Arunachalam v. United States

• Decision Date: 09 September 2020
• Docket Number: No. 16-358,16-358
• Parties: DR. LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. Claims Court

DR. LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant.

No. 16-358

United States Court of Federal Claims

September 9, 2020

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Pro se; Patent Infringement; RCFC 12(b)(1); RCFC 12(b)(6); Motion to Dismiss.

Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam, Menlo Park, CA, pro se.

Scott David Bolden, Deputy Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, Department of Justice, with whom were Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Gary L. Hausken, Director, Sarah Craven and Kakoli Caprihan, United States Patent and Trademark Office, of counsel, and Andrew P. Zager, Department of the Navy, all of Washington, DC, for defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER

HOLTE, Judge.

Plaintiff accuses the government of infringing U.S. patent no. 7,340,506 (the '506 patent), in addition to numerous miscellaneous claims for relief. The government moved to dismiss plaintiff's claims pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims ("RCFC"). Prior to deciding the government's motion to dismiss, this Court stayed the current litigation pending decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board ("PTAB") of the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") in a Covered Business Method ("CBM") review of the '506 patent. This case was transferred to the undersigned Judge on 29 July 2019. Following the PTAB's decision in the CBM proceeding, and passage of the date by which plaintiff may appeal the PTAB's decision to the Federal Circuit, the government filed a renewed motion to dismiss plaintiff's claims under RCFC 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). Plaintiff further filed a series of motions seeking various forms of relief. The Court stayed all other motions, deferring consideration until addressing the government's jurisdictional motion as it would be dispositive of all claims in the case. The Court originally scheduled oral argument on the government's motion to dismiss for 17 April 2020. After plaintiff's second request to reschedule oral argument and repeated miscellaneous filings disregarding the Court's orders directing the stay in this case, the Court now rules on the government's motion to dismiss on the papers. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS the government's motion to dismiss.

I. Procedural and Factual History

Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam, the sole inventor of the '506 patent, filed the application that eventually issued as the '506 patent on 23 February 2001. See U.S. Patent No. 7,340,506 to Arunachalam ("'506 Patent"). The '506 patent was filed as a continuation of application no. 09/296,207, filed 21 April 1999, which claimed priority to provisional application no. 60/006,634, originally filed 13 November 1995. Id. After just over seven years of prosecution before the USPTO, the '506 patent issued 4 March 2008 with 19 total claims, four of which were independent claims. See id. The '506 patent was assigned to WebXchange, Inc. ("WebXchange"). Id. The '506 patent, "Value-added Network Switching and Object Routing," "provides a method and apparatus for providing real-time, two-way transactional capabilities on the network." '506 Patent at Cover Page. Plaintiff characterizes the '506 patent as covering the invention of the internet of things, characterizing herself as "the Inventor of the Internet of Things - Web Apps Displayed on a Web browser." See Pro Se Pl. Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam's Resp. to Def.'s Mots. for Leave to File Renewed Mot. to Dismiss Pl.'s First Am. Compl. and Def.'s Renewed Mot. to Dismiss Pl.'s First Am. Compl. at 6, ECF No. 56 ("Pl.'s Opp'n to MTD"). Plaintiff asserts the "patented technology has created the millennial generation and transformed the way we live, work and play and is mission critical to how the United States conducts its business and operations today on the Web in its various agencies." Am. Compl. ¶ 3.

Prior to any proceedings in this Court, the '506 patent underwent significant post-grant proceedings before both the USPTO and the PTAB. On 19 December 2008, Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft") requested an inter partes reexamination of all 19 claims of the '506 patent. Microsoft Corp. v. WebXchange Inc., No. 2013-008997, 1 (P.T.A.B. June 30, 2014) ("Microsoft Reexam."); Def.'s Renewed Mot. to Dismiss Pl.'s First Am. Compl. at 3 ("Gov't MTD"). In addition to the 19 existing claims, WebXchange added an additional 40 claims during the reexamination proceeding. See Microsoft Reexam.; Gov't MTD at 3. The patent examiner rejected all 19 of the original claims, in addition to 38 of the 40 newly added claims. See Microsoft Reexam.; Gov't MTD at 3. The '506 patent was thus left with only two claims: claims 20 and 21. '506 Patent Reexamination Certificate; Gov't MTD at 3-4. On appeal to the PTAB of the patent examiner's rejections during the reexamination proceeding, the PTAB affirmed the rejection of all 57 claims. Microsoft Reexam. at 2; Gov't MTD at 3-4. As Microsoft did not appeal the PTAB's decision to the Federal Circuit, the '506 patent was reissued with just the two remaining claims: claims 20 and 21. See Inter Partes Reexamination Certificate of U.S. Patent No. 7,340,506 (issued Oct. 15, 2014); Gov't MTD at 4.

