Welcome Back from Thanksgiving Break – Don’t Do This

Dr. Arunachalam has no chance of winning her now pro se patent case against J.P. Morgan Chase – but the sentiments that she puts forth in her petition for writ of certiorari are felt by many who are sidelined by the complexity and expense of the U.S. patent system.

She asks:

  1. Is the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) permitted to create a new protected class – a giant corporation – to take private property for public use without any compensation to the inventor, … by denying the inventor the protections of the Bill of Rights and 35 U.S.C § 282 of the Patent Act, thereby voiding the judgment?
  2. Whether the CAFC erred in not honoring the law, after abridging liberty rights of a citizen, arbitrarily dismissing the appeal without a hearing or an opening brief or clear and convincing evidence from a giant corporation, depriving the citizen of patent property rights, was the citizen deprived of the protections of 35 U.S.C. § 282 of the Patent Act and the Bill of Rights, thereby voiding the judgment?
  3. Whether the CAFC erred in not relieving a citizen of a final judgment for misrepresentation by a giant corporation or for any reason that justifies relief for a judge denying the citizen a hearing according to law, depriving the citizen of patent property rights, was Petitioner deprived of the protections of FRCP Rule 60(b)? . . .

At the district court level, Judge Robinson (D.Del.) ruled on summary judgment that the asserted claims were invalid for failing either the definiteness, written description, or enablement requirement of the Patent Act. In addition, Judge Robinson found the claims not infringed. U.S. Patent Nos. 5,987,500; 8,037,158; and 8,108,492. As part of a pattern, Arunchalam partially relied upon patent counsel but at some point there was a disagreement and she moved pro se.

Dr. Arunachalam has been previously sanctioned by the PTAB for, inter alia, creating a website with PTAB Judge McNamara’s picture super-imposed on a background of shooting-targets and crossbones in (what the PTAB calls) an attempt to intimidate. Arunachalam sued dozens of defendants for infringing the above listed patents – and eventually also sued her litigation counsel for “legal malpractice in patent infringement, personal injury, fraud, intentional misrepresentation, breach of contract, sexual harassment, blackmail, elder abuse, terrorizing, duress, financial damage, and negligence.”

As another interesting trick – to get around the word-count at the Federal Circuit, Dr. Arunchalam just jammed words together Germanstyle. E.g., instead of citing to Thorner v. Sony Computer, Arunchalam used the following space-free string: Thorner.v.SonyComputerEntm’tAm.LLC,669F3d1362,1365(Fed.Cir.2012). (Volokh).

20 thoughts on “Welcome Back from Thanksgiving Break – Don’t Do This

  1. Schizophrenia (the actual disease) runs rampant within the community of inventors. So many of these pro se cases are laughed at as over-zealous or ignorant citizens when many times the issue is one of underlying mental illness that drives paranoia coupled with a complete inability (lack of mental ability) to listen to counsel (from an attorney or others) and detach oneself from the invention.

    1. Yeah bro, there’s plenty of mental illness in all stages of the “IP circle”. Maybe somewhat less at the attorney stage, but still there’s signs occasionally.

    1. link to trollingeffects.org

      ““Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam” patents are the earliest and most fundamental Internet Patents (even better than the Eolas Web Browser Patents) and give control over the ramp to the Internet cloud, and to every real-time Web transaction from any Web application on any multi-media device. ”

      Oooh! This is super serious stuff. We all better respect it or else someone’s fee-fees will be hurt.

      1. From

        US5987500 A

        Claims 1 (and to the same extent, claim 10, a method claim):

        “means for” [claim 1] switching to a transactional application in response to a user specification from a network application, said transactional application providing a user with a plurality of transactional services managed by at least one value-added network service provider, said value-added network service provider keeping a transaction flow captive, said plurality of transactional services being performed interactively and in real time;”

        What the? Can someone untangle this? Is the claim to the means for switching? What is all this other language about the details regarding the network, the transaction services, and in real time?

        The description says the invention is providing two-way transactional capabilities in real time. But the claim itself provides no information as to how this is done, just that it is done, in a certain environment and in real time.

        How in the world?

        And yet, this claim was drafted by a reputable firm — undoubtedly highly skilled in claiming results of invention and not the invention itself.

        With such attorney$ and such claims as these, I can see how the layperson inventor who paid good money to these firm$ to get high quality patents could feel betrayed by a finding that the claim are indefinite as well they are.

