Apple Loses at CAFC in Bid for Mandamus Relief to Transfer Out of Texas

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Wednesday denied Apple, Inc.’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to transfer a patent infringement case brought by Resonant Systems, Inc. out of Judge Alan Albright’s Western Texas court to the Northern District of California.

Resonant sued Apple in the Western District of Texas, alleging that various models of Apple’s mobile phones, computers, and watches infringe four of its patents relating to haptic feedback devices. Apple sought transfer to California, arguing that “Apple engineers who research, design, develop, and implement the Taptic Engines in the accused products are almost all in California.” To support that argument, Apple relied on a declaration submitted by Chang Zhang, an engineer who manages Apple’s team responsible for taptic engines in the accused computer products. Resonant opposed the motion to transfer, arguing that Zhang’s declaration was “artificially limited” to “Taptic Engine” technology and that other components involving witnesses and evidence in Texas would be the focus of the arguments, particularly “that amplifier components supplied by Cirrus Logic of Austin, Texas contribute to infringement of the claimed driving component and/or control component.”

The district court agreed with Resonant and found Apple’s motion and supporting declarations deficient in several ways. Specifically, said the district court, Zhang’s declaration “‘ignore[d]’ components ‘which Resonant contends are infringing’; was ‘unclear’ whether he could ‘speak for the other five design and engineering teams, as [Mr.] Zhang spends no time whatsoever describing the interplay between teams or whether he has any oversight over them’; and failed to identify any of the employees on his and other teams or provide information as to what, if any, relevant and material information was in their possession.”

The CAFC in its analysis of the mandamus petition said it was “not prepared” to say the district court abused its discretion or to grant the “extraordinary relief” of mandamus considering that the district court performed a “case-specific assessment of the record that it was uniquely well-positioned to do” and “reasonably found” that Texas was a convenient forum for individuals and materials relevant to the case.  The CAFC also agreed that the deficiencies cited by the district court as to Apple’s declarations were plausible, particularly Apple’s “failure to provide information about the location of witnesses and sources of proof related to what the court reasonably deemed as relevant components at this stage of the litigation.”