Plaintiff filed her complaint in this Court on 21 March 2016.¹ See Compl. On 20 May 2016, "SAP America, Inc. filed a petition with the PTAB seeking a Covered Business Method(CBM) Review challenging the patentability of Claims 20 and 21 of the '506 Patent." Gov't MTD at 5. In the CBM proceeding, SAP America, Inc. ("SAP") "asserted that the claims of the '506 Patent were not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 and unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103." Id. On 30 January 2017, this Court stayed further proceedings in this case pending the PTAB's final written decision.² See Order, ECF No. 22. On 21 December 2017, the PTAB issued a final written decision finding the remaining claims of the '506 patent, claims 20 and 21, "unpatentable." SAP America, Inc. v. Lakshmi Arunachalam, No. CBM2016-00081 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2017).

Following the PTAB's final written decision, plaintiff attempted to collaterally attack the legitimacy of the PTAB's decision in the CBM review in an ongoing lawsuit before the United States District Court, District of Delaware. See Arunachalam v. Int'l Bus. Mach. Corp., 759 F. App'x 927 (Fed. Cir. 2019). On appeal of the dismissal of the Delaware district court action, the Federal Circuit noted "[t]he deadline to appeal the Board's decision was February 22, 2018. But Dr. Arunachalam never filed an appeal" of the PTAB's final written decision with the Federal Circuit. Id. at 930 (internal citations omitted). The Federal Circuit thus found "[g]iven that Dr. Arunachalam did not [appeal the PTAB's decision], the [PTAB's] decision invalidating [claims 20 and 21] is final and may not be collaterally attacked through a separate litigation." Id. at 933.

Following reassignment of this case to the undersigned Judge on 29 July 2019, the government filed a motion for leave to file a renewed motion to dismiss, along with the renewed motion to dismiss, on 20 August 2019. See Gov't MTD. The government's motion to dismiss seeks to dismiss plaintiff's amended complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(1) and failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to RCFC 12(b)(6). Id. at 1. Following several requests for extensions of time, plaintiff filed a response to the government's motion for leave and the government's renewed motion to dismiss, addressing the merits of the government's renewed motion to dismiss. See Pl.'s Opp'n to MTD. Plaintiff further filed a motion seeking various forms of relief from the Court. See Pl.'s Adversely Dominated Mot. and Notice to Enforce the Mandated Prohibition from Repudiating Government-Issued Contract Grants of Any Kind, ECF No. 57. The government filed a reply to plaintiff's response brief to the government's renewed motion to dismiss on 12 December 2019.See Def.'s Reply in Supp. of its Mot. for Leave and Renewed Mot. to Dismiss Pl.'s First Am. Compl., ECF No. 58 ("Gov't Reply").

The Court held a status conference on 21 January 2020 to discuss the government's motion for leave and renewed motion to dismiss, as well as plaintiff's miscellaneous motion. See Order, ECF No. 59. On the same day of the status conference, plaintiff submitted a series of additional filings, including: a status report (ECF No. 60); two notices (ECF Nos. 61 and 62); and a motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 63). Following the 21 January status conference, the Court issued an order on 23 January addressing the various pending motions as follows: granting the government's motion for leave to file a renewed motion to dismiss; lifting the stay only as to the government's motion to dismiss; staying all other pending motions, with the Court deferring consideration of all such motions pending resolution of the government's motion to dismiss; and allowing plaintiff additional time to seek representation of counsel prior to scheduling oral argument on the government's motion to dismiss. See Order, ECF No. 64.

Despite the Court's 23 January order lifting the stay only as to the government's motion to dismiss, plaintiff filed numerous miscellaneous documents with the court.³ To the extent any of plaintiff's filings were not in compliance with the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims, the Court struck such filings from the record. See Order, ECF No. 68. To the extent the Court was able to construe any of plaintiff's miscellaneous filings as motions or responsive filings to other pending items on the docket, the Court permitted such filings. See Order, ECF No. 77 (directing the Clerk to "enter Exhibit 1 to plaintiff's motion for leave as a reply to the government's opposition to plaintiff's 'adversely dominated motion'"). To the extent plaintiff sought to file additional motions, the Court's 23 January order lifted the stay only as to the government's motion to dismiss; all other pending items remain...