Lakshmi Arunachalam v. International Business Machines Corporation, Jpmorgan Chase & Co., Sap America,…

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES
CORPORATION, JPMORGAN CHASE & CO., SAP
AMERICA, INC., EDWARD L. TULIN, KEVIN J.
CULLIGAN, THARAN GREGORY LANIER, APPLE
INC., FACEBOOK, INC., ALPHABET INC.,
MICROSOFT CORPORATION, FISERV, INC.,
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., FULTON FINANCIAL
CORPORATION, SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
AMERICA, INC., ECLIPSE FOUNDATION, INC.,
CLAIRE T. CORMIER, DOUGLAS R. NEMEC,
JOSEPH M. BEAUCHAMP, MICHAEL Q. LEE,
DAVID ELLIS MOORE, MARK J. ABATE,
MATTHEW JOHN PARKER, SASHA G. RAO,
ROBERT SCOTT SAUNDERS, JESSICA R. KUNZ,
CITIGROUP, INC., CITICORP, CITIBANK, N.A.,
RAMSEY M. AL-SALAM, CANDICE CLAIRE
DECAIRE, GARTH WINN, MICHAEL J.
SACKSTEDER, ALAN D. ALBRIGHT, KRISTIE
DAVIS, ROBERT W. SCHROEDER, III, CAROLINE
CRAVEN, RYAN T. HOLTE, LYFT, INC., UBER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., EXXON MOBIL
CORPORATION, INTUIT, INC., JOHN ALLEN
YATES, JOHN H. BARR, JR., ANDREW JAMES
ISBESTER, DOMINICK GATTUSO, KRONOS
INCORPORATED, SCOTT DAVID BOLDEN, LORI
Case: 22-2121 Document: 173 Page: 1 Filed: 05/10/2024

-- 1 of 12 --

ARUNACHALAM v.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION
2
A. GORDON,
Defendants-Appellees
______________________
2022-2121
______________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
District of Delaware in No. 1:20-cv-01020-VAC, Judge
Maryellen Noreika.
______________________
Decided: May 10, 2024
______________________
L AKSHMI ARUNACHALAM , Menlo Park, CA, pro se.
J OANNA J. CLINE, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders
LLP, Wilmington, DE, for defendants-appellees Ramsey M.
Al-Salam, Fiserv, Inc.
MARK J. ABATE , Goodwin Procter LLP, New York, NY,
for defendant-appellee International Business Machines
Corporation. Also represented by CALVIN E. WINGFIELD,
J R.
CLIFF C. G ARDNER , Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
Flom LLP, Wilmington, DE, for defendants-appellees
JPMorgan Chase & Co., Edward L. Tulin, Douglas R.
Nemec, Robert Scott Saunders, Jessica R. Kunz. Also rep-
resented by CHRISTOPHER J USTIN COULSON, New York, NY.
T HARAN G REGORY L ANIER, Jones Day, Palo Alto, CA, for
defendants-appellees SAP America, Inc., Tharan Gregory
Lanier, Joseph M. Beauchamp. Also represented by
J OSEPH BEAUCHAMP , Houston, TX.
J OHN HINTZ, Maynard Nexsen PC, New York, NY, for
Case: 22-2121 Document: 173 Page: 2 Filed: 05/10/2024

-- 2 of 12 --

ARUNACHALAM v.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION
3
defendants-appellees Kevin J. Culligan, Mark J. Abate,
Matthew John Parker, Sasha G. Rao.
ANNE MARIE C APPELLA, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP,
Redwood Shores, CA, for defendant-appellee Apple Inc.
ERIC SHUMSKY , Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP,
Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee Facebook, Inc.
RYAN R ONALD S MITH , Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich &
Rosati, PC, Palo Alto, CA, for defendant-appellee Alphabet
Inc.
K RISTIN L. CLEVELAND, Klarquist Sparkman, LLP,
Portland, OR, for defendants-appellees Microsoft Corpora-
tion, Garth Winn.
D USTIN J AMES EDWARDS , Winston & Strawn LLP, Hou-
ston, TX, for defendant-appellee Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
D AVID SPENCER B LOCH , Greenberg Traurig LLP, San
Francisco, CA, for defendant-appellee Fulton Financial
Corporation. Also represented by BENJAMIN
SCHLADWEILER , Wilmington, DE.
P HILIP A. I RWIN, Covington & Burling LLP, New York,
NY, for defendant-appellee Samsung Electronics America,
Inc.
BALDASSARE VINTI, Proskauer Rose LLP, New York,
NY, for defendant-appellee Eclipse Foundation, Inc.
CASEN R OSS , Appellate Staff, Civil Division, United
States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defend-
ants-appellees Claire T. Cormier, Alan D. Albright, Kristie
Davis, Robert W. Schroeder, III, Caroline Craven, Ryan T.
Holte, Scott David Bolden. Also represented by BRIAN
BOYNTON; D YLAN J. S TEINBERG, United States Attorney's
Case: 22-2121 Document: 173 Page: 3 Filed: 05/10/2024

