`
`NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
`
`United States Court of Appeals
`for the Federal Circuit
`______________________
`
`In re: NIMITZ TECHNOLOGIES LLC,
`Petitioner
`______________________
`
`2023-103
`______________________
`
`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-
`nolly.
`
`______________________
`
`ON PETITION
`______________________
`
`Before LOURIE, REYNA, and TARANTO, Circuit Judges.
`PER CURIAM.
`
`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
`
`2
`
`
`
`IN RE: NIMITZ TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`
`I
`A
`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
`financial
`interest of
`the Third-Party Funder(s).”
`Appx353–54.
`
`B
`
`
`
`Case: 23-103 Document: 44 Page: 3 Filed: 12/08/2022
`
`IN RE: NIMITZ TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`
` 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
`
`4
`
`
`
`IN RE: NIMITZ TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`
`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.
`
`II
`“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
`confidential
`litigation-related
`information,
`including
`materials protected by the attorney client privilege and
`
`
`
`Case: 23-103 Document: 44 Page: 5 Filed: 12/08/2022
`
`IN RE: NIMITZ TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`
` 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
`
`6
`
`
`
`IN RE: NIMITZ TECHNOLOGIES LLC
`
`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-
`ate.
`Accordingly,
`IT IS ORDERED THAT:
`The petition is denied, and the stay is lifted.
` FOR THE COURT
`
`
`
`December 8, 2022
` Date
`
`
`
`/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
` Peter R. Marksteiner
` Clerk of Court
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`