In Re SANSONE

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Decided: April 16, 2026
• Docket: 26-124
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 26-124 Document: 6 Page: 1 Filed: 04/16/2026

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

In Re STANLEY A. SANSONE, Petitioner ______________________

2026-124 ______________________

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States Patent and Trademark Office in Nos. 16/255,511 and 17/490,525. ______________________

ON PETITION AND MOTION ______________________

Before DYK, REYNA, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. ORDER Stanley A. Sansone petitions for a writ of mandamus related to the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (“PTO”) handling of his patent applications: U.S. Patent Application Nos. 16/255,511 and 17/490,525. He also moves to proceed in forma pauperis. A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and may only issue if a petitioner has shown a clear and indis- putable right to relief and there are no other adequate means to attain the relief desired. See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Case: 26-124 Document: 6 Page: 2 Filed: 04/16/2026

2 IN RE SANSONE

Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004)). Mr. Sansone has not met this demanding standard. As to U.S. Patent Application No. 16/255,511: Mr. San- sone has not shown entitlement to a writ regarding the PTO’s denial of his petition to withdraw its notice of aban- donment, see In re Makari, 708 F.2d 709, 711 (1983) (“We do not have jurisdiction to review decisions” of the Director “on petitions”), or that he has no available alternative means to obtain relief on his challenge.1 As to U.S. Patent Application No. 17/490,525: it ap- pears the PTO, on October 21, 2025, issued a Notice Re- quiring Extension of Time Fee predicated on Mr. Sansone’s failure to file a timely reply to an October 3, 2025 Office Action, Appx 61–62. While he appears to contend that the examiner afforded his response an incorrect date of receipt, he has not shown inadequacy of the PTO’s process to accord a different filing date, see MPEP § 503.IV, or otherwise shown a clear and indisputable right to relief. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT: (1) The petition is denied.

1 We note Mr. Sansone’s pending appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Vir- ginia relating to the PTO’s consideration of the 16/255,511 application. Sansone v. U.S. Pat. & Trademark Office, 2025-2017. Case: 26-124 Document: 6 Page: 3 Filed: 04/16/2026

IN RE SANSONE 3

(2) The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. FOR THE COURT

April 16, 2026 Date