In Re INARI AGRICULTURE, INC v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289 1988 citation omitted . Under the well-estab-…

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In Re INARI AGRICULTURE, INC.,
Petitioner
______________________
2025-150
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
Patent and Trademark Office in No. PGR2024-00019.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
Before PROST, CHEN, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
Inari Agriculture, Inc. petitioned for post-grant review
(“PGR”) of Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc.’s plant pa-
tent. On September 24, 2024, the United States Patent and
Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board de-
clined to institute review, concluding that Inari had failed
to sufficiently demonstrate that any of the challenged
claims were likely to be found unpatentable. On October
24, 2024, Inari sought Director review of that decision,
which was denied on January 10, 2025. Nearly nine
months later, Inari filed this petition seeking mandamus
review.
Case: 25-150 Document: 20 Page: 1 Filed: 12/08/2025

-- 1 of 3 --

IN RE INARI AGRICULTURE, INC. 2
Mandamus is “reserved for extraordinary situations.”
Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S.
271, 289 (1988) (citation omitted). Under the well-estab-
lished standard for such relief, a petitioner must: (1) show
that he has a clear and indisputable right to relief; (2) show
he does not have any other adequate method of obtaining
relief; and (3) convince the court that the “writ is appropri-
ate under the circumstances.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for
D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004) (citation omitted).
Inari’s petition raises only constitutional challenges
that it did not directly raise before the Patent Office.1 “It
is well-established that a party generally may not chal-
lenge an agency decision on a basis that was not presented
to the agency.” In re DBC, 545 F.3d 1373, 1378 (Fed. Cir.
2008). Although this court has discretion to reach an issue
raised for the first time, see id. at 1379, we cannot say it
would be appropriate to do so here, particularly given the
significant inexcusable delay in filing this petition, see
1 Inari does not dispute that it failed to argue to the
Board or the Director that the PGR denial violated the Con-
stitution. Rather, Inari contends it “indisputably identified
the same problems with the Board’s decision” as it does in
its mandamus petition. ECF No. 19 at 19. But it did so as
arguments raising “an important question of law and pa-
tent policy,” not allegations of constitutional infirmity. See
Appx562–70 (arguing the Board’s determination applies
“an impermissible § 103 standard unique to plant utility
patents by wrongly presuming patentability” and “wrongly
deters competition by forcing prospective challengers to
risk infringement liability”); see also id. at 558–60 (discuss-
ing reduction in competition in seed markets; reducing the
quality of the patent examination process for agricultural
products; and contradiction of the United States Depart-
ment of Agriculture’s recommendation regarding invention
disclosure and availability of deposits to the public).
Case: 25-150 Document: 20 Page: 2 Filed: 12/08/2025

-- 2 of 3 --

IN RE INARI AGRICULTURE, INC. 3
United States v. Braasch, 542 F.2d 442, 444 (7th Cir. 1976)
(citing cases denying mandamus based on filing delay); see
also Chapman v. Cnty. of Douglas, 107 U.S. 348, 355 (1883)
(“The writ may well be refused when the relator has slept
upon his rights for an unreasonable time[.]”).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.
December 8, 2025
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 25-150 Document: 20 Page: 3 Filed: 12/08/2025

-- 3 of 3 --