Federal Circuit disposition — 24-112

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In Re MSN LABORATORIES PRIVATE LTD.,
Petitioner
______________________
2024-112
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in No.
1:23-cv-01675-CMH-WEF, Senior Judge Claude M. Hilton.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, T ARANTO and CHEN, Circuit
Judges.
MOORE, Chief Judge.
O R D E R
MSN Laboratories Private Ltd. (“MSN”) “requests a
writ of mandamus reversing or vacating the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia’s Janu-
ary 12, 2024 Order transferring this action to the District
of Delaware.” ECF No. 2-1 at 11. We deny the petition.
On December 8, 2023, MSN brought the present action
against Bioprojet Société Civile de Recherche (“Bioprojet”)
in the Eastern District of Virginia seeking a declaration of
non-infringement and/or invalidity of claims of U.S. Patent
Case: 24-112 Document: 11 Page: 1 Filed: 02/20/2024

-- 1 of 3 --

IN RE MSN LABORATORIES PRIVATE LTD. 2
Nos. 8,207,197; 8,354,430; and 8,486,947, following the fil-
ing of MSN’s Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”).
The next day, Bioprojet sued MSN in the District of Dela-
ware for infringing claims of those patents.
Bioprojet then moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to
transfer MSN’s action from Virginia to Delaware, which
the district court granted after a hearing on the motion.
Noting Bioprojet’s earlier-filed “litigation pending in Dela-
ware” against six other ANDA filers involving the same pa-
tents, the court found that there would be “a lot of
duplicative work if this case stays” in Virginia and that it
would be inefficient to have “the same issue[s] being tried
in two different courts and two different districts.”
Appx 26. MSN then filed this petition. We have jurisdic-
tion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1295(a)(1) and 1651.
Mandamus is “reserved for extraordinary situations.”
Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S.
271, 289 (1988) (citation omitted). Thus, a petitioner must
show that: (1) it has a clear and indisputable right to relief;
(2) it does not have any other adequate method of obtaining
relief; and (3) the “writ is appropriate under the circum-
stances.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367,
380–81 (2004) (citation omitted). MSN’s petition has not
met that standard. Here, the district court plausibly con-
cluded that judicial economy considerations favor transfer
based on the earlier-filed, related cases in Delaware. MSN
touts the convenience of its chosen forum, but it points to
only a single potential witness in the Eastern District of
Virginia, which is home to neither party. Under the cir-
cumstances, MSN has not shown a clear and indisputable
right to disturb the district court’s transfer ruling.
Accordingly,
Case: 24-112 Document: 11 Page: 2 Filed: 02/20/2024

-- 2 of 3 --

IN RE MSN LABORATORIES PRIVATE LTD. 3
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
The petition is denied.
February 20, 2024
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 24-112 Document: 11 Page: 3 Filed: 02/20/2024

-- 3 of 3 --