Federal Circuit disposition — 26-115

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In Re KANGXI COMMUNICATION
TECHNOLOGIES (SHANGHAI) CO., LTD.,
Petitioner
______________________
2026-115
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
Patent and Trademark Office in Nos. IPR2025-00372 and
IPR2025-00373.
______________________
ON PETITION AND MOTION
______________________
Before STOLL, WALLACH, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit
Judges.
WALLACH, Circuit Judge.
O R D E R
Kangxi Communication Technologies (Shanghai) Co.,
Ltd. (“KCT”) petitions this court for a writ of mandamus
challenging the denial of its requests for institution of inter
partes review (“IPR”) of Skyworks Solutions, Inc.’s patents.
The Director of the United States Patent and Trademark
Office (“PTO”) and Skyworks oppose the petition.
Between when KCT sought IPR in January 2025 and
when its petitions were acted on in July 2025, the
Case: 26-115 Document: 23 Page: 1 Filed: 02/24/2026

-- 1 of 4 --

IN RE KANGXI COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD. 2
Director’s guidance on institution had shifted. At the time
of filing, interim guidance was in place that IPR institution
would not be denied based on parallel proceedings.
Appx15. But in February and March of 2025, the then-Act-
ing Director rescinded that guidance and directed that par-
ties address all relevant considerations, including
“[s]ettled expectations of the parties, such as the length of
time the claims have been in force.” Appx48–55.
Following that rescission, the PTO declined to institute
on KCT’s IPR petitions, noting that “it is unlikely that final
written decisions in these [IPR] proceedings will issue be-
fore the final determination” in parallel International
Trade Commission proceedings between the parties, that
“the challenged patents have been in force for more than 7
and 14 years, . . . creating strong settled expectations,” and
that KCT had failed to show review would be an “appropri-
ate use of [PTO] resources under these circumstances.”
Appx2.
KCT now seeks a writ of mandamus directing the PTO
to vacate the denial of institution and “consider institution”
under “the rules and guidance in force when the petitions
were filed” in January 2025. Pet. at 26. KCT also asks the
court to issue a writ “striking down the ‘settled expecta-
tions’ rule in its entirety.” Id. Alternatively, KCT asks the
court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the PTO to re-
fund KCT’s filing fees. Id.
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) (internal quota-
tion marks and citation omitted). A petitioner seeking
mandamus relief must ordinarily satisfy three require-
ments: (1) a clear and indisputable right to relief; (2) a lack
of adequate alternative means to obtain the relief sought;
and (3) a showing that issuance of the writ is appropriate
under the circumstances. Id. at 380–81. KCT has not es-
tablished entitlement to such relief here.
Case: 26-115 Document: 23 Page: 2 Filed: 02/24/2026

-- 2 of 4 --

IN RE KANGXI COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD. 3
KCT contends that the use of settled expectations as a
factor in IPR institution exceeds the PTO’s statutory au-
thority and violates procedural protections guaranteed by
the Administrative Procedure Act. This court recently con-
sidered and rejected similar challenges, see In re Cam-
bridge Indus. USA Inc., No. 2026-101, 2025 WL 3526129
(Fed. Cir. Dec. 9, 2025); In re Sandisk Techs., Inc., No.
2025-152, 2025 WL 3526507 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 9, 2025), and
we see no basis for reaching a different outcome here.
At a minimum, KCT has failed to adequately demon-
strate that its statutory challenge is reviewable. 35 U.S.C.
§ 314(d); see Thryv, Inc v. Click-To-Call Techs., LP, 590
U.S. 45, 53, (2020) (35 U.S.C. § 314(d) bars review “where
the grounds for attacking the decision to institute inter
partes review consist of questions that are closely tied to
the application and interpretation of statutes related to the
Patent Office’s decision to initiate inter partes review.”
(quoting Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 579 U.S. 261,
274–75 (2016)); Apple Inc. v. Vidal, 63 F.4th 1, 11–12 (Fed.
Cir. 2023) (holding that challenges to “the content of the
Director’s institution instructions . . . focus directly and ex-
pressly on institution standards” and are thus unreviewa-
ble). Nor has KCT demonstrated, for purposes of its notice-
and-comment challenge, that a district court suit is not “an
available avenue to raise this same challenge.” In re
Motorola Sols., Inc., 159 F.4th 30, 38 (Fed. Cir. 2025).
We also cannot say KCT has shown that the PTO vio-
lated the Due Process Clause by accepting payment of the
filing fees and then not limiting its review to the interim
guidance in place when KCT’s petitions were filed in Jan-
uary 2025. See In re Motorola, 159 F.4th at 37–38 (holding
that even if petitioner relied on the same prior interim
guidance “when it undertook the expense of filing the peti-
tions,” “that reliance alone is insufficient to establish a con-
stitutional violation” (quoting United States v. Carlton, 512
U.S. 26, 33 (1994))).
Case: 26-115 Document: 23 Page: 3 Filed: 02/24/2026

-- 3 of 4 --

IN RE KANGXI COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD. 4
Finally, KCT has failed to show a clear right to a refund
of any filing fees or that our intervention by way of manda-
mus relief is the only means by which to obtain such relief.
See Director’s Resp. at 23–24 (noting that petitioner can
request a refund of at least any post-institution fee).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The petition is denied.
(2) The unopposed motion for leave to file a brief amici
curiae is granted, and the corresponding brief is accepted
for filing.
February 24, 2026
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 26-115 Document: 23 Page: 4 Filed: 02/24/2026

-- 4 of 4 --