This morning, the Federal Circuit issued a nonprecedential opinion in a patent case, two nonprecedential orders denying petitions for writs of mandamus, and three Rule 36 judgments. Here is the introduction to the opinion, the text from the orders, and links to the Rule 36 judgments.

Tenstreet, LLC v. DriverReach, LLC (Nonprecedential)

Tenstreet appeals the Southern District of Indiana’s determination that its patented method of using peer-to-peer networking to verify employment history is directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Because the district court correctly determined that the claims of the patent-in-suit are directed to an abstract idea and lack an inventive concept, we affirm.

Gallogly v. United States (Nonprecedential Order)

Rebecca Gallogly petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the United States Court of Federal Claims to docket submissions entitled “Plaintiff’s Amended Objections to Defendant’s Response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief from Judgment,” ECF No. 2-1 at 10–28, and “Motion for Leave to File Amended Objections,” ECF No. 2-1 at 29–45. She also moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

Review of the docket before the Court of Federal Claims shows that these documents were entered on the docket on September 14, 2020. See Gallogly v. United States, No. 1:20-cv-00261-MCW (Fed. Cl. Aug. 28, 2020), ECF No. 33. Additionally, on September 21, 2020, that court granted Dr. Gallogly’s motion for leave to file amended objections. See Gallogly v. United States, No. 1:20-cv-00261-MCW (Fed. Cl. Sept. 21, 2020), ECF No. 35.

Because Dr. Gallogly has received the requested relief, we deny her petition as moot.



(1) The petition for writ of mandamus is denied as moot.

(2) The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

In re Arunachalam (Nonprecedential Order)

Lakshmi Arunachalam petitions the court for a writ of mandamus, seeking to vacate various orders of this court, district courts, the United States Court of Federal Claims, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Kronos Incorporated, a defendant in one of the underlying district court matters, moves for leave to file an untimely entry of appearance.

In July 2020, this court denied Dr. Arunachalam’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis on the ground that the petition appeared frivolous. We explained that the petition largely seeks to pursue arguments that this court has already repeatedly rejected, that, at a minimum, she lacked a clear and indisputable right to relief in seeking to vacate orders in closed cases listed in the caption, and that for those cases in the caption that were ongoing or recently resolved, Dr. Arunachalam had failed to explain why she lacks an alternative means for obtaining relief through the course of an appeal. Dr. Arunachalam petitioned for rehearing en banc, which the court denied. Dr. Arunachalam then paid the filing fee.

Issuance of a writ of mandamus is a “drastic” remedy, “reserved for really extraordinary causes.” Ex parte Fahey, 332 U.S. 258, 259–60 (1947). To establish mandamus relief, a petitioner must, at a minimum, establish that she has a clear and indisputable right to relief and no adequate alternative legal channels to obtain that relief. See Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for the Dist. of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 380–81 (2004). For the reasons already explained to Dr. Arunachalam in this court’s prior order, she has failed to meet that demanding standard.



(1) The petition is denied.

(2) Kronos’ motion is granted.

(3) All other pending motions are denied.

Rule 36 Judgments