United States Court of Appeals
`for the Third Circuit
`In re: David J. Catanzaro,
`Petitioner
`IO)Cg@CgOW@
`ml AUG - 4 2025
`U .S.C.A. 3rd. CIR
`PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
`From the United States District Court
`for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
`(Docket Nos. 3:22--cv-01754 and 3:22-cv-01768)
`David J. Catan mro
`Plaintiff and Petitioner, Pro Se
`286 Upper Powderly Street
`Carbondale, PA 18407
`davidjosephus@aol.com
`July 31, 2025
`i
`Case: 26-102 Document: 2 Page: 1 Filed: 10/20/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Table of Contents
`I. Introduction and Summary of Relief Requested ................................... 1
`A. Notice of Forthcoming Stay Motions in Both District Cases ................ 2
`II. Petitioner's Background and Revival of the '959 Patent , . , ... , .... , ............... 2
`III. Purpose of This Petition for Mandamus ............................................. 3
`IV. Supporting Evidence of Systemic Bias ............................................. 4
`V. Plaintiff's Prior Warning and the Path to Mandamus .............................. 6
`IV. Catanzaro v. Lykart Teclmologies ILC, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-01754 ...... 7
`A. Factual Misstatement and Refusal to Correct the Record .................. 11
`B. Pattern oflgnoring Plaintiff Filings While Granting
`Defendants' Requests ............................................................. 12
`C. The Court's Own Admission of Delay ........................................ 12
`E. Chronological Filing Sunnnacy Demonstrating Judicial
`Delay and Disregard .............................................................. 14
`F. Conclusion .......................................................................... 18
`Vil Catanzarov. Walmart, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-01768 .......................... 18
`VIII. Statement of Facts Supporting Mandanms (Case 01768) ........................ 21
`IX. ugal Standard ....................................................................... 22
`X. Argunient ............................................................................... 23
`XL. Transfer Under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a) as the Proper Mandamus Remedy ...... 28
`XII. Conclusion and Prayer for Relief .................................................. 30
`ii
`Case: 26-102 Document: 2 Page: 2 Filed: 10/20/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I. Introduction and Summary of Relief Requested
`Plaintiff respectfully asks this Court to transfer both Case No. 3:22-cv-01768 and
`Case No. 3:22-cv-01754 to the Western District of Pennsylvania pursuant to 28
`U.S.C. § 1406(a), on the grounds that the current venue has proven structurally
`incapable of providing timely or impartial adjudication. Transfer is warranted to
`restore fairness, prevent further prejudice, and ensure neutral resolution of both
`matters.
`In Case No. 3:22-cv-01768, all remaining Defendants have been in default for over
`18 months, yet Plaintiff continues to await a ruling on his motion for default
`judgment. In Case No. 3:22-cv-01754, three of the four remaining Defendants­
`Google, Apple, and YouTube-maintain a business presence in the
`Commonwealth, and YouTube is owned by Google/Alphabet. Mozilla, while
`based in California, may be severed and transferred separately if necessary.
`Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court act without further delay to preserve
`the integrity of both proceedings and prevent ongoing harm.
`Plaintiff further notes that should the District Court issue rulings on the long­
`pending motions in either Case No. 3:22-cv-01768 or Case No. 3:22-cv-01754
`only after the filing of this petition, it would raise additional serious concerns
`before this Honorable appellate court regarding judicial posture and institutional
`integrity. After months of total silence-despite fully briefed motions, repeated
`1
`Case: 26-102 Document: 2 Page: 3 Filed: 10/20/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`filings, and documented prejudice-such action would not reflect ordinary case
`management, but would instead appear reactive and defensive. This would only
`further reinforce the appearance of systemic imbalance and strengthen Plaintiff's
`request for extraordinary relief.
`A. Notice of Forthcoming Stay Motions in Both District Cases
`Plaintiff also advises the Court that, concurrent with the mailing of this petition, he
`will be filing a Motion to Stay in each of the underlying cases-Catanzaro v.
