In Re BOSE CORPORATION

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Decided: May 25, 2021
• Docket: 21-145
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 21-145 Document: 9 Page: 1 Filed: 05/25/2021

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In re: BOSE CORPORATION, Petitioner ______________________

2021-145 ______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in No. 6:20- cv-00661-ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright. ______________________

ON PETITION ______________________

Before LOURIE, DYK, and REYNA, Circuit Judges. DYK, Circuit Judge. ORDER Bose Corporation petitions for a writ of mandamus di- recting the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas to stay all non-venue-related proceedings until the district court resolves Bose’s pending motion to dismiss or transfer. Koss Corporation opposes. In July 2020, Koss filed this patent infringement suit in the Western District of Texas against Bose. In Decem- ber 2020, Bose moved to dismiss the case for improper venue or to transfer the case to the United States District Case: 21-145 Document: 9 Page: 2 Filed: 05/25/2021

2 IN RE: BOSE CORPORATION

Court for the District of Massachusetts. Briefing on that motion closed on March 4, 2021. A week later, Bose moved to stay all non-venue pro- ceedings. On March 23, 2021, the district court issued a standing order stating that it will either rule on pending inter-district transfer motions before conducting a Mark- man hearing or postpone the hearing. See Appx0352. On April 16, 2021, the district court judge informed the parties that he anticipated an order being issued “next week” on the venue motion and, in the meantime, to continue with current deadlines. Appx0339–40. Bose filed this petition on May 10, 2021. Mandamus is “reserved for extraordinary situations.” Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289 (1988) (citation omitted). Under the well-estab- lished standard for obtaining mandamus relief, the peti- tioner must: (1) show that it has a clear and indisputable legal right; (2) show it does not have any other method of obtaining relief; and (3) convince the court that the “writ is appropriate under the circumstances.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004) (citation omitted). Bose has not met that demanding standard. Bose calls to this court’s attention cases that have held that district courts must first address whether it is a proper and convenient venue before deciding the substantive mat- ters of a case. In re Nintendo Co., 544 F. App’x 934, 941 (Fed. Cir. 2013); In re SK hynix Inc., 835 F. App’x 600, 601 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (granting mandamus to stay upcoming Markman hearing); In re TracFone Wireless, Inc., No. 2021-118, 2021 WL 865353, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 8, 2021) (granting mandamus to stay post-Markman dead- lines until the district court has resolved transfer motion). But under the district court’s March 23, 2021 standing order, the district court has made clear that it will not con- duct a Markman hearing until after resolution of Bose’s Case: 21-145 Document: 9 Page: 3 Filed: 05/25/2021

IN RE: BOSE CORPORATION 3

pending motion to dismiss or transfer the case. * See Appx0352 (“The Court will not conduct a Markman hearing until it has resolved the pending motion to transfer.”); see also Appx0375 (indicating that discovery, other than venue, jurisdictional, and claim construction-related dis- covery, is stayed until after the Markman hearing). The only deadlines Bose seeks to stay are the deadlines to file its responsive Markman brief and sur-reply Mark- man brief. Bose has identified no authority establishing a clear legal right to stay those deadlines nor shown that it will be irreparably harmed absent a writ. This court has generally refused to grant such extraordinary relief under these circumstances, In re Apple Inc., 844 F. App’x 364, 365 (Fed. Cir. 2021), and we see no reason to do so here. We expect the district court will promptly decide the pending motion to dismiss or transfer. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The petition is denied. FOR THE COURT

May 25, 2021 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court s32

*The Markman hearing is currently scheduled for July 20, 2021 but could change pursuant to the standing order.