This case was last updated from PACER on 09/18/2021 at 05:10:56 (UTC).

Apple Inc.In re: Apple Inc.

Case Summary

On September 8, 2021, Apple Inc. (“Petitioner”), represented by Benjamin Elacqua and Betty H. Chen of Fish & Richardson, PC, Edmund Hirschfeld and Melanie L. Bostwick of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP and Greer N. Shaw of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, filed an appeal for the writ of mandamus against Neonode Smartphone LLC (“Respondent”). Petitioner filed the appeal seeking a writ of mandamus directing the District Court to transfer this case to the Northern District of California for alleged wrongful application of law relating to transfer by District Court. This case was filed in the Federal - U.S. Courts Of Appeals in the U.S. Court Of Appeals, Federal Circuit. 

 

In the Petition, Petitioner alleged that “Apple, a California corporation, designed and developed the accused features of the iPhone and iPad products within the Northern District of California. Apple’s global headquarters are located there. Appx93-101. So are its primary research and development facilities. Appx93-94. Apple’s primary marketing, sales, and finance decisions also occur in the Northern District of California, and its product- revenue business records are stored there. Appx93-94. Not surprisingly, nearly all of the design, development, and marketing of the allegedly infringing technology took place in the Northern District of California. Appx96-101. No such activity occurred in the Western District of Texas.”

 

Petitioner further alleged that “Neonode also urged the district court to disregard the presence of relevant electronic documents in the Northern District of California on the theory that electronic files are “generally accessible.” Appx194. And it contended that transferring this case without transferring Neonode’s separate suit against Samsung would create undue judicial inefficiencies. Appx191. Neonode did not acknowledge the significant differences between the accused features and products in each case.”

 

Petitioner also alleged that “A petitioner seeking mandamus relief must (1) show a “clear and indisputable” right to the writ; (2) have “no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires”; and (3) demonstrate that “the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.” In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304, 311 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc) (“Volkswagen II”) (quoting Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004)). “In transfer cases, those requirements generally coalesce into one inquiry: whether the district court’s denial of transfer amounted to a clear abuse of discretion under governing legal standards.”

 

Petitioner even further alleged that “Moreover, this case will involve an examination of purportedly infringing functionality provided by several third-party applications such as GBoard and Swype. Appx39-46. A significant part of Neonode’s lawsuit alleges that Apple infringed by designing its operating system to support those applications, then promoting and encouraging users to download them. Appx42-45. Neonode has made no comparable allegations about third-party applications in the Samsung suit. See supra 4-5. That means a significant portion of the prospective fact development and legal analysis in this case is entirely absent from the Samsung action.”

 

The only relief sought by the Petitioner is that Apple respectfully requests that the court issue a writ of mandamus directing the District Court to transfer this case to the Northern District of California. 

 

In its prayer for relief, Petitioner requested the court should grant Apple’s petition, vacate the District Court’s order, and remand with instructions to transfer this case to the Northern District of California.

 

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    21-181

  • Filing Date:

    09/08/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other - Writ Of Mandamus

 

Party Details

Petitioner

In re: APPLE INC.

Respondent

NEONODE SMARTPHONE LLC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Petitioner Attorneys

Melanie L. Bostwick

Attorney at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

1152 15Th Street, Nw, Columbia Center

Washington, DC 20005

Betty H. Chen

Attorney at Fish & Richardson, PC

500 Arguello Street

Redwood City, CA 94063

Benjamin Elacqua

Attorney at Fish & Richardson, PC

One Houston Center, 1221 Mckinney Street

Houston, TX 77010

Edmund Hirschfeld

Attorney at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

51 West 52Nd Street

New York, NY 10019

Respondent Attorney

Greer N. Shaw

Attorney at Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP

301 N Lake Avenue

Pasadena, CA 91101

 

Court Documents

#5

(#5) ORDER filed directing Neonode Smartphone LLC to respond to the petition [ # 2 ] no later than seven days from the date of filing of this order. Apple may reply in support of its petition no later than three days thereafter. Service as of this date by the Clerk of Court. [797838] [LMS] [Entered: 09/08/2021 03:46 PM]

#4

(#4) Certificate of Interest for Petitioner Apple Inc. Service: 09/07/2021 by US mail. [797665] [MMA] [Entered: 09/08/2021 09:51 AM]

#3

(#3) Entry of appearance for Melanie L. Bostwick; Edmund R. Hirschfeld; Betty H. Chen; Benjamin C. Elacqua as counsel for Petitioner Apple Inc. Service: 09/07/2021 by US mail. [797662] [MMA] [Entered: 09/08/2021 09:48 AM]

#2

Appendix

2 #1

Motion

#1

(#1) Miscellaneous case docketed. Received: 09/07/2021. [797655] Entry of Appearance due 09/22/2021. Certificate of Interest is due on 09/22/2021. [MMA] [Entered: 09/08/2021 09:40 AM]

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/08/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#5) ORDER filed directing Neonode Smartphone LLC to respond to the petition [ # 2 ] no later than seven days from the date of filing of this order. Apple may reply in support of its petition no later than three days thereafter. Service as of this date by the Clerk of Court. [797838] [LMS] [Entered: 09/08/2021 03:46 PM]

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#4) Certificate of Interest for Petitioner Apple Inc. Service: 09/07/2021 by US mail. [797665] [MMA] [Entered: 09/08/2021 09:51 AM]

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#3) Entry of appearance for Melanie L. Bostwick; Edmund R. Hirschfeld; Betty H. Chen; Benjamin C. Elacqua as counsel for Petitioner Apple Inc. Service: 09/07/2021 by US mail. [797662] [MMA] [Entered: 09/08/2021 09:48 AM]

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#2) PETITION of Petitioner Apple Inc. for Writ of Mandamus pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 21. Service: 09/07/2021 by US mail. [797658] [MMA] [Entered: 09/08/2021 09:45 AM]

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/08/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) Miscellaneous case docketed. Received: 09/07/2021. [797655] Entry of Appearance due 09/22/2021. Certificate of Interest is due on 09/22/2021. [MMA] [Entered: 09/08/2021 09:40 AM]

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases represented by Lawyer Greer Novalis Shaw(Designation Retained)