In Re APPLE INC. ( 2020 )


Menu:
  • Case: 20-115    Document: 39-2     Page: 1    Filed: 04/22/2020
    NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Federal Circuit
    ______________________
    In re: APPLE INC.,
    Petitioner
    ______________________
    2020-115
    ______________________
    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
    District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in No. 5:19-
    cv-00036-RWS, Judge Robert Schroeder, III.
    ______________________
    ON PETITION
    ______________________
    SEALED ORDER FILED: April 22, 2020
    PUBLIC ORDER FILED: May 5, 2020 *
    ______________________
    Before PROST, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and HUGHES, Circuit
    Judges.
    Dissent filed by Circuit Judge NEWMAN.
    PER CURIAM.
    ORDER
    *  This order originally was filed under seal and has
    been unsealed in full.
    Case: 20-115    Document: 39-2      Page: 2    Filed: 04/22/2020
    2                                            IN RE: APPLE INC.
    Apple Inc. petitions for a writ of mandamus asking this
    court to direct the United States District Court for the
    Eastern District of Texas to transfer this case to the North-
    ern District of California. Maxell, Ltd. opposes.
    Applying law of the United States Court of Appeals for
    the Fifth Circuit in cases arising from district courts in that
    circuit, this court has held that mandamus may be used to
    correct a patently erroneous denial of transfer. That stand-
    ard is an exacting one, requiring the petitioner to establish
    that the district court’s decision amounted to a failure to
    meaningfully consider the merits of the transfer motion.
    See, e.g., In re Nintendo Co., 
    589 F.3d 1194
     (Fed. Cir. 2009);
    In re Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., 
    587 F.3d 1333
     (Fed. Cir.
    2009); In re Genentech, Inc., 
    566 F.3d 1338
     (Fed. Cir. 2009);
    In re TS Tech USA Corp., 
    551 F.3d 1315
     (Fed. Cir. 2008);
    In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 
    545 F.3d 304
     (5th Cir. 2008)
    (en banc). We are unable to say here that Apple has met
    that standard.
    We cannot say that the district court clearly abused its
    discretion in concluding that the forum selection clause did
    not compel transfer here. No party contends that the prior
    agreement controls the outcome of this case or has asserted
    a breach of contract claim originating from that agreement.
    Notably, the express purpose of the agreement in question
    was the protection of confidential information related to a
    proposed sale of some of the asserted patents between the
    former patent owner and Apple, which the district court
    reasonably concluded was not the same as the licensing
    discussions at the center of this suit.
    We also see no error that is mandamus-worthy in the
    district court’s conclusion that the traditional transfer fac-
    tors did not clearly weigh in favor of transfer. The district
    court reasonably considered that it had gained “some fa-
    miliarity with the Asserted Patents and the accused tech-
    nologies” based on the district court judge’s experience in
    “prior cases involving Maxell and the Asserted Patents,”
    Case: 20-115      Document: 39-2    Page: 3    Filed: 04/22/2020
    IN RE: APPLE INC.                                                 3
    which could not be said for the transferee forum. The court
    also found meaningful connections between this case and
    the Eastern District of Texas, including (a) Maxell’s affili-
    ate having sources of proof in that district; (b) the fact that
    Maxell’s agent and representative for licensing negotia-
    tions with Apple concerning some of the patents resides in
    the Eastern District of Texas, making trial more conven-
    ient in that district with regard to his testimony; and
    (c) several third-party entities located in the district that
    may have relevant documents and witnesses that were
    within the subpoena power of the district court.
    Accordingly,
    IT IS ORDERED THAT:
    The petition is denied.
    FOR THE COURT
    April 22, 2020                 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
    Date                       Peter R. Marksteiner
    Clerk of Court
    s35
    Case: 20-115    Document: 39-2     Page: 4    Filed: 04/22/2020
    4                                           IN RE: APPLE INC.
    NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
    United States Court of Appeals
    for the Federal Circuit
    ______________________
    In re: APPLE INC.,
    Petitioner
    ______________________
    2020-115
    ______________________
    On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
    District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in No. 5:19-
    cv-00036-RWS, Judge Robert Schroeder, III.
    ______________________
    NEWMAN, Circuit Judge, dissenting.
