in Re Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 2004

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
IN RE TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON,
Petitioner.
______________________
2014-127
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United
States Patent and Trademark Office in No. IPR2013-
00636.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IN RE TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON,
Petitioner.
______________________
2014-128
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United
States Patent and Trademark Office in No. IPR2013-
00601.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IN RE TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON,
Petitioner.
______________________
Case: 14-127 Document: 24 Page: 1 Filed: 05/05/2014

-- 1 of 3 --

IN RE TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM 2
2014-129
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United
States Patent and Trademark Office in No. IPR2013-
00602.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
Before L OURIE, D YK, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
L OURIE, Circuit Judge.
O R D E R
These petitions for writs of mandamus arise out of
ongoing
inter partes review proceedings before the Patent
Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”). Broadcom Corp.
brought the petitions challenging three of Telefonaktiebo-
laget L.M. Ericsson (“Ericsson”)’s U.S. patents. Ericsson
moved for additional discovery concerning whether
Broadcom’s petitions were barred under 35 U.S.C.
§ 315(b) because, Ericsson asserts, Broadcom is a privy* of
defendants to litigation filed more than one year before
the
inter partes review petitions.
In denying Ericsson’s request for additional discovery,
the Board noted that under applicable statutes and regu-
lations a movant must demonstrate that the discovery
was in “the interest of justice.”
See 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(5);
37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(2). The Board concluded that Erics-
* A “privy” generally refers to a sufficiently close rela-
tionship between the purported privy and the relevant
other party such that both should be bound by the trial
outcome and related estoppel provisions.
Case: 14-127 Document: 24 Page: 2 Filed: 05/05/2014

-- 2 of 3 --

IN RE TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM 3
son had not met that standard because Ericsson’s argu-
ments and evidence did not show more than a “mere
possibility” of uncovering useful information related to
privity.
In seeking mandamus relief to compel such discovery,
Ericsson faces a heavy burden. It must show: (1) that it
has a clear legal right to relief; (2) that there are no
adequate alternative legal channels through which it may
obtain that relief; and (3) that the grant of mandamus is
appropriate under the circumstances. See Cheney v. U.S.
Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004); Kerr v. U.S. Dist.
Court, 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976). Ericsson has not shown
that this standard has been met. We deny the petition
without prejudice to Ericsson attempting to raise its
arguments on appeal after final decision by the Board.
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
The petitions for writs of mandamus are denied.
F OR THE COURT
/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole
Daniel E. O’Toole
Clerk of Court
s30
Case: 14-127 Document: 24 Page: 3 Filed: 05/05/2014

-- 3 of 3 --