proximity to the place of trial. Van Dusen v. Barrack,
`
`376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964) (“Section 1404(a) reflects an increased desire to have federal civil suits
`
`tried in the federal system at the place called for in the particular case by considerations of
`
`convenience and justice”). Today, since documents are produced electronically and depositions
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 58 Filed 09/09/22 Page 8 of 10
`
`
`
`are conducted virtually, it is immaterial where such discovery takes place. Apple identifies a
`
`number of “substantive steps” that it might have to take before a transfer decision issues: add
`
`parties, serve final infringement and invalidity contentions, amend pleadings, narrow the asserted
`
`claims and prior art, and exchange preliminary exhibit and witness lists for trial. Mot. at 5. These
`
`are all steps that occur in patent litigation regardless of venue, and Apple has not made a showing
`
`that NDCA patent rules differ materially from WDTX patent rules in these regards.1 And none of
`
`these steps implicates Apple’s witnesses or inconvenience Apple with any travel. Finally, in
`
`moving for leave to supplement, Apple argued that “fact discovery will commence on July 18
`
`regardless of whether a continuance is or is not granted.” Dkt. No. 36 at 6. Having succeeded in
`
`persuading the Court that supplementation was proper, Apple is judicially estopped now from
`
`arguing the contrary to put fact discovery on hold. See In re Superior Crewboats, Inc., 374 F.3d
`
`330, 334 (5th Cir. 2004).
`
`In contrast, Aire will suffer harm from a stay, as it would delay the “just, speedy, and
`
`inexpensive determination” of this case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1. A patent holder has “an interest in the
`
`timely enforcement of its patent right.” Multimedia Content Mgmt. LLC v. DISH Network L.L.C.,
`
`No. 6:18-CV-00207, Dkt. No. 73 at 4 (W.D. Tex. May 30, 2019). The prejudice to Aire that would
`
`result from even a short delay would injure Aire’s ability to timely enforce its patents. See, e.g.,
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., No. 2:19-cv-00259-JRG-RSP, 2020 WL 1433960,
`
`at *4 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 24, 2020) (delay in prosecution of infringement claims is prejudicial because
`
`
`1 Nor should Apple be permitted for the first time on reply to argue that there are differences
`between these rules or procedures. See Mullenix v. Univ. of Texas at Austin, No. 1-19-CV-1203-
`LY, 2021 WL 5416996, at *6 (W.D. Tex. Nov. 19, 2021) (“The Court does not consider arguments
`raised for the first time in a reply brief.”); Scramoge Tech. Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 6:21-
`cv-00454, Dkt. No. 92, at 7 (W.D. Tex. May 23, 2022); Scramoge Tech. Ltd. v. Google LLC, No.
`6:21-cv-00616, Dkt. No. 72, at 4-5 (W.D. Tex. May 20, 2022).
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 58 Filed 09/09/22 Page 9 of 10
`
`
`
`“a plaintiff has a right to timely enforce its patents”); Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. FedEx Corp.,
`
`No. 2:16-cv-00980, 2017 WL 6559172, at *4 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 22, 2017) (denying a stay pending
`
`mandamus noting that “a plaintiff has a right to timely enforcement of its patent rights, even if [it]
`
`does not practice the asserted patents, [or] could be made whole by money damages”).
`
`Nor would the public interest be served by a stay. Uniloc, 2020 WL 1433960, at *4 (the
`
`public has an interest in the “just and speedy resolution of disputes”). The presumption is that
`
`discovery should proceed notwithstanding the filing of a mandamus petition. Smartflash LLC,
`
`2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 192373, at *30-31 (the court will not delay the normal litigation schedule
`
`to accommodate one party’s seeking this type of extraordinary remedy).
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, the motion to stay should be denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 58 Filed 09/09/22 Page 10 of 10
`
`
`
`Dated: September 9, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/Brett Cooper
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Brett E. Cooper
`(NY SBN 4011011)
`bcooper@bc-lawgroup.com
`Seth Hasenour
`(TX SBN 24059910)
`shasenour@bc-lawgroup.com
`Drew B. Hollander
`(NY SBN 5378096)
`dhollander@bc-lawgroup.com
`
`BC LAW GROUP, P.C.
`200 Madison Avenue, 24th Floor
`New York, NY 10016
`Phone: (516) 359-9968
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Aire Technology
`Limited
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`
`
`I hereby certify that the counsel of record who are deemed to have consented to electronic
`
`service are being served on September 9, 2022 with a copy of this document via the Court’s ECF
`
`system.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/Brett Cooper
`Brett Cooper
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`