Arunachalam v. Citizens Financial Group Inc.

Filing 133

MEMORANDUM ORDER Denying Renewed Motion to Vacate Judgment (No. 12-355, D.I. 130; No. 13-1812, D.I. 47; No. 14-91, D.I. 55; No. 14-373, D.I. 47) and Motion to file electronically. Signed by Judge Richard G. Andrews on 4/4/2016. Associated Cases: 1:12-cv-00355-RGA, 1:13-cv-01812-RGA, 1:14-cv-00091-RGA, 1:14-cv-00373-RGA(nms)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

DR. LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 12-355-RGA

v.
CITIZENS FINANCIAL GROUP INC.,

Defendant.

DR. LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM,
Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 13-1812-RGA

v.
WELLS FARGO BANK N.A.,

Defendant.

DR. LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 14-91-RGA

KRON OS INCORPORATED,

Defendant.

DR. LAKSMI ARUNACHALAM,
Plaintiff,

v.

Civil Action No. 14-373-RGA

CITIGROUP INC., et al.,
Defendants.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Plaintiff has filed a "Renewed Motion to Vacate Judgment pursuant to FRCP 60(b) and
60(d)." (No. 12-355, D.I. 130; No. 13-1812, D.I. 47; No. 14-91, D.I. 55; No. 14-373, D.I. 47).
All four of these cases are currently stayed (although in a separate motion, Plaintiff has requested
that the stays be lifted). On March 18, 2015, I summarized their status:
Pi-Net filed No. 12-355 on March 19, 2012, asserting the '500, '158, and '492 patents
against Citizens Financial Group, Inc. On June 21, 2013, I stayed the case in light of
pending CBM review of the three asserted patents. (D.I. 82). The case remains stayed.
Pi-Net filed No. 13-1812 on November 1, 2013, asserting the '500 and '492 patents
against Wells Fargo & Company. About the time I might have held a scheduling
conference, Judge Robinson decided on May 14, 2014, in Pi-Net v. J.P. Morgan, No. 12282-SLR, that the '500, '158, and '492 patent claims were invalid. (No. 12-282-SLR,
D.I. 165 & 166). There has thus been no substantive progress in the No. 13-1812 case,
although it has not been formally stayed. In No. 14-91, Pi-Net filed a case on January 22,
2014, against Kronos Inc., asserting the '500, '492, '833, and '894 patents. While
preliminary motions were pending, the parties stipulated to a stay pending resolution of
the appeal from the J.P. Morgan case. (No. 14-91-RGA, D.I. 14). I granted the stay. In
No. 14-373, Pi-Net filed suit against Citigroup, Inc. on March 24, 2014, asserting the
'500 and '492 patents. On June 17, 2014, the parties agreed to stay the case, which I
granted. (No. 14-373-RGA, D.I. 9).
(D.I. 121). 1
Plaintiff has exhausted her appeals in the J.P. Morgan case. Nevertheless, the instant

1

Unless otherwise indicated, docket item citations are to No. 12-355. Plaintiff is now Dr.
Arunachalam, and not Pi-Net.

motion appears to be some sort of effort at a collateral attack on the J.P. Morgan decision or as a
second and untimely motion to reconsider my earlier decisions on recusal. (D.I. 120, 126).
Whlchever way it is characterized, 2 it is DENIED.
Plaintiff also seeks permission to file electronically. (D.I. 129). The request is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this

2

_!j_ day of April 2016.

On recusal, in addition to that which is in the dockets of these cases, I have filed
relevant orders docketed in the J.P. Morgan case. No. 12-282-RGA (D.I. 259, 270).