NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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.

O R D E R

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 January 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: 1 Filed: 02/20/2024
2 IN RE MSN LABORATORIES PRIVATE LTD.

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

The next day, Bioprojet sued MSN in the District of Delaware 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 Delaware” against six other ANDA filers involving the same patents, 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 jurisdiction 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 circumstances.” 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 concluded 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 circumstances, MSN has not shown a clear and indisputable

right to disturb the district court’s transfer ruling.

Accordingly,

Case: 24-112 Document: 11 Page: 2 Filed: 02/20/2024
IN RE MSN LABORATORIES PRIVATE LTD. 3

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

The petition is denied.

February 20, 2024

 Date

FOR THE COURT

 

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