`
`NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.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
`______________________
`
`
`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 “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: 2 Filed: 03/27/2019
`
`2
`
`
`
`IN RE: ARUNACHALAM
`
`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,
`IT IS ORDERED THAT:
`
`
`(1) The petition is denied.
`
`(2) The motions to waive the court’s filing fee are
`denied as moot.
`
`
`
`
`
`
` March 27, 2019 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
` Date Peter R. Marksteiner
` Clerk of Court
`s35
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` FOR THE COURT
`
`