throbber
Case: 21-187 Document: 2-1 Page: 1 Filed: 09/16/2021
`
`Miscellaneous Docket No. ___
`
`
`
`IN THE
`United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
`
`
`
`
`IN RE APPLE INC.,
`
`Petitioner.
`
`
`
`
`On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the
`United States District Court for the
`Western District of Texas
`No. 6:21-cv-00926-ADA, Hon. Alan D Albright
`
`
`APPLE INC.’S PETITION FOR
`WRIT OF MANDAMUS
`
`
`
`Sean C. Cunningham
`Erin Gibson
`DLA PIPER LLP
`401 B Street, Suite 1700
`San Diego, CA 92101
`
`John M. Guaragna
`DLA PIPER LLP
`303 Colorado Street, Suite 3000
`Austin, TX 78701
`
`Mark D. Fowler
`DLA PIPER LLP
`2000 University Avenue
`East Palo Alto, CA 94303
`
`Melanie L. Bostwick
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON &
` SUTCLIFFE LLP
`1152 15th Street NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`(202) 339-8400
`
`Edmund R. Hirschfeld
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON &
` SUTCLIFFE LLP
`51 West 52nd Street
`New York, NY 10019
`
`Melanie R. Hallums
`ORRICK, HERRINGTON &
` SUTCLIFFE LLP
`2121 Main Street
`Wheeling, WV 26003
`Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 21-187 Document: 2-1 Page: 2 Filed: 09/16/2021
`
`FORM 9. Certificate of Interest
`
`UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
`FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST
`
`
`Form 9 (p. 1)
`July 2020
`
`
`Case Number
`Short Case Caption
`Filing Party/Entity
`
`
`
`In re Apple Inc.
`
`Apple Inc.
`
`Instructions: Complete each section of the form. In answering items 2 and 3, be
`specific as to which represented entities the answers apply; lack of specificity may
`result in non-compliance. Please enter only one item per box; attach
`additional pages as needed and check the relevant box. Counsel must
`immediately file an amended Certificate of Interest if information changes. Fed.
`Cir. R. 47.4(b).
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I certify the following information and any attached sheets are accurate and
`complete to the best of my knowledge.
`
`
`09/15/2021
`Date: _________________
`
`
`
`
`Signature:
`
`/s/ Melanie L. Bostwick
`
`
`
`
`
`Name:
`
`Melanie L. Bostwick
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case: 21-187 Document: 2-1 Page: 3 Filed: 09/16/2021
`
`FORM 9. Certificate of Interest
`
`1. Represented
`Entities.
`Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(1).
`Provide the full names of
`all entities represented
`by undersigned counsel in
`this case.
`
`Form 9 (p. 2)
`July 2020
`
`2. Real Party in
`Interest.
`Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(2).
`Provide the full names of
`all real parties in interest
`for the entities. Do not
`list the real parties if
`they are the same as the
`entities.
`
`3. Parent Corporations
`and Stockholders.
`Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(3).
`Provide the full names of
`all parent corporations
`for the entities and all
`publicly held companies
`that own 10% or more
`stock in the entities.
`
`(cid:1798) None/Not Applicable (cid:1798) None/Not Applicable
`
`✔
`
`✔
`
`Apple Inc.
`
`Additional pages attached
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case: 21-187 Document: 2-1 Page: 4 Filed: 09/16/2021
`
`FORM 9. Certificate of Interest
`
`Form 9 (p. 3)
`July 2020
`
`4. Legal Representatives. List all law firms, partners, and associates that (a)
`appeared for the entities in the originating court or agency or (b) are expected to
`appear in this court for the entities. Do not include those who have already
`entered an appearance in this court. Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(4).
`None/Not Applicable
`Additional pages attached
`
`✔
`
`See Attached
`
`5. Related Cases. Provide the case titles and numbers of any case known to be
`pending in this court or any other court or agency that will directly affect or be
`directly affected by this court’s decision in the pending appeal. Do not include the
`originating case number(s) for this case. Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(5). See also Fed. Cir.
`R. 47.5(b).
`None/Not Applicable
`
`Additional pages attached
`
`✔
`
`6. Organizational Victims and Bankruptcy Cases. Provide any information
`required under Fed. R. App. P. 26.1(b) (organizational victims in criminal cases)
`and 26.1(c) (bankruptcy case debtors and trustees). Fed. Cir. R. 47.4(a)(6).
`None/Not Applicable
`Additional pages attached
`
`✔
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case: 21-187 Document: 2-1 Page: 5 Filed: 09/16/2021
`
`Attachment
`
`4. Legal Representatives. List all law firms, partners, and associates
`that (a)appeared for the entities in the originating court or agency or (b)
`are expected to appear in this court for the entities. Do not include
`those who have already entered an appearance in this court. Fed. Cir.
`R. 47.4(a)(4).
`Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP: Claudia Wilson Frost, Travis
`Jensen, Tyler S. Miller, Jeffrey T. Quilici
`DLA Piper LLP: Paul R. Steadman, Peter Maggiore, Stephanie Lim,
`Zachary Loney
`Kelly Hart & Hallman LLP: John R. Johnson, J. Stephen Ravel
`Gillam & Smith, LLP: Harry Lee Gillam, Jr.
`
`iv
`
`

