`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-1016-JRG-RSP
`LEAD CASE
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-1035-JRG-RSP
`
`§§§§§§§§§
`
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PI-NET INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`STAPLES, INC.
`Defendant.
`
`
`v.
`
`J.C. PENNEY COMPANY, INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER OF DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
`
`Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation filed by Magistrate Judge Payne (Dkt.
`
`No. 210) recommending that Plaintiff Pi-Net International, Inc.’s (“Pi-Net”) Complaint be
`
`dismissed with prejudice for failure to prosecute and failure to comply with the Orders of this
`
`Court. Prior to the Report and Recommendation, Defendant J.C. Penney Company, Inc. (“J.C.
`
`Penney”) had requested immediate dismissal of this case. (Dkt. No. 189.) The Court has
`
`considered the arguments raised in the Motion for Reconsideration of the Report and
`
`Recommendation (Dkt. No. 211), as well as the corresponding briefing.
`
`
`
`The Court notes that the Motion for Reconsideration was filed by Dr. Lakshmi
`
`Arunachalam, who identified herself as “Pro-Se Plaintiff and Real Party-in-Interest/Patent
`
`Owner.” (Dkt. No. 211.) Plaintiff Pi-Net, which is no longer represented by counsel in this case
`
`(see Dkt. No. 209), did not file objections to the Report and Recommendation. It is unclear
`
`whether this Motion (as well as the other motions filed by Dr. Arunachalam) is intended to be filed
`
`
`
`Case 2:13-cv-01016-JRG-RSP Document 214 Filed 03/28/17 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: 2078
`
`on behalf of Dr. Arunachalam (who is not a party to this action) or on behalf of Plaintiff Pi-Net
`
`(even though Dr. Arunachalam is not an attorney). Regardless, the Court has considered the
`
`arguments raised in the Motion for Reconsideration and finds them unpersuasive.
`
`
`
`The Court notes that the ownership of U.S. Patent No. 8,346,894—the only patent asserted
`
`in this case—has changed multiple times during the period of time surrounding this lawsuit. Dr.
`
`Arunachalam first filed suit as a plaintiff, asserting the ’894 Patent against J.C. Penney. (Dr.
`
`Lakshmi Arunachalam v. J.C. Penney Company, Inc., 2:13-cv-006050-JRG (filed August 12, 2013
`
`and dismissed without prejudice on December 17, 2013).) The ownership of the patent at the time
`
`that suit was filed remains unclear. (See Dkt. No. 188-1 (indicating that the ’894 Patent was
`
`assigned to Pi-Net both from Dr. Arunachalam and from Webexchange, Inc.).) When the first case
`
`was dismissed without prejudice, Pi-Net filed suit against J.C. Penney on November 26, 2013,
`
`asserting the same patent. (Dkt. No. 1.) However, during the pendency of the instant case, Pi-Net
`
`transferred ownership of the ’894 Patent back to Dr. Arunachalam. (Dkt. No. 186-5.) Thus, it
`
`appears that Plaintiff Pi-Net no longer owns the asserted patent.
`
`
`
`The Court also notes that on August 17, 2015, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issued a
`
`Final Written Decision finding claims 1–19 of the ’894 Patent unpatentable. (SAP America, Inc. v.
`
`Lakshmi Arunachalam, IPR2014-00413, Final Written Decision, Paper 26 (Aug. 17, 2015).) That
`
`decision addressed all claims of the only asserted patent in the present case and found them
`
`unpatentable.
`
`
`
`After de novo review, the Court is persuaded that the Motion for Reconsideration (Dkt. No.
`
`211) should be DENIED. The Court bases its decision to dismiss this case on the Magistrate
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:13-cv-01016-JRG-RSP Document 214 Filed 03/28/17 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: 2079
`
`Judge’s Report and Recommendation as well as on the unique circumstances discussed above. The
`
`Recommendation is thus ADOPTED.
`
`
`
`It is therefore ORDERED that Pi-Net International, Inc.’s Complaint against Defendant
`
`J.C. Penney Company, Inc. is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk is directed to close
`
`member case 2:13-cv-1035 and lead case 2:13-cv-1016. All pending motions between Pi-Net and
`
`J.C. Penney that have not yet been addressed by the Court are hereby DENIED AS MOOT.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ ChargeStill Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site