In Re ARUNACHALAM

Case: 20-136 Document: 38 Page: 1 Filed: 10/19/2020
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
In re: LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM,
Petitioner
______________________
2020-136
______________________
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United
States District Court for the District of Delaware in No.
1:14-cv-00091-RGA, Judge Richard G. Andrews.
______________________
ON PETITION
______________________
PER CURIAM.
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 Incorpo-
rated, 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
Case: 20-136 Document: 38 Page: 2 Filed: 10/19/2020
2 IN RE: ARUNACHALAM
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 peti-
tioned 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 (1947). To establish man-
damus 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 (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.
FOR THE COURT
October 19, 2020 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner
Date Peter R. Marksteiner
Clerk of Court
s31