Federal Circuit disposition — 26-116

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In Re TESLA, INC.,
Petitioner
______________________
2026-116
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
Patent and Trademark Office in Nos. IPR2025-00943,
IPR2025-00944, IPR2025-01034 and IPR2025-01035.
______________________
ON PETITION AND MOTION
______________________
Before TARANTO, MAYER, and STARK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
In response to Granite Vehicle Ventures LLC filing suit
alleging patent infringement, Tesla, Inc. petitioned the
United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) for in-
ter partes review (“IPR”) of the asserted patents. The Di-
rector of the PTO, through his delegee, the Deputy
Director, denied Tesla’s petitions. In particular, the Direc-
tor reasoned “it is unlikely that a final written decision in
[these] proceeding[s] will issue before the district court
trial occurs,” and such review would result “in significant
duplication of effort, additional expense for the parties, and
Case: 26-116 Document: 31 Page: 1 Filed: 02/27/2026

-- 1 of 3 --

IN RE TESLA, INC. 2
a risk of inconsistent decisions.” Appx2, Appx6. Tesla now
petitions this court for a writ of mandamus directing the
PTO to vacate the non-institution decisions and reconsider
without relying on time-to-trial as a criterion. ECF No. 2-
1 at 11. Granite and the Director oppose.
Mandamus is a “drastic and extraordinary remedy re-
served for really extraordinary causes.” Cheney v. U.S.
Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004). A petitioner
must ordinarily show, among other things, a clear and in-
disputable right to relief. Id. at 380–81. Given Congress
committed institution decisions to the Director’s discretion,
even when the statutory pre-conditions are present, SAS
Inst., Inc. v. Iancu, 584 U.S. 357, 366 (2018); Apple Inc. v.
Squires, ___ F.4th ___, 2026 WL 406495 at *1 (Fed. Cir.
Feb. 13, 2026), and protected the exercise of that discretion
from review by making such determinations “final and
nonappealable,” 35 U.S.C. § 314(d), we have recognized
that, in the absence of a colorable constitutional claim,
mandamus is ordinarily unavailable for review of institu-
tion decisions. Mylan Lab’ys Ltd. v. Janssen Pharmaceu-
tica, N.V., 989 F.3d 1375, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2021); Apple Inc.
v. Vidal, 63 F.4th 1, 12 n.5 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
We see no reason to grant such relief here. Tesla pri-
marily argues that the Director exceeded his statutory au-
thority in denying IPR review.1 But the Director here
merely concluded that instituting IPR would not be an
1 Tesla casts its ultra vires arguments, regarding the
Director’s use of the time-to-trial factor, also as a constitu-
tional separation of powers challenge. But the Supreme
Court has noted that “claims simply alleging that the Pres-
ident has exceeded his statutory authority are not ‘consti-
tutional’ claims,” Dalton v. Specter, 511 U.S. 462, 473–74
(1994), and we agree with the PTO that this challenge pre-
sents no colorable constitutional claim.
Case: 26-116 Document: 31 Page: 2 Filed: 02/27/2026

-- 2 of 3 --

IN RE TESLA, INC. 3
efficient use of agency resources given the progress of the
civil litigation between the parties at the time. In circum-
stances like these, we have not exercised mandamus au-
thority to disturb a denial of institution decision and see no
basis to do so here either. See Mylan, 989 F.3d at 1382
(holding a petitioner has no right to mandamus relief when
a non-constitutional challenge is to “the Director’s exercise
of his discretion to deny institution”). Nor has Tesla shown
any clear and indisputable right to disturb the non-institu-
tion decisions based on its contention that the Director
failed to conduct proper notice-and-comment rulemaking.
See Apple, 2026 WL 406495, at *1 (holding that the PTO’s
“general statement[s] of policy” are exempted from notice-
and-comment rulemaking procedures).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The petition is denied.
(2) The unopposed motions at ECF Nos. 12, 16, 20, and
25 for leave to file amici curiae briefs are granted and the
corresponding briefs are accepted for filing.
February 27, 2026
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 26-116 Document: 31 Page: 3 Filed: 02/27/2026

-- 3 of 3 --