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

Charitable

Bridges From School to Work Gala 2026

June 22, 2026

Washington, DC

Charitable

Banding Together 2026

June 18, 2026

Washington, DC

Articles

Colorado Replaces Landmark AI Act: An Overview of the New SB 26-189 Framework

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2026

May 26, 2026

At the PTAB Blog

Before the Holding, the Message: Director Squires Uses Magnolia Medical to Outline PTAB Discretionary Denial Policy Changes

May 20, 2026

Webinar

Changes at the PTAB from Settled Expectations to Real Parties in Interest to Director Involvement

May 18, 2026

Webinar

Articles

COPPA’s Amended Rule Is Now in Full Effect: What Operators Need to Know

May 15, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

When “and” and “e.g.” Matter: Federal Circuit Revives VLSI vs. Intel Case

May 14, 2026

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Affirms § 102(b) Invalidity; Source Code Commands Are Not Hearsay

May 14, 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