`
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil No. 6:21-CV-00984-ADA
`
`
`
`TRANSFER ORDER
`
`This opinion memorializes the Court’s decision on Defendant Apple Inc.’s (“Apple” or
`
`“Defendant”) Motion to Transfer Venue from the Western District of Texas (“WDTX”) to the
`
`Northern District of California (“NDCA”) under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). ECF NO. 38.
`
`This case was filed on September 23, 2021. Apple filed its transfer motion on May 2, 2022.
`
`The Court’s Order Governing Proceedings (“OGP”) sets rules governing motions to transfer. OGP
`
`§ IV. For cases filed before March 7, 2022, the OGP refers to the Second Amended Standing
`
`Order Regarding Motions for Inter-District Transfer. Id. The Second Amended Standing Order
`
`Regarding Motions for Inter-District Transfer sets a three-month deadline for venue discovery
`
`from the filing of the initial motion, another two weeks for the Plaintiff’s response, and another
`
`two weeks for the Defendant’s reply.
`
`Thus, venue discovery should have concluded on August 2, 2022, which is three months
`
`from the transfer motion filing on May 2, 2022. Plaintiff’s response was due on August 16, 2022,
`
`which is two weeks thereafter. Defendant’s reply was due on August 30, 2022.
`
`Due to Apple’s pending transfer motion, the Court needed to reschedule the Markman
`
`hearing originally set for July 27, 2022 to comply with the Federal Circuit’s order. ECF No. 66;
`
`ECF No. 76; In re SK Hynix Inc., 835 F. App’x 600, 601 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 1, 2021) (“the district
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 93 Filed 09/15/22 Page 2 of 3
`
`court must stay all proceedings concerning the substantive issues in the case until such time that it
`
`has issued a ruling on the transfer motion.”). The Court rescheduled the Markman hearing for
`
`September 22, 2022 so that the Court would have at least three weeks to rule on the transfer motion
`
`after the conclusion of briefing on August 30, 2022. ECF No. 89.
`
`On August 24, 2022, the parties filed a Joint Notice Regarding Venue Discovery and
`
`Briefing. ECF No. 86. The Parties modified their own discovery deadlines as permitted by the
`
`Court. However, the Parties also improperly modified Jawbone’s opposition deadline to September
`
`8, 2022 and Apple’s Reply to September 22, 2022.
`
`This modification of the briefing deadline violates the Court’s rules. The Court’s Amended
`
`Standing Order Regarding Joint or Unopposed Request to Change Deadlines allows parties to
`
`stipulate to any deadline change that “does not extend any deadline of a final submission that
`
`affects the Court’s ability to hold a scheduled hearing.” Modifying the transfer opposition deadline
`
`without motion violated this rule. Setting Apple’s reply to September 22, 2022—the same date as
`
`the Markman hearing—also violates this rule because the Court cannot hold the Markman hearing
`
`before ruling on the motion to transfer.
`
`IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
`
`• All transfer briefing (ECF NO. 90, 91, 92) filed after August 30, 2022 is hereby
`
`STRICKEN AS UNTIMELY.
`
`• Apple WAIVES its right to file a reply in support of transfer.
`
`• Apple’s Motion to Supplement (ECF No. 78) is hereby DENIED AS MOOT.
`
`• Apple’s Motion to Transfer (ECF No. 38) is hereby GRANTED as unopposed.
`
`• The Clerk of the Court is hereby ORDERED to transfer this case to the Northern
`
`District of California.
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 93 Filed 09/15/22 Page 3 of 3
`
`SIGNED this 15th day of September, 2022.
`
`
`
`
`
`ALAN D ALBRIGHT
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`
`
`
`
`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
