Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Lakshmi Arunachalam, Petitioner v. International Business Machines Corporation, et al.

Supreme Court briefOct 5, 2024

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Supreme Court, U.S.

FILED

OCT - 5 2024

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

No.

54-ICT)

3hr ttje Supreme Court of tf)e QIntteb ££>tatea

DR. LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM,

Petitioner,

INTERNATIONAL

BUSINESS

MACHINES

CORPORATION, JPMorgan Chase & Co., SAP America,

Inc., Edward L. Tulin, Kevin J. Culligan, Tharan Gregory

Lanier, Apple Inc., Facebook, Inc., Alphabet Inc., Microsoft

Corporation, Fiserv, Inc., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Fulton

Financial Corporation, Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,

Eclipse Foundation, Inc., Claire T. Cormier, Douglas R.

Nemec, Joseph M. Beauchamp, Michael Q. Lee, David Ellis

Moore, Mark J. Abate, Matthew John Parker, Sasha G.

Rao, Robert Scott Saunders, Jessica R. Kunz, Citigroup,

Inc., Citicorp, Citibank, N.A., Ramsey M. Al-Salam,

Candice Claire Decaire, Garth Winn, Michael J.

Sacksteder, Alan D. Albright, Kristie Davis, Robert W.

Schroeder, Iii, Caroline Craven, Ryan T. Holte, Lyft, Inc.,

Uber Technologies, Inc., Exxon Mobil Corporation, Intuit,

Inc., John Allen Yates, John H. Barr, Jr., Andrew James

Isbester, Dominick T. Gattuso, Kronos Incorporated, Scott

David Bolden, Lori A. Gordon,

Respondents.

On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United

States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam,

October 5, 2024

Petitioner Pro Se

222 Stanford Ave, Menlo Park, CA, 94025

Tel: (650) 690-0995; laks22002@yahoo.com

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Preamble: The Federal Circuit affirmed the District

Court’s Order, overlooking the significant fact that the

presiding judge was disqualified due to a conflict of

interest—revealed by his late admission of common

stock ownership in the defendant three years post

appeal—denying a citizen’s right to appeal and the

inventor’s right to sue.

Can a Judge with stock issue a binding order

in favor of the stock-issuing party?

Can a Judge rule on an appeal from the decision

of a case or issue tried by him?

Can a Judge arbitrarily restrict a citizen’s right

to appeal and the inventor’s right to sue while

denying the citizen’s right to be heard and to an

unbiased tribunal?

Should a Judge disqualify himself in any

proceeding in which his impartiality might

reasonably be questioned?

Can a Judge deny or hinder access to the courts

to a citizen upon the question of due process

itself?

Can a judge arbitrarily deprive a citizen of

liberty and property, from void orders by a

judge with disqualifying financial interests,

with no jury trial, hearing, notice of hearing,

discovery, evidence nor basis in fact or the law?

RULE 29.6 STATEMENT

Pursuant to this Court’s Rule 29.6, Dr. Lakshmi

Arunachalam is an individual and has no parent

company and no publicly held company owns 10% or

more of its stock.

Ill

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS

(“Dr.

Petitioner

Dr.

Lakshmi Arunachalam

Arunachalam” or “Petitioner”), the inventor and sole

assignee of the patent(s)-in-suit, was the plaintiff and

appellant in the proceedings below. Dr. Lakshmi

Arunachalam is the sole Petitioner in this Court.

Respondents International Business Machines

Corporation, JPMorgan Chase & Co., SAP America,

Inc., Edward L. Tulin, Kevin J. Culligan, Tharan

Gregory Lanier, Apple Inc., Facebook, Inc., Alphabet

Inc., Microsoft Corporation, Fiserv, Inc., Wells Fargo

Bank, N.A., Fulton Financial Corporation, Samsung

Electronics America, Inc., Eclipse Foundation, Inc.,

Claire T. Cormier, Douglas R. Nemec, Joseph M.

