In Re: Arunachalam
709 F. App'x 699
| Fed. Cir. | 2017Background
- Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam (pro se) owns U.S. Pat. No. 6,212,556 (ʼ556), a continuation-in-part of U.S. Pat. No. 5,987,500 (ʼ500), both claiming a value-added network (VAN) "switch" enabling real-time two-way transactions.
- District court in Pi‑Net Int’l Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co. invalidated asserted claims of the ʼ500 patent as indefinite, not enabled, and lacking written description, focusing on terms like "VAN switch," "switching," and "object routing."
- An inter partes review and subsequent Board decision also found certain ʼ500 claims unpatentable; the Federal Circuit previously held Arunachalam collaterally estopped from relitigating those claims.
- Microsoft requested ex parte reexamination of the ʼ556 patent; the Board found many ʼ556 claims unpatentable (anticipation and obviousness).
- The Federal Circuit in this appeal (per curiam) affirmed the Board, holding collateral estoppel precluded relitigation of issues substantially identical to those decided in JPMorgan and, alternatively, finding no reversible error in the Board’s merits determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Arunachalam's Argument | PTO/Microsoft's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of collateral estoppel to ʼ556 claims | Implicitly disputes estoppel; offers no persuasive reason estoppel should not apply | Prior district-court invalidation of ʼ500 claims involved same issues ("switch", enablement, written description); ʼ556 claims are not materially different | Collateral estoppel applies; appeal barred on those issues |
| Whether ʼ556 disclosures materially differ from ʼ500 so as to avoid estoppel | Points to additional disclosures in continuation-in-part | Additional disclosures do not meaningfully explain VAN switch or cure §112 defects | Differences are immaterial; estoppel attaches |
| Merits: anticipation/obviousness over Ginter | Presents claim constructions and conclusory arguments claiming errors | Board’s findings supported; Arunachalam fails to show how constructions overcome Examiner’s findings | No reversible error; merits arguments unpersuasive |
| Request to certify legal questions to Supreme Court | Asks certification of purportedly important questions | No specific, nationally important question identified; certifying not warranted | Motions to certify denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Miss. Chem. Corp. v. Swift Agric. Chems. Corp., 717 F.2d 1374 (Fed. Cir.) (collateral estoppel bars relitigation after full and fair earlier proceeding)
- Ohio Willow Wood Co. v. Alps South, LLC, 735 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir.) (issue identity, not claim identity, controls collateral estoppel application)
- In re Freeman, 30 F.3d 1459 (Fed. Cir.) (preclusion can apply across different fora)
- B & B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis Indus., Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1293 (U.S.) (preclusion principles can apply across administrative and judicial proceedings)
- Chenery Corp. v. Securities & Exchange Comm’n, 318 U.S. 80 (U.S.) (Chenery not applicable to pure legal findings like collateral estoppel)
- Canonsburg Gen. Hosp. v. Burwell, 807 F.3d 295 (D.C. Cir.) (Chenery discussion relevant regarding legal vs. factual findings)
- Pi‑Net Int’l Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 42 F. Supp. 3d 579 (D. Del.) (district court decision invalidating asserted ʼ500 claims for indefiniteness, lack of enablement, and lack of written description)