`

`Case: 21-187 Document: 2-1 Page: 6 Filed: 09/16/2021
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`
`CERTIFICATE OF INTEREST ................................................................... i
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ...................................................................... vii
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 1
`RELIEF SOUGHT ....................................................................................... 4
`ISSUE PRESENTED ................................................................................... 4
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY ................ 5
`Fintiv Sues Apple In The Waco Division Of The Western
`District Of Texas. ...................................................................... 5
`With Fintiv’s Consent, The District Court Transfers The
`Litigation To The Austin Division Of The Western
`District Of Texas. ...................................................................... 6
`For Two Years, The Parties Litigate And Plan For Trial In
`Austin. ........................................................................................ 8
`On The Eve Of Trial, The District Court Sua Sponte Re-
`Transfers The Litigation To The Waco Division Of The
`Western District Of Texas. ....................................................... 9
`REASONS FOR ISSUING THE WRIT .................................................... 12
`I.
`The District Court Clearly Abused Its Discretion In
`Sua Sponte Re-Transferring This Case To Waco
`Without Any Lawful Basis. .................................................... 14
`A.
`As this Court has already held, the district court’s
`decision to transfer venue without citing a valid
`legal basis for doing so is a clear abuse of
`discretion. ....................................................................... 14
`Even if the district court had properly applied
`§ 1404(a), its decision would be a clear abuse of
`discretion. ....................................................................... 18
`Apple Has No Adequate Alternative Means For Relief. ...... 26
`II.
`III. Mandamus Is Appropriate Under The Circumstances. ....... 27
`
`B.
`
`v
`
`

`

`Case: 21-187 Document: 2-1 Page: 7 Filed: 09/16/2021
`
`CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 28
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`
`
`vi
`
`

`

`Case: 21-187 Document: 2-1 Page: 8 Filed: 09/16/2021
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
` Page(s)
`
`Cases
`In re Adobe Inc.,
`823 F. App’x 929 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ......................................................... 24
`In re Apple Inc.,
`979 F.3d 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ................................................. 13, 24, 27
`Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct.,
`542 U.S. 367 (2004) ............................................................................... 12
`Chicago, R.I. & P.R. Co. v. Igoe,
`212 F.2d 378 (7th Cir. 1954) ................................................................. 27
`Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp.,
`486 U.S. 800 (1988) ............................................................................... 18
`In re Cragar Indus., Inc.,
`706 F.2d 503 (5th Cir. 1983) ................................................. 3, 18, 21, 23
`Dietz v. Bouldin,
`136 S. Ct. 1885 (2016) ........................................................................... 16
`In re Gibson,
`423 F. App’x 385 (5th Cir. 2011) .................................................... 15, 17
`In re HP Inc.,
`No. 18-149, 2018 WL 4692486 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 25, 2018) .................. 26
`In re Intel Corp.,
`841 F. App’x 192 (Fed. Cir. 2020) .... 2, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 26, 27, 28
`In re Intel Corp.,
`843 F. App’x 272 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ......................................................... 22
`JTH Tax, Inc. v. Mahmood,
`No. 2:09-cv-134, 2010 WL 2175843 (N.D. Miss. May 27,
`2010) ................................................................................................. 21, 22
`
`vii
`
`

