NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

 

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________ 

LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

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 GATTUSO, KRONOS 

INCORPORATED, SCOTT DAVID BOLDEN, LORI 

Case: 22-2121 Document: 173 Page: 1 Filed: 05/10/2024
ARUNACHALAM v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION

2

A. GORDON,

Defendants-Appellees

______________________ 

2022-2121

______________________ 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the 

District of Delaware in No. 1:20-cv-01020-VAC, Judge 

Maryellen Noreika.

______________________ 

Decided: May 10, 2024

______________________ 

LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM, Menlo Park, CA, pro se. 

 JOANNA J. CLINE, Troutman Pepper Hamilton Sanders 

LLP, Wilmington, DE, for defendants-appellees Ramsey M. 

Al-Salam, Fiserv, Inc. 

 MARK J. ABATE, Goodwin Procter LLP, New York, NY, 

for defendant-appellee International Business Machines 

Corporation. Also represented by CALVIN E. WINGFIELD,

JR. 

 CLIFF C. GARDNER, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & 

Flom LLP, Wilmington, DE, for defendants-appellees 

JPMorgan Chase & Co., Edward L. Tulin, Douglas R. 

Nemec, Robert Scott Saunders, Jessica R. Kunz. Also represented by CHRISTOPHER JUSTIN COULSON, New York, NY. 

 THARAN GREGORY LANIER, Jones Day, Palo Alto, CA, for 

defendants-appellees SAP America, Inc., Tharan Gregory 

Lanier, Joseph M. Beauchamp. Also represented by 

JOSEPH BEAUCHAMP, Houston, TX. 

 JOHN HINTZ, Maynard Nexsen PC, New York, NY, for 

Case: 22-2121 Document: 173 Page: 2 Filed: 05/10/2024
ARUNACHALAM v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION

3

defendants-appellees Kevin J. Culligan, Mark J. Abate, 

Matthew John Parker, Sasha G. Rao. 

 ANNE MARIE CAPPELLA, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, 

Redwood Shores, CA, for defendant-appellee Apple Inc. 

 ERIC SHUMSKY, Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, 

Washington, DC, for defendant-appellee Facebook, Inc. 

 RYAN RONALD SMITH, Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & 

Rosati, PC, Palo Alto, CA, for defendant-appellee Alphabet 

Inc. 

 KRISTIN L. CLEVELAND, Klarquist Sparkman, LLP, 

Portland, OR, for defendants-appellees Microsoft Corporation, Garth Winn. 

 DUSTIN JAMES EDWARDS, Winston & Strawn LLP, Houston, TX, for defendant-appellee Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 

 DAVID SPENCER BLOCH, Greenberg Traurig LLP, San 

Francisco, CA, for defendant-appellee Fulton Financial 

Corporation. Also represented by BENJAMIN 

SCHLADWEILER, Wilmington, DE. 

 PHILIP A. IRWIN, Covington & Burling LLP, New York, 

NY, for defendant-appellee Samsung Electronics America, 

Inc. 

 BALDASSARE VINTI, Proskauer Rose LLP, New York, 

NY, for defendant-appellee Eclipse Foundation, Inc. 

 CASEN ROSS, Appellate Staff, Civil Division, United 

States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendants-appellees Claire T. Cormier, Alan D. Albright, Kristie 

Davis, Robert W. Schroeder, III, Caroline Craven, Ryan T. 

Holte, Scott David Bolden. Also represented by BRIAN 

BOYNTON; DYLAN J. STEINBERG, United States Attorney's 

Case: 22-2121 Document: 173 Page: 3 Filed: 05/10/2024
ARUNACHALAM v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION

4

Office, Wilmington, DE. 

 ADAM LAROCK, Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox PLLC, 

Washington, DC, for defendants-appellees Michael Q. Lee, 

Lori A. Gordon. Also represented by KRISTINA CAGGIANO 

KELLY. 

