Force MOS Technology Company Limited v. ASUSTeK Computer Incorporated
2:25-mc-00001
| E.D. Tex. | Jan 14, 2025Background
- Force MOS Technology Co., Ltd. (Force MOS) filed a patent infringement case against ASUSTeK Computer, Inc. (ASUS) in the Eastern District of Texas.
- ASUS indicated its supplier, Panjit International, Inc., a Taiwanese corporation, is indemnifying it in the underlying litigation.
- Force MOS issued subpoenas to Panjit seeking deposition testimony and documents as part of discovery.
- Panjit moved in the District of Arizona to quash or modify the subpoena.
- Force MOS moved to transfer Panjit's motion to quash to the Eastern District of Texas, where the underlying litigation is pending.
- The Arizona court considered the procedural propriety and necessity of transferring the subpoena dispute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Should motion to quash be transferred to Texas? | The Texas court is better suited, familiar with case issues | No exceptional circumstances justify transfer | Granted; motion to quash transferred |
| Are there exceptional circumstances for transfer? | Complex patent case; discovery managed by Texas court | Transfer improperly burdens local nonparty | Exceptional circumstances found |
| Is judicial economy a factor? | Discovery supervised in Texas since 2022, supports transfer | Local resolution should be prioritized | Judicial economy supports transfer |
| Local burden on nonparty Panjit? | Panjit closely tied to litigation, indemnifying ASUS | Local resolution reduces burden on Panjit | Texas court more appropriate forum |
Key Cases Cited
- Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996) (claim construction in patent cases is for the court)
- Truswal Sys. Corp. v. Hydro-Air Eng’g, Inc., 813 F.2d 1207 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (issuing court of underlying litigation is better positioned to determine the relevance of evidence)