throbber
Case 6:21-cv-00620-ADA Document 76 Filed 09/30/22 Page 1 of 4
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`WACO DIVISION
`
`SCRAMOGE TECHNOLOGY LTD.,
` Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.
` Defendant.
`
`AIRE TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,
` Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.
` Defendant.
`
`XR COMMUNICATIONS LLC,
` Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.
` Defendant.
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL NO. 6:21-CV-1071-ADA
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL NO. 6:21-CV-01101-ADA
`
`
`
`
`CIVIL NO. 6:21-CV-00620-ADA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL CONSOLIDATED OPINION DENYING MOTION TO STAY
`
`The Court issues this supplemental consolidated opinion explaining its reasoning for
`
`having DENIED three similarly situated motions to stay pending mandamus review. Scramoge
`
`Tech. Ltd. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:21-cv-1071-ADA (W.D. Tex. Sept. 8, 2022) ECF No. 58
`
`(hereinafter “Scramoge Case”); Aire Tech. Ltd. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:21-cv-01101-ADA (W.D. Tex.
`
`Sept. 9, 2022) ECF No. 55 (hereinafter “Aire Case”); XR Communications LLC v. Apple, Inc., No.
`
`6:21-cv-00620 (W.D. Tex. Sept. 7, 2022) ECF No. 70 (hereinafter “XR Case”).
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00620-ADA Document 76 Filed 09/30/22 Page 2 of 4
`
`Background
`
`In each of these three cases, Apple moved for transfer relying on the same 30(b)(6) venue
`
`declarant, Mr. Mark Rollins, that Apple repeatedly used in so many cases that the Court no longer
`
`believes that he does any substantive investigation when preparing his declarations or when
`
`preparing for his depositions. Scramoge Tech. Ltd. v. Apple Inc., No. 6:21-CV-00579-ADA, 2022
`
`WL 1667561, at *2 (W.D. Tex. May 25, 2022) (explaining history of problems with Mark Rollins).
`
`Thus, in these three cases, the Court has modified the schedule to open discovery before having
`
`the parties re-brief the transfer motion. Fact discovery will allow the parties to find the relevant
`
`evidence and witnesses that bear on the transfer factors rather than speculate about them. The
`
`Court has decided not to rule on the transfer motions supported by such an unreliable venue
`
`declarant. In these three cases, Apple petitioned for a writ of mandamus and petitioned to stay
`
`these cases pending mandamus review.
`
`Applicable Law
`
`District courts possess an inherent power to manage their own docket, including the power
`
`to stay proceedings. Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997). District courts traditionally look
`
`to four factors in determining whether a stay is appropriate when an order is subject to appellate
`
`review: “(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on
`
`the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether the
`
`issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4)
`
`where the public interest lies.” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 (2009).
`
`The Court’s Opinion
`
`All of these factors weigh against a stay.
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00620-ADA Document 76 Filed 09/30/22 Page 3 of 4
`
`Apple is Unlikely to Succeed on the Merits
`
`Apple’s mandamus petitions are unlikely to succeed because they challenge this Court’s
`
`inherent power to set a schedule and to order the equivalent of supplemental discovery and
`
`briefing. This Court acted within the Federal Circuit’s mandate from In re SK hynix Inc., 835 F.
`
`App’x 600, 601 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 1, 2021). The Federal Circuit order states, “The petition is granted
`
`to the extent that the district 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 capable of providing
`
`meaningful appellate review of the reasons for its decision.” Id. The revised schedule set by this
`
`Court defers all substantive motions and hearings in this case until after ruling on the transfer
`
`motion.
`
`Apple Will Suffer No Irreparable Injury Absent a Stay.
`
`Without a stay, Apple will incur only the ordinary cost of discovery and proceed in the
`
`ordinary course of litigation. There is no irreparable injury—such fact discovery immediately
`
`opens when a case is filed in most courts, and costs may be eventually recovered if the litigation
`
`is frivolous. The exact outcome—proceeding to fact discovery—will occur regardless of whether
`
`this Court transfers any cases. Fact discovery will begin in this or in another venue. Indeed, Apple
`
`acknowledged this when seeking leave to supplement its transfer motion in the XR Case. XR Case,
`
`ECF No. 60. During the pendency of mandamus review, this case is unlikely to reach the stage
`
`where the Court decides anything dispositive.
`
`Issuing the Stay Will Substantially Injure the Other Parties Interested in the Three Cases
`
`
`
`A stay will harm the plaintiffs in these three cases by delaying their cases and denying
`
`supplemental discovery that might contradict the unreliable statements of Mr. Mark Rollins. Such
`
`actions amount to procedural gamesmanship. Indeed, the Court revised its OGP because so many
`
`

`

`Case 6:21-cv-00620-ADA Document 76 Filed 09/30/22 Page 4 of 4
`
`defendants delayed filing a transfer motion to delay Markman hearings and the subsequent fact
`
`discovery. Scramoge Case, ECF No. 64 at 2–3. The Court views this stay as an effort to hide or
`
`delay discovery.
`
`Public Policy Weighs Against a Stay
`
`
`
`Neither party benefits from delaying the ordinary course of these cases. Here, the Court
`
`has amended the schedule to ordered what effectively amounts to supplemental discovery and
`
`briefing. Even if the Federal Circuit vacates the amended scheduling orders, this Court intends to
`
`order supplemental, expanded venue discovery and supplemental briefing to achieve its goal of
`
`having the parties present reliable evidence before this Court rules on the transfer motion. But
`
`calling it “supplemental venue discovery” wastes the resources of both parties because it overlaps
`
`with fact discovery and invites needless disputes about what is “venue” discovery and what is “fact
`
`discovery.” The public has no interest in such inefficient use of anyone’s resources.
`
`For the above reasons, this Court DENIED the motions to stay these cases.
`
`Conclusion
`
`
`
`SIGNED this 30th day of September, 2022.
`
`

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