Opinions — Tuesday, February 24, 2026

In In re Tessell, Inc., the Federal Circuit denied Tessell's petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the PTO Director to vacate discretionary denials of institution in four inter partes review proceedings involving patents naming Tessell's founders (former Nutanix employees) as inventors. The court held that Tessell failed to demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to relief, concluding that the Director's exercise of discretion to deny institution as an inefficient use of agency resources was protected from review under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d) and did not present a colorable constitutional claim, distinguishing Arista Networks as involving review of a final written decision rather than a discretionary denial and rejecting due process arguments under In re Motorola Solutions.

The Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment that U.S. Patent No. 7,177,798, owned by Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and CF Dynamic Advances LLC, claims patent-ineligible subject matter under Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International. The '798 patent discloses a method for processing natural language input using case-based reasoning—a form of artificial intelligence—applied to a metadata database to resolve linguistic ambiguities without augmenting user input. Rensselaer argued that applying case-based reasoning to the natural language processing field for the first time constituted a non-abstract technological improvement.

The court's analysis turned on the principle, articulated in Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., that applying artificial intelligence or machine learning to a new field of use remains abstract at Alice step one absent improvement to the algorithm itself or to how machine learning operates. At both steps of Alice, the court rejected Rensselaer's novelty-based arguments, holding that applying a well-established AI technique (case-based reasoning) to a new environment (natural language processing) does not transform abstract subject matter into patent-eligible claims. The court further found that Rensselaer failed to create a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether the metadata database components—apart from the case-based reasoning element already deemed abstract—were unconventional, noting that the patentee's expert never asserted the database itself was non-routine and that attorney argument cannot substitute for evidence under summary judgment standards.

In In re Kangxi Communication Technologies (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., the Federal Circuit denied petitioner KCT's petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the USPTO to vacate its denial of IPR institution and reconsider the petitions under guidance in effect when they were filed, or alternatively to strike the PTO's "settled expectations" rule or order a refund of filing fees. The court held that KCT failed to establish entitlement to mandamus relief, finding that KCT had not adequately demonstrated that its statutory challenges were reviewable under 35 U.S.C. § 314(d), had not shown that alternative means such as a district court suit were unavailable for its notice-and-comment challenge, had not established a due process violation based on reliance on interim guidance, and had not demonstrated a clear right to fee refunds or that mandamus was the only means to obtain such relief. The court granted an unopposed motion for leave to file an amicus brief.

In re Intel Corporation, involving Intel Corporation and Lenovo (United States) Inc. as petitioners, concerns a petition for writ of mandamus challenging the PTO's denial of inter partes review institution in favor of ex parte reexamination. The Federal Circuit denied mandamus relief, holding that Intel failed to demonstrate a clear and indisputable right to relief given the Director's broad discretion over institution decisions and 35 U.S.C. § 314(d)'s bar on reviewability, and that Intel did not present colorable constitutional claims under the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses sufficient to overcome the prohibition on reviewing non-institution decisions.

The Federal Circuit denied Dr. Azad Alamgir Kabir's petition for a writ of mandamus seeking to transfer his patent infringement case and restore his electronic filing privileges after the District of New Jersey revoked his access to the court's Alternate Document Submission system for abusing it with numerous improper filings. Dr. Kabir argued that the revocation denied him reliable docket access and sought reassignment of the case.

The court applied the established standard that mandamus is an extraordinary remedy requiring both a clear and indisputable right to relief and the absence of adequate alternative means. The court held that a self-represented litigant has no indisputable right to electronic filing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(d)(3)(B)(i), which permits such filing only by court order or local rule, and emphasized that Dr. Kabir retained alternative filing methods including mail and physical delivery to the clerk's office. The court further concluded that as to Dr. Kabir's other challenges, including his ability to amend his complaint, a post-judgment appeal provided an adequate remedy, foreclosing mandamus relief.