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 Kabir, No. 26-128 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 24, 2026)

Denied
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 26-128
Decided
February 24, 2026
Judge
Per curiam
Document
Nonprecedential Opinion
Length
2 pages

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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

for the Federal Circuit

In Re AZAD ALAMGIR KABIR,

Petitioner

2026-128

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in No. 2:25-cv-15207-EP-JSA, Judge Evelyn Padin.

ON PETITION

Before TARANTO, MAYER, and STARK, Circuit Judges.

O R D E R

In the underlying patent infringement case, the district court revoked Dr. Azad Alamgir Kabir’s privileges for filing documents electronically using the Alternate Document Submission (“ADS”) system, after finding he had “abused the ADS system and burdened the Clerk of Court with numerous filings that are not capable of being docketed.” Dkt. No. 192 at 5–6. He now petitions for a writ of mandamus seeking, among other things, to transfer or reassign the case to “ensure reliable docket access.” Pet. at 5.

22 IN RE KABIR

A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and may only issue if petitioner has shown an indisputable right to the relief requested and that there are no other adequate means to attain that relief. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004). Dr. Kabir has shown no clear and indisputable right to file documents via CM/ECF or ADS, and at least for that reason, has shown no right to transfer or to disturb the district court’s rulings regarding such privileges. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(d)(3)(B)(i) (explaining a self-represented litigant “may file electronically only if allowed by court order or by local rule”).1 As to Dr. Kabir’s other challenges on the merits of his case, including his entitlement to filing another amended complaint, we cannot say that a post-judgment appeal is inadequate.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The petition is denied.

FOR THE COURT

Figure on page 2 of the opinion

February 24, 2026

Date

Footnotes

  1. 1 Dr. Kabir appears to express confusion as to how to file with the district court, but the February 3, 2026 order does not restrict his filing via mail, courthouse drop box, or delivery to that court’s Clerk’s Office. See D.N.J. Alternative Document Submission at 2 (explaining “the other filing methods provided for self-represented litigants”).

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 Kabir, No. 26-128 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 24, 2026).

Record ID
CAFC-26-128-20260224
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-26-128-20260224

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.