In January 2019, we affirmed "the [D]istrict [C]ourt's dismissal of the patent infringement claim against IBM, dismissal of all RICO claims against all defendants, denial of the motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, denials of motions to recuse, and all other district court rulings challenged by Dr. Arunachalam in this appeal." Arunachalam v. Int'l Bus. Machines Corp. (Arunachalam III ), 759 F. App'x 927, 934 (Fed. Cir. 2019), cert. denied , ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 249, 205 L.Ed.2d 141 (2019), reh'g denied , ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 578, 205 L.Ed.2d 378 (2019). We explained that the District Court "correctly dismissed the RICO claims for failure to state a claim" because "patent infringement is not a recognized predicate ‘racketeering activity’ for a RICO claim ... [n]or do the rest of the pleadings sufficiently support any of the other alleged predicate acts."