Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

In re Raghubir, No. 22-102 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 7, 2021)

Dismissed
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 22-102
Decided
December 7, 2021
Judge
Per curiam
Document
Nonprecedential Opinion
Length
2 pages

NOTE: This order is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit

In re: VINODH RAGHUBIR,

Petitioner

2022-102

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States Court of Federal Claims in No. 1:20-cv-00388-EGB, Senior Judge Eric G. Bruggink.

ON PETITION AND MOTION

O R D E R

Vinodh Raghubir petitions this court for writ of mandamus. The United States moves for summary dismissal. Mr. Raghubir moves to strike the United States’ motion and also moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. On August 28, 2020, the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissed Mr. Raghubir’s complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Mr. Raghubir sought this court’s review. On December 22, 2020, this court dismissed his appeal as frivolous. In re Raghubir, 831 F. App’x 957, 958 (Fed. Cir. 2020). On September 13, 2021, the Court of Federal Claims received from Mr. Raghubir a submission entitled

22 IN RE: RAGHUBIR

“Demand/Motion for Reinstatement.” On September 20, 2021, the Court of Federal Claims issued an order notifying Mr. Raghubir that his submission would not be docketed because his case was over.

Mr. Raghubir’s petition argues that the Court of Federal Claims’ September 20, 2021 order “violat[ed] federal law and rules of procedure,” which “resulted in vindictive proceedings.” Pet. at 2 (capitalization omitted). But he has not met the high standard for mandamus relief because, among other things, he has not shown a “clear and indisputable,” right to having his submission, filed almost a year after his case was over, considered by the trial court. Will v. Calvert Fire Ins., 437 U.S. 655, 665–66 (1978) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The petition is denied. (2) All pending motions are denied as moot.

FOR THE COURT

December 07, 2021 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Date Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

s28

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

In re Raghubir, No. 22-102 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 7, 2021).

Record ID
CAFC-22-102-20211207
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-22-102-20211207

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.