NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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). Following the close of venue-related discovery, Lionra filed its 

Case: 23-135 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 08/16/2023
2 IN RE: APPLE INC.

opposition to Apple’s motion, relying, in part, on “three Apple 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 alternative, 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 employees, 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 district court then considered those Apple employees in the 

§ 1404(a) transfer analysis. Ultimately, the court concluded that the willing witness factor weighed against 

transfer while the compulsory process factor slightly 

weighed in favor of transfer and the other factors were neutral. 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: 2 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 district 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 “harmless.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1) (directing courts to consider 

whether the failure was “substantially justified or is harmless”). Apple does not dispute that the district court considered 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 opportunity 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 circumstances, Apple’s petition has not shown a clear and indisputable entitlement to granting its motion to strike. 

Apple also argues that, even putting that issue aside, 

the district court’s transfer analysis was patently erroneous. We disagree. The court plausibly credited the WDTXbased Apple employees under the witness convenience, 

sources of proof, and local interest factors based on the specific information that Lionra presented regarding their relevance and materiality. Apple challenges the district 

court’s findings, but such case-specific, fact-intensive matters 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: 3 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 relying 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 compulsory 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

Case: 23-135 Document: 14 Page: 4 Filed: 08/16/2023