In re: REALTEK SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380 2004 internal quota- tion marks

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In re: REALTEK SEMICONDUCTOR
CORPORATION,
Petitioner
______________________
2023-147
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
International Trade Commission in No. 337-TA-1350.
______________________
ON PETITION AND MOTION
______________________
Before REYNA, T ARANTO, and HUGHES , Circuit Judges.
REYNA, Circuit Judge.
O R D E R
In the underlying investigation before the United
States International Trade Commission (“ITC”), the ad-
ministrative law judge (“ALJ”) granted Advanced Micro
Devices, Inc. (“AMD”)’s motion to strike Realtek Semicon-
ductor Corporation’s witness from testifying at an upcom-
ing evidentiary hearing. Realtek now petitions this court
for a writ of mandamus directing, among other things, that
the ITC’s ALJ vacate that ruling. Realtek also moves to
waive the confidentiality requirements of Federal Circuit
Rule 25.1(d)(1)(A) with regard to its petition.
Case: 23-147 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 09/25/2023

-- 1 of 3 --

IN RE: REALTEK SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION 2
Realtek filed a complaint alleging that the importation
of certain AMD chips infringes Realtek’s patents and there-
fore violates section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, 19 U.S.C.
§ 1337. To make the required domestic industry showing,
Realtek has relied on activities of licensees purportedly re-
lated to a 2015 license agreement to the asserted patents.
But AMD has argued that those activities are not actually
covered under the license agreement and do not establish
a domestic industry related to the articles protected by the
patents. The ALJ has denied AMD’s motion for summary
determination on that issue and intends to hold an eviden-
tiary hearing to begin on October 16, 2023.
For that hearing, Realtek designated outside counsel
Steven S. Baik as a witness to testify regarding the 2015
license agreement because he helped negotiate it on behalf
of Realtek. In June 2023, AMD filed a motion, signed by
one of the law firms representing it in the proceeding, to
strike Mr. Baik from testifying. In August 2023, the ALJ
granted AMD’s motion, reasoning in part that Realtek
would not be unduly prejudiced. After the ALJ denied re-
consideration, Realtek filed this petition alleging that
AMD’s counsel who filed the motion to strike currently rep-
resents Mr. Baik in other litigation and should have been
disqualified from filing that motion based on a conflict of
interest arising out of that alleged representation.
Mandamus is a “drastic and extraordinary” remedy
“reserved for really extraordinary causes.” Cheney v. U.S.
Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004) (internal quota-
tion marks and citation omitted). To establish entitlement
to such relief, a petitioner is generally required to show
that: (1) it has “no other adequate means to attain the relief
[it] desires,” (2) the right to the writ is “clear and indisput-
able,” and (3) “the writ is appropriate under the circum-
stances.” Id. at 380–81 (citations omitted). Realtek has
not satisfied that demanding standard here.
Case: 23-147 Document: 10 Page: 2 Filed: 09/25/2023

-- 2 of 3 --

IN RE: REALTEK SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION 3
Realtek has failed to show that it lacks other alterna-
tive means to obtain meaningful relief, either from the ITC
or on appeal to this court after a final determination. Cf.
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368, 377
(1981) (“An order refusing to disqualify counsel plainly
falls within the large class of orders that are indeed review-
able on appeal after final judgment . . . .”).
Nor can we say that Realtek has demonstrated a clear
and indisputable right to disqualification under the cir-
cumstances presented. Realtek notes that the comments
to Rule 1.7(a) of the American Bar Association’s Model
Rules of Professional Conduct state a disqualifying adverse
conflict “may arise when a lawyer is required to cross-ex-
amine a client who appears as a witness in a lawsuit in-
volving another client,” but that concern never actually
materialized here. We have considered Realtek’s remain-
ing arguments concerning the motion to strike, which we
similarly conclude do not demonstrate adequate justifica-
tion for immediate mandamus relief.
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The motion to waive the confidentiality require-
ments is granted to the extent that the non-confidential
and confidential versions of the petition for writ of manda-
mus, ECF Nos. 2 and 3, respectively, are accepted for filing.
(2) The petition for writ of mandamus is denied.
September 25, 2023
Date
F OR THE COURT
/s/ Jarrett B. Perlow
Jarrett B. Perlow
Clerk of Court
Case: 23-147 Document: 10 Page: 3 Filed: 09/25/2023

-- 3 of 3 --