Beauchamp, Michael Q. Lee, David Ellis Moore, Mark

J. Abate, Matthew John Parker, Sasha G. Rao, Robert

Scott Saunders, Jessica R. Kunz, Citigroup, Inc.,

Citicorp, Citibank, N.A., Ramsey M. Al-Salam,

Candice Claire Decaire, Garth Winn, Michael J.

Sacksteder, Alan D. Albright, Kristie Davis, Robert

W. Schroeder, III, Caroline Craven, Ryan T. Holte,

Lyft, Inc., Uber Technologies, Inc., Exxon Mobil

Corporation, Intuit, Inc., John Allen Yates, John H.

Barr, Jr., Andrew James Isbester, Dominick T.

Gattuso, Kronos Incorporated, Scott David Bolden,

Lori A. Gordon (collectively “Respondents”) were

defendants and appellees in the proceedings below.

PROCEEDINGS IN DISTRICT (NO TRIAL)

AND APPELLATE COURTS

Lakshmi Arunachalam v. International Business

Machines Corporation, et al. (Case No. 20-cv-01020GBW) in the U. S. District Court for the District of

Delaware, judgment entered June 23, 2022.

Lakshmi Arunachalam v. International Business

Machines Corporation, et al. (Case No. 22-2121) in the

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit,

judgment entered May 10, 2024 and rehearing denied

May 30, 2024. CAFC failed to docket Dr.

Arunachalam’s timely filed Combined Petition for ReHearing and En Banc Re-Hearing.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

RULE 29.6 STATEMENT

PARTIES TO THE PROCEEDINGS..........

PROCEEDINGS IN DISTRICT (NO TRIAL) &

APPELLATE COURTS.......................................

TABLE OF CONTENTS

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Vll

INTRODUCTION

OPINIONS BELOW

JURISDICTION......

APPLICABLE LAWS

STATEMENT

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION.....14

A. The Questions Presented are of Exceptional

Importance..............................................

B. Federal Circuit Opinion Conflicts with

Supreme Court Precedent.....................

C. Federal Circuit Decision Improperly

Conditioned Rehearing upon Getting Leave of

Court to file a Rehearing of Appeal and failed

to docket Petitioner’s Combined Petition for

Re-Hearing and En Banc Re-Hearing........ 16

D. Federal Circuit Order Denies Due Process.. 16

E. Decision Below is Unconstitutional

F. The Decision Below is Wrong and Manifests

Injustice For Over A Decade Only This Court

Can Remedy

CONCLUSION

APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS

App. la: Federal Circuit Entry of Judgment with

Opinion (5/10/24)

App. 2a: Federal Circuit Order Denying Petition for

En banc Re-Hearing and failed to docket Dr.

Arunachalam’s timely filed Combined Petition for

Panel Re-Hearing and En Banc Re-Hearing, to hush

up its own errors. (5/30/24)

App. 3a: District Court Order (6/23/22)

vii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases:

Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal,

15-1177, (Fed. Cir. 2017)

Baldwin v. Missouri,

281 U.S. 586, 595 (1930)

Page(s)

Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co.,

556 U.S. 868 (2009)........

1, 2, 10, 15

Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Sys., Inc.,

38 F.4th 1025 (Fed. Cir. 2022)

2, 12

City of Chicago v. Morales,

527 U.S. 41 (1999)...

1, 2, 15

Coates v. City of Cincinnati,

402 U.S. 611 (1971)..

Griswold v. Connecticut,

381 U.S. 479, 483 (1965)

Honda Motor Co. v. Oberg,

512 U.S. 415 (1994)

Lanzetta u. New Jersey,

306 U.S. 451 (1939)

Mathews v. Eldridge,

424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976)

viii

Meyer v. Nebraska,

262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923)

In re Murchison,

349 U.S. 133 (1955)

Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. PUC,

301 U.S. 292 (1937)

Old Wayne Mutual Life Ass’n of Indianapolis

v. McDonough,

204 U.S. 8(1907)......... ............................ 2

Palko v. Connecticut,

302 U.S. 319 (1937)

8, 15

Pierce v. Society of Sisters,

268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925)

