No Mandamus for You. Come Back Next Year.

In Re Roche Mollecular Systems, Inc., [Misc. 854] (February 1, 2008)[FRIEDMAN, MAYER, Newman] The Federal Circuit denied a Petition for Mandamus.
SIGNIFICANCE: Mandamus is not appropriate to stop what a subsequent appeal can fix.
BRIEF: Stanford sued Roche for patent infringement. On cross motions for summary judgment, the district court determined that Roche was barred from asserting (1) that it was the owner of the patents, (2) that it had a license, and (3) that Stanford lacked standing. Roche petitioned for a writ of mandamus to direct the district court to vacate its summary judgment order and to enter judgment in favor of Roche. The remedy of mandamus is available only in extraordinary situations to correct a clear abuse of discretion or usurpation of judicial power. A party seeking a writ bears the burden of proving that it has no other means of attaining the relief desired, and that the right to issuance of the writ is "clear and indisputable. That a petitioner may suffer hardship, inconvenience, or an unusually complex trial does not provide a basis for a court to grant mandamus. The Federal Circuit held that "Roche has not shown that it cannot obtain the relief it seeks by review after final judgment. Thus, mandamus relief is not appropriate."