Jawbone Innovations, LLC v. Apple Inc.
ORDER GRANTING 94 Sealed Motion to Reconsider. The Courts Transfer Order 93 is VACATED. Jawbones transfer briefing (ECF Nos. 90, 91, 92) are NO LONGER STRICKEN. The Markman hearing set for September 22, 2022 will be rescheduled for a later date. Any remaining transfer briefing is due by September 21, 2022. Signed by Judge Alan D Albright. (lad)
Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 95 Filed 09/20/22 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC,
Civil No. 6:21-CV-00984-ADA
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
This opinion memorializes the Court’s decision on Plaintiff Jawbone Innovation LLC’s
(“Jawbone” or “Plaintiff”) Motion to Reconsideration. ECF No. 94 (requesting reconsideration of
ECF No. 93). The Court hereby GRANTS the motion.
History of the Case
This case was filed on September 23, 2021. Apple Inc. (“Apple” or “Defendant”) 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;
Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 95 Filed 09/20/22 Page 2 of 4
ECF No. 76; In re SK Hynix Inc., 835 F. App’x 600, 601 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 1, 2021) (“the district
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.
Because the parties violated the Court’s deadlines, the Court issued an order (ECF No. 93)
striking all transfer briefing (ECF No. 90, 91, 92) filed after August 30, 2022 as untimely and
granting Apple’s Motion to Transfer (ECF No. 38) as unopposed.
The Court DENIES Reconsideration Based on Misunderstanding
Jawbone argues that the Court should reconsider its transfer decision because Jawbone
believed at all times that it complied with the Court’s rules. In particular, Jawbone believed that
changing the transfer briefing deadlines had no effect on a yet-unscheduled transfer hearing.
Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 95 Filed 09/20/22 Page 3 of 4
Jawbone did not understand that changing the briefing deadlines would affect the Court’s ability
to hold the Markman hearing.
The Court finds this inexcusable. The OGP explicitly codifies the SK Hynix mandate from
the Federal Circuit. OGP § VI (“If a motion to transfer remains pending, the Court will either
promptly resolve the pending motion before the Markman hearing, or postpone the Markman
hearing.”). The Court’s rules explicitly describe the relationship between the conclusion of transfer
briefing and the ability to hold Markman hearings. The parties must timely file their transfer briefs
so that the Court can issue its opinion on any transfer motion before preparing for the Markman
The Court GRANTS Reconsideration
Jawbone argues that the parties bear joint responsibility for agreeing to changing the
briefing deadlines without filing a motion, but the Court’s order disproportionately impacts
Jawbone by granting Apple’s motion to transfer. Evidence shows that the parties were both
involved in extending transfer briefing deadlines without the Court’s permission.
Since the filing of Jawbone’s motion to reconsider, scheduling conflicts arose and require
the Court to postpone the Markman hearing anyway. This gives the Court additional time to
consider the parties’ late briefing while avoiding the disproportionate impact. The Court will thus
VACATE its Transfer Order (ECF No. 93).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
Jawbone’s Motion to Reconsider ECF No. 94 is GRANTED. The Court’s Transfer Order
(ECF No. 93) is VACATED. Jawbone’s transfer briefing (ECF Nos. 90, 91, 92) are NO
Case 6:21-cv-00984-ADA Document 95 Filed 09/20/22 Page 4 of 4
LONGER STRICKEN. The Markman hearing set for September 22, 2022 will be rescheduled
for a later date. Any remaining transfer briefing is due by September 21, 2022.
All counsel are further ORDERED to meet and confer with each other to review the
Court’s standing orders. Counsel are reminded to take note of the Court’s recent updates in OGP
4.2 and in its pretrial procedures.
SIGNED this 20th day of September, 2022.
ALAN D ALBRIGHT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?