Lakshmi Arunachalam v. Kronos Incorporated

Whether dismissing an appeal when a fee waiver Motion is pending is constitutional.

Whether dismissing the appeal after annihilating the record and falsely claiming the Appeal was not prosecuted against evidence1 to the contrary, is constitutional.

Whether not considering material intrinsic evidence of Patent Prosecution History2 makes it an improperly decided case.

Whether an improperly decided case3 falsely claimed as precedent and basis for collateral estoppel is constitutional.

Whether Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819) was properly decided against impairing the obligation of contract. If so, whether not upholding it as stare decisis precedent of this Court is constitutional. 1 Petitioner has evidence that the Opening Appeal Brief and Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss the Appeal were timely delivered by U.S. Overnight Priority Mail and timely received by CAFC. CAFC failed to docket the Opening Appeal Brief. CAFC docketed the Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss the Appeal and removed the same from the docket. 2 Fes to Corp. v Shoketsu Kinzoku Kogyo Kabushiki Co., 535 U.S. 722 (2002) —Patent Prosecution History Estoppel. 3 Pi-Net International Inc. and Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.; 2014-1495 (CAFC); 12-282 (D.Del.)