Court Opinion

ID: 9375936
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-01 15:02:48.211613+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:01.709746
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-122    Document: 7     Page: 1    Filed: 03/01/2023

           NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

  United States Court of Appeals
      for the Federal Circuit
                  ______________________

         In re: ASUSTEK COMPUTER, INC.,
                        Petitioner
                 ______________________

                         2023-122
                  ______________________

    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Texas in No. 6:21-
cv-00622-ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright.
                  ______________________

                      ON PETITION
                  ______________________

      Before DYK, REYNA, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
DYK, Circuit Judge.
                        ORDER
    ASUSTeK Computer, Inc. petitions for a writ of man-
damus directing the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas to vacate its scheduling order
and stay all proceedings on the merits pending that court’s
disposition of ASUSTeK’s motion to transfer.
    In June 2021, XR Communications, LLC filed this pa-
tent infringement suit against ASUSTeK. After fact dis-
covery opened, ASUSTeK moved for leave to file a motion
to transfer, arguing intervening events giving rise to the
request should excuse its failure to seek transfer earlier
Case: 23-122     Document: 7     Page: 2    Filed: 03/01/2023

2                              IN RE: ASUSTEK COMPUTER, INC.

when it could have done so without leave. In August 2022,
the court granted ASUSTeK leave to file the motion, noting
that the court will “resolve[] the transfer issue . . . before
the Markman hearing.” Appx379. As currently scheduled,
briefing on the transfer motion is set to be completed on
March 3, 2023; the Markman hearing will be held on March
23, 2023; and fact discovery will close in May 2023. Argu-
ing that this schedule will improperly allow the district
court to undertake important substantive steps before de-
ciding transfer, ASUSTeK filed this petition.
    A writ of mandamus is a “drastic and extraordinary
remedy” reserved for “exceptional circumstances.” Cheney
v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004) (internal
quotation marks and citations omitted). A petitioner must
show, among other things, that it has a “clear and indis-
putable” right to the writ. Id. at 380–81 (internal quotation
marks and citations omitted). That demanding standard
has not been met here. Here, the motion was filed more
than a year after the complaint was filed and after discov-
ery had already begun, and the district court has indicated
that it will decide the transfer motion before the Markman
hearing. Although ASUSTeK contends that we should stay
the discovery deadlines while its transfer request is briefed
and decided by the district court, we cannot say that ASUS-
TeK has shown a clear and undisputable right to entitle-
ment to such relief under the circumstances.
    Accordingly,
    IT IS ORDERED THAT:
    The petition is denied.
                                     FOR THE COURT

 March 1, 2023                       /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
     Date                            Peter R. Marksteiner
                                     Clerk of Court