`

`Case: 21-187 Document: 2-1 Page: 9 Filed: 09/16/2021
`
`Koon v. United States,
`518 U.S. 81 (1996) ................................................................................. 17
`In re Nitro Fluids L.L.C.,
`978 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2020) ............................................................. 17
`In re Samsung Elecs. Co.,
`2 F.4th 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2021) ............................................................... 24
`In re TS Tech USA Corp.,
`551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ............................................................. 13
`United States v. Koenig,
`290 F.2d 166 (5th Cir. 1961) ................................................................. 18
`VLSI Tech. LLC v. Intel Corp.,
`No. 1:19-cv-00977-ADA, 2020 WL 8254867 (W.D. Tex.
`Dec. 31, 2020) ...................................................................... 19, 22, 24, 25
`In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc.,
`545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) ............................................... 13, 23, 25, 26
`Statutes
`28 U.S.C. § 124(d)(1) .................................................................................. 14
`28 U.S.C. § 124(d)(2) .................................................................................. 14
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) ............................................................................ passim
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(b) .................................................................................... 17
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(c) ..................................................................................... 14
`Rules
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 77(b) ................................................................................... 16
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 83(b) ................................................................................... 16
`
`viii
`
`

`

`Case: 21-187 Document: 2-1 Page: 10 Filed: 09/16/2021
`
`Other Authorities
`Covid Act Now, McLennan County, TX,
`https://covidactnow.org/us/texas-
`tx/county/mc_lennan_county/?s=22911212 ......................................... 25
`Opposition to Petition for Writ of Mandamus, In re Apple
`Inc., No. 20-104, Dkt. 18-1 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 24, 2019) ............................ 8
`Order, In re Apple Inc., No. 20-104, Dkt. 36 (Fed. Cir. Dec.
`20, 2019) ............................................................................................... 7, 8
`Petition for Writ of Mandamus, In re Apple Inc., No. 20-104,
`Dkt. 3 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 16, 2019) .............................................................. 7
`Western District of Texas, Thirteenth Supplemental Order
`Regarding Court Operations (Feb. 2, 2021),
`https://tinyurl.com/wdtx13order; ........................................................... 9
`Western District of Texas, Waco Division, Seventh Standing
`Order (Jan. 26, 2021), https://tinyurl.com/Waco7order ........................ 9
`14D Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 3801
`(4th ed.) .................................................................................................. 16
`15 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 3842
`(4th ed.) .................................................................................................. 17
`
`
`
`ix
`
`