-- 3 of 12 --

ARUNACHALAM v.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION
4
Office, Wilmington, DE.
ADAM L AROCK, Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox PLLC,
Washington, DC, for defendants-appellees Michael Q. Lee,
Lori A. Gordon. Also represented by K RISTINA CAGGIANO
K ELLY .
P HILIP A. ROVNER , Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP,
Wilmington, DE, for defendants-appellees David Ellis
Moore, Candice Claire Decaire, Uber Technologies, Inc.,
Andrew James Isbester. Uber Technologies, Inc. also rep-
resented by J ONATHAN A. CHOA, Newark, DE.
ERIC SOPHIR, Foley & Lardner LLP, Washington, DC,
for defendants-appellees Citigroup, Inc., Citicorp, Citi-
bank, N.A. Also represented by K IMBERLY K RISTIN D ODD,
Milwaukee, WI.
BRYAN ALEXANDER K OHM , Fenwick & West LLP, San
Francisco, CA, for defendant-appellee Michael J. Sack-
steder.
J EREMY T AYLOR, Baker Botts LLP, San Francisco, CA,
for defendant-appellee Lyft, Inc. Also represented by L ORI
D ING, Houston, TX.
MATTHEW D ONELSON, Elzufon Austin Tarlov &
Mondell, PA, Wilmington, DE, for defendants-appellees
Exxon Mobil Corporation, John Allen Yates, John H. Barr,
Jr.
MICHAEL J OHN SACKSTEDER, Fenwick & West LLP, San
Francisco, CA, for defendant-appellee Intuit, Inc. Also rep-
resented by J EFFREY A. WARE, Seattle, WA.
K URT M. HEYMAN , Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel
LLP, Wilmington, DE, for defendant-appellee Dominick
Gattuso.
Case: 22-2121 Document: 173 Page: 4 Filed: 05/10/2024

-- 4 of 12 --

ARUNACHALAM v.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION
5
WILLIAM C. SATURLEY , Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pa-
chios LLP, Concord, NH, for defendant-appellee Kronos In-
corporated. Also represented by D OMINICK G ATTUSO,
Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, DE.
______________________
Before L OURIE, D YK, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam, proceeding pro se, appeals
from an anti-filing injunction order entered by the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware. The dis-
trict court also dismissed Dr. Arunachalam’s underlying
action. Dr. Arunachalam attempted to appeal both the dis-
missal of the underlying case and the anti-filing injunction.
The appeal was untimely with respect to the underlying
action, and we dismissed that appeal in a previous order.
Arunachalam v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., No. 22-2121, ECF
No. 145, at 3 (Fed. Cir. June 5, 2023). As to the appeal of
the injunction order, we conclude that we have jurisdiction
and that there was no abuse of discretion by the district
court. Therefore, we affirm the injunction order.
BACKGROUND
Dr. Arunachalam has filed numerous lawsuits in the
federal district courts, many of which relate to patents she
previously held or now holds. She has also sued lawyers,
judges, court staff, and parties that were involved in those
cases under a wide variety of legal theories. The underly-
ing litigation here is another such case. While Dr. Aru-
nachalam seeks patent infringement damages in the
complaint, she also accused 46 named defendants and 100
unnamed defendants—including corporations, judges, law-
yers, and government officials that were involved in
Dr. Arunachalam’s past cases—of violating the common
law, the United States Constitution, and several statutory
provisions, including the patent statutes.
Case: 22-2121 Document: 173 Page: 5 Filed: 05/10/2024

