NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET NO. 847
IN RE ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., SPANSION INC., SPANSION
TECHNOLOGY INC., SPANSION LLC, ST MICROELECTRONICS, INC. and ST
MICROELECTRONICS N.V.,
Petitioners.
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
Before BRYSON, Circuit Judge, FRIEDMAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and PROST, Circuit
Judge.
PROST, Circuit Judge.
ORDER
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. et al. (Advanced Micro Devices) petition for a writ
of mandamus to direct the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California to issue a protective order conditionally staying depositions of its chief
executive officers (CEOs).
Tessera, Inc. sued Advanced Micro Devices alleging willful infringement of
Tessera’s patents as well as breach of various license agreements. Tessera sought
deposition of petitioners’ three CEOs. Advanced Micro Devices sought a protective
order, arguing that the CEOs did not possess any unique knowledge pertaining to this
matter that could not be discovered by interrogatories or depositions of lower-level
employees. A special master denied their motion. The district court denied Advanced
Micro Devices’ objection to the special master’s order. This petition for a writ of
mandamus followed.
The remedy of mandamus is available only in extraordinary situations to correct a
clear abuse of discretion or usurpation of judicial power. In re Calmer, Inc., 854 F.2d
461, 464 (Fed. Cir. 1988). A party seeking a writ bears the burden of proving that it has
no other means of attaining the relief desired, Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the
Southern Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 309 (1989), and that the right to issuance of the
writ is “clear and indisputable.” Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35
(1980).
Advanced Micro Devices argues that the district court erred in denying its motion
for a protective order because the district court did not expressly require Tessera to
show that other, less intrusive methods of discovery were exhausted with regard to the
sought information.
Because this case involves a procedural issue not unique to patent law, we apply
the law of the regional circuit, in this case the Ninth Circuit. See In re Regents of Univ.
of Cal., 101 F.3d 1386, 1390 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Under Ninth Circuit precedent, the
decision whether to grant a motion for a protective order is reviewed under the “abuse
of discretion” standard. Wharton v. Calderon, 127 F.3d 1201, 1205 (9th Cir. 1997);
Shad v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 799 F.2d 525, 527 (9th Cir. 1986). “Where a matter
is committed to [the trial court’s] discretion, it cannot be said that a litigant’s right to a
particular result is ‘clear and indisputable.’” Allied Chem., 449 U.S. at 35. Because
Advanced Micro Devices challenges the district court’s exercise of its discretion, it
cannot show that its right to a particular result is clear and indisputable. Id.
Accordingly,
Misc. 847
-2-
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.
FOR THE COURT
March 27, 2007 /s/ Sharon Prost
Date Sharon Prost
Circuit Judge
cc: Michael J. Bettinger, Esq.
Russell L. Johnson, Esq.
S19
ISSUED AS A MANDATE: ______________________
Misc. 847
-3-