`

`Case: 21-187 Document: 2-1 Page: 11 Filed: 09/16/2021
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Petitioner Apple Inc. respectfully requests that this Court issue a
`
`writ of mandamus to vacate the district court’s patently erroneous order
`
`re-transferring this case back to its docket in the Waco Division of the
`
`Western District of Texas on the cusp of trial.
`
`Two years ago, the district court found the Austin Division
`
`“clearly more convenient” than the Waco Division, where Fintiv filed
`
`this case. It issued a 17-page opinion analyzing the factors governing
`
`transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and denied Apple’s request for inter-
`
`district transfer to California but granted its alternative request for
`
`intra-district transfer to the Austin Division. That decision was based
`
`on the district court’s findings that there were sources of proof, party
`
`and non-party witnesses, and a localized interest in Austin, but not in
`
`Waco. This Court upheld the district court’s findings on mandamus
`
`review.
`
`Now, after the parties and witnesses have spent months preparing
`
`for an Austin trial scheduled to begin less than three weeks from now,
`
`the district court has abruptly changed course. In a short order
`
`containing no legal analysis, and issued over Apple’s objection, the
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case: 21-187 Document: 2-1 Page: 12 Filed: 09/16/2021
`
`district court re-transferred the case back to its docket in the Waco
`
`Division. This decision was not based on any finding of convenience or
`
`other statutory analysis; the sole reason the district court articulated
`
`for re-transferring the case was that the Waco Division courthouse
`
`remains fully open for jury trials during the ongoing COVID-19
`
`pandemic, whereas the Austin Division courthouse might not be
`
`available on the scheduled date. That same uncertainty, of course,
`
`affects every other civil case currently pending in the Austin Division;
`
`the district court cited nothing specific to this case to support a last-
`
`minute transfer of venue.
`
`The district court’s order is a clear abuse of discretion. This Court
`
`has already once used its mandamus authority to vacate a decision by
`
`the same district court that involved the same last-minute, Austin-to-
`
`Waco transfer without any supporting authority or analysis. See In re
`
`Intel Corp., 841 F. App’x 192 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“Intel I”). In doing so,
`
`this Court held that district courts have no inherent authority to
`
`transfer venue and may do so only under “appropriate statutory
`
`authority,” such as an analysis of the § 1404(a) factors. Id. at 194-95.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 21-187 Document: 2-1 Page: 13 Filed: 09/16/2021
`
`Nonetheless, the district court here disregarded that fundamental
`
`requirement—and this Court’s Intel I ruling—in again issuing a venue
`
`transfer order without any statutory authority. As in Intel I,
`
`mandamus is warranted to correct this clear abuse of discretion.
`
`Mandamus is particularly appropriate because the district court
`
`could not have grounded its re-transfer order in statutory authority.
`
`The only available statutory authority, § 1404(a), plainly does not
`
`authorize re-transfer here. Controlling Fifth Circuit precedent requires
`
`“unanticipatable post-transfer events” that “frustrate the original
`
`purpose for transfer.” In re Cragar Indus., Inc., 706 F.2d 503, 505 (5th
`
`Cir. 1983). But the unanticipatable event here—the COVID-19
`
`pandemic—has not frustrated the original rationale for transferring the
`
`case to Austin, which had nothing to do with the anticipated trial date.
`
`Indeed, moving the case from Austin would undermine the original
`
`rationale for transfer, because an otherwise-willing third-party witness
`
`who will be traveling from out of state is likely not available for trial in
`
`Waco. It will also compel additional travel for numerous witnesses and
`
`counsel at a moment when COVID-19 has created a shortage of Texas
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 21-187 Document: 2-1 Page: 14 Filed: 09/16/2021
`
`hospital beds. In short, there is no proper analysis that could find Waco
`
`to be more convenient than Austin at this time.
`
`This Court should correct the district court’s clear abuse of
`
`discretion and issue a writ of mandamus ordering that the case be
`
`returned to the Austin Division.
`
`RELIEF SOUGHT
`Apple respectfully requests that the Court grant this petition for a
`
`writ of mandamus, vacate the district court’s order dated September 9,
`
`2021, and remand with instructions that this action shall proceed in the
`
`Austin Division of the United States District Court for the Western
`
`District of Texas.
`
`ISSUE PRESENTED
`Whether the district court clearly abused its discretion in sua
`
`sponte transferring this case back to the Waco Division, particularly
`
`when the district court identified no legal authority for its re-transfer
`
`decision.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case: 21-187 Document: 2-1 Page: 15 Filed: 09/16/2021
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
`
`Fintiv Sues Apple In The Waco Division Of The Western District
`Of Texas.
`This case began in December 2018, when Fintiv filed suit against
`
