Federal Circuit disposition — 26-102

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In Re DAVID J. CATANZARO,
Petitioner
______________________
2026-102
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in
Nos. 3:22-cv-01754-JFS-PJC and 3:22-cv-01768-JFS-PJC,
Judge Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
Before PROST, CHEN, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
O R D E R
David J. Catanzaro petitions for a writ of mandamus.
Specifically, Mr. Catanzaro asks to compel “transfer” of his
patent cases from the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Pennsylvania to the United States Dis-
trict Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania “pur-
suant to 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a),” because “the current venue
has proven structurally incapable of providing timely or
Case: 26-102 Document: 21 Page: 1 Filed: 11/24/2025

-- 1 of 3 --

IN RE CATANZARO 2
impartial adjudication.” ECF No. 2 at 3.1 We deny the pe-
tition.
Mandamus “is a drastic and extraordinary remedy re-
served for really extraordinary causes.” Cheney v. U.S.
Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380 (2004) (cleaned up).
Thus, a petitioner seeking such relief must show: (1) “no
other adequate means to attain the relief he desires,” (2) a
“clear and indisputable” right to relief, and (3) the writ is
“appropriate under the circumstances.” Id. at 380–81
(cleaned up). Mr. Catanzaro’s petition fails to satisfy these
requirements. Mr. Catanzaro has shown no extraordinary
delay in the resolution of his case to warrant mandamus
intervention. See In re Maggitti, No. 24-1660, 2024 WL
1952863, at *1 (3d Cir. May 3, 2024). Nor has he made a
clear and indisputable showing regarding purported judi-
cial bias, see Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555
(1994), or any other ground that might warrant granting
mandamus relief to compel transfer of his cases.2
Accordingly,
1 Mr. Catanzaro petitioned for relief before the
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which
transferred here as we have exclusive jurisdiction over
such petitions in patent cases. See In re Princo Corp., 478
F.3d 1345, 1351–52 (Fed. Cir. 2007); 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1295(a)(1), 1651.
2 Our decision that Mr. Catanzaro’s petition fails to
make this showing should not be understood as taking any
position on the appropriate resolution of defendants’ pend-
ing motion to dismiss. See Catanzaro v. Lykart Techs. LLC,
No. 3:22-cv-1754, Dkt. No. 119 (M.D. Penn. June 13, 2025)
(addressing § 1406(a)).
Case: 26-102 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 11/24/2025

-- 2 of 3 --

IN RE CATANZARO 3
IT IS ORDERED THAT:
The petition is denied.
November 24, 2025
Date
FOR THE COURT
Case: 26-102 Document: 21 Page: 3 Filed: 11/24/2025

-- 3 of 3 --