直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

At the PTAB Blog

Federal Circuit: Mandamus Petitions Challenging Institution Denial Are Unlikely to Show Right to Relief

March 31, 2021

Authored and Edited by Clinton P. Greub; Brooke M Wilner; Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D.

In Mylan Laboratories LTD. v. Janssen Pharmaceutica, N.V., No. 2021-1071 (Mar. 12, 2021), the Federal Circuit granted Janssen’s motion to dismiss Mylan’s appeal. Mylan appealed the Board’s decision not to institute inter partes review of Janssen’s U.S. Patent No. 9,439,906, and sought mandamus relief under the All Writs Act. The Court determined it lacked jurisdiction over Mylan’s direct appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d). Although the Court held it had proper jurisdiction over the request for mandamus, the Court held that Mylan failed to show a clear right to relief. In dicta, the Court expressed its belief that it would be “difficult to imagine a mandamus petition that challenges a denial of institution and identifies a clear and indisputable right to relief.”

For a more detailed analysis of this case, please see Finnegan’s Federal Circuit IP blog.

Tags

35 U.S.C. § 314(d), Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), jurisdiction

Related Practices

Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals

Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings

PTAB Invalidation Proceedings: IPR and PGR

Related Industries

Life Sciences

Pharmaceutical

Related Offices

Washington, DC

Contacts

Clinton P. Greub
Associate
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4020
Email
Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D.
Partner
London
+44 (0)20 7864 2814
Email

Copyright © 2021 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 


DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.

Related Insights

Webinar

Data and Market Exclusivity: An Update on China’s New Law and Comparisons to the US and Europe

November 19, 2026

Webinar

Conference

2026 TIPA International Symposium

October 30, 2026

Taipei City

Lecture

2026 Donald R. Dunner Endowed Lecture

October 27, 2026

Washington, DC

Conference

2026 FCBA Global Series Fall Session

October 14-16, 2026

Dublin

INCONTESTABLE® Blog

Federal Court Orders Rebel Creamery to Redesign Packaging and Disgorge $23.8 Million in Van Leeuwen Trade Dress Case

October 7, 2026

Articles

California Court Considers CIPA’s Application to Online Tracking as New Law Limits Private Actions

October 7, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Distinguishes Patent Eligibility Among Different Communications Systems Claims

October 5, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB Obviousness Finding in DRAM Data Path Patent

October 5, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Affirms Written Description Support, Vacates Mooted Non-Obviousness Finding

October 5, 2026

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP