Case: 22-155 Document: 12 Page: 1 Filed: 08/09/2022

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In re: GYROOR US, URBANMAX, GAODESHANGUS, GYROOR, FENGCHI-US, JIANGYOU-US, GYROSHOES, HGSM, YANJIN-US, Petitioners ______________________

2022-155 ______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois in No. 1:20-cv-04806, Judge Thomas M. Durkin. ______________________

ON PETITION ______________________

Before HUGHES, MAYER, and STOLL, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. ORDER GYROOR US et al. (collectively, “Gyroor”), defendants in the underlying patent infringement action, moved the district court to recuse under 28 U.S.C. § 455. After the district court denied that motion and a subsequent request for reconsideration, Gyroor filed this petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order requiring the district court judge to disqualify. Case: 22-155 Document: 12 Page: 2 Filed: 08/09/2022

2 IN RE: GYROOR US

A party seeking mandamus must demonstrate no “ad- equate alternative” means to obtain the desired relief, Mal- lard v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 309 (1989), and that the right to issuance of the writ is “clear and indisputable,” Will v. Calvert Fire Ins., 437 U.S. 655, 666 (1978) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). The court must also be satisfied that the issuance of the writ is appropriate under the circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 381 (2004). Gyroor has failed to make such a showing in its petition. Gyroor relies on § 455, which states that “[a]ny justice, judge, or magistrate judge of the United States shall dis- qualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned,” and when there is “a per- sonal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.” Gyroor’s primary arguments for recusal amount to nothing more than disagreements with the court’s (a) preliminary injunction rulings*, (b) determina- tion to initially allow an affidavit in support of a motion for attorney fees to be submitted in camera, and (c) order di- recting plaintiffs to file and serve a new preliminary in- junction motion. But Supreme Court precedent explains that “judicial rulings alone almost never constitute a valid basis” for recusal. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). Gyroor otherwise points to remarks made by the district court judge in a proceeding that “injunctions are often entered in this district . . . where there’s an asset freeze on all of the defendants” and that “it is no secret” that there are “[c]ounterfeiters and people who infringe in- tellectual property market products on places like eBay or

* The defendants have pending appeals from those in- junctions in Appeal Nos. 2021-2150 and 2021-2277. Case: 22-155 Document: 12 Page: 3 Filed: 08/09/2022

IN RE: GYROOR US 3

Amazon.” Pet. at. 19–20. But those remarks do not estab- lish bias under § 455. They do not reveal an “opinion that derives from an extrajudicial source”; nor do they clearly establish “a high degree of favoritism or antagonism as to make fair judgment impossible.” Liteky, 510 U.S. at 555. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The petition is denied. FOR THE COURT

August 9, 2022 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court