<p>Case: 20-135 Document: 55 Page: 1 Filed: 11/09/2020 United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ IN RE: APPLE INC., Petitioner ______________________ 2020-135 ______________________ On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in No. 6:19- cv-00532-ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright. ______________________ ON PETITION AND MOTION ______________________ MELANIE L. BOSTWICK, Orrick, Herrington &amp; Sutcliffe LLP, Washington, DC, argued for petitioner. Also repre- sented by ABIGAIL COLELLA, New York, NY; MELANIE HALLUMS, Wheeling, WV; JOHN GUARAGNA, DLA Piper US LLP, Austin, TX. CHRISTIAN JOHN HURT, The Davis Firm, P.C., Longview, TX, argued for respondent Uniloc 2017 LLC. Also represented by WILLIAM DAVIS. ______________________ Before PROST, Chief Judge, MOORE and HUGHES, Circuit Judges. Order for the court filed by Chief Judge PROST. Dissent filed by Circuit Judge MOORE. PROST, Chief Judge. ORDER Case: 20-135 Document: 55 Page: 2 Filed: 11/09/2020 2 IN RE: APPLE INC. Apple Inc. petitions this court for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (“WDTX”) to transfer the underlying pa- tent infringement suit to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (“NDCA”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Uniloc 2017 LLC opposes. Uniloc also moves to file a sur-reply brief and to supplement the record. We grant Uniloc’s motions to file a sur-reply and to sup- plement the record. For the reasons below, we grant Ap- ple’s petition. BACKGROUND In September 2019, Uniloc sued Apple in the Waco Di- vision of WDTX, alleging that several Apple products in- fringe U.S. Patent No. 6,467,088 (“the ’088 patent”). App. 16. According to Uniloc, “Apple’s software download functionality, including how Apple determines compatibil- ity for application and operating system software updates through the App Store, infringes the ’088 patent.” Re- sponse Br. 4. The “Accused Products include Apple devices that run iOS and macOS-based operating systems.” Id. In November 2019, Apple moved to transfer the case to NDCA on the basis that it would be clearly more conven- ient to litigate the case in that district. App. 84; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). To support its motion, Apple submit- ted a sworn declaration from Michael Jaynes, a senior fi- nance manager at Apple. App. 105. In January 2020, Apple moved to stay all activity in the case unrelated to its transfer motion pending a decision on the motion. App. 166–73. The district court denied the stay motion without explanation in a text entry on the docket. App. 7. The parties completed briefing and discov- ery on transfer in February 2020. App. 4–9. The district court held a hearing on Apple’s motion on May 12, 2020, during which the court stated that it would deny the motion and issue a written order as soon as pos- sible. App. 10, 296. After the hearing, but before issuing a written order, the court held a Markman hearing, issued its claim construction order, held a discovery hearing Case: 20-135 Document: ...</p><br>
<a href="/opinion/4804593/in-re-apple-inc/">Original document</a>