Federal Circuit disposition — 2019-112

N OTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In re: LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM,
Petitioner
______________________
2019-112
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware in No.
1:16-cv-00281-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 “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.” She also moves to waive the court’s
filing fee.
Dr. Arunachalam’s petition appears to be seeking re-
lief concerning a case she brought in the United States
District Court for the District of Delaware against Inter-
Case: 19-112 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 03/27/2019

-- 1 of 3 --

IN RE: ARUNACHALAM 2
national Business Machines Corporation, SAP America,
Inc., and JPMorgan Chase & Co., alleging patent in-
fringement and violations of the RICO Act. She also
amended her complaint to name the assigned judge,
Judge Richard G. Andrews, as a defendant.
The district court ultimately dismissed Dr. Arunacha-
lam’s claims, denied her motion to file an amended com-
plaint, and denied her motions for recusal. She appealed
on June 22, 2018 (Appeal No. 2018-2105), and this court
affirmed the judgment of the district court on January 28,
2019. Dr. Arunachalam is currently seeking review at the
Supreme Court. See Arunachalam v. Int’l Bus. Mach.
Corp., App. No. 18A857.
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 has already appealed from the or-
ders in question, and it appears this court has already
considered and rejected the arguments she raises in her
petition. She could have filed a timely request for rehear-
ing, but failed to do so. As such, it is clear that her re-
quest for mandamus relief must be denied.
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: 19-112 Document: 10 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: 19-112 Document: 10 Page: 3 Filed: 03/27/2019

-- 3 of 3 --