`Lykart Technologies LLC, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-01754, and Catanzaro v.
`Walmart, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-01768-pending resolution of this
`mandamus proceeding. This action is intended to preserve judicial resources and
`avoid compounding prejudice during the appellate review period.
`(Al referenced flings herein are publicly available through PACER on the
`dockets of the respective cases. No sealed or confidential materials are cited.
`The facts and deJays described herein are fuBy documented in those records.)
`II. Petitioner's Background and Revival of the '959 Patent
`Petitioner is the sole inventor and rightful owner of U.S. Patent No. 6,942,959 (the
`"'959 Patent"), originally allowed by the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
`(USPTO) but not issued due to Petitioner's inability to pay the issue fee at the
`time. As a result of severe financial hardship, the patent remained abandoned for
`nearly a decade.
`2
`Case: 26-102 Document: 2 Page: 4 Filed: 10/20/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Between 2008 and 2010, following a formal petition citing fmancial distress, the
`USPTO granted Petitioner's request to revive the '959 Patent. This extraordinary
`reinstatement-following nearly ten years of non-enforcement-reflected the
`USPTO's recognition of Petitioner's hardship and the good-faith nature of his
`efforts to secure and protect his invention.
`Since that time, Petitioner has actively enforced the '959 Patent against numerous
`infringers, including some of the world's largest digital platforms. More than two
`doz.en settlements have been reached with downstream sellers marketing or
`distributing products that infringe on the '959 Patent.
`With only a high school education, Petitioner has independently brought multiple
`patent infringement actions pertaining to the '959 Patent in the Middle District of
`Pennsylvania. All but two of those cases have either resulted in settlement or been
`voluntarily dismissed, with the exception of Catanzaro v. Walmart Stores, Inc., et
`al., No. 3:22-cv-01768, and Catanzaro v. Lykart Technologies LLC, et al., No.
`3:22-cv-01754-both of which remain pending.
`ID. Purpose of This Petition for Mandamus
`This petition seeks to present the appellate court with an unambiguous and
`overwhelming record that the District Court has ceased functioning impartially in
`Petitioner's cases. When both dockets are viewed together, the record reveals not
`3
`Case: 26-102 Document: 2 Page: 5 Filed: 10/20/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`mere delay, but systemic judicial prejudice against a pro se inventor attempting to
`enforce valid patent rights.
`Specifically:
`• In Catanzaro v. Lykart Technologies LLC, et al. (No. 3:22-cv-01754),
`Plaintiff's motions are either ignored or dismissed with bias, while
`Defendants' filings are promptly and favorably addressed.
`• In Catanzaro v. Walmart Stores, Inc., et al. (No. 3:22-cv-01768), despite
`multiple entries of default, Plaintiff's motions for sanctions and default
`judgment have been stalled indefinitely-leaving Plaintiff exposed to
`procedural exploitation, threats, and one-sided settlements from defaulted
`parties.
`• The cumulative record-when read in full-reflects not isolated error, but an
`entrenched pattern of imbalance that now requires higher court intervention.
`IV. Supporting Evidence of Systemic Bias
`1. A fully briefed Motion for Default Judgment has been pending in Case No.
`3:22-cv-01768 since December 2024-without a ruling for more than seven
`months.
`2. A Motion to Expedite that ruling (Doc. 114), filed in February 2025, has
`likewise been ignored.
`4
`Case: 26-102 Document: 2 Page: 6 Filed: 10/20/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3. One defaulted Defendant-US imprints-has gone out of business during the
`delay, creating irretrievable loss of recovery.
`4. Two other defaulted Defendants-owned by the same individual-explicitly
`threatened to reenter the case unless Plaintiff agreed to one-sided settlement
`terms, which Plaintiff regretfully accepted under pressure.
`5. The Court has never formally locked out the defaulted parties, allowing a
`state of procedural limbo that encourages threats, leverage, and
`manipulation.
