Federal Circuit disposition — 26-132

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In re: ECTO WORLD LLC, dba Demand Vape,
MAGELLAN TECHNOLOGY INC.,
Petitioners
______________________
2026-132
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States
International Trade Commission in No. 337-TA-1486.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
Before TARANTO , H UGHES , and STOLL, Circuit Judges.
PER C URIAM.
O R D E R
Petitioners (collectively, “Ecto World”) seek a writ of
mandamus directing the United States International
Trade Commission (“Commission”) to terminate or stay its
ongoing investigation into whether the importation of cer-
tain flavored vape products violates 19 U.S.C. § 1337. Re-
spondents (collectively, “Reynolds”) and the Commission
oppose.
This investigation followed an earlier investigation at
the behest of Reynolds raising similar allegations of unfair
competition based on alleged violations of the Prevent All
Case: 26-132 Document: 21 Page: 1 Filed: 06/11/2026

-- 1 of 3 --

IN RE ECTO WORLD LLC 2
Cigarette Trafficking (“PACT”) Act. The Commission ter-
minated that investigation at Reynolds’s request over Ecto
World’s objection that termination be with prejudice to re-
filing. Ecto World’s appeal of that decision is currently
pending. See Appeal No. 2025-1818. In the present inves-
tigation, the Commission notes that “[n]either the [Admin-
istrative Law Judge] nor the Commission has issued a final
determination addressing whether a violation of section
337 could or should be found.” ECF No. 14 at 19.
“The remedy of mandamus is a drastic one, to be in-
voked only in extraordinary situations.” Kerr v. U.S. Dist.
Ct. for N. Dist. of Cal., 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976). Accord-
ingly, “three conditions must be satisfied before it may is-
sue.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 380
(2004). The petitioner must show a “clear and indisputa-
ble” right to relief. Id. at 381 (quoting Kerr, 426 U.S. at
403). The petitioner must “lack adequate alternative
means to obtain the relief” it seeks. Mallard v. U.S. Dist.
Ct. for S. Dist. of Iowa, 490 U.S. 296, 309 (1989); Cheney,
542 U.S. at 380. And “even if the first two prerequisites
have been met, the issuing court, in the exercise of its dis-
cretion, must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate un-
der the circumstances.” Cheney, 542 U.S. at 381. Ecto
World fails to meet that demanding standard.
Ecto World primarily argues that the Commission
lacks jurisdiction over violations based on the PACT Act.
But Ecto World has failed to show the ability to raise this
challenge before the Commission or in a post-final determi-
nation appeal is an inadequate remedy. See In re Roche
Molecular Sys., Inc., 516 F.3d 1003, 1004 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
(“That a petitioner may suffer hardship, inconvenience, or
an unusually complex trial does not provide a basis for a
court to grant mandamus.”) (citations omitted); cf. Fed.
Trade Comm’n v. Standard Oil Co., 449 U.S. 232, 244
(1980) (explaining that expenses and burdens of defending
action do not constitute irreparable harm).
Case: 26-132 Document: 21 Page: 2 Filed: 06/11/2026

-- 2 of 3 --

IN RE ECTO WORLD LLC 3
Ecto World also contends that the Commission should
have declined to institute this investigation or alterna-
tively stayed this investigation pending resolution of Ecto
World’s pending appeal on whether the first investigation
should have been terminated with prejudice. But Ecto
World has not shown the Commission so clearly abused its
considerable discretion in managing its docket as to war-
rant the extraordinary remedy of mandamus. See Fla.
Mun. Power Agency v. FERC, 315 F.3d 362, 366 (D.C. Cir.
2003) (“Administrative agencies enjoy ‘broad discretion’ to
manage their own dockets[.]” (citation omitted)).
Accordingly,
IT IS O RDERED THAT:
The petition is denied.
June 11, 2026
Date
FOR THE C OURT
Case: 26-132 Document: 21 Page: 3 Filed: 06/11/2026

-- 3 of 3 --