-- 5 of 12 --

ARUNACHALAM v.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION
6
The complaint is difficult to follow. As best we can dis-
cern, Dr. Arunachalam asserted that she is “the inventor
of the Internet of Things (IoT) – Web Apps displayed on a
Web browser” and “was awarded a dozen patents by the
U.S. Government with a priority date of 11/13/1995.” Aru-
nachalam v. Gordon, No. 20-cv-1020, Dkt. No. 170, at 26
(D. Del. June 23, 2022) (“Complaint”). She sought compen-
satory damages against all of the defendants “based on per
Web transaction per Web App used by Defendants, their
customers and Partners, but not less than $100B,” id. at
99, and requested an order for defendants “to pay the roy-
alties rightfully owed to the inventor,” id. at 41.
The complaint further alleged that “[t]he Judiciary and
USPTO aided and abetted in the unjust enrichment of [the]
Corporate Infringers [on] the order of trillions of dollars,”
and that judges and the USPTO misapplied patent law. Id.
at 37. The 14 claims of the complaint alleged violations of
the First, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, and Fourteenth
Amendments, violations of the Administrative Procedure
Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a witness tam-
pering statute, the Americans with Disabilities Act, a con-
spiracy statute, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
the Civil Rights Act of 1955, the Age Discrimination Act of
1975, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Civil Rights
Act of 1866, as well as the patent statutes. Dr. Arunacha-
lam also raised theories of recovery based in tort law.
Many of these claims depended on Dr. Arunachalam’s re-
peated assertion that the defendants had made false state-
ments in connection with her earlier patent cases.
The district court dismissed all of the claims and en-
tered judgment on December 29, 2021. At the same time,
the district court ordered Dr. Arunachalam to show cause
why she should not be subject to an anti-filing injunction.
Dr. Arunachalam filed a brief in opposition. Arunachalam,
No. 20-cv-1020, Dkt. No. 263. The district court then en-
tered an anti-filing injunction order:
Case: 22-2121 Document: 173 Page: 6 Filed: 05/10/2024

-- 6 of 12 --

ARUNACHALAM v.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION
7
[Dr. Arunachalam] is hereby enjoined from filing,
without prior authorization of the Court, any com-
plaint, lawsuit, or petition for writ of mandamus,
related to: (i) the patents she holds; (ii) the more
than 100 patent lawsuits she has filed, (iii) patent
infringement, and/or (iv) any and all actions taken
by individuals during the course of patent litigation
involving Plaintiff.
Appx. 38.1
On July 6, 2022, Dr. Arunachalam attempted to appeal
to this court both the dismissal of her complaint and the
entry of the anti-filing injunction. Because Dr. Arunacha-
lam’s appeal of the final judgment order dismissing her
claims was untimely, we concluded that we lacked jurisdic-
tion to hear those issues and dismissed that part of the ap-
peal. Arunachalam, No. 22-2121, ECF No. 145, at 3, 5
(citing the 60-day time limit of 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b) and Fed.
R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B)). We declined to resolve at that time
whether this court had jurisdiction over the part of the ap-
peal concerning the anti-filing injunction “based on the
subject matter of the underlying complaint,” and we in-
vited briefing from Dr. Arunachalam “to argue in favor of
our jurisdiction and challeng[e] the anti-filing order.” Id.
at 4.
In her principal brief, Dr. Arunachalam represented
that the “U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
(‘DED’) alleges to have subject matter jurisdiction under 28
U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a). This Court (‘CAFC’) has appellate
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295 over the District
Court’s Order(s).” Appellant’s Corrected Opening Br. at 1,
1 “Appx.” citations refer to the hand-numbered ap-
pendix pages filed with Appellant’s principal brief. Appel-
lant’s Corrected Opening Br., Arunachalam, No. 2022-
2121, ECF No. 148.
Case: 22-2121 Document: 173 Page: 7 Filed: 05/10/2024