`6. The Third Circuit has already ruled that this Court previously acted with an
`"abuse of discretion" in the related Case No. 3:22-cv-01754, reversing the
`dismissal of Plaintiff's motion for failure to include a separate brief. See
`Catanzaro v. Does 1 through 50; Walmart, Inc.; Walmart.com, Case No. 24-
`l 247 (3d Cir. 2024). Although the appellate ruling arose in 01754, both
`actions-01754 and the present case, 01768-were assigned to the same
`District Judge at the time and remain under the same judicial assignments
`today. The appellate court's finding of abuse therefore has direct bearing on
`the current matter, reinforcing the pattern of judicial mishandling and the
`need for extraordinary relief across both dockets.
`7. In Case No. 3:22-cv-01754, Plaintiff's two Motions for Reconsideration­
`one challenging the denial of a stay (Docs. 95, 97), and the other opposing
`5
`Case: 26-102 Document: 2 Page: 7 Filed: 10/20/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`the Court's coordinated briefmg order (Doc. 111, with supporting brief at
`Doc. 112)--remain pending. Meanwhile, defense requests such as the Joint
`Motion for Coordinated Briefmg and other filings have been granted without
`delay.
`8. In granting coordinated briefmg, the Court adopted a demonstrably false
`claim that Google was Mozilla's default search engine in 2016, despite
`Plaintiff's documented correction in the record.
`9. The Court has not given equal consideration to Plaintiff's factual corrections
`or legal filings and has repeatedly adopted assertions by Defendants that were
`cherry-picked, incomplete, or contradicted by the record.
`10. Taken together, these facts depict not procedural oversight, but a sustained
`pattern of systemic bias and unequal treatment toward a pro se litigant-now
`threatening the integrity of both pending cases.
`V. Plaintiff's Prior Warning and the Path to Mandamus
`Plaintiff did not arrive at this point lightly. In his Motion for Reconsideration (Doc.
`95) in Case No. 3:22-cv-01754-and again in his Supplement to Plaintiff's Motion
`for Default Judgment (Doc. 123) in Case No. 3:22-cv-01768-Plaintiff explicitly
`advised the District Court that continued inaction in both cases-especially Case
`No. 3:22-cv-01768-could necessitate a petition for mandamus. He wrote:
`6
`Case: 26-102 Document: 2 Page: 8 Filed: 10/20/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`"Plaintiff respectfully adds that he does not wish to burden this Court, or the
`appellate courts, with unnecessary filings. However, in light of the irreversible
`harm that has already been established, and unless rulings are forthcoming in both
`this matter and in Case No. 3: 2 2-,cv-0 17 68-which remains stalled despite a
`properly filed motion to expedite (Doc. 114) - Plaintiff may be left with no
`reasonable option other than to seek mandamus relief from the Third Circuit. "
`That pleading was filed months ago and remains unaddressed by the Court.
`IV. CataDDro v. Lykart Technologies LLC, et al, Case No. 3:22-cv-01754
`Procedural History Demonstrating Judicial Disregard and Imbalance
`Plaintiff filed a Notice of Potential Conflict (Doc. 88) on March 28, 2025, in Case
`No. 3:22-cv-01754, informing the Court that a conflict existed between that case
`and Case No. 3:22-cv-01768. Plaintiff warned that failure to rule on the pending
`motion for default judgment in the 01768 case could create procedural
`entanglements and undermine Plaintiffs ability to fairly litigate the 01768 action.
`Plaintiff explained that this conflict could be avoided if the Court either ruled on
`the default judgment motion in 01768 or, alternatively, stayed proceedings in
`01754 until that ruling occurred (both actions involve the same '959 Patent).
`On April 1, 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Stay (Doc. 89), along with a
`supporting brief (Doc. 90), in the 01754 matter. In that brief, Plaintiff emphasiz.ed
`that the umesolved motions in 01768-including for default judgment and
`7
`Case: 26-102 Document: 2 Page: 9 Filed: 10/20/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`sanctions-could affect the outcome of both cases, especially 01768, where all
`Defendants remain in default and are not barred from reentry. Because the
`defaulted Defendants in 01768 are still technically active, any rulings in 01754
`could be weaponi:zed by those parties to justify vacatur or reentry.
