Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

In re Apple Inc., No. 22-164 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 8, 2022)

Granted in Part
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 22-164
Decided
November 8, 2022
Judge
Reyna, J.
Document
Nonprecedential Opinion
Length
2 pages

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

In re: APPLE INC.,

Petitioner

2022-164

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in No. 6:21-cv-01071-ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright.

ON PETITION AND MOTION

Before DYK, REYNA, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.

O R D E R

Apple Inc. petitions this court for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas to vacate its scheduling order, promptly rule on Apple’s pending transfer motion, and stay all proceedings on the merits until transfer is resolved. Apple also moves for this court to stay the district court proceedings pending resolution of Apple’s petition. Scramoge Technology Ltd. opposes the petition and motion but “consents to the determination of the transfer motion now, with

22 IN RE: APPLE INC.

appropriate sanctions applied to remedy Apple’s obstructionist venue discovery misbehavior.” ECF No. 9 at 9. In another Order issued today, we granted Apple’s petition to vacate a similar scheduling order on the ground that it was a clear abuse of discretion to force the parties to expend additional resources litigating substantive matters, until completion of fact discovery, and rebriefing while Apple’s motion lingered unnecessarily on the docket particularly when there were readily available, less time-consuming, and more cost-effective means for the court to resolve the motion. In re Apple Inc., 2022-162 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 8, 2022). We deem it the proper course here to vacate the district court’s scheduling order and for the district court to reconsider its decision in light of our reasoning in No. 2022-162.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The petition and motion are granted to the extent that the district court’s scheduling order is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Order.

FOR THE COURT

November 8, 2022 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

In re Apple Inc., No. 22-164 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 8, 2022).

Record ID
CAFC-22-164-20221108
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-22-164-20221108

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.