Snyder v. Massachusetts,

291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934)

TXO Production Corp. v. Alliance Resources

Corp.,

509 U. S. 443, 470-471 (1993)

Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward,

17 U.S. 518 (1819)...................................

United States u. Abilene & S.R. Co.,

265 U.S. 274, 288-289 (1924).

United States v. Carlton,

512 US 26 (1994)..

Von Hoffman v City of Quincy,

71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 535, 552, 554, 604 (1867)..7

Wichita R. & Light Co. v. PUC,

260 U.S. 48, 57—59, (1922)

Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath,

339 U.S. 33, 45—46 (1950)

Statutes:

28 U.S.C. §455

28 U.S.C. §144

28 U.S.C. §47

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI

INTRODUCTION

The Federal Circuit gives no respect to, and

reaches a result inconsistent with TXO Production

Corp. v. Alliance Resources Corp., 509 U. S. 443, 470471 (1993) (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment) that

“The Due Process Clause... its whole purpose is to

prevent arbitrary deprivations of liberty or property:

The Due Process Clause... suarantees... process:”

Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868 (2009)

and City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (1999). It

fails to meet the requirements of the Due Process

Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to

the U.S. Constitution. Where plaintiffs request for a

neutral judge is “in fact harmless and innocent,” the

Federal Circuit’s “order itself is an unjustified

impairment of liberty." It authorized the punishment

of constitutionally protected conduct of requesting a

neutral judge with no stock in a litigant. It violates

due process by arbitrarily restricting personal

liberties. Federal Circuit is silent to 28 U.S.C. §47

that disqualifies CAFC Judge Stark from ruling

on the Appeal of his own ruling in the District

Court Case l:20-cv-1020 (D.Del.h

The Federal Circuit affirms the District Court’s

decision, overlooking the significant fact that the

presiding Judge Andrews was disqualified due to a

conflict of interest—revealed by his late admission of

common stock ownership in the defendant JPMorgan

Chase & Co., three years post-appeal — denying a

citizen’s right to appeal and the inventor’s right to sue.

“Court cannot confer jurisdiction where none

existed and cannot make a void proceeding valid. It is

clear and well-established law that a void order can be

challenged in any court.” Old Wayne Mutual Life

Ass’n of Indianapolis v. McDonough, 204 U.S. 8

(1907).

With a blind eye to Caperton u. A. T. Massey

Coal Co., and to City of Chicago u. Morales, the

Federal Circuit is silent to the Judicial

Disqualification Statute demanding vacatur of

judicial decisions, screaming for attention for over

a decade. The Federal Circuit is silent to the District

Court Errors, propagated for a decade, into

underlying Case l:20-cv-1020, blamed unlawfully

upon Dr. Arunachalam. The Federal Circuit is silent

to the District Court’s Order punishing Dr.

Arunachalam for her lawful defense with a Filing

Injunction that is contrary to Patent Statutes that

allow a Patentee to sue infringers — obfuscating the

District Court’s own Errors.

The Federal Circuit ignored its own valuable

precedential ruling on vacatur of judicial

decisions when a judge has disqualifying

financial interest. Centripetal Networks. Inc, v.

Cisco Svs.. Inc., 38 F.4th 1025 (Fed. Cir. 2022). The

Federal Circuit does not “take the disqualification

statute seriously” and undermines “public confidence

in the judiciary.” The Federal Circuit ignores that

Judge Andrews disclosed three years after the appeal

was over that he had direct common stock in

JPMorgan. Dr. Arunachalam’s defendant in her very

first case 12-282-RGA (D.Del.) and PTAB Judges held

direct stock in Microsoft.

The Federal Circuit sidesteps the central tenet of the

non-frivolous issue at hand: judge disclosing belatedly

three years after the appeal was over that he was

holding stock in the defendant in the very first case

12-282 (D.Del.) voids all orders,

denying Dr.