 PHILIP A. ROVNER, Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP, 

Wilmington, DE, for defendants-appellees David Ellis 

Moore, Candice Claire Decaire, Uber Technologies, Inc., 

Andrew James Isbester. Uber Technologies, Inc. also represented by JONATHAN A. CHOA, Newark, DE.

 ERIC SOPHIR, Foley & Lardner LLP, Washington, DC, 

for defendants-appellees Citigroup, Inc., Citicorp, Citibank, N.A. Also represented by KIMBERLY KRISTIN DODD, 

Milwaukee, WI. 

 BRYAN ALEXANDER KOHM, Fenwick & West LLP, San 

Francisco, CA, for defendant-appellee Michael J. Sacksteder. 

 JEREMY TAYLOR, Baker Botts LLP, San Francisco, CA, 

for defendant-appellee Lyft, Inc. Also represented by LORI 

DING, Houston, TX. 

 MATTHEW DONELSON, Elzufon Austin Tarlov & 

Mondell, PA, Wilmington, DE, for defendants-appellees 

Exxon Mobil Corporation, John Allen Yates, John H. Barr, 

Jr. 

 MICHAEL JOHN SACKSTEDER, Fenwick & West LLP, San 

Francisco, CA, for defendant-appellee Intuit, Inc. Also represented by JEFFREY A. WARE, Seattle, WA. 

 KURT M. HEYMAN, Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel 

LLP, Wilmington, DE, for defendant-appellee Dominick 

Gattuso. 

Case: 22-2121 Document: 173 Page: 4 Filed: 05/10/2024
ARUNACHALAM v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION

5

 WILLIAM C. SATURLEY, Preti Flaherty Beliveau & Pachios LLP, Concord, NH, for defendant-appellee Kronos Incorporated. Also represented by DOMINICK GATTUSO, 

Heyman Enerio Gattuso & Hirzel LLP, Wilmington, DE. 

 ______________________ 

Before LOURIE, DYK, and REYNA, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM. 

Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam, proceeding pro se, appeals 

from an anti-filing injunction order entered by the United 

States District Court for the District of Delaware. The district court also dismissed Dr. Arunachalam’s underlying

action. Dr. Arunachalam attempted to appeal both the dismissal of the underlying case and the anti-filing injunction. 

The appeal was untimely with respect to the underlying 

action, and we dismissed that appeal in a previous order. 

Arunachalam v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., No. 22-2121, ECF 

No. 145, at 3 (Fed. Cir. June 5, 2023). As to the appeal of 

the injunction order, we conclude that we have jurisdiction 

and that there was no abuse of discretion by the district 

court. Therefore, we affirm the injunction order. 

BACKGROUND

Dr. Arunachalam has filed numerous lawsuits in the 

federal district courts, many of which relate to patents she 

previously held or now holds. She has also sued lawyers, 

judges, court staff, and parties that were involved in those 

cases under a wide variety of legal theories. The underlying litigation here is another such case. While Dr. Arunachalam seeks patent infringement damages in the 

complaint, she also accused 46 named defendants and 100 

unnamed defendants—including corporations, judges, lawyers, and government officials that were involved in 

Dr. Arunachalam’s past cases—of violating the common 

law, the United States Constitution, and several statutory

provisions, including the patent statutes. 

Case: 22-2121 Document: 173 Page: 5 Filed: 05/10/2024
ARUNACHALAM v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION

6

The complaint is difficult to follow. As best we can discern, Dr. Arunachalam asserted that she is “the inventor 

of the Internet of Things (IoT) – Web Apps displayed on a 

Web browser” and “was awarded a dozen patents by the 

U.S. Government with a priority date of 11/13/1995.” Arunachalam v. Gordon, No. 20-cv-1020, Dkt. No. 170, at 26

(D. Del. June 23, 2022) (“Complaint”). She sought compensatory damages against all of the defendants “based on per 

Web transaction per Web App used by Defendants, their 

customers and Partners, but not less than $100B,” id. at 

99, and requested an order for defendants “to pay the royalties rightfully owed to the inventor,” id. at 41. 

