NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

In re: REALTEK SEMICONDUCTOR 

CORPORATION,

Petitioner

______________________ 

2023-147

______________________ 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States 

International Trade Commission in No. 337-TA-1350.

______________________ 

ON PETITION AND MOTION

______________________ 

Before REYNA, TARANTO, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges. 

REYNA, 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 strike 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. Realtek 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: 09/25/2023
2 IN RE: REALTEK SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION

Realtek filed a complaint alleging that the importation

of certain AMD chips infringes Realtek’s patents and therefore violates section 337 of the Tariff Act 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. 

But AMD has argued that those activities are not actually 

covered under the 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 

determination on that issue and intends to hold an evidentiary 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 prejudiced. After the ALJ denied reconsideration, Realtek filed this petition alleging that 

AMD’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 entitlement 

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: 09/25/2023
IN RE: REALTEK SEMICONDUCTOR 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 determination. Cf. 

Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368, 377 

(1981) (“An order refusing to disqualify counsel plainly 

falls within the large class of orders that are indeed reviewable on appeal after final judgment . . . .”).

Nor can we say that Realtek has demonstrated a clear 

and 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 adverse 

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, 

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The motion to waive the confidentiality requirements is granted to the extent that the non-confidential 

and 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

FOR THE COURT

/s/ Jarrett B. Perlow

Jarrett B. Perlow

Clerk of Court

Case: 23-147 Document: 10 Page: 3 Filed: 09/25/2023