Arunachalam a neutral judge from her very first case,

and has engaged in character assassination of Dr.

Arunachalam without addressing the main issue of

void Orders because the Judges had stock in the

litigant JP Morgan Chase & Co. and made disclosure

of the judge’s ownership of stock in the defendant

three years after the appeal was over.

The Federal Circuit overlooked points of law or

fact that were overlooked by the district court. The

glaring omission by the Federal Circuit to address the

non-frivolous, substantive fact of the Judge’s belated

disclosure three years after the appeal was over, of

holding stock in the defendant in her very first case

12-282 (D.Del.) voids all orders, speaks volumes. Its

arguments are invalid, against the backdrop of the

Judge holding stock in the defendant and not

disclosing it for three years voids all orders, and

invalid sanctions by the financially conflicted Judge

holding stock in the defendant.

The Federal Circuit overlooked a district court

error propagated for a decade that a judge holding

stock in the defendant and not disclosing it for three

years after the appeal voids all orders. The Clerk of

the District Court should be able to reverse all Orders

of the District Court related to the patents-in-suit.

WSJ did an investigation in over 131 cases and

reversed them all for judicial stock ownership.

Vacatur of judicial decisions by Judge Andrews

and Judge Robinson and Orders in all of Dr.

Arunachalam’s cases, is in order.

The Federal Circuit’s silence is acquiescence to

Dr. Arunachalam’s substantive argument of judge

holding stock in the defendant voids all orders; that it

has been a District Court error that has propagated

forward for over a decade that Judge Andrews and

PTAB Judges had direct stock in the defendant

JPMorgan and Microsoft, voiding all Orders.

The Federal Circuit affirms the district court’s

filing injunction, contrary to patent statutes.

punishing lawful defense, obfuscated district court

errors for a decade into underlying case l:20-cv-1020.

The Federal Circuit is silent to the fact that

there has been No trial, No jury trial, No hearing, No

Notice of Hearing, No Case Management Conference

in over a decade, No Discovery, No Evidence allowed

to be introduced — No basis in fact or the law — only

cover up by the Federal Circuit of the fact that the

Judge was disqualified from presiding over the case

due to his belated disclosure three years after the

appeal of his ownership of stock in the defendant.

The Federal Circuit is silent to the fact that

district court and PTAB judges held undisclosed

disqualifying financial interests in a litigant involving

the patents-in-suit, denying plaintiff her right to a

neutral judge — a material court error.

The Federal Circuit is silent to 28 U.S.C. 455

that requires the recusal of any Judge whose

“impartiality might reasonably be questioned” or who

“has a financial interest in a party to the proceeding.”

The Federal Circuit is silent to the fact that on 2/9/16,

Andrews (“RGA”) admitted holding common stock in a

litigant three years into the case. The Federal Circuit

is silent to PTAB Judges McNamara, Siu punished

Plaintiff for pointing out they held common stock in a

litigant.

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT IS SILENT TO

THE FACT THAT ON 5/8/2015, JUDGE

ROBINSON

(“SLR”)

DISQUALIFIED

HERSELF FROM CASE 12-282-RGA UPON

PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION

SLR’S

CONFLICTS

INTEREST—NO

VACATUR TO DATE — A MATERIAL

COURT ERROR.

The Federal Circuit is silent to District Court

Orders that are void in Cases 12-282; 14-490; and all

of Plaintiff Dr. Arunachalam’s cases.

B. THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT IS SILENT TO

THE FACT THAT ON 5/14/2014, SLR

FAILED TO APPLY PATENT

PROSECUTION HISTORY—A

MATERIAL COURT ERROR.

The Federal Circuit is silent to the fact that

claim terms were defined in the Patent Prosecution

History and are not indefinite.

