In a recent memorandum order, Judge Richard G. Andrews denied a plaintiff’s motion to substitute into the case an individual in place of a corporate plaintiff whose patents were invalidated at trial. Pi-Net Int’l Inc. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., C.A. No. 12-282-RGA (D. Del. Feb. 22, 2016). Judge Andrews explained the patents at issue were transferred to the individual post-trial. The Court denied the motion, explaining:
There are no equities or interests that support allowing Dr. Arunachalam to continue to litigate the case. She used the corporate form to bring the lawsuit. The corporation lost. Dr. Arunchalam pro se has a history of ignoring the Court’s rules, and, indeed, to her detriment, has ignored the Court of Appeals’ rules also. Dr. Arunachalam repetitively files motions that no lawyer would file, such as the motions to recuse just about every single judge who is assigned to her cases. Dr. Arunachalam’s motion in this case states nothing about whether she would accept the litigation liabilities that Pi-Net might have incurred. (There is a pending section 285 motion.)
The Court proceeded to deny the defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees, finding that the number of theories upon which the defendant proved invalidity was not a basis to find the case exceptional. The Court also found no evidence that Dr. Arunachala knew the patents were invalid, or held an unreasonable belief in their validity. Finally, Judge Andrews noted that the plaintiff’s settlement demand that was 100 times larger than the amount for which the plaintiff was settling similar cases was an indication of bad faith litigation, but was not itself determinative.