In Re AGADIA SYSTEMS INC v. Lefkowitz, 590 F.2d 915, 919-20 CCPA 1979 . “[T]he writ of mandamus is an…

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In Re AGADIA SYSTEMS INC.,
Petitioner
______________________
2024-113
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
Patent and Trademark Office in No. 90060221.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
Before M OORE, Chief Judge, T ARANTO and CHEN, Circuit
Judges.
MOORE, Chief Judge.
O R D E R
Agadia Systems Inc. (“Agadia”) petitions for a writ of
mandamus directing the Trademark Trial and Appeal
Board (“TTAB”) to vacate its order staying proceedings.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office
(“USPTO”) opposes. We deny the petition.
Agadia applied to register the mark
“FORMULARYHUB,” and the TTAB affirmed the exam-
iner’s refusal to register the mark. Agadia appealed that
decision to this court, which remains pending. See Appeal
No. 2023-1993. Agadia separately filed an application to
Case: 24-113 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 04/03/2024

-- 1 of 4 --

IN RE AGADIA SYSTEMS INC. 2
register the mark “FORMULARYHUB.COM,” which was
also refused by an examiner. Agadia appealed that deci-
sion to the TTAB.
On October 2, 2023, the TTAB issued an order staying
the FORMULARYHUB.COM proceedings pending a final
determination in the FORMULARYHUB proceedings.
Agadia then filed a petition for Director review challenging
the stay. On February 5, 2024, having not heard from the
Director, Agadia filed this petition, which we have jurisdic-
tion to review. See 15 U.S.C. § 1071(a); 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1295(a)(4)(B), 1651; Formica Corp. v. Lefkowitz, 590
F.2d 915, 919–20 (CCPA 1979).
“[T]he writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy,
to be reserved for extraordinary situations.” Gulfstream
Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289
(1988) (citation omitted). To obtain mandamus, a peti-
tioner 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 circumstances.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C.,
542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004) (citation omitted).
Agadia primarily argues that it has been deprived of
due process. Specifically, it contends that the TTAB did
not provide prior notice before issuing the stay, which Aga-
dia asserts was based on what it calls ex parte communica-
tions with the USPTO Solicitor’s Office regarding the
existence of the FORMULARYHUB appeal. We cannot say
that Agadia has established a clear and indisputable right
to disturb the stay based on this challenge.
Nothing in the regulation cited in the TTAB’s order
clearly required it to give Agadia prior notice. That rule
broadly provides that “[w]henever it shall come to the at-
tention of the [TTAB] that a civil action [or] another
[TTAB] proceeding . . . may have a bearing on a pending
case, proceedings before the [TTAB] may be suspended un-
til termination of the” other proceeding either “sua sponte”
Case: 24-113 Document: 14 Page: 2 Filed: 04/03/2024

-- 2 of 4 --

IN RE AGADIA SYSTEMS INC. 3
or “upon motion.” 37 C.F.R. § 2.117(a)–(c). We see nothing
in that regulation that would clearly deprive the TTAB of
authority to stay proceedings, even if it first learned of the
appeal from the Solicitor.
Agadia likewise fails to identify anything in the TTAB
Manual of Procedure (“TBMP”) that establishes a clear and
indisputable right to the requested relief. The TBMP does
not generally have the force of law. Cf. Cai v. Diamond
Hong, Inc., 901 F.3d 1367, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Moreover,
neither provision Agadia cites has been shown to apply to
this case: § 510.02 concerns motions to suspend inter partes
proceedings and § 1213 concerns an applicant’s or exam-
iner’s request to suspend.
More generally, while some “form of hearing is [typi-
cally] required before [a property] owner is finally deprived
of a protected property interest,” Logan v. Zimmerman
Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 433 (1982) (internal quotation
marks and citation omitted), Agadia’s petition fails to
clearly explain how there has been such a deprivation here.
Agadia cites no case dealing with remotely analogous cir-
cumstances,1 let alone holding that a temporary stay of a
1 See, e.g., Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 96 (1972)
(requiring meaningful notice “before chattels are taken
from their possessor”); Peralta v. Heights Med. Ctr., Inc.,
485 U.S. 80, 86 (1988) (requiring meaningful notice before
entry of default judgment involving money damages);
Stone v. FDIC, 179 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
(“[S]ome kind of hearing [is required] prior to the discharge
of an employee who has a constitutionally protected prop-
erty interest in his employment.” (quoting Cleveland Bd. of
Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542 (1985)) (cleaned
up)).
Case: 24-113 Document: 14 Page: 3 Filed: 04/03/2024

-- 3 of 4 --

IN RE AGADIA SYSTEMS INC. 4
trademark application proceeding constitutes a depriva-
tion of a constitutionally protected property interest.
Agadia’s petition has not otherwise established a clear
legal entitlement to disturbing the stay order. It contends
the TTAB failed to adequately make a finding that the
FORMULARYHUB appeal will have a bearing on the pre-
sent proceeding. Although further elaboration in the order
of the TTAB’s reasons for issuing the stay would have been
helpful, Agadia has not shown that the TTAB so clearly
abused its considerable discretion in managing its docket
as to warrant the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. See
Fla. Mun. Power Agency v. FERC, 315 F.3d 362, 366 (D.C.
Cir. 2003) (“Administrative agencies enjoy ‘broad discre-
tion’ to manage their own dockets[.]” (citation omitted)).
Finally, Agadia makes no showing in its petition that the
stay here is “so extensive [as to be] immoderate or indefi-
nite” or otherwise beyond the bounds of the TTAB’s broad
discretion. Groves v. McDonough, 34 F.4th 1074, 1080
(Fed. Cir. 2022) (cleaned up); see Telecomms. Rsch. & Ac-
tion Ctr. v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
The petition is denied.
April 3, 2024
Date
F OR THE COURT
Case: 24-113 Document: 14 Page: 4 Filed: 04/03/2024

-- 4 of 4 --