`Apple based on a patent it had acquired from another company. Appx9.
`
`Although Fintiv’s headquarters are in Austin, it chose to file its action
`
`not in the Austin Division but a hundred miles away in the Waco
`
`Division of the Western District of Texas. Appx46-47.
`
`Fintiv accuses Apple of infringing U.S. Patent No. 8,843,125,
`
`which purports to provide improved management of virtual
`
`(“contactless”) cards used with a mobile wallet application in a mobile
`
`device. Appx69-82. Fintiv’s infringement contentions originally
`
`targeted certain functions of iPhone and Apple Watch devices, but
`
`ultimately expanded to include iPad and Mac products as well.
`
`Appx145-146. Fintiv’s infringement contentions relate to the Apple Pay
`
`and Apple Wallet functionalities of the accused devices. Appx145-146.
`
`Apple’s work on those accused functionalities is performed by employees
`
`in or near Cupertino, California, or outside the United States. Appx85-
`
`87.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 21-187 Document: 2-1 Page: 16 Filed: 09/16/2021
`
`For the iPhone and Apple Watch devices, Fintiv’s infringement
`
`theory also implicates a Secure Element chip supplied by a
`
`Netherlands-based company called NXP. See Appx113-114. Although
`
`NXP has certain operations in Austin, like Apple, they are unrelated to
`
`this case. Instead, the relevant U.S.-based work is done in California,
`
`and the NXP employee who will be a trial witness works in San Jose.
`
`Appx113-114; Appx199.
`
`With Fintiv’s Consent, The District Court Transfers The
`Litigation To The Austin Division Of The Western District Of
`Texas.
`Shortly after the complaint was filed, Apple sought transfer to the
`
`Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), citing the
`
`clear concentration of party and third-party witnesses, documentation,
`
`and localized interest in Northern California. Appx84. In the
`
`alternative, Apple sought intra-district transfer to the Austin Division
`
`of the Western District of Texas. Appx84. Although the Northern
`
`District of California was clearly the most convenient forum, Apple
`
`explained that Austin was clearly more convenient than Waco, given
`
`the total lack of any party or witness presence, or sources of proof, in
`
`Waco. Appx93.
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 21-187 Document: 2-1 Page: 17 Filed: 09/16/2021
`
`Fintiv readily agreed to a transfer to the Austin Division. Appx99.
`
`It opposed only the inter-district transfer to California, and it did so on
`
`the basis that Austin (not Waco) was a convenient forum in which to
`
`litigate this dispute. See Appx100-108.
`
`The district court agreed. In an order issued in September 2019,
`
`it denied inter-district transfer to Northern California but granted
`
`intra-district transfer to Austin. Appx119-136. In finding that the
`
`§ 1404(a) private- and public-interest factors favored transfer to Austin,
`
`the district court relied on (1) Fintiv and Apple employees in Austin
`
`whom Fintiv claimed might be witnesses; (2) NXP’s corporate presence
`
`in Austin; (3) the localized interest created by Apple’s and NXP’s
`
`presences in Austin; and (4) the fact that “there are no sources of proof
`
`in the Waco Division.” Appx124-135; see also Order, In re Apple Inc.,
`
`No. 20-104, Dkt. 36 at 3 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 20, 2019) (hereafter “Transfer
`
`Mandamus Order”) (noting that the district court granted intra-district
`
`transfer “given the connections between the case and Austin”).
`
`Apple sought a writ of mandamus from this Court, demonstrating
`
`that the denial of inter-district transfer to California turned on key
`
`legal errors amounting to a clear abuse of discretion. See Pet. at 15-40,
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case: 21-187 Document: 2-1 Page: 18 Filed: 09/16/2021
`
`In re Apple Inc., No. 20-104, Dkt. 3 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 16, 2019). The Court
`
`denied Apple’s petition, relying in part on the fact that the district court
`
`had instead granted Apple’s alternative request for an intra-district
`
`transfer to Austin—a request that Fintiv had argued amounted to
`
`judicial estoppel. See Transfer Mandamus Order at 3 (“Nor can Apple
`
`now take back its previous assertion to the district court that the Austin
`
`Division ‘is clearly more convenient for both parties’” than the Waco
`
`Division.); Opp. at 27-32, Apple, No. 20-104, Dkt. 18-1 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 24,
`
`2019) (Fintiv arguing that Apple “should be judicially estopped” from
`
`“now seeking a transfer out of Austin”).
`
`For Two Years, The Parties Litigate And Plan For Trial In
`Austin.
`After this Court denied mandamus, the district court formally
`
`effected the transfer to the Austin Division, though it took the unusual
`
`step of retaining the case on the Waco Division judge’s docket.
`
`Appx137. Since that time, the parties have planned and prepared for a
`
`trial in Austin. After a series of extensions sought by both parties, in
`
`February 2021, this case was set for a jury trial beginning on October 4,
`
`2021. See Appx138-139. At the time of that scheduling order, civil jury
`
`trials were suspended in the Austin Division due to the COVID-19
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case: 21-187 Document: 2-1 Page: 19 Filed: 09/16/2021
`