The complaint further alleged that “[t]he Judiciary and 

USPTO aided and abetted in the unjust enrichment of [the] 

Corporate Infringers [on] the order of trillions of dollars,” 

and that judges and the USPTO misapplied patent law. Id.

at 37. The 14 claims of the complaint alleged violations of 

the First, Fourth, Fifth, Seventh, Eighth, and Fourteenth 

Amendments, violations of the Administrative Procedure 

Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, a witness tampering statute, the Americans with Disabilities Act, a conspiracy statute, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 

the Civil Rights Act of 1955, the Age Discrimination Act of 

1975, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and the Civil Rights 

Act of 1866, as well as the patent statutes. Dr. Arunachalam also raised theories of recovery based in tort law. 

Many of these claims depended on Dr. Arunachalam’s repeated assertion that the defendants had made false statements in connection with her earlier patent cases. 

The district court dismissed all of the claims and entered judgment on December 29, 2021. At the same time, 

the district court ordered Dr. Arunachalam to show cause

why she should not be subject to an anti-filing injunction. 

Dr. Arunachalam filed a brief in opposition. Arunachalam, 

No. 20-cv-1020, Dkt. No. 263. The district court then entered an anti-filing injunction order: 

Case: 22-2121 Document: 173 Page: 6 Filed: 05/10/2024
ARUNACHALAM v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION

7

[Dr. Arunachalam] is hereby enjoined from filing, 

without prior authorization of the Court, any complaint, lawsuit, or petition for writ of mandamus, 

related to: (i) the patents she holds; (ii) the more 

than 100 patent lawsuits she has filed, (iii) patent 

infringement, and/or (iv) any and all actions taken 

by individuals during the course of patent litigation 

involving Plaintiff. 

Appx. 38.1

On July 6, 2022, Dr. Arunachalam attempted to appeal

to this court both the dismissal of her complaint and the 

entry of the anti-filing injunction. Because Dr. Arunachalam’s appeal of the final judgment order dismissing her 

claims was untimely, we concluded that we lacked jurisdiction to hear those issues and dismissed that part of the appeal. Arunachalam, No. 22-2121, ECF No. 145, at 3, 5

(citing the 60-day time limit of 28 U.S.C. § 2107(b) and Fed. 

R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B)). We declined to resolve at that time

whether this court had jurisdiction over the part of the appeal concerning the anti-filing injunction “based on the 

subject matter of the underlying complaint,” and we invited briefing from Dr. Arunachalam “to argue in favor of 

our jurisdiction and challeng[e] the anti-filing order.” Id.

at 4.

In her principal brief, Dr. Arunachalam represented 

that the “U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware 

(‘DED’) alleges to have subject matter jurisdiction under 28 

U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a). This Court (‘CAFC’) has appellate 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1295 over the District 

Court’s Order(s).” Appellant’s Corrected Opening Br. at 1, 

1 “Appx.” citations refer to the hand-numbered appendix pages filed with Appellant’s principal brief. Appellant’s Corrected Opening Br., Arunachalam, No. 2022-

2121, ECF No. 148.

Case: 22-2121 Document: 173 Page: 7 Filed: 05/10/2024
ARUNACHALAM v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION

8

Arunachalam, No. 22-2121, ECF No. 148. On the merits, 

she argued that “a [f]iling [i]njunction is contrary to 

[p]atent [s]tatutes that allow [p]atentee to sue infringers,” 

id. at 8, and that “[f]iling patent lawsuits is allowed by 

[p]atent [s]tatutes and does not make her a ‘vexatious litigant’ requiring [a] filing injunction,” id. at 11 (emphasis removed). 

The appellees urged dismissal or transfer of the appeal

or, in the alternative, affirmance of the injunction order. 

