No. 88-308

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

TERM 1988 1989

_________________________________________

JAMES N. CONSTANT,

Petitioner

v.

ADVANCED MICRO—DEVICES, INC.,

et al.,

Respondents *

______________________________________________________________

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

__________________________________________

James Constant

                                                                                                                                                                                                              Pro se petitioner

__________________________________________

* see APPENDIX A f or a complete list of all Respondents


QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

1. Whether, absent the determination under 35 USC 302 et. seq. the reexamination of patents in the district court denies the patent owner a full trial and due process.

2. Whether the grant to the district court of discretion to determine whether the Patent Office procedure under 35 USC 302 et seq. should be utilized and to determine the taxing of costs against patent owners for errors made by the Patent Office in granting patents is inconsistent with due process under the 5th Amendment and the prohibition for imposing excessive fines under the 8th Amendment to the Contitution.

3. Whether the validity of the two patents in suit was decided in conflict with applicable decisions of this Courts


3

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Petitioner filed an action CV 85—0262 for infringement of Constitutional rights, Civil rights, Patent rights, Federal Unfair Competition, Antitrust, and California Unfair Competition, Non—patent claims were immediately dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

As to the remaining patent claim, petitioner recommended the Patent Office procedure for reexamination of patent validity and respondents opposed, The court appointed a special master recommended by respondents. Petitioner objected to the master's admitted lack of qualifications in any technology and also objected to the payment of the master's fees and informed the court that appointment of the special master would create financial hardship on him. The court assisted by the


4

admittedly unqualified master found the two patents invalid under 35 USC 102(b) and 103. Patent 3,950,635 ('635) was found invalid over the Stalcup patent and Allen & Westerfield (A&W) article and Patent 4,438,491 ('491) was found invalid .over the Intel Exhibit 5. The court also ordered petitioner to pay the costs of litigation of the validity of the two patents in the amount of $123,832 (App. B—65). The Stalcup and A&W references were generated by the Patent Office and Government R&D respectively. The Intel reference was generated by respondent Intel.


5

In district court proceedings, for patents and publications, the reexamination of patents under 35 USC 102(b) and 103 is authorized under 35 USC 282(2). In Patent Office proceedings, the reexamination of patents is authorized under 35 USC 302 et seq. The cost of reexamination of a patent in the Patent Office is $1,770.

The district court's jurisdiction for patent claims was invoked under 28 USC 1338.


A-4

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

88—1101

JAMES CONSTANT,

Plaintiff—Appellant,

v.

ADVANCED MICRO-DEVICES, INC., GOULD, INC., AMERICAN MICROSYSTEMS, INC., ANALOG DEVICES, INC., FUJITSU, LTS., FUJITSU MICROELECTRONICS, INC., DIGITAL SWITCH, INC., GRANGER ASSOCIATES, INC., HITACHI CORPORATION, INTEL, INC., INTERACTIVE CIRCUITS & SYS., LTS., MATSUSHITA ELECTRONICS CORP., COMPUTER MODULES, INC., NIPPON ELECTRIC CO., LTD., NEC ELECTRONICS USA, PARADYNE DORPORATION, SEMICONDUCTOR PRODUCTS, TEXAS INSTRUMENTS, INC., and TRW INC.,

Defendants—Appellees.

James Constant, of Claremont, California, submitted Pro Se.

Jerry R. Selinger, Baker, Mills & Glast, of Dallas, Texas, submitted for defendants-appellees, Texas Instruments, Inc. Adrian M. Pruetz, Morrison & Foerster, of Los Angeles, California, submitted for defendants— appellees, Fujitsu, Ltd. and Fujitsu


A-5

Microelectronics, Inc. Martin R. Horn, David M. Simon and David A. Hall, Spensley Horn Jubas & Lubitz, of Los Angeles, California, submitted for defendants— appellees, Hitachi America, Ltd. Edwin H. Taylor and James C. Scheller, Jr., Blakely Sokoloff, Taylor & Zafman, of Sunnyvale, California, submitted for defendants— appellees Advanced Micro—Devices, Inc. Intel Corporation. Appealed from: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

Judge Wilson

**************************************************************************
Federal judges who decided this case arbitrarily in favor of global corporations by refusing to decide the questions presented by the inventor:

Stephen Wilson, U.S. District Judge SD California

Davis, Cohen, and Smith, Circuit Judges, Federal Circuit
U. S. Supreme Court (denied petition to supervise lower courts)

The inventor claims that the courts lacked jurisdiction because the '351 and '660 patents were found invalid without deciding patent claims.

For more details in this case see  Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc. 848 F.2nd 1560, 7 USPQ 2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1988); see http://www.coolissues.com/patentreform/fcourts_11.htm.

Go back to http://courtreform.coolissues.com/fcourts_2.htm