Case: 23-103 Document: 44 Page: 1 Filed: 12/08/2022
`NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United
`States District Court for the District of Delaware in Nos.
`1:21-cv-01247-CFC, 1:21-cv-01362-CFC, 1:21-cv-01855-
`CFC, and 1:22-cv-00413-CFC, Chief Judge Colm F. Con-
`Before LOURIE, REYNA, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.
`O R D E R
`Nimitz Technologies LLC (“Nimitz”) petitions for a
`writ of mandamus directing the United States District
`Court for the District of Delaware to vacate its November
`10, 2022, order directing Nimitz to turn over certain
`documents for the district court’s inspection and to order
`an end to “the district court’s judicial investigation of”
`Nimitz. Pet. at 27. We deny the petition.


`Case: 23-103 Document: 44 Page: 2 Filed: 12/08/2022
`Two standing orders of the district court, dating from
`April 2022, form the backdrop of the court’s Novem-
`ber 10, 2022, order.
`One standing order requires that, in all cases as-
`signed to Chief Judge Connolly “where a party is a non-
`governmental joint venture, limited liability corporation,
`partnership, or limited liability partnership, . . . the party
`must include in its disclosure statement filed pursuant to
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 7.1 the name of every
`owner, member, and partner of the party, proceeding up
`the chain of ownership until the name of every individual
`and corporation with a direct or indirect interest in the
`party has been identified.” Appx352.
`A separate standing order requires that, in all cases
`assigned to Chief Judge Connolly “where a party has
`made arrangements to receive from a person or entity
`that is not a party (a ‘Third-Party Funder’) funding for
`some or all of the party’s attorney fees and/or expenses to
`litigate this action on a non-recourse basis in exchange for
`(1) a financial interest that is contingent upon the results
`of the litigation or (2) a non-monetary result that is not in
`the nature of a personal loan, bank loan, or insurance,”
`“the party receiving such funding shall file a state-
`ment . . . containing . . . a. [t]he identity . . . of the Third-
`Party Funder(s); b. [w]hether any Third-Party Funder’s
`approval is necessary for litigation or settlement decisions
`in the action, and if the answer is in the affirmative, the
`nature of the terms and conditions relating to that ap-
`proval; and c. [a] brief description of the nature of the
`interest of
`the Third-Party Funder(s).”


`Case: 23-103 Document: 44 Page: 3 Filed: 12/08/2022
` 3
`In May 2022, in the cases that are the subject of the
`mandamus petition before us, the district court ordered
`Nimitz to certify compliance with the above-described
`standing orders. After Nimitz failed to timely respond,
`the district court ordered Nimitz to show cause why it
`should not be held in contempt. Two days later, Nimitz
`filed an amended disclosure statement identifying Mark
`Hall as the sole owner and LLC member of Nimitz and a
`statement representing that Nimitz “has not entered into
`any arrangement with a Third-Party Funder, as defined
`in the Court’s Standing Order Regarding Third-Party
`Litigation Funding Arrangements.” Appx357.
`The district court thereafter became aware of infor-
`mation, initially from an exhibit in a separate case before
`it, indicating that an entity called IP Edge LLC was
`arranging assignments of patents to different LLCs that
`were plaintiffs in actions filed in the District Court for
`Delaware and that Mr. Hall seemed, from the email
`address given to the PTO, to have a connection with IP
`Edge. ECF No. 42-1 at 15–16, 28–29. The district court
`ordered Mr. Hall and Nimitz’s counsel, George Pazuniak,
`to appear at a hearing. See Appx9. At that hearing,
`which took place on November 4, 2022, Nimitz’s relation-
`ship with an entity called Mavexar (among other topics)
`was explored. Afterwards, on November 10, 2022, the
`court ordered the production of various documents, in-
`cluding communications and correspondence between (1)
`Mr. Hall, Mavexar, and IP Edge and (2) Mr. Pazuniak,
`Mavexar, and IP Edge, relating to, among other things,
`the formation of Nimitz, Nimitz’s assets, Nimitz’s poten-
`tial scope of liability resulting from the acquisition of the
`patent, the settlement or potential settlement of the
`cases, and the prior evidentiary hearing. The court also
`asked for monthly bank statements held by Nimitz.
`This petition followed, and we stayed production of
`the documents pending further action by this court. The
`district court subsequently issued a memorandum that,


