Federal Circuit disposition — 25-152

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In Re SANDISK TECHNOLOGIES, INC., WESTERN
DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
Petitioners
______________________
2025-152
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
Patent and Trademark Office in Nos. IPR2025-00515,
IPR2025-00516, and IPR2025-00517.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
Before PROST, CHEN, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC sued Western
Digital Technologies, Inc. for infringement of three patents
related to flash memory systems. Western Digital and
Sandisk Technologies, Inc. (a former Western Digital sub-
sidiary, now independent entity) petitioned for inter partes
review (“IPR”) of the patents. The United States Patent
and Trademark Office (“PTO”) declined to institute IPR,
noting “the challenged patents have been in force for ap-
proximately nine, twelve, and twelve years, creating strong
Case: 25-152 Document: 46 Page: 1 Filed: 12/09/2025

-- 1 of 3 --

IN RE SANDISK TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 2
settled expectations,” and finding Petitioners had not “pro-
vide[d] any persuasive reasoning why [IPR] is an appropri-
ate use of [Patent Trial and Appeal] Board resources.”
Appx2. Sandisk and Western Digital now seek a writ of
mandamus to vacate and direct the PTO to reconsider the
non-institution decisions.
A petitioner seeking mandamus relief must ordinarily
satisfy three requirements: (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. Cheney v.
U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–281 (2004). Ap-
plying those requirements, we arrive at the same conclu-
sion we reached today in In re Cambridge Industries USA
Inc., 2026-101 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 9, 2025). Here, as there, Pe-
titioners raise challenges to certain factors considered by
the PTO in denying institution of IPR. As with the peti-
tioner in Cambridge, Petitioners here have failed to iden-
tify the kind of property rights or retroactivity concerns
that might give rise to a colorable constitutional claim.
And, for the same reasons provided in Cambridge, Petition-
ers’ non-constitutional challenges to the PTO’s considera-
tion of “settled expectations” as a factor in declining to
institute IPR do not establish a clear and indisputable
right to relief. 2026-101, slip op. at 5–6 (citing Cuozzo
Speed Techs. v. Lee, 579 U.S. 261, 274–75 (2016); Thryv,
Inc. v. Click-To-Call Techs., LP, 590 U.S. 45, 58–59 (2020)).
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
(1) The petition is denied.
Case: 25-152 Document: 46 Page: 2 Filed: 12/09/2025

-- 2 of 3 --

IN RE SANDISK TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 3
(2) All motions for leave to file briefs amici curiae are
granted and the corresponding briefs are accepted for fil-
ing.
December 9, 2025
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 25-152 Document: 46 Page: 3 Filed: 12/09/2025

-- 3 of 3 --