`Although the Defendants in 01754 did not oppose the stay motion, their non­
`opposition filing (Doc. 91) included a statement asserting that nothing decided in
`Case No. 3:22-cv-01768 would affect the outcome of 3:22-cv-01754. While that
`may be accurate in isolation, Plaintiff filed a Notice Clarifying Scope of Non­
`Opposition (Doc. 93), reiterating that the inverse was far more concerning: rulings
`in 01754 could absolutely affect 01768, particularly if default judgment continued
`to be withheld. At the time of this filing, all Defendants in 01768 had been in
`default for over 18 months.
`In its subsequent Order (Doc. 94), the Court cited only the Defendants' assertion­
`that 01768 would not affect 01754-and failed to address the full content of
`Plaintiffs supporting brief or the clarifying Notice (Doc. 93). The Court did not
`meaningfully engage with the concern that rulings in 01 754 could be used to
`undermine the default status of Defendants in 01768.
`Instead, the -Court dismissed the substance of the stay request and portrayed it as a
`delay tactic. The Order described the case as "languishing" for over 2.5 years and
`8
`Case: 26-102 Document: 2 Page: 10 Filed: 10/20/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`attributed the delay to Plaintiff-falsely framing the stay motion as an effort to
`coerce action in 01768.
`In response, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 95) and Brief in
`Support (Doc. 97), again stressing that the Court addressed only Defendants' view
`and ignored the far more harmful possibility: that 01754 could influence 01768.
`Plaintiff also noted that the Court had already caused major delay in 01754,
`including a ruling reversed by the Third Circuit in Catanzaro v. Does 1 through
`50; Walmart, Inc.; Walmart.com, No. 24-1247 (3d Cir. 2024), which the appellate
`court held was an abuse of discretion. That error caused over 13 months of delay,
`followed by another 5 months for judicial reassignment. To date, the Motion for
`Reconsideration (Docs. 95, 97), filed on April 18 and 21, 2025, remains pending.
`As detailed in Plaintiff's Brief in Support (Doc. 97) as follows:
`"Plaintiff has shown that the continued delay in 3:22-cv-01768 has caused real
`and measurable harm. Plaintiff recently discovered that one defaulted Defendant
`- USimprints - has gone out of business, creating substantial uncertainty as to
`whether any judgment could ever be enforced. In addition, two other defaulted
`Defendants - Wholesale in Motion Group Inc. and Price US Wholesale, both
`owned by the same individual and previously referred to as one Defendant, -were
`dismissed with prejudice following a one-sided settlement. That resolution was
`reached only after the owner explicitly threatened to seek reentry into the case,
`9
`Case: 26-102 Document: 2 Page: 11 Filed: 10/20/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`taking advantage of the fact that no default judgment had yet been entered. These
`events underscore that defaulted Defendants are not truly 'closed out' until default
`judgment is formally entered. Their continued legal limbo creates procedural
`imbalance, invites undue leverage, and results in tangible prejudice to Plaintiff's
`position. "
`The Motion to Stay further stated:
`"Case No. 3:22-cv-01768 involves overlapping/actual and legal issues. The
`outcome of the pending motions may significantly affect the posture and scope of
`the present action, or, conversely, the present action may affect the outcome of
`Case No. 3:22-cv-01768."
`Defendants in 01768 were actively threatening reentry unless Plaintiff accepted
`one-sided settlement terms-exploiting the Court's failure to issue default
`judgment. Yet the Court responded in its order in case 01754 (Doc. 94) with the
`following:
`''fails to explain how the entry of default judgment he seeks in the other action
`-would impact these proceedings. "
`This sentence misquotes and inverts Plaintiff's argument-whether through willful
`distortion or judicial disengagement, the effect is the same: the appearance of
`neutrality has been lost, and Plaintiff's ability to fairly litigate has been
`undermined.
