NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

IN RE HO KEUNG TSE,

Petitioner.

______________________ 

2013-168

______________________ 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United 

States District Court for the Northern District of California in No. 06-CV-6573, Judge Saundra Brown Armstrong.

______________________ 

ON PETITION

______________________ 

Before O’MALLEY, LINN and WALLACH, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM. 

O R D E R

Petitioner Ho Keung Tse (“Tse”), the plaintiff in the 

underlying patent infringement action, seeks a writ of 

mandamus to, inter alia, direct the United States District 

Court for the Northern District of California to lift the

stay of proceedings and commence discovery. Respondents Apple Inc. et al., the defendants in this case, oppose 

the petition. Tse also moves to take judicial notice of 

certain documents. 

In October 2007, the district court stayed proceedings 

in light of the United States Patent and Trademark 

Case: 13-168 Document: 30 Page: 1 Filed: 01/31/2014
2 IN RE TSE

Office’s (“USPTO”) decision to institute an ex parte reexamination of the patent-in-suit. The record states that 

during those reexamination proceedings Tse submitted at 

least fourteen filings to the USPTO that, among other 

things, amended claims and added new claim 23. In 

January 2011, the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“Board”) sustained the patent examiner’s rejection 

of a number of claims but reversed the examiner’s rejection of several claims, including claim 23 of the patent-insuit. 

After receiving the USPTO’s reexamination certificate, Tse served his new infringement contentions on 

respondents, including allegations of infringement of

newly added claim 23. Tse also informed the district 

court of the new certificate and moved to lift the stay. In 

September 2013, the district court denied Tse’s motion. 

The district court found that there were discrepancies 

between the USPTO’s reexamination certificate and Tse’s 

version of claim 23 as recited in the appendix of his appeal filed with the Board and noted that there appeared 

to be language missing in the certificate’s version of claim 

23. Because the difference between the two versions of 

claim 23 was “substantive rather than merely typographical,” the district court concluded that continuing the stay 

until the USPTO clarifies the scope of claim 23 would 

simplify the litigation, and thus denied the motion to lift 

the stay. 

Although he does not suggest that the USPTO’s certificate is currently correct, Tse now seeks a writ of mandamus to direct the district court to lift the stay of 

proceedings. The decision to stay litigation is one committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. See 

Gould v. Control Laser Corp., 705 F.2d 1340, 1341 (Fed.

Cir. 1983); see also Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 

254–55 (1936). On mandamus review our role is not to 

second-guess the trial court’s decision to stay; instead, we 

look only to see whether a “rational and substantive legal 

Case: 13-168 Document: 30 Page: 2 Filed: 01/31/2014
 IN RE TSE 3

argument can be made in support of the rule in question[.]” In re Cordis Corp., 769 F.2d 733, 737 (Fed. Cir.

1985); see also Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Holland, 346 

U.S. 379, 383 (1953) (Mandamus is appropriate only if 

there is a “clear abuse of discretion.”). 

When measured against this exacting standard, Tse 

has not shown entitlement to relief. Under the circumstances, it was plausible for the district court to conclude

that continuing the stay until after a certificate of correction issued would reduce the potential risk for unnecessary costs and inefficiencies during discovery, 

infringement and invalidity contentions, and claim construction stages of the litigation. See Landis, 299 U.S. at 

254 (District courts have authority to “control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and 

effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”). 

 Moreover, the delay in lifting the stay here is fairly

attributable to Tse himself, as he can request a corrected 

certificate that would promptly eliminate the need for the 

stay of proceedings. See 35 U.S.C. §254; Manual of Patent 

Examining Procedure § 1480.01 (“Where the correction 

requested was incurred through the fault of the [USPTO], 

and the matter is clearly disclosed in the records of the 

[USPTO], and is accompanied by documentation that 

unequivocally supports the patentee’s assertion(s), a 

Certificate of Correction will be expeditiously issued.”). 

In sum, this court does not discern a clear abuse of 

discretion in the district court’s decision to continue the 

stay of proceedings. Because this court rejects Tse’s 

primary assertion of error, this court likewise denies his 

requests to commence discovery and reassign the case to a 

different district judge, as Tse has not shown a clear and 

indisputable right to such relief. 

Accordingly,

 IT IS ORDERED THAT: 

Case: 13-168 Document: 30 Page: 3 Filed: 01/31/2014
4 IN RE TSE

(1) The petition is denied.

(2) Tse’s motion to take judicial notice and motion to 

file a reply in support of that motion are granted. 

 FOR THE COURT

 /s/ Daniel E. O’Toole

 Daniel E. O’Toole

 Clerk of Court

cc: Clerk, United States District Court for the Northern 

District of California

s26

Case: 13-168 Document: 30 Page: 4 Filed: 01/31/2014