DISCUSSION

A 

We first consider the question of jurisdiction. We conclude that our court has jurisdiction over this appeal under 

28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1). 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(1), we have jurisdiction over 

“an appeal from a final decision of a district court of the 

United States . . . in any civil action arising under . . . any 

Act of Congress relating to patents . . . .” Thus, our jurisdiction extends at least to cases in which “federal patent 

law creates the cause of action” for one claim. Xitronix 

Corp. v. KLA-Tencor Corp., 882 F.3d 1075, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 

2018) (quoting Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 

486 U.S. 800, 809 (1988)). 

We think that the jurisdictional test set forth in Xitronix is met here, at least because Claim 9 invokes the “Patent Statutes” and sets forth a theory of recovery for patent 

infringement, namely that the defendants “aided and abetted Big-Tech, and Microsoft in stealing Plaintiff’s property, 

worth trillions of dollars in unjust enrichment by BigTech.” Complaint, at 81, 88. The damages sought are also 

those that would be recoverable in an action for patent infringement, specifically damages “based on per Web transaction per Web App used by Defendants, their customers 

and Partners, but not less than $100B,” id. at 99, which the 

plaintiff alleged represents “the royalties rightfully owed to 

Case: 22-2121 Document: 173 Page: 8 Filed: 05/10/2024
ARUNACHALAM v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION

9

the inventor,” id. at 41. This is sufficient to bring the appeal under our jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1295(a)(1). See Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung 

der angewandten Forschung E.V. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., 

59 F.4th 1319, 1323–24 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (holding that the 

Federal Circuit has jurisdiction over ancillary orders in 

cases arising under the federal patent laws).

B 

Having determined that we have jurisdiction over the 

anti-filing injunction order on appeal, we turn to the merits. The federal courts have the inherent power to issue 

injunctions against the abuse of the judicial process, including by the repeated filing of meritless and vexatious 

pleadings. Allen v. United States, 88 F.4th 983, 986–87

(Fed. Cir. 2023); see also Brow v. Farrelly, 994 F.2d 1027, 

1038 (3d Cir. 1993) (finding that the All Writs Act, 28 

U.S.C. § 1651, provides the power). The party to be enjoined must be given notice of the injunction and an opportunity to be heard before the injunction is entered. Allen, 

88 F.4th at 988; Brow, 994 F.2d at 1038. Both our court 

and the Third Circuit review the imposition of an anti-filing injunction for abuse of discretion. Allen, 88 F.4th at

986–87; In re Packer Ave. Assocs., 884 F.2d 745, 747 (3d 

Cir. 1989). We see no abuse of discretion in the district 

court’s order. 

At the outset, we note that the district court gave 

Dr. Arunachalam notice of the proposed injunction and the 

grounds on which it was based, and Dr. Arunachalam was 

heard on the issue fully in a 37 page opposition brief. Accordingly, the district court met the notice and opportunity 

to be heard requirements. 

As the district court stated in both its notice and in its 

injunction order, the District of Delaware had previously 

sanctioned Dr. Arunachalam for her litigation conduct and 

awarded almost $150,000 in attorneys’ fees against her. 

Arunachalam v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 989 F.3d 988, 997

Case: 22-2121 Document: 173 Page: 9 Filed: 05/10/2024
ARUNACHALAM v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION

10

(Fed. Cir. 2021). Our court affirmed that sanction, finding 

there that the “record amply demonstrate[d] Dr. Arunachalam’s vexatious and wanton litigation conduct,” including her repeated assertion of dismissed claims against 

the same defendants in another district court. Id. 

During the pendency of that appeal, our court further 

determined that “Dr. Arunachalam has an established pattern of vexatious behavior in this and other courts” and

that “her vexatious and harassing behavior” had continued 

during that case. Arunachalam v. Int’l Bus. Machs. Corp., 

No. 20-1493, ECF No. 55, at 2 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 30, 2020). As 

a result, our court imposed filing restrictions requiring

Dr. Arunachalam to seek leave of court to file any documents other than merits briefs, motions for extensions of 

time, and motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in 

her direct appeals. Id. at 4. The Supreme Court has also 

found that Dr. Arunachalam “repeatedly abused [the Supreme Court’s] process,” and directed the clerk “not to accept any further petition in noncriminal matters from 

petitioner” unless the docketing fees were paid and the filing complied with the Supreme Court’s formatting rule. 