    This patent infringement suit against Apple, Inc. was
    filed by Maxell, Ltd., a subsidiary of Hitachi, Ltd., in the
    United States District Court for the Eastern District of
    Texas. Various issues are described as requiring determi-
    nation of rights and obligations governed by an agreement
    made in 2011 between Apple and Hitachi. That Agreement
    contains the following clause:
    (d) This Agreement shall be construed and con-
    trolled by the laws of the State of California, irre-
    spective of choice of law revisions and the parties
    further consent to exclusive jurisdiction and venue
    in the federal courts sitting in Santa Clara County,
    California, unless no federal subject matter juris-
    diction exists, in which case the parties consent to
    the exclusive jurisdiction and venue in the Supe-
    rior Court of Santa Clara County, California. The
    Case: 20-115    Document: 39-2     Page: 5    Filed: 04/22/2020
    IN RE: APPLE INC.                                               5
    parties waive all defenses of lack of personal juris-
    diction and forum non conveniens with respect to
    these jurisdictions.
    2011 Agreement at 4. The Texas district court describes
    the question of the relation between the 2011 Agreement
    and a June 25, 2013 letter sent to Apple:
    Maxell asserts that Apple willfully infringed the
    Asserted Patents based on [a] June 25, 2013 letter
    Hitachi sent to Apple. Apple contends that the
    2013 letter was protected by the Confidentiality
    Agreement. To Apple, by relying on the 2013 letter
    as notice of infringement, “there is a dispute be-
    tween Apple and Maxell relating to the applicabil-
    ity of the 2011 agreement to the 2013 letter[, and
    t]his dispute should be resolved in NDCA under the
    2011 agreement’s forum-selection and choice-of-
    law clauses.”
    Dist. Ct. Order at 6 (alteration in original). The Texas dis-
    trict court analyzed the 2011 Agreement and applying it to
    this case. The district court states:
    [T]he Confidentiality Agreement establishes that a
    party may disclose its own information as it
    chooses, including Assertion Material, but a Re-
    ceiving Party generally may not disclose the other
    party’s information, except for Assertion Material
    asserted by the other party against it.
    Confidential Information is limited to “any non-
    public information consistent with the Purpose
    above that a party to this Agreement (‘Disclosing
    Party’) designates as being confidential to the party
    that receives such information (‘Receiving
    Party’) . . . .” 
    Id.
     The Agreement goes on to estab-
    lish that the Disclosing Party controls the disclo-
    sure and designation of information as
    Confidential Information. See, e.g., 
    Id.
     at 3–4
    Case: 20-115     Document: 39-2       Page: 6     Filed: 04/22/2020
    6                                               IN RE: APPLE INC.
    (placing all “Obligations Regarding Confidential
    Information” on the Receiving Party). Finally, the
    Confidentiality Agreement establishes that “[a]ll
    Confidential Information is and shall remain the
    property of the original owners. . . . Disclosing
    Party reserves without prejudice the ability to pro-
    tect its rights under any such patents, copyrights,
    trademarks, or trade secrets unless as expressly
    provided herein.” 
    Id.
     at 4–5. Thus, whether or not
    the 2013 letter is Assertion Material, the Disclosing
    Party and its successor (Hitachi and Maxell, respec-
    tively) is free to disclose the letter as it sees fit, in-
    cluding to support willful infringement claims.
    Dist. Ct. Order at 8–9 (second alteration in original).
    The Texas district court, in analyzing and interpreting
    the 2011 Agreement, does not purport to apply California
    law, although the 2011 Agreement states that “the Agree-
    ment shall be construed and controlled by the laws of the
    State of California.” See supra. And the 2011 Agreement
    explicitly requires that exclusive jurisdiction is in the “fed-
    eral courts sitting in Santa Clara County, California” or if
    there is no federal cause of action, then in “the Superior
    Court of Santa Clara County, California.” Id.
    The bedrock rule concerning forum selection clauses is
    that when the parties choose the forum for resolution of
    any future dispute involving the Agreement, that choice
    must be respected. Although we see transfer motions on
    the ground of forum non conveniens, I recall none where a
    choice of forum was challenged. The Supreme Court has
    well recognized the distinction between the agreed choice
    of forum, and the vagaries of forum non conveniens. The
    Court has summarized:
    In the typical case not involving a forum-selection
    clause, a district court considering a § 1404(a) mo-
    tion (or a forum non conveniens motion) must
    Case: 20-115    Document: 39-2      Page: 7    Filed: 04/22/2020
    IN RE: APPLE INC.                                               7
    evaluate both the convenience of the parties and
    various public-interest considerations.
