ON PETITION

ORDER

AGA Medical Corporation (AGA) seeks a writ of mandamus directing the United *906 States District Court for the District of Delaware to dismiss the underlying declaratory judgment action brought by W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. (Gore). Gore opposes. AGA replies.

In denying AGA’s motion to dismiss this action, the district court concluded that a substantial controversy existed because “AGA had, prior to commencement of the suit, asserted rights to discovery in anticipation of amending its patent infringement complaint [in a related case between the parties], based on Gore’s planned launch of the GSO product in Europe, which Gore claims it has the right to do without a license.”

The remedy of mandamus is available only in extraordinary situations to correct a clear abuse of discretion or usurpation of judicial power. In re Calmar, Inc., 854 F.2d 461, 464 (Fed.Cir. 1988). AGA has not shown in its papers that the Delaware District Court clearly abused its discretion in denying its motion to dismiss. Moreover, AGA has not shown that meaningful review of this ruling will be lost absent immediate appellate review. See Mallard v. U.S. Dist. Court for S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 309, 109 S.Ct. 1814, 104 L.Ed.2d 318 (1989) (a petitioner must establish that it has no other means of obtaining the relief desired). “[E]ven though on normal appeal, a court might final reversible error,” In re Cordis Corp., 769 F.2d 733, 737 (Fed.Cir. 1985), this court has made clear that ordinarily, the fact “a petitioner may suffer hardship, inconvenience, or an unusually complex trial does not provide a basis for a court to grant mandamus.” In re Roche Molecular Sys., Inc., 516 F.3d 1003, 1004 (Fed.Cir. 2008).

Accordingly,

It Is Ordered That:

The petition for a writ of mandamus is denied.