In re Carter

In re Carter The Federal Circuit denied Daitona Carter's mandamus petition because she did not show a clear and indisputable right to relief, including a stay of the PTAB proceedings, or that she lacked other adequate means to obtain relief. Her in forma pauperis motion was also denied. A would-be inventor-intervenor who was denied intervention cannot use mandamus to bypass the pending appeal or to obtain a stay of related PTAB proceedings without meeting the Cheney requirements. Petition denied. Carter moved to intervene in a patent infringement action, asserting she is the inventor. The district court denied the motion and she appealed (Appeal No. 2026-1721). She also unsuccessfully tried to participate in related IPR proceedings before the PTAB, and petitioned for mandamus seeking various relief, including a stay of the PTAB proceedings. Held: she did not show entitlement to relief under the Cheney three-part test. She can raise her arguments and requests about the district court action in the pending appeal. Held: she did not show a clear and indisputable right to a stay of the PTAB proceedings or that she lacks other adequate means to obtain relief. The corrected petition superseded the initial petition, and the motion to proceed in forma pauperis was denied. standing / jurisdiction injunction / stay non-precedential infringement standing / jurisdiction injunction / stay non-precedential infringement injunction / stay standing / jurisdiction