Federal Circuit disposition — 25-142

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In Re FINTIV, INC.,
Petitioner
______________________
2025-142
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
District Court for the Western District of Texas in No. 1:21-
cv-00896-ADA, Judge Alan D. Albright.
______________________
ON PETITION AND MOTION
______________________
Before TARANTO, CUNNINGHAM, and STARK, Circuit
Judges.
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
Fintiv, Inc. petitions for a writ of mandamus directing
the United States District Court for the Western District of
Texas to postpone a trial scheduled for August 4, 2025, and
moves to stay trial pending disposition of the petition. Spe-
cifically, Fintiv argues that the district court errs by pro-
ceeding with trial (1) without first permitting it to take
certain discovery and (2) despite Fintiv’s lead counsel hav-
ing a scheduling conflict with a hearing in a different case.
Apple Inc. opposes.
Case: 25-142 Document: 18 Page: 1 Filed: 08/01/2025

-- 1 of 2 --

IN RE FINTIV, INC. 2
The remedy of mandamus is available only in “excep-
tional” situations to correct a “clear abuse of discretion or
usurpation of judicial power” by a trial court. In re Calmar,
Inc., 854 F.2d 461, 464 (Fed. Cir. 1988). A party seeking a
writ bears the burden of proving that it has no “adequate
alternative” to obtain the same relief, Mallard v. U.S. Dist.
Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 309 (1989), and
that the right to issuance of the writ is “clear and indisput-
able,” Will v. Calvert Fire Ins., 437 U.S. 655, 666 (1978) (in-
ternal quotation marks omitted). Fintiv has not met that
standard here. Fintiv indicated to the district court that it
could proceed with the trial on the current date, even with
its counsel’s scheduling conflict, if it received the desired
discovery. Appx031–32. And before this petition was filed,
the other court rescheduled its hearing to four days after
this trial is anticipated to end. At a minimum, Fintiv has
not shown that an appeal after final judgment would be in-
adequate to raise its challenges to the district court’s rul-
ings or shown a clear and indisputable right to relief from
the current trial date under the circumstances.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition and motion to stay are denied.
August 1, 2025
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 25-142 Document: 18 Page: 2 Filed: 08/01/2025

-- 2 of 2 --