`crisis, but the Waco Division was continuing to hold jury trials.
`
`Compare Western District of Texas, Thirteenth Supplemental Order
`
`Regarding Court Operations (Feb. 2, 2021),
`
`https://tinyurl.com/wdtx13order; with Western District of Texas, Waco
`
`Division, Seventh Standing Order (Jan. 26, 2021),
`
`https://tinyurl.com/Waco7order. But despite the uncertainty as to when
`
`the Austin courthouse would reopen, this case was set for trial in
`
`Austin. Appx138-139. The parties and anticipated witnesses continued
`
`to prepare for trial in Austin.
`
`On The Eve Of Trial, The District Court Sua Sponte Re-Transfers
`The Litigation To The Waco Division Of The Western District Of
`Texas.
`More than six months later, and just six weeks before trial was set
`
`to begin, the district court contacted the parties by email to arrange a
`
`status conference “to discuss the feasibility of trial in Austin on October
`
`4th, 2021,” in light of “the recent spike in COVID-19 cases.” Appx200-
`
`201. That status conference took place on August 23, 2021. The district
`
`court explained during the conference that, despite the Western
`
`District’s standing order, certain jury trials (civil and criminal) were
`
`going forward in the Austin courthouse, though space was limited.
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case: 21-187 Document: 2-1 Page: 20 Filed: 09/16/2021
`
`Appx175-176. The district court further advised the parties that it was
`
`considering three options: (1) keeping the October 4 trial date but
`
`holding the trial in Waco; (2) postponing the trial date to early 2022 (in
`
`Austin) at the agreement of the parties; or (3) keeping the current trial
`
`date and Austin venue in hopes that “there’s no conflict between Judge
`
`Yeakel and Judge Pitman and me being able to use a courtroom in
`
`Austin.” Appx177-178. The district court directed the parties to confer
`
`and report on their preferred course of action. Appx182-183.
`
`Among other things, Apple noted during the hearing that certain
`
`key third-party witnesses, including one from NXP (which the district
`
`court had cited in its original ruling transferring the case to Austin),
`
`had agreed to appear for trial in Austin but not in Waco. Appx180. The
`
`district court asked Apple to obtain “a statement from these people
`
`that … if I were to move the trial [date] and have it in Austin, that they
`
`would in fact be attending live.” Appx181.
`
`The parties conferred as directed but could not reach agreement.
`
`In a report to the district court on August 25, 2021, they laid out their
`
`respective positions. Appx198-199. Fintiv asked the district court to
`
`maintain the October 4 trial date but hold the trial in the Waco
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case: 21-187 Document: 2-1 Page: 21 Filed: 09/16/2021
`
`Division, citing the COVID-19 spike and the “potential unavailability of
`
`the Austin Division for trial.” Appx198-199. Apple, in contrast, asked
`
`the district court to keep the case in the Austin venue and set the trial
`
`date for February or March 2022. Appx199. Apple cited its heavy
`
`investments in “preparing to try this case in Austin, which the Court
`
`has found is the clearly more convenient venue for this dispute.”
`
`Appx199 (noting arrangements for war room and hotel space, daily
`
`COVID testing, and witness accommodations).
`
`Apple also provided, in response to the district court’s request, a
`
`letter from a key third-party witness located in California who
`
`confirmed he would agree to attend a trial in Austin if held in early
`
`2022. Appx202. And it further confirmed that third-party NXP’s
`
`witness, who works in California, would do the same. Appx199.
`
`Finally, Apple “[a]t a minimum” requested briefing on the venue
`
`convenience issue if the district court were considering re-transferring
`
`the case to the Waco Division. Appx199.
`
`The district court did not allow for briefing. Instead, on
`
`September 8, 2021, just over three weeks before jury selection was set
`
`to begin in Austin, it issued an order directing “that this case be
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case: 21-187 Document: 2-1 Page: 22 Filed: 09/16/2021
`
`TRANSFERRED back to the Waco Division.” Appx2. The district court
`
`did not cite any legal authority for this transfer, nor did it analyze the
`
`§ 1404(a) convenience factors or the law regarding re-transfer of cases.
`
`Instead, it simply stated that the COVID-19 pandemic had begun after
`
`the case was originally transferred to the Austin Division, that jury
`
`trials in the Austin courthouse had “largely been suspended ever since,”
`
`and that “it remains uncertain whether the Austin courthouse will be
`
`open for jury trial in the foreseeable future.” Appx1. The district court
`
`then found, without any explanation or reference to its original transfer
`
`rationale, that “the intervening COVID-19 pandemic has frustrated the
`
`original purpose of transferring this action to the Austin Division,”
`
`because “the jury trial will remain in limbo for an indefinite period of
`
`time.” Appx1-2.
`
`REASONS FOR ISSUING THE WRIT
`A petitioner seeking mandamus relief must show (1) a “clear and
`
`indisputable” right to the writ; (2) that the petitioner has “no other
`
`adequate means to attain the relief he desires”; and (3) that the writ is
`
