Jawbone Innovations, LLC v. Apple Inc.

Filing 93

ORDER GRANTING 38 Apples Motion to Transfer; DENYING as moot 78 Motion to Supplement and Striking all transfer briefing filed after August 30, 2022 ( 90 , 91 , 92 ) AS UNTIMELY FILED. Signed by Judge Alan D Albright. (lad)

Download PDF
Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 93 Filed 09/15/22 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS WACO DIVISION JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC, Plaintiff, v. APPLE INC., Defendant. § § § § § § § Civil No. 6:21-CV-00984-ADA TRANSFER ORDER This opinion memorializes the Court’s decision on Defendant Apple Inc.’s (“Apple” or “Defendant”) Motion to Transfer Venue from the Western District of Texas (“WDTX”) to the Northern District of California (“NDCA”) under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). ECF NO. 38. This case was filed on September 23, 2021. Apple filed its transfer motion on May 2, 2022. The Court’s Order Governing Proceedings (“OGP”) sets rules governing motions to transfer. OGP § IV. For cases filed before March 7, 2022, the OGP refers to the Second Amended Standing Order Regarding Motions for Inter-District Transfer. Id. The Second Amended Standing Order Regarding Motions for Inter-District Transfer sets a three-month deadline for venue discovery from the filing of the initial motion, another two weeks for the Plaintiff’s response, and another two weeks for the Defendant’s reply. Thus, venue discovery should have concluded on August 2, 2022, which is three months from the transfer motion filing on May 2, 2022. Plaintiff’s response was due on August 16, 2022, which is two weeks thereafter. Defendant’s reply was due on August 30, 2022. Due to Apple’s pending transfer motion, the Court needed to reschedule the Markman hearing originally set for July 27, 2022 to comply with the Federal Circuit’s order. ECF No. 66; ECF No. 76; In re SK Hynix Inc., 835 F. App’x 600, 601 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 1, 2021) (“the district 1 Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 93 Filed 09/15/22 Page 2 of 3 court must stay all proceedings concerning the substantive issues in the case until such time that it has issued a ruling on the transfer motion.”). The Court rescheduled the Markman hearing for September 22, 2022 so that the Court would have at least three weeks to rule on the transfer motion after the conclusion of briefing on August 30, 2022. ECF No. 89. On August 24, 2022, the parties filed a Joint Notice Regarding Venue Discovery and Briefing. ECF No. 86. The Parties modified their own discovery deadlines as permitted by the Court. However, the Parties also improperly modified Jawbone’s opposition deadline to September 8, 2022 and Apple’s Reply to September 22, 2022. This modification of the briefing deadline violates the Court’s rules. The Court’s Amended Standing Order Regarding Joint or Unopposed Request to Change Deadlines allows parties to stipulate to any deadline change that “does not extend any deadline of a final submission that affects the Court’s ability to hold a scheduled hearing.” Modifying the transfer opposition deadline without motion violated this rule. Setting Apple’s reply to September 22, 2022—the same date as the Markman hearing—also violates this rule because the Court cannot hold the Markman hearing before ruling on the motion to transfer. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: • All transfer briefing (ECF NO. 90, 91, 92) filed after August 30, 2022 is hereby STRICKEN AS UNTIMELY. • Apple WAIVES its right to file a reply in support of transfer. • Apple’s Motion to Supplement (ECF No. 78) is hereby DENIED AS MOOT. • Apple’s Motion to Transfer (ECF No. 38) is hereby GRANTED as unopposed. • The Clerk of the Court is hereby ORDERED to transfer this case to the Northern District of California. 2 Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 93 Filed 09/15/22 Page 3 of 3 SIGNED this 15th day of September, 2022. ALAN D ALBRIGHT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?