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT IS SILENT TO

THE

DISTRICT

COURT’S

6/23/22

ERRONEOUS

RULING

RECKLESSLY MISINFORMED JUDGE

NOREIKA, WITH NO EVIDENCE OF

FACTS

THE

LAW,

COPIED

VERBATIM DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

STARK’S 12/29/21 ORDER D.I.s 258/259,

WHEREAS CAFC JUDGE STARK IS

DISQUALIFIED FROM RULING ON THE

APPEAL OF HIS OWN RULING IN THE

DISTRICT COURT CASE 1:20-CV-1020

PER 28 U.S.C. $47. AND IS FURTHER

DISQUALIFIED DUE TO HIS OWN

FINANCIAL INTERESTS IN FACEBOOK,

A LITIGANT IN Dr. Arunachalam’s CASE.

The Timeline: 20-01020(DE)/Fed Ckt Appeal

22-2121: Arunachalam v. IBM, et al proves Dr.

Arunachalam filed a timely NOA. The Federal Circuit

is silent that filing patent lawsuits is allowed by

Patent Statutes. The Federal Circuit is silent that

28 U.S.C. §47 disqualifies Judge Stark from ruling in

this Appeal and voids the Federal Circuit Order.

THE FACTS AND THE LAW PRESENTED

BY Dr. Arunachalam STAY SOLIDLY

VALID IN PERPETUITY.

The Federal Circuit is silent to the fact that

they silenced Dr. Arunachalam from raising the

Judge’s stock ownership in the defendant, a nonfrivolous fact and the law, that remains solidly valid

in perpetuity.

II.

THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT IS SILENT

THAT IN THE 6/23/22 DISTRICT COURT

ORDER, JUDGE NOREIKA, COPIED

VERBATIM THE 12/29/2021 ORDER OF

DISTRICT COURT JUDGE STARK, AND

IGNORED THAT:

The Federal Circuit is silent that Judges

Andrews (“RGA”) and Robinson (“SLR”) presided over

Dr. Arunachalam’s cases, involving her patents-insuit despite disqualifying undisclosed financial

interests demanding vacatur of their judicial

decisions, and further without considering Patent

Prosecution History. The Federal Circuit is silent

that RGA denied Dr. Arunachalam’s Motions to

Substitute as Plaintiff as the Real-Party-in-Interest

as Assignee of the patents-in-suit, so as to not allow

her to appeal — making all Orders void in Cases 12282-RGA and 14:490-RGA and all of her other cases

involving the patents-in-suit.

The Federal Circuit is silent that District and

Appellate Courts failed to consider the facts and

the law. The Federal Circuit is silent that Dr.

Arunachalam filed a Traverse Special against the

entire (false) processes and Orders of the District

Court Case l:20-cv-01020-LPS/Noreika/GBW.

‘Mr. Justice Swayne: “A right without a

. remedy is as if it were not. For every

beneficial purpose it may be said not to

exist.” Von Hoffman v City of Quincy, 71 U.S.(4

Wall.) 535, 552, 554, 604 (1867).

The CAFC silence amounted to a proactive

failure to address the totality of the record. The

Federal Circuit denied rehearing en banc on May 30,

2024. The Federal Circuit’s 11/30/2020 Order in her

Appeal No. 2020-1493 requiring her to get leave of

court to file a rehearing of her appeal is

unconstitutional and denies Dr. Arunachalam due

process, to obfuscate that the Federal Circuit and

District Courts committed serious errors. Dr.

Arunachalam was denied individual liberty and

property outside the sanction of law and without due

process of law. This Court stated that due process is

violated "if a practice or rule offends some principle of

justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our

people as to be ranked as fundamental." Snyder u.

Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97, 105 (1934).

This Court has stated that where an individual

is facing a deprivation of life, liberty, or property,

procedural due process mandates that he or she is

entitled to adequate notice, a hearing, and a neutral

judge.

Dr. Arunachalam has been deprived these most

fundamental rights that are “implicit in the concept of

ordered liberty,” Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319

(1937); Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976);

an individual’s right to some kind of a hearing (“the

right to support his allegations bv arguments however

brief and, if need be. bv proof however informal.”);

Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., stated, Baldwin u.

Missouri, 281 U.S. 586, 595 (1930): “persons holding

interests protected by the due process clause are

entitled to "some kind of hearing”...”