`appropriate under the circumstances.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case: 21-187 Document: 2-1 Page: 23 Filed: 09/16/2021
`
`U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004) (citation omitted); see also In re Volkswagen of
`
`Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 311 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc).1
`
`All three factors are satisfied here. This Court has already held
`
`that the right to mandamus relief is clear and indisputable where a
`
`district court orders re-transfer without citing, let alone adequately
`
`applying, statutory authority. Intel I, 841 F. App’x at 195. That is
`
`exactly what happened here. If anything, the right to mandamus relief
`
`is even more plain because the only available authority for re-transfer—
`
`§ 1404(a)—could not possibly have justified the district court’s order in
`
`any event. As for the second factor, it is well-established that a later
`
`appeal “provide[s] no remedy” for an error of venue transfer.
`
`Volkswagen, 545 F.3d at 319; see Intel I, 841 F. App’x at 193. And the
`
`third factor is satisfied where, as here, there has been a clear abuse of
`
`discretion in directing transfer. In re Apple Inc., 979 F.3d 1332, 1336-
`
`37 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
`
`
`1 Because this petition does not involve substantive issues of patent law,
`this Court applies “the laws of the regional circuit in which the district
`court sits, in this case the Fifth Circuit.” In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551
`F.3d 1315, 1319 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case: 21-187 Document: 2-1 Page: 24 Filed: 09/16/2021
`
`I.
`
`The District Court Clearly Abused Its Discretion In Sua
`Sponte Re-Transferring This Case To Waco Without Any
`Lawful Basis.
`This Court has already diagnosed, and found mandamus-worthy,
`
`the district court’s clear abuse of discretion. Intel I vacated a nearly
`
`identical re-transfer order because the same district court cited no
`
`statutory authority for the transfer. The same error recurred here, and
`
`mandamus is no less warranted. If anything, the case for this Court’s
`
`intervention is clearer still: Even if the district court had invoked
`
`§ 1404(a), the only available statutory authority for re-transfer, it would
`
`have been a clear abuse of discretion to conclude that the statute
`
`authorized re-transfer.
`
`A.
`
`As this Court has already held, the district court’s
`decision to transfer venue without citing a valid legal
`basis for doing so is a clear abuse of discretion.
`By the district court’s own order, the venue of this case is the
`
`Austin Division of the Western District of Texas. Appx137. Congress
`
`has directed that the Austin Division is separate from the Waco
`
`Division, and that “Court for the Austin Division shall be held at
`
`Austin,” while “Court for the Waco Division shall be held at Waco.” 28
`
`U.S.C. § 124(d)(1)-(2); see also id. § 1404(c) (“A district court may order
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case: 21-187 Document: 2-1 Page: 25 Filed: 09/16/2021
`
`any civil action to be tried at any place within the division in which it is
`
`pending.” (emphasis added)). Apple therefore has a “statutory right” to
`
`have this case tried in Austin. In re Gibson, 423 F. App’x 385, 390 (5th
`
`Cir. 2011).
`
`Absent some lawful basis for changing the venue of the case, the
`
`district court has no power to do so. This Court has already made that
`
`clear in a case arising out of the same district court and involving the
`
`same issue of the COVID-19 pandemic and the potential unavailability
`
`of the Austin courthouse for a patent jury trial. That case, like this one,
`
`was originally filed in the Waco Division but was transferred to the
`
`Austin Division in 2019 based on the defendant’s § 1404(a) motion.
`
`Intel I, 841 F. App’x at 192. There too, the district court (over the
`
`defendant’s objection) ordered the trial re-transferred to Waco in light of
`
`the COVID-19 trial restrictions in the Austin courthouse. Id. at 193.
`
`And there too, the defendant sought this Court’s mandamus review.
`
`The Court granted a writ of mandamus. Id. at 195. It held that
`
`the district court’s “inherent authority to manage its docket” did not
`
`permit it to move the trial to Waco absent some proper statutory
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case: 21-187 Document: 2-1 Page: 26 Filed: 09/16/2021
`
`authority. Id. at 194.2 The governing statutes “simply leave[] no room
`
`to invoke such authority here.” Id. As the Supreme Court has
`
`explained, a district court’s “exercise of an inherent power cannot be
`
`contrary to any express grant of or limitation on the district court’s
`
`power contained in a rule or statute.” Dietz v. Bouldin, 136 S. Ct. 1885,
`
`1892 (2016); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 83(b) (district judge may “regulate
`
`practice in any manner consistent with federal law … and the district[]
`
`[court’s] local rules”). “[V]enue is wholly a statutory matter.” 14D
`
`Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 3801 (4th ed.). And
`
`the governing venue statutes make clear that this case—like every
`
`other case pending in the Austin Division of the Western District of
`
`Texas—must be tried in Austin.
`
`The district court had no power to change that

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket