Federal Circuit Denies Mandamus to a Would-Be Intervenor Who Asserts She Invented Solos's Smart-Glasses Patents.

The order

On October 23, 2026, a Federal Circuit panel of Circuit Judges Chen, Linn and Cunningham denied the petition for a writ of mandamus in In re Daitona Carter, No. 2026-153, in a nonprecedential per curiam order. The petition was directed to the District of Massachusetts in Solos Technology Limited v. Meta Platforms, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-10304-ADB, before Judge Allison Dale Burroughs. The order says Ms. Carter moved to intervene in that patent infringement action, asserting she is the inventor; the district court denied her motion; and she appealed, as Solos Tech. Ltd. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., Appeal No. 2026-1721. It adds that she has also unsuccessfully attempted to participate in inter partes review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board related to the patents. Her corrected petition sought various relief, including a stay of the PTAB proceedings, and she also moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

Applying the three-part test of Cheney v. U.S. District Court for D.C., the court said a petitioner must show no other adequate means to attain the relief she desires, a "clear and indisputable" right to relief, and that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances. It held that she had not shown entitlement to relief, that she may raise her arguments and requests for relief related to the district court action in Appeal No. 2026-1721, and that she had not shown a clear and indisputable right to a stay of the PTAB proceedings or that she lacks other adequate means to obtain relief. The court denied the petition and denied the motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

The underlying patent case

Solos Technology Limited filed suit on January 23, 2026, against Meta Platforms, Inc., Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC, Oakley, Inc., Luxottica of America, Inc. and EssilorLuxottica USA, Inc. The complaint alleges willful direct and indirect infringement of five smart-glasses patents, U.S. Patents 10,306,389, 10,651,866, 11,082,055, 11,871,174 and 12,216,339, by smart glasses sold under the Meta Ray-Ban and Oakley Meta brands.

The intervention fight

In an April 8, 2026 memorandum (ECF No. 70), Ms. Carter described herself as an independent inventor seeking to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 to protect what she asserts are her rights under 35 U.S.C. 256 to correction of inventorship of all five asserted patents. She asserts that between 2007 and 2021 she independently conceived technologies, including directional audio, adaptive beamforming and smart-glasses architectures, that overlap with the patents. Solos opposed the motion (ECF No. 82).

The court denied intervention in April 2026 (ECF No. 90). The docket shows that her notice of appeal from that order was received by the Federal Circuit and forwarded to the district court, and that the Federal Circuit assigned Appeal No. 2026-1721 on April 22, 2026 (ECF Nos. 97 and 101).

On April 29, 2026, Judge Burroughs denied her motions for reconsideration and for a stay pending appeal (ECF No. 107). The order says her submissions did not cure the defect identified in the denial of intervention, namely, that she "has not sufficiently alleged that she conceived of or contributed to the conception of the inventions at issue in this litigation." Agreeing with Solos, the court wrote that her filings reflect, at most, "generalized work in smart glasses technology, software concepts, or prior projects," without identifying any "concrete, claim-level contributions."

On May 8, 2026, the court denied her motion to vacate under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3), 60(b)(6) and 60(d)(3) (ECF No. 113). Calling it her third motion for reconsideration of the denial of intervention, the court ordered that, while her appeal is pending, she must request leave before filing anything further related to intervention, and wrote that "her recourse now lies with the Court of Appeals." She filed a second notice of appeal on May 17, 2026, as to the orders at ECF Nos. 90, 107 and 113 (ECF No. 114).

What to watch next

Watch Appeal No. 2026-1721, Solos Technology v. Meta Platforms, where the order says she may raise her district court arguments, and the inter partes review petitions against the Solos patents. The case can end at any time, including by settlement or voluntary dismissal.