Digest of In re Parrot S.A., No. 2014-156, -157 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 22, 2015) (non-precedential). On petition for Writ of Mandamus from W.D. Pa. Before Linn, Taranto, and Chen. Per Curiam.

Procedural Posture: The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania entered a discovery order directing Parrot to produce source code for products not yet on sale and denied Parrot’s motion to transfer. Parrot filed a mandamus petitions seeking relief. The CAFC denied the petitions.

  • Appeal: After Parrot filed its mandamus petition, the district court entered default judgment against Parrot. The CAFC noted that the parties did not indicate that the source code was still being demanded for purposes of the post-liability stages of the case. A mandamus petition is not a substitute for the regular appeal process. Thus, any remaining challenge to the discovery order should be addressed by appealing the default judgment (if that is still possible), and not as part of a mandamus petition.
  • Transfer: A writ of mandamus was not appropriate because Parrot failed to show that the district court clearly abused its discretion.