Arunachalam v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 141 S. Ct. 449, 

449–50 (2020). 

The district court found below that “[n]otwithstanding

the sanctions, [Dr. Arunachalam] continued to sue previous defendant corporations, attorneys who represented 

those corporations, judges who presided over the cases, 

judges’ staff, and attorneys who represented the federal 

government. [Dr. Arunachalam’s] filings and pleadings 

raised specious, implausible, frivolous and vexatious 

claims.” Appx. 35–36. The district court also determined 

that Dr. Arunachalam’s complaint was “replete with scandalous and baseless allegations without factual support.” 

Id. at 38. 

We see no error in that assessment, which accurately 

described Dr. Arunachalam’s conduct in this case as well 

Case: 22-2121 Document: 173 Page: 10 Filed: 05/10/2024
ARUNACHALAM v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION

11

as other previously-filed cases. See, e.g., Arunachalam v. 

Harris, No. 21-5102, 2021 WL 5262582 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 27, 

2021); Arunachalam v. United States, No. 2021-1410, 2021 

WL 2470305 (Fed. Cir. June 4, 2021); Arunachalam v. Andrews, No. 5:17-CV-03383-EJD, 2018 WL 513178 (N.D. 

Cal. Jan. 23, 2018); Arunachalam v. United States, No. 

5:16-CV-06591-EJD, 2017 WL 3730340 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 

2017). We also agree with the district court that this extraordinary history of abuse of the judicial process constitutes the exigent circumstances that justify the entry of an 

anti-filing injunction. 

Dr. Arunachalam argues that the district court made 

an error regarding the number of patent lawsuits that she 

has filed. That finding, which was based on Dr. Arunachalam’s own pleading that she has been involved “in over 100 

cases,” does not constitute an abuse of discretion. Appx. 38 

(quoting Complaint, at 33). Regardless of the precise number of lawsuits that she has filed, Dr. Arunachalam concedes on appeal that she has filed numerous lawsuits, 

sometimes against the same defendants, and characterizes 

herself as having been involved in “125, rather 62 lawsuits.” Appellant’s Corrected Opening Br. at 11, Arunachalam, No. 22-2121 (emphasis removed). On this record, we 

cannot say that the district court abused its discretion by 

referring to “more than 100 patent lawsuits” in its order. 

Appx. 38. Moreover, even if Dr. Arunachalam’s lower figures were accurate, we do not think that this would transform the entry of the injunction into an abuse of discretion. 

The injunction was properly based on Dr. Arunachalam’s 

repeated filing of “lawsuits that contain frivolous legal arguments and are vexatious and abusive of the judicial process” after the resolution of her initial wave of patent suits. 

Case: 22-2121 Document: 173 Page: 11 Filed: 05/10/2024
ARUNACHALAM v.

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES CORPORATION

12

Appx. 38. This finding is not affected by the number of patent lawsuits Dr. Arunachalam originally filed.2

Finally, we see no abuse of discretion in the scope of the 

district court’s order, which is narrowly tailored to prevent 

Dr. Arunachalam from filing similarly meritless and vexatious cases without the approval of the district court. The 

order here specifically targets Dr. Arunachalam’s repeated 

filings of lawsuits asserting patent infringement claims 

that she has already lost and raising frivolous accusations 

against individuals involved in those earlier cases. Moreover, the order provides a process for Dr. Arunachalam to 

seek leave of court to file documents that would otherwise 

be enjoined. Thus, we cannot say that the order is overbroad or an abuse of discretion.

AFFIRMED

2 Dr. Arunachalam also argues that Judge Andrews 

should be recused because Judge Andrews purportedly 

owned “direct common stock in [defendant] JPMorgan.” 

Appellant’s Corrected Opening Br. at 11, Arunachalam, 

No. 22-2121 (emphasis omitted). But Judge Andrews was 

never assigned to this case.

Case: 22-2121 Document: 173 Page: 12 Filed: 05/10/2024