Arunachalam v. Kronos Incorporated

• Court: District Court, D. Delaware
• Decided: June 18, 2020
• Docket: 1:14-cv-00091
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

DR. LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : Civil Action No. 14-91-RGA : KRONOS INCORPORATED, : : Defendant. : _______________________________________________________________________

DR. LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : Civil Action No. 14-373-RGA : CITIGROUP, INC., et al., : : Defendants. :

MEMORANDUM ORDER

In the above-captioned cases, Plaintiff has filed the same motion, the body of which states:

Plaintiff Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam (“Dr. Arunachalam”) hereby moves this Court to and puts the Court on Notice to enforce the Mandated Prohibition from repudiating Government-issued contract grants of any kind, as declared by Chief Justice Marshall in Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (1810) and Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819), which have never been repudiated and stand as the law of the land and case, of which this Court’s solemn oath duty compels this Court to enforce above all else, with all due respect.

(No. 14-91, D.I. 78; No. 14-373, D.I. 71 (footnote omitted)). To the extent the motion seeks relief based on the theory that the cited cases prevent the Patent Trial and Appeals Board from invalidating Plaintiff’s patents, and that there is some action I can take if I accepted that position, the argument is foreclosed by, among other things, decisions of the Court of Appeals. See Arunachalam v. IBM, 759 F. App’x 927, 932-33 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 140 S.Ct. 249 (2019). Thus, the motion (No. 14-91, D.I. 78; No. 14-373, D.I. 71) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED this 18 day of June 2020.

/s/ Richard G. Andrews____ United States District Judge