NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
MISCELLANEOUS DOCKET NO. 875
IN RE FREESCALE SEMICONDUCTOR, INC.,
Petitioner,
and
ATI TECHNOLOGIES, ULC,
Petitioner,
and
MOTOROLA, INC.,
Petitioner,
and
SPANSION, INC. and SPANSION LLC,
Petitioners.
On Writ of Mandamus from the United States International Trade Commission in
Investigation No. 337-TA-605.
Before MICHEL, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and LOURIE, Circuit Judges.
NEWMAN, Circuit Judge.
ORDER
Freescale Semiconductor, Inc. et al. (Freescale) petition for a writ of mandamus
to direct the International Trade Commission to vacate its opinion denying petitioner’s
motion for stay pending reexamination of the patents at issue.
Tessera, Inc. filed a complaint at the International Trade Commission requesting
that the Commission investigate Spansion, Inc. and Spansion LLC (Spansion), as well
as various other companies, under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. Spansion and
the other respondents filed a motion to stay the Commission proceedings pending the
United States Patent and Trademark Office’s reexamination of patents at issue in the
investigation. Subsequently, an ALJ granted the stay. On appeal, the Commission
vacated the ALJ’s order and ordered the proceedings reinstated “at the earliest
practicable time.”
The Commission stated, inter alia, that the reexamination proceedings were at an
early stage, that the reexamination proceedings might not reach completion before
expiration of the patents, and that the Commission investigation was at an advanced
stage. The Commission also noted that, consistent with law and policy, Commission
investigations should normally be conducted expeditiously.
Freescale petitions for a writ of mandamus to direct the Commission to vacate its
opinion denying a stay pending reexamination. Freescale argues that the Commission
relied on “legally erroneous conclusions” and misconstrued the record. Freescale also
asserts that this decision “will lead to tremendous wastes of time, money and
resources.”
The remedy of mandamus is available only in extraordinary situations to correct a
clear abuse of discretion or usurpation of judicial power. In re Calmar, Inc., 854 F.2d 461,
464 (Fed. Cir. 1988). A party seeking a writ bears the burden of proving that it has no
other means of attaining the relief desired, Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Southern
Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 309 (1989), and that the right to issuance of the writ is "clear
Misc. 875 -2-
and indisputable," Allied Chemical Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980). A court
may deny mandamus relief “even though on normal appeal, a court might find reversible
error.” In re Cordis Corp., 769 F.2d 733, 737 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
Freescale has not shown that its right to the writ is clear and indisputable. The
Commission provided a sufficient basis for denying the stay. Furthermore, that a
petitioner may suffer hardship, inconvenience, or an unusually complex trial does not
provide a basis for a court to grant mandamus. See United States v. Watson, 66
C.C.P.A. 107, 603 F.2d 192, 196-97 (1979). Cf. Federal Trade Comm'n v. Standard Oil
Co., 449 U.S. 232, 244 (1980) (expenses and burdens of defending action do not
constitute irreparable harm). Thus, the petition is denied.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.
June 25, 2008 /s/ Pauline Newman
Date Pauline Newman
Circuit Judge
cc: Michael J. Bettinger, Esq.
Kenneth R. Adamo, Esq.
Russell E. Levine, Esq.
Alexander J. Hadjis, Esq.
Michael Liberman, Esq.
s20
Misc. 875 -3-