Case: 24-112 Document: 11 Page: 1 Filed: 02/20/2024

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ In Re MSN LABORATORIES PRIVATE LTD., Petitioner ______________________ 2024-112 ______________________ On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in No. 1:23-cv-01675-CMH-WEF, Senior Judge Claude M. Hilton. ______________________ ON PETITION ______________________ Before MOORE, Chief Judge, TARANTO and CHEN, Circuit Judges.

MOORE, Chief Judge.

ORDER MSN Laboratories Private Ltd. (“MSN”) “requests a writ of mandamus reversing or vacating the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia’s Janu- ary 12, 2024 Order transferring this action to the District of Delaware.” ECF No. 2-1 at 11. We deny the petition.

On December 8, 2023, MSN brought the present action against Bioprojet Société Civile de Recherche (“Bioprojet”) in the Eastern District of Virginia seeking a declaration of non-infringement and/or invalidity of claims of U.S. Patent Case: 24-112 Document: 11 Page: 2 Filed: 02/20/2024

2 IN RE MSN LABORATORIES PRIVATE LTD.

Nos. 8,207,197; 8,354,430; and 8,486,947, following the fil- ing of MSN’s Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”).

The next day, Bioprojet sued MSN in the District of Dela- ware for infringing claims of those patents.

Bioprojet then moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) to transfer MSN’s action from Virginia to Delaware, which the district court granted after a hearing on the motion.

Noting Bioprojet’s earlier-filed “litigation pending in Dela- ware” against six other ANDA filers involving the same pa- tents, the court found that there would be “a lot of duplicative work if this case stays” in Virginia and that it would be inefficient to have “the same issue[s] being tried in two different courts and two different districts.”

Appx 26. MSN then filed this petition. We have jurisdic- tion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1295(a)(1) and 1651.

Mandamus is “reserved for extraordinary situations.”

Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289 (1988) (citation omitted). Thus, a petitioner must show that: (1) it has a clear and indisputable right to relief; (2) it does not have any other adequate method of obtaining relief; and (3) 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). MSN’s petition has not met that standard. Here, the district court plausibly con- cluded that judicial economy considerations favor transfer based on the earlier-filed, related cases in Delaware. MSN touts the convenience of its chosen forum, but it points to only a single potential witness in the Eastern District of Virginia, which is home to neither party. Under the cir- cumstances, MSN has not shown a clear and indisputable right to disturb the district court’s transfer ruling.

Accordingly, Case: 24-112 Document: 11 Page: 3 Filed: 02/20/2024

IN RE MSN LABORATORIES PRIVATE LTD. 3

IT IS ORDERED THAT: The petition is denied.

FOR THE COURT

February 20, 2024 Date