Daitona Carter moved to intervene in a patent infringement action in the District of Massachusetts, No. 1:26-cv-10304-ADB, before Judge Allison Dale Burroughs, asserting that she is the inventor. On April 15, 2026, the district court denied the motion, finding that none of her filings "contain non-conclusory allegations suggesting that she contributed to the formation of a definite and permanent idea as to every feature of the subject matter claimed in the asserted patents," and it also denied permissive intervention (D. Mass. ECF No. 90). She appealed. That appeal is Solos Tech. Ltd. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Appeal No. 2026-1721 (Order 1). According to the order, she also "unsuccessfully attempted to participate in inter partes review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board" related to the patents (Order 1).
The petition
Ms. Carter then petitioned the Federal Circuit for a writ of mandamus seeking "various relief, including a stay of the PTAB proceedings," and moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Her corrected petition superseded the initial one (Order 1-2 and n.1).
What the court held
A panel of Circuit Judges Chen, Linn, and Cunningham, writing per curiam in In re Carter, No. 2026-153 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 23, 2026) (nonprecedential), applied the mandamus standard from Cheney v. U.S. District Court for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004): a petitioner must show "no other adequate means to attain the relief [s]he desires," a "clear and indisputable" right to relief, and that the writ is "appropriate under the circumstances" (Order 2). The court held that "Ms. Carter has not shown entitlement to relief." It said she "may raise her arguments and requests for relief related to the district court action in Appeal No. 2026-1721," and that she "has also not shown a clear and indisputable right to a stay of the PTAB proceedings or that she lacks other adequate means to obtain relief" (Order 2).
The court denied the petition and the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Order 2).