In Re APPLE INC. , No. 22-164 (Fed. Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Case: 22-164 Document: 16 Page: 1 Filed: 11/08/2022 NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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. 6:21cv-01071-ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright. ______________________ ON PETITION AND MOTION ______________________ Before DYK, REYNA, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges. REYNA, Circuit Judge. ORDER 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 Case: 22-164 Document: 16 2 Page: 2 Filed: 11/08/2022 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 timeconsuming, 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 Date /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
