Summary
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied Zoltek Corporation’s petition for a writ of mandamus seeking additional discovery in a patent infringement action against the government. The court held that Zoltek had an adequate alternative remedy through appeal from a final judgment and had not shown that the denial of additional discovery warranted extraordinary relief.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether mandamus should issue to require the Court of Federal Claims to permit additional discovery before trial.
- Whether Zoltek lacked an adequate alternative means of obtaining review of the discovery ruling.
Holdings
- Mandamus was unwarranted because Zoltek failed to show that it lacked an adequate alternative means to obtain relief from the discovery ruling.
Key quotations
“Zoltek has not shown a lack of adequate alternative means to obtain the relief it seeks.” (526 F. App'x at 957)
“potential “judicial inconvenience and hardship,” is insufficient to warrant mandamus” (526 F. App'x at 957)
Factual background
Zoltek owns U.S. Patent No. Re. 34,162, concerning a controlled-surface-electrical-resistance carbon-fiber sheet product. It alleged that the government's use of F-22 Fighter and B-2 Bomber aircraft infringed the patent. The Court of Federal Claims bifurcated trial to determine patent validity first and denied additional discovery that Zoltek claimed could produce evidence relevant to secondary considerations of non-obviousness.
Procedural history
Zoltek sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims, alleging that the government's use of F-22 Fighter and B-2 Bomber aircraft infringed its patent. The Court of Federal Claims ordered the trial bifurcated and elected to determine patent validity first, denying Zoltek's request for additional discovery concerning the F-22 manufacturer and secondary considerations of non-obviousness. Zoltek sought mandamus in the Federal Circuit, which denied the petition.