Case: 25-152 Document: 46 Page: 1 Filed: 12/09/2025

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In Re SANDISK TECHNOLOGIES, INC., WESTERN DIGITAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., Petitioners ______________________

2025-152 ______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States Patent and Trademark Office in Nos. IPR2025-00515, IPR2025-00516, and IPR2025-00517. ______________________

ON PETITION ______________________

Before PROST, CHEN, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. ORDER Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC sued Western Digital Technologies, Inc. for infringement of three patents related to flash memory systems. Western Digital and Sandisk Technologies, Inc. (a former Western Digital sub- sidiary, now independent entity) petitioned for inter partes review (“IPR”) of the patents. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) declined to institute IPR, noting “the challenged patents have been in force for ap- proximately nine, twelve, and twelve years, creating strong Case: 25-152 Document: 46 Page: 2 Filed: 12/09/2025

2 IN RE SANDISK TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

settled expectations,” and finding Petitioners had not “pro- vide[d] any persuasive reasoning why [IPR] is an appropri- ate use of [Patent Trial and Appeal] Board resources.” Appx2. Sandisk and Western Digital now seek a writ of mandamus to vacate and direct the PTO to reconsider the non-institution decisions. A petitioner seeking mandamus relief must ordinarily satisfy three requirements: (1) a clear and indisputable right to relief; (2) a lack of adequate alternative means to obtain the relief sought; and (3) a showing that issuance of the writ is appropriate under the circumstances. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–281 (2004). Ap- plying those requirements, we arrive at the same conclu- sion we reached today in In re Cambridge Industries USA Inc., 2026-101 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 9, 2025). Here, as there, Pe- titioners raise challenges to certain factors considered by the PTO in denying institution of IPR. As with the peti- tioner in Cambridge, Petitioners here have failed to iden- tify the kind of property rights or retroactivity concerns that might give rise to a colorable constitutional claim. And, for the same reasons provided in Cambridge, Petition- ers’ non-constitutional challenges to the PTO’s considera- tion of “settled expectations” as a factor in declining to institute IPR do not establish a clear and indisputable right to relief. 2026-101, slip op. at 5–6 (citing Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Lee, 579 U.S. 261, 274–75 (2016); Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Techs., LP, 590 U.S. 45, 58–59 (2020)). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The petition is denied. Case: 25-152 Document: 46 Page: 3 Filed: 12/09/2025

IN RE SANDISK TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 3

(2) All motions for leave to file briefs amici curiae are granted and the corresponding briefs are accepted for fil- ing. FOR THE COURT

December 9, 2025 Date