        Rip offs. Not so much as to accused infringers who can show that the claims are indefinite, but to inventors who paid good money to these otherwise reputable patent attorney$ only to receive from them such garb@ge.

        Indeed, a suit for malpractice might lie but for the fact that the PTO allowed these claims.

        1. With such attorney$ and such claims as these, I can see how the layperson inventor who paid good money to these firm$ to get high quality patents could feel betrayed by a finding that the claim are indefinite as well they are.

          Can you see how an accused infringer who have paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to overcome the “strong” presumption of validity and get this case tossed might feel betrayed by the USPTO and courts?

  2. to get around the word-count at the Federal Circuit, Dr. Arunchalam just jammed words together Germanstyle

    Big corporations made her do that.

  3. ‘Is the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (“CAFC”) permitted to create a new protected class – a giant corporation – to take private property for public use without any compensation to the inventor…’

    Many inventors will tell you SCOTUS, perhaps to a lesser extent the CAFC, and many district courts, the PTO, Congress and the White House have protected large infringers. That certainly has been the end result of their actions -so much so that the patent system is now a mockery. The promises made and guaranteed in the Constitution are now hollow and patents are, when you can get them, worthless -even for large corporations. What a mess they have made of things following the lead of large invention thieves and their paid puppets -some in Congress sitting in committees.

    For more information please visit us at link to aminventorsforjustice.wordpress.com
    or, contact us at tifj@mail.com

    1. patents … when you can get them

      Cuz it’s really sooper dooper difficult to get one.

      Sure it is. Just ask “staff”! He’s very serious.

      Many inventors will tell you SCOTUS, perhaps to a lesser extent the CAFC, and many district courts, the PTO, Congress and the White House have protected large infringers.

      Tell it to Samsung.

      That certainly has been the end result of their actions -so much so that the patent system is now a mockery.

      The patent system is a mockery because of people like you, “staff”. And yes you will continue to be mocked.

    2. Staff, I think the problem is that infringers are overly protected. I am now thinking of how much trouble Apple is having in protecting the inventions that Samsung copied from Apple’s iPhone. They cannot get adequate damages, nor an injunction, nor enhanced damages, nor attorney’s fees in a case of deliberate piracy.

        1. MM, we all know proofs linking infringements to actual damages is extremely difficult. How does one prove that Samsung’s use of “slide to unlock” was the/a reason people bought Samsung’s phones and not Apple’s iPhones?

          That is why damages are historically deemed to be inadequate in patent law remedy infringements — and this has nothing to do with the ongoing nature of the infringement. It has to do with the difficulty of proof.

          That is why historically injunctions were allowed; but they were denied to Apple here. Thus Apple was left with inadequate damages, and with no enhancement, no attorneys fees and no injunction. From a big picture’s point of view, what happened here was a travesty – a miscarriage of justice – given that Samsung admitted that it was a pirate.

    1. As a sovereign citizen, I hold universal immunity to patent infringement litigation. Something about Congress being empowered to implement the patent system by the US Constitution, to which I was not a signatory.

      (sarcasm)

      1. Here’s a better argument for you: you’re not bound by Federal patent law because of your deeply held religious beliefs about the evilness of patents.

        It worked for Hobby Lobby. It’ll work for you, too! Unless maybe you don’t belong to one of the of the government-approved religions.

  4. the sentiments that [she] puts forth in [her] petition for writ of certiorari are felt by many who are sidelined by the complexity and expense of the U.S. patent system

    First of all, this exceedingly desperate and greedy individual is not “sidelined” by either complexity or expense. She is right in the thick of the game (or she was until the hammer came down). She’s just super zealous. Gaze upon the zealousness.

    Second, this may be the ultimate first world problem (if it exists): the surplus of “innovators” with patent-worthy inventions who could be raking it in … if only they had the intelligence to understand the complexities, the money to buy the ticket and pay the attorneys, and the desire to find and pursue all those copyists out there all the way to the Supreme Court. Given the worldwide shortage of patents and the surplus of awesome people who invented the Internet or electronic commerce, I expect one or more of the presidential candidates to put this issue right at the top of their plank.

    1. If she can’t find an attorney in East Texas to take her case on contingency, the patents must be pretty bad.

Comments are closed.