In Re AYLO HOLDINGS S.A R.L., fka MindGeek S.a r.l., AYLO FREESITES LTD, fka MG… v. Daifuku Co., 830 F.3d 1357, 1361 Fed. Cir. 2016 . The magistrate judge acknowledged…

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In Re AYLO HOLDINGS S.A R.L., fka MindGeek S.a
r.l., AYLO FREESITES LTD, fka MG Freesites Ltd.,
AYLO PREMIUM LTD., fka MG Premium Ltd., 9219-
1568 QUEBEC INC.,
Petitioners
______________________
2026-103
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in No. 2:23-
cv-00483-JRG-RSP, Judge J. Rodney Gilstrap.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
Before DYK, LINN, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.
LINN, Circuit Judge.
O R D E R
On October 17, 2025, the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas denied Aylo Holdings S.à
r.l. et al. (collectively, Aylo)’s third request to stay this liti-
gation pending certain proceedings before the United
States Patent and Trademark Office. Now, with the trial
only weeks away, Aylo petitions for a writ of mandamus
directing the district court to stay the case pending
Case: 26-103 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 11/03/2025

-- 1 of 4 --

IN RE AYLO HOLDINGS S.A R.L. 2
conclusion of an ex parte reexamination proceeding. Well-
comeMat LLC opposes.
WellcomeMat brought this suit in October 2023, alleg-
ing Aylo infringes certain claims of U.S. Patent
No. 8,307,286. Trial is currently scheduled to begin on No-
vember 17, 2025. WellcomeMat had asserted claims 13–15
and 17–20 of the patent earlier in the litigation, but after
inter partes review (IPR) proceedings resulted in an August
2025 final written decision concluding that those claims
are unpatentable, WellcomeMat now only asserts infringe-
ment of claims 21–28. Those claims are the subject of an
ongoing ex parte reexamination (EPR).
Before the stay request at issue in this petition, Aylo
had filed two prior motions to stay—first, in April 2024, af-
ter it petitioned for IPRs, and then again in May 2025, after
IPR was instituted but before the final written decision and
after an initial office action rejecting the claims in the EPR.
The assigned magistrate judge denied those motions in
February and August 2025 respectively, noting that the
PTO had not yet issued a final written decision and con-
cluding that the “EPR proceedings have a remote chance of
simplifying the case.” Appx118. Aylo did not seek further
review.
After the Board’s final written decision in the IPRs and
after the examiner in the EPR issued a final rejection of
claims 21–28, WellcomeMat filed its third stay motion. On
October 1, 2025, the magistrate judge issued an order deny-
ing that request. The magistrate judge considered the tra-
ditional factors used to analyze stay motions. See Murata
Mach. USA v. Daifuku Co., 830 F.3d 1357, 1361 (Fed. Cir.
2016). The magistrate judge acknowledged the rejection in
the EPR. He noted, however, that those “proceeding[s] re-
main[] ongoing” and “do not have statutory deadlines,” and
cited a statistic that “only about 14% of such proceedings
result in cancellation of all challenged claims.” Appx01–
02. Over Aylo’s objections, the district court adopted the
Case: 26-103 Document: 10 Page: 2 Filed: 11/03/2025

-- 2 of 4 --

IN RE AYLO HOLDINGS S.A R.L. 3
magistrate judge’s reasoning and denied a stay on October
17, 2025.
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 obtaining relief by way of mandamus,
the petitioner must: (1) show that it has a clear and indis-
putable legal right; (2) show it does not have any other ad-
equate avenue of obtaining relief; and (3) convince the
court that 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). Aylo has not made that
showing.
District courts, as this court has made clear, have con-
siderable discretion in deciding whether to stay litigation
pending reexamination proceedings. See Patlex Corp. v.
Mossinghoff, 758 F.2d 594, 602–03 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Aylo
asserts that the district court should have given more
weight to the possibility that a stay pending completion of
the EPR proceedings could render unnecessary or at least
streamline any invalidity portion of the litigation. But af-
ter considering the relevant factors and record before him,
the magistrate judge concluded that a stay would not be
the most efficient way to resolve the litigation. Given (1)
the proximity to the trial date and the substantial invest-
ment of resources by the court and the parties and (2) the
fact that the EPR proceedings are only final at the exam-
iner level, we are not prepared to disturb that finding on
limited mandamus review under the circumstances pre-
sented in this case.1
1 Aylo takes issue with statements made in the mag-
istrate judge’s February and August orders, but Aylo did
not timely object to those decisions. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
Case: 26-103 Document: 10 Page: 3 Filed: 11/03/2025

-- 3 of 4 --

IN RE AYLO HOLDINGS S.A R.L. 4
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition is denied.
November 3, 2025
Date
FOR THE COURT
72(a) (“A party may not assign as error a defect in the [mag-
istrate judge’s] order not timely objected to.”).
Case: 26-103 Document: 10 Page: 4 Filed: 11/03/2025

-- 4 of 4 --