In Re VAN WELL NURSERY INC., MONSON FRUIT CO. INC., GORDON GOODWIN, SALLY GOODWIN v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289 1988 citation omitted . Under the well-estab-…

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In Re VAN WELL NURSERY INC., MONSON FRUIT
CO. INC., GORDON GOODWIN, SALLY GOODWIN,
Petitioners
______________________
2025-131
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Washington in
No. 2:20-cv-00181-SAB, Judge Stanley Allen Bastian.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
Before REYNA, HUGHES, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
STOLL, Circuit Judge.
O R D E R
Petitioners Van Well Nursery, Inc., Monson Fruit Co.
Inc., and Gordon and Sally Goodwin seek a writ of manda-
mus directing the district court to reinstate its prior order
granting Petitioners summary judgment of invalidity. Her
Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as Represented by
the Minister of Agriculture and Agri Food (“AAFC”) op-
poses the petition. Petitioners reply.
AAFC sued Petitioners alleging their Glory cherry va-
riety infringed AAFC’s plant patent covering a cherry
Case: 25-131 Document: 11 Page: 1 Filed: 09/11/2025

-- 1 of 3 --

IN RE VAN WELL NURSERY INC. 2
variety called Staccato. AAFC also asserted non-patent
claims. In November 2022, the district court granted sum-
mary judgment of invalidity of AAFC’s patent claims based
on a spreadsheet that purportedly showed the Staccato
cherries on sale before the critical date. The parties later
agreed to a bench trial on whether Glory was the same va-
riety as Staccato and on the asserted non-patent claims.
But, in March 2025, before the trial, the court granted
AAFC’s motion to reconsider the summary judgment order.
In doing so, it found Petitioners had falsely represented
that the spreadsheet was accurate when the submitted doc-
ument excluded the first ten rows demonstrating the sales
were of a different variety of cherries. Having concluded
that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding
whether Staccato was sold before the critical date, the
court vacated its prior ruling. Petitioners then filed this
petition seeking to reinstate that decision.
Mandamus is “reserved for extraordinary situations.”
Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S.
271, 289 (1988) (citation omitted). Under the well-estab-
lished standard for such relief, a petitioner must: (1) show
that he has a clear and indisputable right to relief; (2) show
he does not have any other adequate method of obtaining
relief; and (3) convince the court that the “writ is appropri-
ate under the circumstances.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for
D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004) (citation omitted). Peti-
tioners have not met that demanding standard.
As to their primary challenge, Petitioners have not
shown that the law of the case doctrine clearly and indis-
putably precluded the district court from reconsidering its
summary judgment order. See City of Los Angeles v. Santa
Monica Baykeeper, 254 F.3d 882, 888 (9th Cir. 2001) (not-
ing that doctrine is “wholly inapposite” to a “district court’s
power to reconsider its own interlocutory order provided
that the district court has not been divested of jurisdiction
over the order”). Nor can we say that Petitioners lack
Case: 25-131 Document: 11 Page: 2 Filed: 09/11/2025

-- 2 of 3 --

IN RE VAN WELL NURSERY INC. 3
adequate alternative means to raise any specific challenge
to the district court’s findings or to raise its invalidity chal-
lenge such as in an ordinary appeal following final judg-
ment.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition is denied.
September 11, 2025
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 25-131 Document: 11 Page: 3 Filed: 09/11/2025

-- 3 of 3 --