N OTE : This order is nonprecedential

. 

# United States **Court of Appeals**  **for the Federal Circuit**

______________________

In re : REALTEK SEMICONDU CTOR CORPORATION, Petitioner

______________________

202 3

- 147

______________________

O n Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States International Trade Commission in No. 337

- TA

- 1350.

______________________

ON PET I TION AND MOTION

______________________

Before R EYNA , T ARANTO , and H UGHES , Circuit Judges

. R EYNA , Circuit Judge

. O R D E R
In the underlying investigation before the United States International Trade Commission (“ITC”)

, the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) granted Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (“AMD”)’s motion to stri ke Realtek Semiconductor Corporation ’s witness from testifying at an upcoming evidentiary hearing. Realtek now petitions this court for a writ of mandamus directing

, among other things

, that the ITC’s ALJ vacate that ruling

. R ealtek also moves to waive the confidentiality requirements of Federal Circuit Rule 25.1(d)(1)(A) with regard to its petition

. Case: 23-147 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 09/25/2023IN RE : REALTEK SEMICONDUCT OR CORPORATION 2

Realtek filed a complaint a lleging that the import ation of certain AMD chips infringes Realtek’s patents and therefore violate s section 337 of the Tariff A ct of 1930, 19 U.S.C. § 1337

. To make the required domestic industry showing

, Realtek has relied on activities of licensees purportedly related to a 2015 license agreement to the asserted patents

. B ut AMD has argued that thos e activities are not actually covered under th e license agreement and do not establish a domestic industry related to the articles protected by the patents

. The ALJ has denied AMD’s motion for summary de termination on that issue and intends to hold a n evi dentiary hearing to begin on October 16, 2023

. For that hearing, Realtek designated outside counsel Steven S. Baik as a witness to testify regarding the 2015 license agreement because he helped negotiate it on behalf of Realtek. In June 2023, AMD filed a motion, signed by one of the law firms representing it in the proceeding, to strike Mr. Baik from testifying. In August 2023, the ALJ granted AMD’s motion

, reasoning in part that Realtek would not be unduly prejudice d

. After the ALJ denied reconsideration, Realtek filed this petition alleging thatAMD’s counsel who filed the motion to strike currently represents Mr. Baik in other litigation and should have been disqualified from filing that motion based on a conflict of interest arising out of that alleged representation.
Mandamus is a “drastic and extraordinary” remedy “reserved for really extraordinary causes.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C ., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). To establish entitlem ent to such relief , a petitioner is generally required to show that: (1) it has “no other adequate means to attain the relief [it] desires ,” (2) the right to the writ is “clear and indisputable ,” and (3) “the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.” Id . at 380

– 81 (citations omitted). Realtek has not satisfied that demanding standard here. Case: 23-147 Document: 10 Page: 2 Filed: 09/25/2023IN RE : REALTEK SEMICONDUCT OR CORPORATION 3

Realtek has failed to show that it lacks other alternative means to obtain meaningful relief, either from the ITC or on appeal to this court after a final determ ination. Cf. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord , 449 U.S. 368, 377 (1981) (“ An order refusing to disqualify counsel plainlyfalls within the large class of orders that are indeed reviewable on appeal after final judgment

. . . . ”)

. Nor can we say that Realtek has demonstrated a clearand indisputable right to disqualification under the circumstances presented. Realtek notes that the comments to Rule 1.7(a) of the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct state a disqualifying adve rse conflict “may arise when a lawyer is required to cross -examine a client who appears as a witness in a lawsuit involving another client,” but that concern never actually materialized here. We have considered Realtek’s remaining arguments concerning the motion to strike, which we similarly conclude do not demonstrate adequate justification for immediate mandamus relief

. Accordingly

, I T I S O RDERED T HAT : (1) The motion to waive the confidentiality requirements is granted to the extent that the non

- confidentialand confidential versions of the petition for writ of mandamus, ECF Nos. 2 and 3, respectively, are accepted for filing.
(2) The petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

September 25 , 2023 Date F OR THE C OURT

/s/ Jarrett B. Perlow Jarrett B. Perlow Clerk of Court Case: 23-147 Document: 10 Page: 3 Filed: 09/25/2023