-- 7 of 12 --

ARUNACHALAM v.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION
8
Arunachalam, No. 22-2121, ECF No. 148. On the merits,
she argued that “a [f]iling [i]njunction is contrary to
[p]atent [s]tatutes that allow [p]atentee to sue infringers,”
id. at 8, and that “[f]iling patent lawsuits is allowed by
[p]atent [s]tatutes and does not make her a ‘vexatious liti-
gant’ requiring [a] filing injunction,” id. at 11 (emphasis re-
moved).
The appellees urged dismissal or transfer of the appeal
or, in the alternative, affirmance of the injunction order.
D ISCUSSION
A
We first consider the question of jurisdiction. We con-
clude that our court has jurisdiction over this appeal under
28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1).
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1), we have jurisdiction over
“an appeal from a final decision of a district court of the
United States . . . in any civil action arising under . . . any
Act of Congress relating to patents . . . .” Thus, our juris-
diction extends at least to cases in which “federal patent
law creates the cause of action” for one claim. Xitronix
Corp. v. KLA-Tencor Corp., 882 F.3d 1075, 1076 (Fed. Cir.
2018) (quoting Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp.,
486 U.S. 800, 809 (1988)).
We think that the jurisdictional test set forth in Xitro-
nix is met here, at least because Claim 9 invokes the “Pa-
tent Statutes” and sets forth a theory of recovery for patent
infringement, namely that the defendants “aided and abet-
ted Big-Tech, and Microsoft in stealing Plaintiff’s property,
worth trillions of dollars in unjust enrichment by Big-
Tech.” Complaint, at 81, 88. The damages sought are also
those that would be recoverable in an action for patent in-
fringement, specifically damages “based on per Web trans-
action per Web App used by Defendants, their customers
and Partners, but not less than $100B,” id. at 99, which the
plaintiff alleged represents “the royalties rightfully owed to
Case: 22-2121 Document: 173 Page: 8 Filed: 05/10/2024

-- 8 of 12 --

ARUNACHALAM v.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION
9
the inventor,” id. at 41. This is sufficient to bring the ap-
peal under our jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1295(a)(1). See Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung
der angewandten Forschung E.V. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc.,
59 F.4th 1319, 1323–24 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (holding that the
Federal Circuit has jurisdiction over ancillary orders in
cases arising under the federal patent laws).
B
Having determined that we have jurisdiction over the
anti-filing injunction order on appeal, we turn to the mer-
its. The federal courts have the inherent power to issue
injunctions against the abuse of the judicial process, in-
cluding by the repeated filing of meritless and vexatious
pleadings. Allen v. United States, 88 F.4th 983, 986–87
(Fed. Cir. 2023); see also Brow v. Farrelly, 994 F.2d 1027,
1038 (3d Cir. 1993) (finding that the All Writs Act, 28
U.S.C. § 1651, provides the power). The party to be en-
joined must be given notice of the injunction and an oppor-
tunity to be heard before the injunction is entered. Allen,
88 F.4th at 988; Brow, 994 F.2d at 1038. Both our court
and the Third Circuit review the imposition of an anti-fil-
ing injunction for abuse of discretion. Allen, 88 F.4th at
986–87; In re Packer Ave. Assocs., 884 F.2d 745, 747 (3d
Cir. 1989). We see no abuse of discretion in the district
court’s order.
At the outset, we note that the district court gave
Dr. Arunachalam notice of the proposed injunction and the
grounds on which it was based, and Dr. Arunachalam was
heard on the issue fully in a 37 page opposition brief. Ac-
cordingly, the district court met the notice and opportunity
to be heard requirements.
As the district court stated in both its notice and in its
injunction order, the District of Delaware had previously
sanctioned Dr. Arunachalam for her litigation conduct and
awarded almost $150,000 in attorneys’ fees against her.
Arunachalam v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 989 F.3d 988, 997
Case: 22-2121 Document: 173 Page: 9 Filed: 05/10/2024

