This morning the Federal Circuit released a precedential opinion in a patent case appealed from the Eastern District of Virginia. In its opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. The Federal Circuit also released three nonprecedential orders. Two dismiss appeals and one denies a writ of mandamus to remand a case to the Court of Federal Claims. Here is the introduction to the opinion, text from the order, and links to the dismissals.

SawStop Holding LLC v. Vidal (Precedential)

SawStop Holding LLC (“Sawstop”) appeals from the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) in each of two suits filed by Sawstop to challenge the denial of patent term adjustments (“PTAs”) for Sawstop’s U.S. Patent Nos. 9,522,476 (“’476 patent”) and 9,927,796 (“’796 patent”). For the reasons discussed infra, we affirm.

In re Phillips (Nonprecedential Order)

On November 13, 2017, the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissed Wendell W. Phillips’ case and entered judgment. The Court of Federal Claims subsequently denied Mr. Phillips’ post-judgment motions on January 19, 2018 and July 30, 2020, and then stopped accepting filings. On August 4, 2022, Mr. Phillips filed this petition, seeking to “remand this case back to the United States Court of Federal Claims to correct this matter and settle this matter.” Pet. at 26.

The remedy of mandamus is available only in “exceptional circumstances to correct a clear abuse of discretion or usurpation of judicial power.” In re Calmar, Inc., 854 F.2d 461, 464 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citations omitted). A party seeking a writ of mandamus bears the burden of demonstrating to the court that (1) he has a clear and indisputable right to relief; (2) there are no adequate alternative legal channels through which he may obtain that relief; and (3) the grant of mandamus is appropriate under the circumstances. See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004).

Mr. Phillips has not met those requirements here. Generally, “[m]andamus relief is not appropriate when a petitioner fails to seek relief through the normal appeal process.” In re Fermin, 859 F. App’x 904, 905 (Fed. Cir. 2021); see also Roche v. Evaporated Milk Ass’n, 319 U.S. 21, 26 (1943) (finding that mandamus “may not appropriately be used merely as a substitute for the appeal procedure”); In re Pollitz, 206 U.S. 323, 331 (1907) (“[M]andamus cannot . . . be used to perform the office of an appeal . . . .”). Because Mr. Phillips failed to timely raise his challenges on appeal, mandamus is not appropriate.



The petition is denied.