Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

Lakshmi Arunachalam v. Citigroup, Inc., et al.

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, No. 2020-2196 · judgment November 3, 2020

Certiorari denied · May 3, 2021
Pre-decision estimate: 0% cert probability

Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.

Question presented

  1. Whether the inferior courts arbitrarily claiming collateral estoppel without once proving it nor applying Supreme Court precedent dating back more than two hundred years or 35USC §282 and suppressing material evidence1, thereby adversely dominating the process to prevent Dartmouth College and Fletcher from ever coming before this Court, constitutes denying a citizen due process and access to the courts, violating the 1st, 5th and 1 wherein material evidence includes at least: a. Prima facie intrinsic evidence of th terms and conditions of the patent grant in Patent Prosecution History; b. This Court’s own stare decisis Mandated Prohibition of the Constitution against repudiating Government-issued patent grant contracts, declared in Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819), Grant u. Raymond (1832), Fletcher v. Peck (1810); c. All claims in patents-in-suit, not examined, as per 35USC §282: “Each claim of a patent (whether in independent, dependent, or multiple dependent form) shall be presumed valid independently of the validity of other claims; dependent or multiple dependent claims shall be presumed valid even though dependent upon an invalid claim. The burden of establishing invalidity of a patent or any claim thereof shall rest on the party asserting such invalidity,” and must be proven with “clear and convincing evidence.” d. Expert opinions by Stanford’s Dr. Markus Covert and Dr. Jay Tenenbaum proving that Petitioner’s patent claim terms are not indefinite, nor patent claims collaterally estopped, as per the court’s False Official Statements; e. Witness testimony of the courts’ failure to perform their ministerial duties to abide by their solemn oaths; and, f. USPTO’s unconstitutionally appointed judges (APJs) to perform the function of the Judiciary, violating the Separation of Powers, Contract and Appointments Clauses of the Constitution.

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Lakshmi Arunachalam

For respondent
—

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference

Proceedings

  1. May 03 2021
    Petition DENIED. The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
  2. Apr 14 2021
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/30/2021.
  3. Feb 19 2021
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 26, 2021)