Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

In re Hoffman, No. 11-M979 (Fed. Cir. May 27, 2011)

Denied
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 11-M979
Decided
May 27, 2011
Judge
Gajarsa, J.
Document
Nonprecedential Opinion
Length
2 pages

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. Gnited States Court of Appeals

for the federal Circuit

IN RE ELIZABETH TU HOFFMAN,

EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF H. ROWE

HOFFMAN,

Petitioner.

Miscellaneous Docket No. 979

On Petition for a Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington, Case No. 06-CV-5367, Judge Benjamin H. Settle.

ON PETITION

Before GAJARSA, MAYER, and PROST, Circuit Judges.

Figure on page 1 of the opinion

ORDER

Elizabeth Tu Hoffman, the executor of the estate of defendant H. Rowe Hoffman, petitions for a writ mandamus to direct the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington to vacate its March 3, 2011 order denying her motion to dismiss and/or transfer due to lack of personal jurisdiction.

A party must ordinarily wait until final judgment has issued before seeking appellate review of interlocutory

Figure on page 2 of the opinion

2IN RE HOFFMAN 2

orders. See Bankers Life & Cas, Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379, 383 (1958) (“[I]t is established that the extraordinary writs cannot be used as substitutes for appeals ... even though hardship may result from delay and perhaps unnecessary trial.”) A party who seeks a writ bears the burden of proving that it has no other means of attaining the relief desired, Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Southern Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 309 (1989), and that the right to issuance of the writ is “clear and undisputable.” Allied Chem. Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980).

Because the petitioner has not shown that review on appeal after final judgment is not an adequate means of obtaining review of the district court's rulings in this case, we deny this petition.

Accordingly, . It Is ORDERED THAT: The petition is denied.

For THE COURT

MAY 27 2011 /s/ Jan

Horbaly Date Jan Horbaly

Clerk

ce: Arthur H. Schlemmer, Esq.

Paul Thomas Meiklejohn, Esq. @.S. COURTF IOLF EADPpcas FOR

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 824

MAY 27 2011 JAN HORBALY

CLERK

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

In re Hoffman, No. 11-M979 (Fed. Cir. May 27, 2011).

Record ID
CAFC-11-M979-20110527
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-11-M979-20110527

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.