In Re STANLEY A. SANSONE v. U.S. Dist. Case: 26-124 Document: 6 Page: 1 Filed: 04/16/2026 -- 1 of 3 -- IN RE…

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In Re STANLEY A. SANSONE,
Petitioner
______________________
2026-124
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
Patent and Trademark Office in Nos. 16/255,511 and
17/490,525.
______________________
ON PETITION AND MOTION
______________________
Before DYK, REYNA, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
Stanley A. Sansone petitions for a writ of mandamus
related to the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s
(“PTO”) handling of his patent applications: U.S. Patent
Application Nos. 16/255,511 and 17/490,525. He also
moves to proceed in forma pauperis.
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and
may only issue if a petitioner has shown a clear and indis-
putable right to relief and there are no other adequate
means to attain the relief desired. See Cheney v. U.S. Dist.
Case: 26-124 Document: 6 Page: 1 Filed: 04/16/2026

-- 1 of 3 --

IN RE SANSONE 2
Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004)). Mr. Sansone has
not met this demanding standard.
As to U.S. Patent Application No. 16/255,511: Mr. San-
sone has not shown entitlement to a writ regarding the
PTO’s denial of his petition to withdraw its notice of aban-
donment, see In re Makari, 708 F.2d 709, 711 (1983) (“We
do not have jurisdiction to review decisions” of the Director
“on petitions”), or that he has no available alternative
means to obtain relief on his challenge.1
As to U.S. Patent Application No. 17/490,525: it ap-
pears the PTO, on October 21, 2025, issued a Notice Re-
quiring Extension of Time Fee predicated on Mr. Sansone’s
failure to file a timely reply to an October 3, 2025 Office
Action, Appx 61–62. While he appears to contend that the
examiner afforded his response an incorrect date of receipt,
he has not shown inadequacy of the PTO’s process to accord
a different filing date, see MPEP § 503.IV, or otherwise
shown a clear and indisputable right to relief.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The petition is denied.
1 We note Mr. Sansone’s pending appeal from the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Vir-
ginia relating to the PTO’s consideration of the 16/255,511
application. Sansone v. U.S. Pat. & Trademark Office,
2025-2017.
Case: 26-124 Document: 6 Page: 2 Filed: 04/16/2026

-- 2 of 3 --

IN RE SANSONE 3
(2) The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is
granted.
April 16, 2026
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 26-124 Document: 6 Page: 3 Filed: 04/16/2026

-- 3 of 3 --