OPINIONS AND ORDERS BELOW

The Order of the United States Court of

Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirming the District

Court Order and Order denying re-hearing in

Petitioner’s Appeal Case No. 22-2121 which is an

Appeal from Case No. 20-cv-01020-GBW (D. Del.) in

the U.S. District Court for District of Delaware are

reproduced at App. la and App. 2a. The Federal

Circuit failed to docket Dr. Arunachalam’s timely filed

Combined Petition for Re-Hearing and En Banc ReHearing, to distract from its own errors.

The Order of the U.S. District Court for the

District of Delaware is reproduced at App. 3a. The

above Orders are not published.

JURISDICTION

The Federal Circuit entered judgment on May

10, 2024, and denied rehearing on May 30, 2024. (App.

la and 2a). It failed to docket Dr. Arunachalam’s

timely filed Combined Petition for Re-Hearing and En

Banc Re-Hearing, to cover up its own errors. Chief

Justice Roberts, on July 11, 2024, extended the time

within which to file a petition for a writ of certiorari

to and including October 7, 2024. See No. 24A8. The

jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. §

1254(1).

APPLICABLE LAWS

28 U.S.C. §47—Disqualification of Appellate

Judges: “no judge shall hear or determine an appeal

from the decision of a case or issue tried by him.”

28 U.S.C. §455: (a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate

judge of the United States shall disqualify himself in

any proceeding in which his impartiality might

reasonably be questioned. A motion to disqualify a

judge under §455 must be determined by the very

judge whose impartiality is being questioned.

28 U.S.C. §144: “Bias or prejudice of judge,” On its

terms, section 144 makes a district judge’s recusal

mandatory upon a timely and sufficient affidavit

accompanied by a certificate from counsel that the

affidavit is made in good faith.

Amend. V: “No person shall...be deprived of life,

liberty, or property, without due process of law....”

Amend. VII: “In Suits at common law, where the

value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the

right of trial by jury shall be preserved....”

Amend. XIV: “No state shall make or enforce any law

which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of

citizens of the United States; nor shall any state

deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without

due process of law; nor deny to any person within its

jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

Due Process Clause. Amends. V and XIV:

“Procedural due process is the guarantee of a fair legal

process when the government tries to interfere with a

person's protected interests in life, liberty, or

property.” “.. .Supreme Court has held that procedural

due process requires that, at a minimum, the

government provide the person notice, an opportunity

to be heard at an oral hearing, and a decision by a

neutral decision maker. The Court has also ruled that

the Due Process Clause requires judges to recuse

themselves in cases where the judge has a conflict of

interest. ...Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S.

868 (2009). Substantive due process is the guarantee

that the fundamental rights of citizens will not be

encroached on bv government...”

Vol. XII, Constitutional Law, Chapter 7. Sec. 140.

Erroneous and Fraudulent Decisions. Due Process and

Equal Protection of Law: Procedure. Sec. 1. Due

Process of Law. Sec. 141. Denying or Hinderins Access

to the Courts upon the Question of Due Process Itself.

To uphold Patent Prosecution History is a key

contract term between the inventor and the Federal

Government/USPTO. The claim construction of claim

terms agreed to between the inventor and the Original

Examiner at the USPTO before the patent was

granted is cast in stone and cannot be changed by the

USPTO, Courts or the patentee. Federal Circuit’s

Aqua Products, Inc. u. Matal, Case No. 15-1177,

October 4, 2017, ruled that Orders that did not

consider the “entirety of the record”— Patent

Prosecution History — are void and reversed.

STATEMENT

Petitioner, Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam, (“Dr.

Arunachalam”) invented the Internet of Things (IoT)

— Web Apps displayed on a Web browser — as

significant as electricity by Edison and the telephone

by Alexander Graham Bell.

Dr. Arunachalam’s dozen patents have a

priority date of 1995, when two-way real-time Web

transactions from Web Apps were non-existent.

