IN RE: Lakshmi ARUNACHALAM (2020)

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

IN RE: Lakshmi ARUNACHALAM, Petitioner

2020-136

Decided: October 19, 2020

Lakshmi Arunachalam, Pro Se William C. Saturley, Esq., Attorney, Preti Flaherty Beliveau Pachios PLLP, Concord, NH, for Respondent Kronos Incorporated Abby Christine Wright, Attorney, Department of Justice, Civil Division, Appellate Staff, Washington, DC, for Respondent

ON PETITION

ORDER

Lakshmi Arunachalam petitions the court for a writ of mandamus, seeking to vacate various orders of this court, district courts, the United States Court of Federal Claims, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Kronos Incorporated, a defendant in one of the underlying district court matters, moves for leave to file an untimely entry of appearance.

In July 2020, this court denied Dr. Arunachalam's motion to proceed in forma pauperis on the ground that the petition appeared frivolous. We explained that the petition largely seeks to pursue arguments that this court has already repeatedly rejected, that, at a minimum, she lacked a clear and indisputable right to relief in seeking to vacate orders in closed cases listed in the caption, and that for those cases in the caption that were ongoing or recently resolved, Dr. Arunachalam had failed to explain why she lacks an alternative means for obtaining relief through the course of an appeal. Dr. Arunachalam petitioned for rehearing en banc, which the court denied. Dr. Arunachalam then paid the filing fee.

Issuance of a writ of mandamus is a “drastic” remedy, “reserved for really extraordinary causes.” Ex parte Fahey, 332 U.S. 258, 259–60, 67 S.Ct. 1558, 91 L.Ed. 2041 (1947). To establish mandamus relief, a petitioner must, at a minimum, establish that she has a clear and indisputable right to relief and no adequate alternative legal channels to obtain that relief. See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Dist. of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 380–81, 124 S.Ct. 2576, 159 L.Ed.2d 459 (2004). For the reasons already explained to Dr. Arunachalam in this court's prior order, she has failed to meet that demanding standard.

Accordingly,

It Is Ordered That:

(1) The petition is denied.

(2) Kronos’ motion is granted.

(3) All other pending motions are denied.

Per Curiam.