`10
`Case: 26-102 Document: 2 Page: 12 Filed: 10/20/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`A. FactualM.kstatement and Refusal to Correct the Record
`On June 16, 2025, Plaintiff filed a timely Opposition to the Joint Motion for
`Coordinated Briefing in Case No. 3:22-cv-01754 (Doc. 104), objecting to
`consolidation given the distinct roles of each Defendant. In that filing, Plaintiff
`correctly noted the present-day relationship between Google and Mozilla, but he
`inadvertently omitted that Yahoo served as the default search engine for Mozilla's
`Firefox browser in 2016---the relevant damages period.
`To correct the record, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Clarification (Doc. 105),
`confirming that Yahoo-not Google-was Mozilla's official default engine in
`2016. Despite this correction, the Court granted the Joint Motion (Order Doc. 110),
`expressly adopting the false narrative that Google was the default for all remaining
`Defendants-relying primarily on this inaccuracy as the stated basis for granting
`coordinated brief'mg.
`Plaintiff promptly filed a Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 111 ), pointing out the
`Court's failure to consider the clarification and its disregard for key factual
`distinctions between Defendants. Plaintiff had never opposed reasonable
`grouping-e.g., Google with YouTube (which it owns), or Apple with Mozilla
`(both of which rely on third-party defaults). The objection was to false equivalence
`across all Defendants based on a factual error about Mozilla.
`11
`Case: 26-102 Document: 2 Page: 13 Filed: 10/20/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`AB of this Petition, the Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 111) and Brief in Support
`(Doc. 112) remains unaddressed, and Plaintiff's alternative proposal-to allow two
`grouped filings-has been entirely ignored.
`B. Pattern of Ignoring Plaintiff Filings While Granting Defendants' Requests
`Plaintiff has since filed a Motion for Leave to File a Sur-Reply and Claim Chart,
`along with a Notice of Errata to correct and clarify factual points in the record.
`These filings also remain pending as of the mailing of this filing, reinforcing a
`pattern: Plaintiff's submissions are delayed or disregarded, while Defendants'
`requests are routinely granted.
`C. The Court's Own Admission of Delay
`In denying the stay motion in 01754, the Court admitted in its order (Doc. 94):
`"Rather, a review of Catanzaro 's motion to stay and his repeated attempts in
`action No. 22-cv-1768 to compel expedited rulings on his pending motions show
`that his attempted stay here is simply his latest effort to compel the court to
`address the outstanding motions in No. 22-cv-l 7 68 on an expedited basis. But a
`plaintiff may not pursue or delay a litigation he commences at whim, or in an
`attempt to dictate the matters to which the court affords its attention."
`This quote speaks volumes-not merely for what it says, but for what it reveals.
`The Court is aware that Plaintiff's motions in 01768 have gone unanswered, yet
`instead of addressing them, it portrays Plaintiff's attempts to obtain rulings as
`12
`Case: 26-102 Document: 2 Page: 14 Filed: 10/20/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`improper. It then uses that as a basis to punish Plaintiff in a separate matter
`(01754), denying a stay motion not on its merits, but in retaliation for seeking
`rulings in 01768.
`This reflects a breakdown in judicial neutrality. It sends a message that a pro se
`litigant may be penaliz.ed for pursuing routine procedural remedies. That chilling
`effect, standing alone, justifies mandamus intervention.