Respondents and the Government benefited by

trillions of dollars from the patents-in-suit —

exemplified in Web banking Web Apps, Apple’s

iPhone App Store with 2M+ Web Apps (pre-packaged

in China and imported into the U.S.A.), Google Play,

Uber, Lyft’s ride-hailing Web Apps, Facebook’s social

networking Web App. JPMorgan’s website states it

has over 7000 Web Apps in use in just one Business

Unit.

The Federal Circuit is silent to District Court

Errors and disqualifying stock holding by judges in

the defendant that call for vacatur of District Court

rulings. The Federal Circuit ignored its own valuable

precedential ruling on vacatur of judicial decisions

when a judge has disqualifying financial interest.

Centripetal Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Sys. Inc., 38 F.4th

1025 (Fed. Cir. 2022). Dr. Arunachalam respectfully

requested CAFC to vacate all lower Court rulings, and

remand. But the Federal Circuit has chosen to hush

up its own errors and deny Dr. Arunachalam due

process. The Federal Circuit even failed to docket Dr.

Arunachalam’s timely filed combined petition for

panel rehearing and for rehearing en banc. Federal

Circuit’s 11/30/2020 Order in her Appeal No. 20201493 requiring her to get leave of court to file a

rehearing of her appeal is unconstitutional and denies

Dr. Arunachalam due process, to obfuscate the

Federal Circuit and District Courts’ own material

errors.

The Federal Circuit is silent to the fact that

there has been No Case Management Conference in

over a decade, No Discovery, No Hearing, No Trial —

No basis in fact or the law — only hushing up by the

Federal Circuit of the fact that the Judge was

disqualified from presiding over the case due to his

ownership of stock in the defendant.

The courts failed to consider that the claims of

the patents-in-suit falsely alleged as invalid are not

invalid, because the JPMorgan Court 12-282SLR/RGA (D.Del.)

failed to consider Patent

Prosecution History, which had already established

the claim construction of the terms alleged falsely as

“indefinite” by JPMorgan, as not indefinite. Based on

this fraudulent and erroneous

decision by the

JPMorgan Court procured fraudulently by JPMorgan,

the Fulton Court 14-490-RGA (D.Del.)

and

financially conflicted Judge Andrews fraudulently

concealed from the Court that Patent Prosecution

History was not considered by the JPMorgan Court or

the Fulton Court and propagated to all tribunals a

false theory of Collateral Estoppel, which is moot

because:

(i) Judge Andrews is financially conflicted, bv his own

admission of buying direct stock in JPMorgan

Chase & Co. during the pendency of the case. His

Orders are void. There can be no collateral

estoppel from void Orders.

(ii) Patent Prosecution History estops all other

estoppels, as proven prima facie that Petitioner

has been right all along by the Federal Circuit’s

Aqua Products’ reversal of Orders that failed to

consider “the entirety of the record” —Patent

Prosecution History (which the District Court

failed to apply in Petitioner’s case).

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

A. The Questions Presented Are of Exceptional

Importance.

This case presents an extraordinarily

important issue: The decision of the Court of Appeals,

if followed, will conflict with Supreme Court precedent

with respect to its findings on: the denial of liberty and

property without due process of law. The decision also

conflicts squarely with decisions of the Federal Circuit

Court of Appeals on the same subject.

Depriving citizens of jury trial by federal courts

disregarding the 7th Amendment must not be allowed.

This Court should review with the most exacting

scrutiny and stop the issue now.

It is even a national security threat, with the

Federal Circuit allowing Dr. Arunachalam’s

inventions to be sent to China for copying and sending

infringing products into the United States.

B. The Federal Circuit Opinion Conflicts with

Supreme Court Precedents.

Corp. v. Alliance

Resources

Production

TXO

Corp., 509 U. S. 443, 470-471 (1993) (SCALIA, J„

concurring in judgment); in which Justice Scalia ruled

that “The Due Process Clause... its whole purpose is to

prevent arbitrary deprivations of liberty or property;

The Due Process Clause... guarantees... process.”