-- 9 of 12 --

ARUNACHALAM v.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION
10
(Fed. Cir. 2021). Our court affirmed that sanction, finding
there that the “record amply demonstrate[d] Dr. Aru-
nachalam’s vexatious and wanton litigation conduct,” in-
cluding her repeated assertion of dismissed claims against
the same defendants in another district court. Id.
During the pendency of that appeal, our court further
determined that “Dr. Arunachalam has an established pat-
tern of vexatious behavior in this and other courts” and
that “her vexatious and harassing behavior” had continued
during that case. Arunachalam v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp.,
No. 20-1493, ECF No. 55, at 2 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 30, 2020). As
a result, our court imposed filing restrictions requiring
Dr. Arunachalam to seek leave of court to file any docu-
ments other than merits briefs, motions for extensions of
time, and motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in
her direct appeals. Id. at 4. The Supreme Court has also
found that Dr. Arunachalam “repeatedly abused [the Su-
preme Court’s] process,” and directed the clerk “not to ac-
cept any further petition in noncriminal matters from
petitioner” unless the docketing fees were paid and the fil-
ing complied with the Supreme Court’s formatting rule.
Arunachalam v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 141 S. Ct. 449,
449–50 (2020).
The district court found below that “[n]otwithstanding
the sanctions, [Dr. Arunachalam] continued to sue previ-
ous defendant corporations, attorneys who represented
those corporations, judges who presided over the cases,
judges’ staff, and attorneys who represented the federal
government. [Dr. Arunachalam’s] filings and pleadings
raised specious, implausible, frivolous and vexatious
claims.” Appx. 35–36. The district court also determined
that Dr. Arunachalam’s complaint was “replete with scan-
dalous and baseless allegations without factual support.”
Id. at 38.
We see no error in that assessment, which accurately
described Dr. Arunachalam’s conduct in this case as well
Case: 22-2121 Document: 173 Page: 10 Filed: 05/10/2024

-- 10 of 12 --

ARUNACHALAM v.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION
11
as other previously-filed cases. See, e.g., Arunachalam v.
Harris, No. 21-5102, 2021 WL 5262582 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 27,
2021); Arunachalam v. United States, No. 2021-1410, 2021
WL 2470305 (Fed. Cir. June 4, 2021); Arunachalam v. An-
drews, No. 5:17-CV-03383-EJD, 2018 WL 513178 (N.D.
Cal. Jan. 23, 2018); Arunachalam v. United States, No.
5:16-CV-06591-EJD, 2017 WL 3730340 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 30,
2017). We also agree with the district court that this ex-
traordinary history of abuse of the judicial process consti-
tutes the exigent circumstances that justify the entry of an
anti-filing injunction.
Dr. Arunachalam argues that the district court made
an error regarding the number of patent lawsuits that she
has filed. That finding, which was based on Dr. Arunacha-
lam’s own pleading that she has been involved “in over 100
cases,” does not constitute an abuse of discretion. Appx. 38
(quoting Complaint, at 33). Regardless of the precise num-
ber of lawsuits that she has filed, Dr. Arunachalam con-
cedes on appeal that she has filed numerous lawsuits,
sometimes against the same defendants, and characterizes
herself as having been involved in “125, rather 62 law-
suits.” Appellant’s Corrected Opening Br. at 11, Arunacha-
lam, No. 22-2121 (emphasis removed). On this record, we
cannot say that the district court abused its discretion by
referring to “more than 100 patent lawsuits” in its order.
Appx. 38. Moreover, even if Dr. Arunachalam’s lower fig-
ures were accurate, we do not think that this would trans-
form the entry of the injunction into an abuse of discretion.
The injunction was properly based on Dr. Arunachalam’s
repeated filing of “lawsuits that contain frivolous legal ar-
guments and are vexatious and abusive of the judicial pro-
cess” after the resolution of her initial wave of patent suits.
Case: 22-2121 Document: 173 Page: 11 Filed: 05/10/2024

-- 11 of 12 --

ARUNACHALAM v.
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION
12
Appx. 38. This finding is not affected by the number of pa-
tent lawsuits Dr. Arunachalam originally filed.2
Finally, we see no abuse of discretion in the scope of the
district court’s order, which is narrowly tailored to prevent
Dr. Arunachalam from filing similarly meritless and vexa-
tious cases without the approval of the district court. The
order here specifically targets Dr. Arunachalam’s repeated
filings of lawsuits asserting patent infringement claims
that she has already lost and raising frivolous accusations
against individuals involved in those earlier cases. Moreo-
ver, the order provides a process for Dr. Arunachalam to
seek leave of court to file documents that would otherwise
be enjoined. Thus, we cannot say that the order is over-
broad or an abuse of discretion.
AFFIRMED
2 Dr. Arunachalam also argues that Judge Andrews
should be recused because Judge Andrews purportedly
owned “direct common stock in [defendant] JPMorgan.”
Appellant’s Corrected Opening Br. at 11, Arunachalam,
No. 22-2121 (emphasis omitted). But Judge Andrews was
never assigned to this case.
Case: 22-2121 Document: 173 Page: 12 Filed: 05/10/2024

-- 12 of 12 --