`Even in his Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 95), Plaintiff warned that continued
`inaction might require appellate intervention. As stated in that filing:
`"Plaintiff respectfully adds that he does not wish to burden this Court, or the
`appellate courts, with unnecessary filings. However, in light of the irreversible
`harm that has already been established, and unless rulings are forthcoming in both
`this matterandin Case No. 3:22-cv-01768-which remains stalled despite a
`properly filed motion to expedite (Doc. 114) - Plaintiff may be left with no
`reasonable option other than to seek mandamus relief from the Third Circuit. "
`Even this respectful warning failed to prompt meaningful engagement. The Court
`has declined to rule, failed to acknowledge factual corrections or compromise
`proposals, and allowed demonstrably false premises to stand uncorrected. Plaintiff
`is no longer merely seeking relief-he is pleading for judicial fairness, and for the
`immediate transfer of both Case No. 3:22-cv-01754 and Case No. 3:22-cv-0l 768
`13
`Case: 26-102 Document: 2 Page: 15 Filed: 10/20/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`to the Western District of Pennsylvania, where these matters may be evaluated
`with the neutrality and diligence they require.
`D. Final Note
`This is not a routine case. For many years, Plaintiff was the only individual in his
`city to hold an issued U.S. patent. The invention at the center of both cases was not
`obtained through third-party acquisition-it was originally conceived, developed,
`and ultimately revived after nearly a decade of abandonment caused by fmancial
`hardship. Case No. 3:22-cv-0J 754 reflects years of prose effort to enforce that
`patent against some of the most powerful digital platforms in the world.
`Instead of receiving due process, Plaintiff has encountered delay, factual
`misrepresentation, and selective judicial engagement. These issues are not just
`procedural-they go to the heart of whether pro se inventors, and similarly situated
`individuals, can meaningfully assert their rights in federal court. The integrity of
`these proceedings-and broader confidence in the judiciary's impartiality-are
`now at stake. This case deserves impartial review. At this stage, it must be
`transferred or reassigned to preserve the interest ojjustice.
`E. Chronological Filing Summary Demonstrating Judicial Delay and
`Dnregard
`I. Doc. 88 (01754)-Notice of Potential Conflict (March 28, 2025):
`Plaintiff warned that unresolved motions in Case No. 3:22-cv-01768-
`14
`Case: 26-102 Document: 2 Page: 16 Filed: 10/20/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`particularly the motion for default judgment-could prejudice proceedings
`in 01768.
`• No ruling issued in 01768; warning unheeded.
`2. Doc. 89 - Motion to Stay (April 1, 2025):
`Filed (01754) to preserve judicial economy and prevent entanglement
`between the two related actions.
`• Denied without addressing Plaintiff's core arguments.
`3. Doc. 90 - Brief in Support of Stay (01754):
`Outlined how rulings in 01754 could be weaponiz.ed to undermine the
`default posture in 01768, since defaulted Defendants in that case were
`actively threatening to reenter based on the Court's failure to issue default
`judgment.
`• Court disregarded Plaintiff's supporting analysis and cited only
`Defendants 'filings.
`4. Doc. 91 - Defendants' Non-Opposition to Stay (01754):
`Asserted that 01768 would not affect 01754, but did not oppose the stay
`motion itself.
`• Court relied solely on this framing to justify denial.
`5. Doc. 93 - Notice Clarifying Scope of Non-Opposition (01754):
`Clarified that Plaintiff's concern was the reverse: that 01754 rulings could
`15
`Case: 26-102 Document: 2 Page: 17 Filed: 10/20/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`adversely affect 01768, where Defendants remain in default.
`• Never addressed by the Court.
`6. Doc. 94 - Order Denying Stay (01754):
`Dismissed Plaintiff's motion as a delay tactic and adopted Defendants'
`position without engaging with Plaintiff's filings.
`• Mischaracterized Plaintiff's intent and failed to address judicial delay in
`01768 .
`7. Doc. 95-Motion for Reconsideration (April 18, 2025):
`Sought reconsideration (01754) of the stay denial based on
`mischaracterizations, omissions, and procedural harm.
`• Still pending.
`8. Doc. 97 - Brief in Support of Reconsideration (01754, April 21, 2025):
`Documented real-world harm from the Court's inaction in 01768, including:
`• USimprints, a defaulted Defendant, recently went out of business;
`• Two other defaulted Defendants dismissed after threatening to reenter the
`case due to lack of default judgment, Plaintiff agreed to one sided settlements;
`• Undue leverage and procedural imbalance created by legal limbo.