Honda Motor Co. v. Oberg, 512 U.S. 415 (1994);

City of Chicago v. Morales, 527 U.S. 41 (1999); Justice

"order itself is an unjustified

Stevens ruled:

impairment of liberty."

Caperton v. A. T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868

(2009); “violates due process in that it is ... an

arbitrary restriction on personal liberties.”

Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U.S. 451 (1939);

Coates v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U.S. 611 (1971);

United States v. Carlton, 512 US 26 (1994); “such

application was rendered unduly harsh and

oppressive, and therefore unconstitutional.”

Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S.

518 (1819); and failed to uphold the Contract Clause

of the Constitution, damaging Dr. Arunachalam by

allowing Big-Tech to steal her patents.

The Federal Circuit Order is inconsistent with this

Court’s earlier decisions, its due process "fundamental

rights" jurisprudence.

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 483 (1965)

Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, 399 (1923);

Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 535 (1925);

“The Supreme Court recognizes a constitutionallybased "liberty" which then renders laws seeking to

limit said "liberty" either unenforceable or limited in

scope;”

Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319 (1937);

Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. PUC, 301 U.S. 292 (1937);

United States v. Abilene & S.R. Co., 265 U.S. 274, 288289 (1924);

Wichita R. & Light Co. v. PUC, 260 U.S. 48, 57-59,

(1922);

In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (1955);

Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 339 U.S. 33, 45-46

(1950);

C. The Federal Circuit Decision Improperly

Conditioned Rehearing upon Getting Leave

of Court to file a Rehearing of Appeal and

failed to docket Combined Petition for ReHearing and En Banc Re-Hearing.

The Federal Circuit’s 11/30/2020 Order in her Appeal

No. 2020-1493 requiring her to get leave of court to file

a rehearing of her appeal is unconstitutional and

denies Dr. Arunachalam due process, to obfuscate

that the Federal Circuit and District Courts

committed serious errors. Dr. Arunachalam was

denied individual liberty and property outside the

sanction of law and without due process of law.

D. Federal Circuit’s Order Denies Due Process.

This Court held that “[a] fair trial in a fair tribunal is

a basic requirement of due process.” In re Murchison,

349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955). “The question is I did not get

a fair trial. The question is very simple.” “That is an

excerpt of Clarence Earl Gideon’s reply to

respondent’s response to his petition for a writ of

certiorari that was granted, and judgment reversed by

this Court.”

The constitutional guarantees of due process and a

jury trial are no more sacred and necessary in

criminal cases than in civil.

Now is the time for this Court’s review. It is

almost ten years after the most recent unrepresented

litigant, Bobby Chen, made it to but not through this

Court’s review to address federal courts disregarding

a Rule.

E. The Decision Below Is Unconstitutional.

Not allowing a jury trial and denying due process

when the judge belatedly disclosed his common stock

holding in a defendant 3 years post-appeal thus

voiding his Orders are wrong and unconstitutional.

F. The Decision Below is Wrong and Manifests

Injustice For Over A Decade Only This Court

Can Remedy.

Most recently, this Court overturned the

decades-old

Chevron decision, delivering a farreaching and potentially lucrative win to business

interests of inventors against the USPTO, which did

not act within its statutory authority, to which the

Federal Circuit remained silent, denying Dr.

Arunachalam due process.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, this Court should

grant Dr. Arunachalam’s Petition for a Writ of

Certiorari.

Dated: October 5, 2024

Respectfully submitted,

Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam

Self-Represented, Petitioner

222 Stanford Avenue, Menlo Park, CA 94025

Tel:(650) 690-0995, Email:laks22002@yahoo.com

Self-Represented Petitioner

Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam

VERIFICATION

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. Section 1746, I declare

under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and

correct based upon my personal knowledge.

<^CK.

Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam, a woman

Self-Represented Petitioner

222 Stanford Ave, Menlo Park, CA 94025

650 690 0995; laks22002@yahoo.com

Executed on October 5, 2024

APPENDIX

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.