Third Circuit disposition — 261385np-pdf

BLD-142 NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
___________
No. 26-1385
___________
IN RE: AZAD A. KABIRR, M.D. MSPH,
Petitioner
____________________________________
On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Related to Civ. No. 2:25-cv-15207)
____________________________________
Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.
May 28, 2026
Before: KRAUSE, MATEY, and BOVE, Circuit Judges
(Opinion filed: June 23, 2026)
_________
OPINION*
_________
PER CURIAM
Azad Kabir petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus. Because we determine
that we lack jurisdiction to entertain the mandamus petition, we will dismiss it.
Our mandamus jurisdiction derives from 28 U.S.C. § 1651, which grants us the
power to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of [our . . . jurisdiction] and
* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not
constitute binding precedent.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” The underlying patent infringement
action was brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a), and was based entirely on federal
patent law. The Federal Circuit has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over those actions,
see 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1), and, thus, it has exclusive mandamus jurisdiction as well, see
In re Arunachalam, 812 F.3d 290, 293 (3d Cir. 2016) (per curiam). Therefore, because
we lack jurisdiction that issuance of the writ might assist, we lack jurisdiction over the
mandamus petition.
Based on the foregoing, we will dismiss the petition for a writ of mandamus.

-- 2 of 2 --