Federal Circuit disposition — 2019-114

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In re: LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM,
Petitioner
______________________
2019-114
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware in No.
1:12-cv-00282-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; 8,037,158; and 8,108,492, and the
founder of Pi-Net International Inc., to which she initially
Case: 19-114 Document: 9 Page: 1 Filed: 03/27/2019

-- 1 of 2 --

IN RE: ARUNACHALAM 2
assigned the patents. Pi-Net sued JPMorgan Chase & Co.
for patent infringement in March 2012. In May 2014, the
district court granted JPMorgan’s motion for summary
judgment that the asserted claims of the patents were
invalid. Pi-Net appealed to this court (Appeal No. 2014-
1495), and the case was dismissed for failure to prosecute.
After the Supreme Court denied review in January 2016,
the district court denied Dr. Arunachalam’s various
motions to be substituted for Pi-Net and to vacate the
judgment. She did not timely appeal those orders.
Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, available only
where the petitioner shows: (1) a clear and indisputable
right to relief; (2) there are no adequate alternative legal
channels through which she may obtain that relief; and
(3) the grant of mandamus is appropriate under the
circumstances. See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for the
Dist. of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004). Dr.
Arunachalam’s petition is simply expressing disagree-
ment with the prior decisions of the district court and this
court dismissing her claims and declining to reopen her
case. As such, it is clear that her petition must be de-
nied.
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.
F OR THE COURT
March 27, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Date Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
s35
Case: 19-114 Document: 9 Page: 2 Filed: 03/27/2019

-- 2 of 2 --