Case: 24-113 Document: 14 Page: 1 Filed: 04/03/2024
`
`NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`In Re AGADIA SYSTEMS INC.,
`Petitioner
`______________________
`
`2024-113
`______________________
`
`On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
`Patent and Trademark Office in No. 90060221.
`______________________
`
`ON PETITION
`______________________
`
`Before MOORE, Chief Judge, TARANTO and CHEN, Circuit
`Judges.
`
`MOORE, Chief Judge.
`
`O R D E R
`Agadia Systems Inc. (“Agadia”) petitions for a writ of
`mandamus directing the Trademark Trial and Appeal
`Board (“TTAB”) to vacate its order staying proceedings.
`The United States Patent and Trademark Office
`(“USPTO”) opposes. We deny the petition.
`the mark
`Agadia
`applied
`to
`register
`“FORMULARYHUB,” and the TTAB affirmed the exam-
`iner’s refusal to register the mark. Agadia appealed that
`decision to this court, which remains pending. See Appeal
`No. 2023-1993. Agadia separately filed an application to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`In Re AGADIA SYSTEMS INC.,
`Petitioner
`______________________
`
`2024-113
`______________________
`
`On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
`Patent and Trademark Office in No. 90060221.
`______________________
`
`ON PETITION
`______________________
`
`Before MOORE, Chief Judge, TARANTO and CHEN, Circuit
`Judges.
`
`MOORE, Chief Judge.
`
`O R D E R
`Agadia Systems Inc. (“Agadia”) petitions for a writ of
`mandamus directing the Trademark Trial and Appeal
`Board (“TTAB”) to vacate its order staying proceedings.
`The United States Patent and Trademark Office
`(“USPTO”) opposes. We deny the petition.
`the mark
`Agadia
`applied
`to
`register
`“FORMULARYHUB,” and the TTAB affirmed the exam-
`iner’s refusal to register the mark. Agadia appealed that
`decision to this court, which remains pending. See Appeal
`No. 2023-1993. Agadia separately filed an application to
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case: 24-113 Document: 14 Page: 2 Filed: 04/03/2024
`
`2
`
`
`
`IN RE AGADIA SYSTEMS INC.
`
`register the mark “FORMULARYHUB.COM,” which was
`also refused by an examiner. Agadia appealed that deci-
`sion to the TTAB.
`On October 2, 2023, the TTAB issued an order staying
`the FORMULARYHUB.COM proceedings pending a final
`determination in the FORMULARYHUB proceedings.
`Agadia then filed a petition for Director review challenging
`the stay. On February 5, 2024, having not heard from the
`Director, Agadia filed this petition, which we have jurisdic-
`tion to review. See 15 U.S.C. § 1071(a); 28 U.S.C.
`§§ 1295(a)(4)(B), 1651; Formica Corp. v. Lefkowitz, 590
`F.2d 915, 919–20 (CCPA 1979).
`“[T]he writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy,
`to be reserved for extraordinary situations.” Gulfstream
`Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 289
`(1988) (citation omitted). To obtain mandamus, a peti-
`tioner 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).
`Agadia primarily argues that it has been deprived of
`due process. Specifically, it contends that the TTAB did
`not provide prior notice before issuing the stay, which Aga-
`dia asserts was based on what it calls ex parte communica-
`tions with the USPTO Solicitor’s Office regarding the
`existence of the FORMULARYHUB appeal. We cannot say
`that Agadia has established a clear and indisputable right
`to disturb the stay based on this challenge.
`Nothing in the regulation cited in the TTAB’s order
`clearly required it to give Agadia prior notice. That rule
`broadly provides that “[w]henever it shall come to the at-
`tention of the [TTAB] that a civil action [or] another
`[TTAB] proceeding . . . may have a bearing on a pending
`case, proceedings before the [TTAB] may be suspended un-
`til termination of the” other proceeding either “sua sponte”
`
`
`
`Case: 24-113 Document: 14 Page: 3 Filed: 04/03/2024
`
`IN RE AGADIA SYSTEMS INC.
`
` 3
`
`or “upon motion.” 37 C.F.R. § 2.117(a)–(c). We see nothing
`in that regulation that would clearly deprive the TTAB of
`authority to stay proceedings, even if it first learned of the
`appeal from the Solicitor.
`Agadia likewise fails to identify anything in the TTAB
`Manual of Procedure (“TBMP”) that establishes a clear and
`indisputable right to the requested relief. The TBMP does
`not generally have the force of law. Cf. Cai v. Diamond
`Hong, Inc., 901 F.3d 1367, 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Moreover,
`neither provision Agadia cites has been shown to apply to
`this case: § 510.02 concerns motions to suspend inter partes
`proceedings and § 1213 concerns an applicant’s or exam-
`iner’s request to suspend.
`More generally, while some “form of hearing is [typi-
`cally] required before [a property] owner is finally deprived
`of a protected property interest,” Logan v. Zimmerman
`Brush Co., 455 U.S. 422, 433 (1982) (internal quotation
`marks and citation omitted), Agadia’s petition fails to
`clearly explain how there has been such a deprivation here.
`Agadia cites no case dealing with remotely analogous cir-
`cumstances,1 let alone holding that a temporary stay of a
`
`
`1 See, e.g., Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 96 (1972)
`(requiring meaningful notice “before chattels are taken
`from their possessor”); Peralta v. Heights Med. Ctr., Inc.,
`485 U.S. 80, 86 (1988) (requiring meaningful notice before
`entry of default judgment involving money damages);
`Stone v. FDIC, 179 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 1999)
`(“[S]ome kind of hearing [is required] prior to the discharge
`of an employee who has a constitutionally protected prop-
`erty interest in his employment.” (quoting Cleveland Bd. of
`Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542 (1985)) (cleaned
`up)).
`
`
`
`
`Case: 24-113 Document: 14 Page: 4 Filed: 04/03/2024
`
`4
`
`
`
`IN RE AGADIA SYSTEMS INC.
`
`trademark application proceeding constitutes a depriva-
`tion of a constitutionally protected property interest.
`Agadia’s petition has not otherwise established a clear
`legal entitlement to disturbing the stay order. It contends
`the TTAB failed to adequately make a finding that the
`FORMULARYHUB appeal will have a bearing on the pre-
`sent proceeding. Although further elaboration in the order
`of the TTAB’s reasons for issuing the stay would have been
`helpful, Agadia has not shown that the TTAB so clearly
`abused its considerable discretion in managing its docket
`as to warrant the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. See
`Fla. Mun. Power Agency v. FERC, 315 F.3d 362, 366 (D.C.
`Cir. 2003) (“Administrative agencies enjoy ‘broad discre-
`tion’ to manage their own dockets[.]” (citation omitted)).
`Finally, Agadia makes no showing in its petition that the
`stay here is “so extensive [as to be] immoderate or indefi-
`nite” or otherwise beyond the bounds of the TTAB’s broad
`discretion. Groves v. McDonough, 34 F.4th 1074, 1080
`(Fed. Cir. 2022) (cleaned up); see Telecomms. Rsch. & Ac-
`tion Ctr. v. FCC, 750 F.2d 70 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
`Accordingly,
`IT IS ORDERED THAT:
`The petition is denied.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`April 3, 2024
` Date
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FOR THE COURT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
