In re: LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 1810 , [and] uphold Contract Laws of the Land

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In re: LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM,
Petitioner
______________________
2019-113
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware in No.
1:14-cv-00490-RGA, Judge Richard G. Andrews.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
P ER CURIAM .
O R D E R
Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam petitions for a writ of
mandamus “to correct void order(s) the trial court(s) had
no power or jurisdiction to render” and to compel “all
District and Appellate Courts[] to comply with the Law of
the Land as delineated in Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87
(1810), [and] uphold Contract Laws of the Land and
Patent Prosecution History.” Dr. Arunachalam also
moves to waive the court’s filing fee.
Dr. Arunachalam is the named inventor of U.S. Pa-
tent Nos. 5,987,500, 8,108,492, and 8,271,339 and the
founder of Pi-Net International Inc., to which she initially
Case: 19-113 Document: 6 Page: 1 Filed: 03/27/2019

-- 1 of 3 --

IN RE: ARUNACHALAM 2
assigned the patent. Pi-Net sued Fulton Financial Corpo-
ration in the United States District Court for the District
of Delaware for patent infringement in April 2014. The
district court dismissed the complaint and closed the case
on August 12, 2014. Pi-Net never appealed from that
judgment.
In May 2017, Dr. Arunachalam filed a motion to be
substituted for Pi-Net in the case, stating that she had
reacquired title to the patent, and also moved to vacate all
orders that had been issued in the case, arguing that the
assigned judge “failed to uphold U.S. Supreme Court
Chief Justice Marshall’s ‘First Impression’ Constitutional
Res Judicata Ruling in Fletcher v. Peck in 1810.” The
district court denied Dr. Arunachalam’s various motions,
and she similarly did not file a timely appeal.
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy and “may not
appropriately be used merely as a substitute for the
appeal procedure prescribed by the statute.” Roche v.
Evaporated Milk Ass’n, 319 U.S. 21, 26 (1943). Because
Dr. Arunachalam elected not to pursue her challenges
through the ordinary review process, it is clear that her
petition must be denied. See In re Pikulin, 243 F.3d 565,
2000 WL 1717166, at *1 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (denying petition
for writ of mandamus where the petitioner “had sixty
days after the entry of judgment to file an appeal chal-
lenging the dismissal of the complaint, and [the petition-
er] did not do so”).
Accordingly,
I T I S O RDERED T HAT :
(1) The petition is denied.
(2) The motions to waive the court’s filing fee are
denied as moot.
Case: 19-113 Document: 6 Page: 2 Filed: 03/27/2019

-- 2 of 3 --

IN RE: ARUNACHALAM 3
F OR THE COURT
March 27, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Date Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
s35
Case: 19-113 Document: 6 Page: 3 Filed: 03/27/2019

-- 3 of 3 --