The Federal Circuit has quickly denied one of three new petitions for writs of mandamus—filed as part of a “Series of Extraordinary Events” arising from the courtroom of Delaware Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly—that raised the question of whether that court abused its discretion by entering two standing orders, one targeting third-party litigation funding and the other seeking comprehensive litigant ownership disclosure “because the information sought by the standing orders is not relevant to any issue that the district court may consider”. In their papers, the petitioners argued that “[i]t does not matter if a Plaintiff patent owner has funding or if other persons have some interest in the litigation or even if some third-party may have some equitable rights in the patent”, declaring that Congress has given the patent owner and only the patent owner its statutory remedy, and that the “only threat and abuse of the judicial system occurs [] when anyone defies Congress’ choice and attempts to rewrite patent law” through such standing orders. It is unclear how these arguments, if credited on the merits in the remaining petitions or elsewhere in the future, might affect disclosure requirements that have become routine in various district courts throughout the country—including, for example, the District of New Jersey local rule related to third-party litigation funding and the Northern District of California local rule related to the disclosure of any entity known to have an interest in the outcome of the litigation.