`Also advised the Court that Plaintiff may be forced to seek mandamus relief
`unless it meaningfully addressed the stalled proceedings in both matters.
`• Still pending.
`16
`Case: 26-102 Document: 2 Page: 18 Filed: 10/20/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9. Doc.104- Opposition to Coordinated Briermg (June 16, 2025):
`Plaintiff objected to consolidated briefing in 01754 due to the distinct roles
`and default configurations of each Defendant but stated a willingness to
`accept a fair compromise grouping.
`• Court later adopted a false factual claim that all Defendants used Google
`as their default search engine and made no mention of the compromise.
`IO.Doc. 105-Notice of Claritlcation:
`Filed to correct the record and confirm that Yahoo-not Google--was
`Mozilla's default search engine in 2016, during the relevant damages period.
`• Court ignored the correction and granted Defendants 'joint motion (Doc.
`110).
`11. Doc. 110 - Order Granting Coordinated Briermg (01754):
`Adopted Defendants' joint filing structure based solely on the false premise
`that Google was the default search engine for all named Defendants in 2016.
`• Plaintiff's factual correction was never acknowledged.
`12.Doc.111- Motion for Reconsideration of Briermg Order (01754):
`Explained the factual error in the Court's ruling and reiterated Plaintiffs
`reasonable compromise (two grouped filings).
`• Still pending. Court has never acknowledged the compromise proposal.
`17
`Case: 26-102 Document: 2 Page: 19 Filed: 10/20/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`13. Motion for Leave to File Sur-Reply (Doc. 123) and Claim Chart (01754):
`Filed to address new arguments raised in Defendants' reply and to clarify the
`issue of constructive notice.
`• Stil I pending.
`14.Notice of Errata (Doc.127):
`Filed concurrently with the Sur-Reply to correct minor inaccuracies and
`ensure a consistent and accurate record.
`• Still pending.
`F. Conclusion
`This numbered timeline shows a clear pattern: Plaintiff acted diligently, filed
`multiple substantive and corrective documents, and proposed reasonable
`compromises. The Court, by contrast, either ignored these filings, ruled on
`incomplete information, or mischaracterized Plaintiff's motives-sometimes
`relying on demonstrably false facts. These cumulative errors and omissions now
`rise to a level that demands appellate intervention.
`VII. Catanzaro v. Walmart, et al, Case No. 3:22-cv-01768
`Procedural History Showing Judicial Delay and Prejudice
`Plaintiff originally filed this case in late 2022 to enforce U.S. Patent No. 6,942,959
`(the "'959 Patent") (same patent in 01754 case) against numerous third-party
`sellers, primarily operating through platforms such as AliExpress and
`18
`Case: 26-102 Document: 2 Page: 20 Filed: 10/20/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Walmart.com. The case proceeded with no substantial rulings until the Clerk
`entered default against multiple Defendants, including AliExpress, in January
`2024. However, despite these defaults, the Court failed to issue a timely ruling on
`Plaintiff's subsequent motion for default judgment. The following tirneline
`illustrates the resulting prejudice and procedural breakdown in 01768:
`• 12/15/23: Plaintiff filed Doc. 83, Request for Default.
`• 12/19/23: Plaintiff filed Doc . 84, Motion for Default Judgment (without
`brief).
`• 1/8/24: Clerk issued Entry of Default (Doc. 85).
`• 1/23/24: District Judge denied default judgment (Doc. 86) due to lack of a
`supporting brief.
`• Prior to the denial, Plaintiff contacted chambers and discussed the pending
`motion.
`• Plaintiff did not.file a motion for reconsideration of this denial.
`• An eight-month delay followed with no judicial action.
`• 8/28/24: The case was reassigned to District Judge Joseph F. Saporito Jr.