`Case: 23-103 Document: 44 Page: 4 Filed: 12/08/2022
`among other things, stated the concerns of the Novem-
`ber 10, 2022, order:
`The records sought are all manifestly relevant to
`addressing the concerns I raised during the November
`4 hearing. Lest there be any doubt, those concerns
`are: Did counsel comply with the Rules of Profession-
`al Conduct? Did counsel and Nimitz comply with the
`orders of this Court? Are there real parties in interest
`other than Nimitz, such as Mavexar and IP Edge, that
`have been hidden from the Court and the defendants?
`Have those real parties in interest perpetrated a
`fraud on the court by fraudulently conveying to a shell
`LLC the [patent-in-suit] and filing a fictitious patent
`assignment with the [United States Patent and
`Trademark Office] designed to shield those parties
`from the potential liability they would otherwise face
`in asserting the . . . patent in litigation?
`ECF No. 42-1 at 77–78.
`“As the writ [of mandamus] is one of the most potent
`weapons in the judicial arsenal, three conditions must be
`satisfied before it may issue”: the petitioner must show
`(1) there is “no other adequate means to attain the relief
`he desires,” (2) the “right to issuance of the writ is clear
`and indisputable,” 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) (internal quotation marks and
`citations omitted). Nimitz’s petition has not shown enti-
`tlement to the “drastic and extraordinary remedy” of a
`writ of mandamus. Id. at 380 (internal quotation marks
`and citation omitted).
`Nimitz contends that the district court’s Novem-
`ber 10, 2022, order would force it to turn over “highly
`materials protected by the attorney client privilege and


`Case: 23-103 Document: 44 Page: 5 Filed: 12/08/2022
` 5
`work-product immunity.” Pet. at 1. The district court,
`however, has made clear that its order “does not require
`Nimitz to docket these records or otherwise make them
`public” and is “free to submit and to publicly file at the
`time of its production of the records in question an asser-
`tion that the records are covered by the attorney-client
`privilege and/or work product doctrine and a request that
`for that reason (and perhaps other reasons) the Court
`maintain the records under seal.” ECF No. 42-1 at 77.
`Under such circumstances, Nimitz has not shown that
`mandamus is its only recourse to protect privileged mate-
`rials. Nor has Nimitz shown a clear right to preclude in
`camera inspection under these circumstances.
`Nimitz makes clear that it is “not ask[ing] th[is] Court
`to reverse either Standing Order.” Reply at 14. And it is
`clear that a direct challenge to those standing orders at
`this juncture would be premature, as Nimitz has not yet
`been found to violate those orders and will have alterna-
`tive adequate means to raise such challenges if, and
`when, such violations are found to occur. While Nimitz
`asks the court to terminate the district court’s inquiry
`under the standing orders, it has not shown a “clear and
`indisputable” right to such relief. Cheney, 542 U.S. at 381
`(citation omitted).
`The district court identified four concerns as the basis
`for its information demand. All are related to potential
`legal issues in the case, subject to the “principle of party
`presentation,” United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 140 S. Ct.
`1575, 1579 (2020) (discussing the principle and its limits),
`or to aspects of proper practice before the court, over
`which district courts have a range of authority preserved
`by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, see Fed. R. Civ. P.
`83(b); Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991). The
`district court did not seek information simply in order to
`serve an interest in public awareness, independent of the
`adjudicatory and court-functioning interests reflected in
`the stated concerns. In denying mandamus, we express


`Case: 23-103 Document: 44 Page: 6 Filed: 12/08/2022
`no view on whether there has been any violation of the
`particular legal standards that correspond to the concerns
`recited by the district court or, if so, what remedies (e.g.,
`against Nimitz, its counsel, or others) would be appropri-
`The petition is denied, and the stay is lifted.
`December 8, 2022
` Date
`/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
` Peter R. Marksteiner
` Clerk of Court

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.

Or .

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.

Become a Member

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

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.

Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket