In re Gyroor US, No. 22-155 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 9, 2022)

PER CURIAM.

O R D E R

GYROOR US et al. (collectively, “Gyroor”), defendants in the underlying patent infringement action, moved the district court to recuse under 28 U.S.C. § 455. After the district court denied that motion and a subsequent request for reconsideration, Gyroor filed this petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order requiring the district court judge to disqualify.

2A party seeking mandamus must demonstrate no “adequate alternative” means to obtain the desired relief, Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 309 (1989), and that the right to issuance of the writ is “clear and indisputable,” Will v. Calvert Fire Ins., 437 U.S. 655, 666 (1978) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The court must also be satisfied that the issuance of the writ is appropriate under the circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 381 (2004). Gyroor has failed to make such a showing in its petition.

Gyroor relies on § 455, which states that “[a]ny justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” and when there is “a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.” Gyroor’s primary arguments for recusal amount to nothing more than disagreements with the court’s (a) preliminary injunction rulings*, (b) determination to initially allow an affidavit in support of a motion for attorney fees to be submitted in camera, and (c) order directing plaintiffs to file and serve a new preliminary injunction motion. But Supreme Court precedent explains that “judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis” for recusal. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). Gyroor otherwise points to remarks made by the district court judge in a proceeding that “injunctions are often entered in this district . . . where there’s an asset freeze on all of the defendants” and that “it is no secret” that there are “[c]ounterfeiters and people who infringe intellectual property market products on places like eBay or3 Amazon.” Pet. at. 19–20. But those remarks do not establish bias under § 455. They do not reveal an “opinion that derives from an extrajudicial source”; nor do they clearly establish “a high degree of favoritism or antagonism as to make fair judgment impossible.” Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The petition is denied.

FOR THE COURT

August 9, 2022 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court