    ***
    The calculus changes, however, when the parties’
    contract contains a valid forum-selection clause,
    which “represents the parties’ agreement as to the
    most proper forum.” Stewart, 487 U.S., at 31, 
    108 S. Ct. 2239
    . The “enforcement of valid forum-selec-
    tion clauses, bargained for by the parties, protects
    their legitimate expectations and furthers vital in-
    terests of the justice system.” Id., at 33, 
    108 S. Ct. 2239
     (Kennedy, J., concurring). For that reason,
    and because the overarching consideration under
    § 1404(a) is whether a transfer would promote “the
    interest of justice,” “a valid forum-selection clause
    is given controlling weight in all but the most ex-
    ceptional cases.” Id., at 33, 
    108 S. Ct. 2239
    .
    Atlantic Marine Const. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for W. Dist.
    of Texas, 
    571 U.S. 49
    , 62–63 (2013).
    Despite the importance of the parties’ choice of forum,
    and the Court’s recognition that this choice is given con-
    trolling weight, my colleagues decline to respect the forum
    selected by the parties for these issues. Instead, the dis-
    trict court and now my colleagues analyze the facts and
    confidentiality situation consigned to California, decide
    their merits, apparently under Texas law, and upon this
    decision, they reject the form selection clause in the agree-
    ment they are interpreting. That is as improper as it is
    illogical.
    In purporting to decide whether to respect the parties’
    contractual selection of forum for issues involved in the
    contract, my colleagues decide the merits of those issues,
    and then announce that the merits will not be decided un-
    der the terms to which the parties agreed at the time of
    contracting, that is, under California law in a federal or
    Case: 20-115    Document: 39-2      Page: 8    Filed: 04/22/2020
    8                                            IN RE: APPLE INC.
    state court located in California. Issues of disclosure and
    confidentiality are matters of state law. The merits of
    these contested and complex factual issues require trial,
    not adverse decision on brief motion papers. Nonetheless,
    by agreement of the parties, these merits are consigned to
    California law in a federal or state court located in Califor-
    nia.
    For state law issues such as the laws of confidentiality
    and commerce, the choice of law may be critical. There is
    a long and uncontroversial history of the rights of commer-
    cial parties to agree on the forum and law to apply should
    dispute arise. Surely a party to such agreement can expect
    that this choice will be respected.
    My colleagues err in ruling that this selection of Cali-
    fornia law, and a federal or state court located in California
    does not apply because there are additional issues in the
    case. Although Maxell apparently successfully shifted the
    issue to one of forum non conveniens, the laws of contracts
    and the rules of commerce require respect for the Agree-
    ment that these parties made in 2011. See Omron
    Healthcare, Inc. v. Maclaren Exports Ltd., 
    28 F.3d 600
    , 603
    (7th Cir. 1994) (“The dominant policy in contract cases is
    enforcing the parties’ agreement, the better to promote
    commerce.” (citing M/S Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co.,
    
    407 U.S. 1
    , 9 1972)).
    The proper approach, when it appears that issues re-
    lated to the 2011 Agreement are relevant to this dispute, is
    to respect the choice-of-law and forum-selection clauses. It
    is not disputed that California law applies to the infor-
    mation and confidentiality issues that we are told are likely
    to require resolution. The parties’ agreement to a federal
    or state court located in California must be respected as a
    matter of contract law, and as a foundation of commercial
    activity supported by reliable judicial process.
    The integrity of contracts is the foundation of com-
    merce. Here the contract is between two competent
    Case: 20-115    Document: 39-2     Page: 9    Filed: 04/22/2020
    IN RE: APPLE INC.                                               9
    commercial entities, Apple and Maxell’s parent Hitachi.
    There is no representation of any impropriety in the 2011
    Agreement. * The judicial obligation is to enforce such con-
    tracts. From my colleagues’ denial of the petition for trans-
    fer, I respectfully dissent.
    .
    *    It is not disputed that four of Maxell’s claims of
    willful infringement are based on “notice allegedly pro-
    vided to Apple during discussions in 2013” and subject to
    the 2011 Agreement. Apple Reply at 3. My colleagues
    agree with Apple that “Apple invites this court to interpret
    the agreement’s preamble, construe defined terms, delve
    into the meaning of the parties’ communications; evaluate
    the scope of the disclosure prohibition; and ultimately sum-
    marily dispose of Apple’s contractual defense against Max-
    ell’s willfulness claims.” 
    Id. at 4
    . However, although these
    matters of interpretation and application of the agreement
    are consigned to the California forum, my colleagues decide
    them here, on motion papers, and decide not to permit de-
    cision under California law in a federal or state court lo-
    cated in California. This cannot have been the parties’
    intention when they entered into this contract.