Case: 23-135 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 08/16/2023
`
`NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`In re: APPLE INC.,
`Petitioner
`______________________
`
`2023-135
`______________________
`
`On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
`District Court for the Western District of Texas in No. 6:22-
`cv-00351-ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright.
`______________________
`
`ON PETITION
`______________________
`
`Before CHEN, MAYER, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
`PER CURIAM.
`
`O R D E R
`Apple Inc. petitions for a writ of mandamus directing
`the district court to vacate the order denying transfer and
`to transfer the case from the United States District Court
`for the Western District of Texas (“WDTX”) to the United
`States District Court for the Northern District of California
`(“NDCal”). For the reasons below, we deny the petition.
`Lionra Technologies Ltd. (“Lionra”) sued Apple in the
`Waco Division of WDTX for patent infringement. Apple
`moved to transfer pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Follow-
`ing the close of venue-related discovery, Lionra filed its
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 23-135 Document: 14 Page: 2 Filed: 08/16/2023
`
`2
`
`
`
`IN RE: APPLE INC.
`
`opposition to Apple’s motion, relying, in part, on “three Ap-
`ple employees that [Lionra] failed to identify during venue
`discovery,” Appx 5. Apple filed its reply, challenging the
`relevance of these, and other, Apple employees located in
`WDTX. Separately, Apple moved to strike any argument
`based on those late-disclosed employees, or, in the alterna-
`tive, for additional time to investigate the relevance of
`those individuals.
`The district court denied both motions. The court first
`concluded that, although Lionra failed to timely disclose its
`reliance on three of the WDTX-based Apple employees, it
`was harmless; “Apple holds all the information about its
`employees,” Appx 6, and it “could have spent the two weeks
`between the response and reply investigating these em-
`ployees, explain why the employees are not relevant based
`on the information in their LinkedIn profiles, or request
`leave to provide new information about the employees.”
`Appx 7. Having denied Apple’s motion to strike, the dis-
`trict court then considered those Apple employees in the
`§ 1404(a) transfer analysis. Ultimately, the court con-
`cluded that the willing witness factor weighed against
`transfer while the compulsory process factor slightly
`weighed in favor of transfer and the other factors were neu-
`tral. On balance, the court concluded that Apple failed to
`show that NDCal was a clearly more convenient forum.
`Apple then filed this petition, which we have exclusive
`jurisdiction to review. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1295(a)(1), 1651(a); In
`re Princo Corp., 478 F.3d 1345, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2007). To
`obtain the extraordinary remedy of a writ of mandamus,
`Apple must show, inter alia, a clear and indisputable right
`to relief. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367,
`380–81 (2004). When assessing this element in the context
`of § 1404(a) transfer disputes, we apply relevant regional
`circuit law and review only for “a ‘clear’ abuse of discretion
`such that refusing tranfer produced a ‘patently erroneous
`result.’” In re TS Tech USA Corp., 551 F.3d 1315, 1319
`(Fed. Cir. 2008) (quoting In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545
`
`

`

`Case: 23-135 Document: 14 Page: 3 Filed: 08/16/2023
`
`IN RE: APPLE INC.
`
` 3
`
`F.3d 304, 312 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc)). Apple’s petition
`has not made that showing.
`Apple’s primary challenge concerns the denial of its
`motion to strike Lionra’s arguments relating to three of the
`five WDTX Apple employees that were relied on by the dis-
`trict court in denying transfer, asserting it was prohibited
`from submitting evidence rebutting the relevance of those
`individuals. But for this discovery dispute, Apple has not
`shown that the district court clearly abused its discretion
`in finding Lionra’s failure to timely disclose was “harm-
`less.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) (directing courts to consider
`whether the failure was “substantially justified or is harm-
`less”). Apple does not dispute that the district court con-
`sidered the relevant factors. See Tex. A & M Rsch. Found.
`v. Magna Transp., Inc., 338 F.3d 394, 402 (5th Cir. 2003).
`And, in doing so, the district court reasonably found that
`Apple had access to the three Apple employees at issue and
`plausibly concluded that Apple had a meaningful oppor-
`tunity to challenge Lionra’s evidence in its reply (which it
`did, albeit without the level of detail Apple says a further
`investigation could have yielded). Under the circum-
`stances, Apple’s petition has not shown a clear and indis-
`putable entitlement to granting its motion to strike.
`Apple also argues that, even putting that issue aside,
`the district court’s transfer analysis was patently errone-
`ous. We disagree. The court plausibly credited the WDTX-
`based Apple employees under the witness convenience,
`sources of proof, and local interest factors based on the spe-
`cific information that Lionra presented regarding their rel-
`evance and materiality. Apple challenges the district
`court’s findings, but such case-specific, fact-intensive mat-
`ters are principally entrusted to the district court, which is
`generally in a better position than this court to make such
`determinations. See In re Vistaprint Ltd., 628 F.3d 1342,
`1346 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Apple’s petition has not sufficiently
`shown that the district court veered so far afield of that
`discretion as to warrant mandamus intervention under the
`
`

`

`Case: 23-135 Document: 14 Page: 4 Filed: 08/16/2023
`
`4
`
`
`
`IN RE: APPLE INC.
`
`circumstances of this case. Apple has not shown otherwise
`by pointing to this court’s decision in In re Google LLC,
`2021 WL 4427899, at *7 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 27, 2021)—in
`which we faulted the district court’s analysis, not for rely-
`ing on information from a LinkedIn profile per se, but for a
`lack of record support for why that individual would have
`relevant and material information. Apple similarly fails to
`demonstrate a clear abuse of discretion regarding the com-
`pulsory process factor or to show that denial of transfer
`would be patently erroneous even if that factor alone
`weighed more than slightly in favor of transfer.
`Accordingly,
`IT IS ORDERED THAT:
`The petition is denied.
`
`
`August 16, 2023
` Date
`
` FOR THE COURT
`
` /s/ Jarrett B. Perlow
` Jarrett B. Perlow
` Clerk of Court
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`