NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In re: COZY, INC.,

Petitioner

______________________

2023-145

______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States 

District Court for the District of Massachusetts in No. 1:21-

cv-10134-JGD, Magistrate Judge Judith G. Dein.

______________________

ON PETITION

______________________

Before REYNA, TARANTO, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.

REYNA, Circuit Judge.

O R D E R

Cozy, Inc. petitions for a writ of mandamus directing 

the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts to vacate its July 27, 2023, order requiring production of certain documents on Cozy’s privilege log. Dorel 

Juvenile Group, Inc. opposes. We deny the petition.

I.

Cozy, which was founded by Dr. Arjuna Rajasingham, 

brought this lawsuit against Dorel alleging infringement of 

four of Cozy’s patents. In response, Dorel asserted

Case: 23-145 Document: 15 Page: 1 Filed: 12/04/2023
2 IN RE: COZY, INC.

counterclaims for inequitable conduct alleging Cozy made 

material misrepresentations and omissions in connection 

with patent prosecution and post-issuance activity before 

the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). 

Dorel moved for the district court to compel the production of certain documents listed on Cozy’s privilege log on 

the ground that the documents were subject to the crimefraud exception. Among its arguments, Dorel asserted that

Cozy had misrepresented that Dr. Rajasingham prosecuted 

the patents without consultation from counsel and had pursued inconsistent positions in an attempt to mislead the 

PTO in order to obtain a more beneficial priority date in 

pursuit of Cozy’s litigation against Dorel. 

Following in camera review of the documents, the district court granted the motion in part. Applying the traditional elements for common law fraud, the district court

determined that Dorel established a prima facie case that 

Dr. Rajasingham had “manipulated the PTO into recognizing priority dates to which he was not entitled,” Appx0020,

and “relied on the advice of his counsel to perpetrate a 

fraud on the PTO,” Appx0021. Cozy now petitions for a 

writ of mandamus challenging the district court’s ruling.*

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) and 

28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). 

II.

Mandamus is a “drastic and extraordinary” remedy to 

be used “only [in] exceptional circumstances,” Cheney v. 

U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004) (citations

omitted). As such, we will issue the writ only if the petitioner shows that (1) it has a “clear and indisputable” right 

to relief; (2) there is “no other adequate means” to obtain

the desired relief; and (3) the writ is “appropriate under the 

* The district court stayed production of the documents pending our disposition of the mandamus petition.

Case: 23-145 Document: 15 Page: 2 Filed: 12/04/2023
IN RE: COZY, INC. 3

circumstances.” Id. at 380–81 (citation omitted). Cozy has 

not satisfied that exacting standard here. 

Cozy has not shown that mandamus review is the only 

adequate means by which it can obtain meaningful relief. 

The Supreme Court has made clear that “postjudgment appeals generally suffice to protect the rights of litigants and 

ensure the vitality of the attorney-client privilege . . . by 

vacating an adverse judgment and remanding for a new 

trial in which the protected material and its fruits are excluded from evidence.” Mohawk Indus., Inc. v. Carpenter, 

558 U.S. 100, 109 (2009). While mandamus relief may be 

available for “particularly injurious” privilege rulings, id. 

at 110, Cozy has not pointed to any unique circumstances 

here that might justify our immediate review. 

Nor has Cozy shown a clear and indisputable right to 

relief. Although noting disagreement with the court’s conclusions that Dr. Rajasingham acted with the requisite intent and that counsel’s advice was used in furtherance of 

fraud, Cozy does not press those issues in its petition. Indeed, Cozy expressly limits its petition to arguing that the 

crime-fraud exception requires “a clear showing that the 

patent would not have issued” but for the misrepresentations, which Cozy contends lacks record support here. Pet. 

at 2, 4–5, 26–27. On those limited arguments presented, 

we conclude that Cozy has not established a clear entitlement to disturbing the court’s discovery ruling. 

Cozy primarily argues that the crime-fraud exception 

can only apply in the context of misrepresentations to the 

PTO when a “patent would not have issued but for those 

statements or omissions.” Pet. at 29. But Cozy cites only

to authorities confirming that sufficiently supported allegations of misrepresentations to the PTO before the issuance of a patent can justify an exception to the attorneyclient privilege. See Unigene Lab’ys, Inc. v. Apotex, Inc., 

655 F.3d 1352, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2011). It cites no authority 

holding that post-issuance misrepresentations to the PTO 

Case: 23-145 Document: 15 Page: 3 Filed: 12/04/2023
4 IN RE: COZY, INC. 

can never be used to pierce the attorney-client privilege. 

And it is far from clear why “[a] client who consults an attorney for advice that will serve him in the commission of 

a fraud” on the PTO following patent issuance should get 

“help from the law” by shielding communications used in 

commission of that fraud. See Clark v. United States, 289 

U.S. 1, 15 (1933); cf. 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1001. 

As to Cozy’s remaining challenges, mindful of our limited task on mandamus, we are not prepared to disturb the 

district court’s case-specific fact findings based on the limited arguments presented in the petition. In denying mandamus we express no view on whether Cozy’s arguments 

would be successful on direct appeal. We further expect 

that the communications and related documents will be 

kept under seal to mitigate the potential harmful effects 

caused by disclosure. See In re MSTG, Inc., 675 F.3d 1337, 

1346 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In addition, to the extent circumstances arise during the proceedings, it would be helpful if 

the district court could indicate separately what findings it 

would make with and without the documents used as a result of piercing the privilege at issue here.

Accordingly,

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

(1) The petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

(2) Any pending motions are denied.

December 4, 2023

 Date

FOR THE COURT

 

Case: 23-145 Document: 15 Page: 4 Filed: 12/04/2023