Law360 is providing free access to its coronavirus coverage to make sure all members of the legal community have accurate information in this time of uncertainty and change. Use the form below to sign up for any of our weekly newsletters. Signing up for any of our section newsletters will opt you in to the weekly Coronavirus briefing.
Sign up for our Appellate newsletter
You must correct or enter the following before you can sign up:
Thank You!
Law360 (December 3, 2020, 5:30 PM EST ) Intel urged the Federal Circuit on Wednesday to stop a Texas federal judge from retransferring an in-person patent trial from Austin back to Waco, saying the judge is trying to rush the case while courthouses around the country are closing their doors to jury trials as the pandemic worsens.
The petition for writ of mandamus came after U.S. District Judge Alan D. Albright said last month that he plans to retransfer VLSI Technology's patent infringement case against Intel back to Waco if the Austin courthouse is not open in time for the trial to take place in January. Intel argued the district court abused its discretion after previously finding Austin to be the more convenient forum.
"As federal and state courthouses across the country — including in the Western District of Texas — are closing their doors for jury trials in response to surging COVID-19 infection rates, the district court reopened the Waco courthouse and transferred this case to Waco for the sole purpose of rushing to trial in January 2021," Intel said.
Intel argued that Judge Albright made the order, despite previously finding that Austin has substantial connections and strong localized interest in deciding the outcome. The company said the court previously found that patents-in-suit were all invented in Austin, primarily by Austin residents and at companies based in Austin.
Intel said the district court applied the incorrect legal standard, saying retransfer is permitted under Fifth Circuit law only when "unanticipated post-transfer events frustrate the original purpose for transfer." Retransfer isn't warranted here because the Austin courthouse's temporary closure due to COVID-19 did not frustrate the district court's original purpose in transferring the case, according to the petition.
There is nothing in the case that is so time-sensitive that it has to go to trial in January and not a few months later, Intel said.
The district court also abused its discretion by invoking its inherent authority to justify the transfer, according to the petition. Courts have broad discretion to manage their dockets, but they can't use their inherent powers to evade controlling law and statutory authority, Intel said.
Judge Albright said in his order that his court could not wait for the Austin courthouse's indefinite closure to lift because it would create a backlog of cases, according to the petition. But Intel said the court didn't take into consideration that vaccines are on the horizon and that the Austin courthouse might reopen in a matter of months.
"There is no reason to rush to trial when the public health crisis counsels against conducting a jury trial at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic," Intel said.
Intel said the Federal Circuit should reverse the district court's retransfer order, saying the district can continue the trial until the Austin courthouse reopens.
Intel's petition comes just two days after it asked Judge Albright to delay the trial from January to the end of March in order to protect the health of everyone involved and to allow for vaccines to reach the public.
The pandemic is surging to dangerous levels in McLennan County, which includes Waco, where the trial could take place if the Austin federal courthouse is still closed for trials due to the pandemic. "Even the most diligent safeguards cannot adequately reduce the risk of holding jury trials at this time," Intel argued.
Intel pointed to a recent Eastern District of Texas trial held in October in which a mistrial was declared after 15 participants contracted COVID-19, according to the motion. Intel argued that temperature checks, physical barriers, mask-wearing and social distancing were not enough to protect those individuals and will not be enough now to protect people in this trial.
A brief continuance of the trial from January until March will not prejudice VLSI, Intel argued, because the case will still go to trial just two years after the suit was filed, which is faster than the national median time-to-trial for civil cases.
Counsel for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Thursday.
The patents-in-suit are U.S. Patent Nos. 7,725,759, 7,523,373 and 8,156,357.
Intel is represented by Gregory H. Lantier, Richard A. Crudo, Steven J. Horn, William F. Lee, Joseph J. Mueller and Lauren B. Fletcher of Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP; J. Stephen Ravel and Sven Stricker of Kelly Hart & Hallman LLP; Brian C. Nash of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP; and James E. Wren of Baylor Law School.
VLSI is represented by J. Mark Mann, G. Blake Thompson and Andy Tindel of Mann Tindel Thompson; Craig D. Cherry of Haley & Olson PC; and Morgan Chu, Benjamin W. Hattenbach, Keith Orso, Christopher Abernethy, Amy E. Proctor, Dominik Slusarczyk, Charlotte J. Wen, Brian Weissenberg, Jordan Nafekh, Michael H. Strub Jr. and Babak Redjaian of Irell & Manella LLP.
The appellate case is In re: Intel Corp., case number 21-105, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The district case is VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corporation, case number 6:19-cv-00254, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas.
--Additional reporting by Katie Buehler. Editing by Gemma Horowitz.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