`• 9/10/24: Plaintiff filed Doc. 89, Motion for Reconsideration of the
`reassignment.
`• 9/10/24: Plaintiff filed Doc. 90, Brief in Support of Reconsideration.
`19
`Case: 26-102 Document: 2 Page: 21 Filed: 10/20/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`• 9/16/24: Plaintiff submitted Doc. 91, Letter to Chambers objecting to the
`reassignment.
`• 9/17/24: Reconsideration motion was denied (Doc. 92).
`• 12/19/24: Plaintiff filed a new Motion for Default Judgment with a
`supporting brief (Docs. 93 & 94).
`• 2/14/25: Plaintiff filed a Motion and Brief for Sanctions and for Default
`Judgment (Docs. 116 & 117).
`• 2/19/25: Plaintiff filed Doc. 114, Motion to Expedite, along with supporting
`brief (Doc. 115).
`• 3/21/25: Plaintiff filed a Motion for Order from District Judge Joseph F.
`Saporito Jr. (Doc. 120).
`• 4/21/25: Plaintiff filed a Supplement to the Motion for Default Judgment,
`including:
`o Evidence that one defaulted Defendant (US imprints) had gone out of
`business;
`o Notation that two other Defendants (under common ownership)
`pressured Plaintiff into unfavorable settlements by threatening to re­
`enter the case in light of the Court's delay. (Doc. 123)
`Note: As of the date of this petition, Docs. 93, 94, 114, 115, 116, 117, 120,121 and
`123 remain pending without resolution.
`20
`Case: 26-102 Document: 2 Page: 22 Filed: 10/20/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`(AD referenced filings are publicly available through the PACER system and may
`be retrieved under the dockets for Case Nos. 3:22-cv-01754 and 3:22-cv-01768.)
`VIII. Statement of Facts Supporting Mandamus (Case 01768)
`• Defendants have remained in default since January 8, 2024, following the
`Clerk's Entry of Default.
`• One of the defaulted Defendants went out of business as of April 2025,
`creating a substantial risk that Plaintiff will be unable to recover any
`judgment or obtain enforcement if judicial inaction continues.
`• Two additional defaulted Defendants-under shared ownership-have
`pressured Plaintiff with threats to re-enter the case, using the Court's
`prolonged silence to extract one-sided settlements under duress.
`• Plaintiff has, regrettably, accepted such one-sided settlement positions due to
`continued uncertainty, lack of adjudication, and the legal vulnerability
`caused by the Court's failure to act.
`• The Court's inaction has not merely delayed justice-it has actively
`distorted the settlement process, giving procedural leverage to parties
`already deemed in default.
`• The defaulted Defendants are not procedurally barred from re-entering the
`case, and recent filings in the related matter, Catanzaro v. Lykart
`21
`Case: 26-102 Document: 2 Page: 23 Filed: 10/20/2025
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Technologies LLC, et al., Case No. 3:22-cv-01754, demonstrate a credible
`risk that such efforts may occur.
`• The absence of a ruling on Plaintiffs properly supported motions (Docs. 93,
`94, 114, 115, 116, 117, 120,121 and 123) continues to invite procedural
`gamesmanship and causes ongoing, irreparable prejudice.
`• The current District Judge was newly appointed to the case on August 28,
`2024, and had no preexisting caseload at the time of reassignment-further
`diminishing any justification for delay.
`IX. Legal Standard
`A writ of mandamus is appropriate where:
`1. The petitioner has no other adequate means to obtain the requested relief;
`2. The petitioner's right to the writ is clear and indisputable; and
`3. The Court, in its discretion, finds the issuance of the writ appropriate under
`the circumstances.
`See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court, 542 U.S. 367, 380-81 (2004); Allied Chem. Corp.
`v. Daiflon, Inc., 449 U.S. 33, 35 (1980).
`Federal courts have consistently recognized that prolonged and unjustified inaction
`on pending motions-particularly in the context of default judgment-may warrant
`mandamus r