`
`NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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
`______________________
`
`
`PER 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: 2 Filed: 03/27/2019
`
`2
`
`
`
`IN RE: ARUNACHALAM
`
`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,
`
`IT IS ORDERED THAT:
`
`(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: 3 Filed: 03/27/2019
`
`IN RE: ARUNACHALAM
`
` 3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` FOR THE COURT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` March 27, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
` Date Peter R. Marksteiner
` Clerk of Court
`s35
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still 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
