Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 75 Filed 02/02/23 Page 1 of 4
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`AIRE TECHNOLOGY LTD.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 6:21-cv-01101-ADA
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT APPLE INC.’S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS MOTION TO MODIFY
`NOVEMBER 8, 2022 STAY ORDER
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`The purpose of Apple’s Motion to Modify November 8, 2022 Stay Order (“Motion”) is to
`
`inform the Court that inter partes reviews (“IPRs”) have been instituted on all presently asserted
`
`claims of all three Asserted Patents in this litigation and to request leave to file a motion to stay
`
`this litigation in view of the instituted IPRs, “so that the Court may manage its docket in view of
`
`all pertinent information.” ECF No. 73 at 1 (emphasis added). Contrary to Aire’s contentions in
`
`its Opposition (ECF No. 74), Apple is not insisting that the Court rule on the IPR Stay before
`
`deciding Apple’s Motion to Transfer (ECF No. 24), nor is Apple’s Motion in conflict with its
`
`transfer arguments or mandamus motion. Rather, Apple’s Motion is intended to provide the
`
`Court with necessary information for the Court to manage its docket in light of recent relevant
`
`events.
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`
`
`Aire’s Opposition misunderstands and overstates Apple’s position. Apple recognizes that
`
`federal courts have “inherent power ‘to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 75 Filed 02/02/23 Page 2 of 4
`
`expeditious disposition of cases,’” Eng. v. Texas Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co., No. 6:17-cv-323-
`
`ADA-JCM, 2021 WL 2786668, at *3 (W.D. Tex. May 19, 2021) (quoting Woodson v. Surgitek,
`
`Inc., 57 F.3d 1406, 1417 (5th Cir. 1995)). Accordingly, Apple’s motion is expressly intended to
`
`inform the Court that IPRs were instituted on all Asserted Patents “for purposes of managing [the
`
`Court’s] own workload and in determining the future schedule of this case” and to “allow the
`
`Court to manage its own docket based on full information.” ECF No. 73 at 1–2. Accordingly,
`
`Apple simply requested leave to timely file its IPR Stay motion (Ex. 1 to ECF No. 73) and for
`
`the Court to grant Aire a full opportunity to respond.
`
`Notwithstanding Aire’s assertions to the contrary, Apple does not insist that the Court
`
`rule on its IPR Stay before the Court issues a decision on Apple’s Motion to Transfer. Likewise,
`
`Aire’s argument that Apple’s Motion “cannot be reconciled” with its recent petition for
`
`mandamus and Motion to Transfer is unavailing. ECF No. 74 at 1. Aire claims, incorrectly, that
`
`“Apple now wants this Court to lift the very stay it perpetuated through its Appeal and grant it
`
`relief for an indefinite stay of proceedings in the very District it has fought to escape.” Id. Not
`
`so. Apple is not seeking to lift the present stay or advance this litigation in this District. Rather,
`
`Apple seeks only to modify the current stay to permit it to timely pursue its IPR Stay motion.
`
`And, further, Apple continues to maintain that transfer should be given top priority; nothing in
`
`Apple’s Motion asserts otherwise. For example, the Court may decide to manage its docket by
`
`ruling on Apple’s transfer and IPR Stay motions concurrently. Or, should the Court decide to
`
`transfer this action, the Court may decide to leave to the transferee court a ruling on Apple’s IPR
`
`Stay motion. In sum, and as expressly stated in the present Motion, the objective of Apple’s
`
`Motion is to allow the Court to manage its docket in view of new information material to this
`
`litigation. This is by no means inconsistent with Apple’s position on transfer.
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 75 Filed 02/02/23 Page 3 of 4
`
`Furthermore, had Apple not promptly after institution of the IPRs moved for a stay of
`
`litigation, Aire might have argued that such motion was untimely. See, e.g., Multimedia Content
`
`Mgmt. LLC v. Dish Network L.L.C., No. 6:18-cv-00207-ADA, 2019 WL 11706231, at *3 (W.D.
`
`Tex. May 30, 2019) (explaining the court considers whether the movant acted with reasonable
`
`dispatch in filing its motion for stay); CyWee Grp. Ltd. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., No. 2:17-cv-140-
`
`WCB-RSP, 2019 WL 11023976, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 14, 2019) (considering whether
`
`defendants filed promptly after institution). For that reason, too, Aire’s criticisms of Apple’s
`
`Motion to modify the current stay, to permit Apple’s filing of its IPR Stay motion to occur
`
`expeditiously, is not well founded.
`
`
`
`While Aire gives a preview of its arguments against an IPR Stay, Apple believes that the
`
`substance of Apple’s stay motion is better resolved when Aire has had a full opportunity to
`
`respond. Therefore, Apple will not address the merits of Aire’s IPR Stay arguments in this
`
`Reply.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, and the reasons explained in Apple’s opening brief in support
`
`of this Motion, Apple respectfully requests that the Court grant Apple’s Motion to permit the
`
`filing of Apple’s IPR Stay motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-01101-ADA Document 75 Filed 02/02/23 Page 4 of 4
`
`Dated: February 2, 2023
`
`
`
`James R. Batchelder (pro hac vice)
`Andrew N. Thomases (admitted in W.D. Tex.)
`Andrew T. Radsch (pro hac vice)
`Daniel W. Richards (pro hac vice)
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`1900 University Avenue, 6th Floor
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303
`Tel: (650) 617-4000
`Fax: (650) 617-4090
`Email: James.batchelder@ropesgray.com
`Email: Andrew.thomases@ropesgray.com
`Email: Andrew.radsch@ropesgray.com
`Email: Daniel.richards@ropesgray.com
`
`Cassandra B. Roth (pro hac vice)
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`1211 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036-8704
`Tel: (212) 596-9000
`Fax: (212) 596-9090
`Email: Cassandra.roth@ropesgray.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By:
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/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
`
`Attorneys for Defendant APPLE INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`document has been served on February 2, 2023, to all counsel of record via the Court’s CM/ECF
`
`system.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ J. Stephen Ravel
`J. Stephen Ravel
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`