Azad Kabir v.

Opinion

BLD-142 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________

No. 26-1385 ___________

IN RE: AZAD A. KABIRR, M.D. MSPH, Petitioner ____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (Related to Civ. No. 2:25-cv-15207) ____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P. May 28, 2026 Before: KRAUSE, MATEY, and BOVE, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: June 23, 2026) _________

OPINION* _________

PER CURIAM

Azad Kabir petitions this Court for a writ of mandamus. Because we determine

that we lack jurisdiction to entertain the mandamus petition, we will dismiss it.

Our mandamus jurisdiction derives from 28 U.S.C. § 1651, which grants us the

power to “issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of [our . . . jurisdiction] and

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not constitute binding precedent. agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” The underlying patent infringement

action was brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a), and was based entirely on federal

patent law. The Federal Circuit has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over those actions,

see 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1), and, thus, it has exclusive mandamus jurisdiction as well, see

In re Arunachalam, 812 F.3d 290, 293 (3d Cir. 2016) (per curiam). Therefore, because

we lack jurisdiction that issuance of the writ might assist, we lack jurisdiction over the

mandamus petition.

Based on the foregoing, we will dismiss the petition for a writ of mandamus.