No. 89-425

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM 1989

_______________________________________________

JAMES CONSTANT

Petitioner,

V.

HITACHI AMERICA,LTD. ,TEXAS INSTRUMENTS, INC., ANALOG DEVICES, INC., NEC ELECTRONICS, INC., SPENSLEY HORN JUBAS & LUBITZ, SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON, HOPGOOD CALIMAFDE KALIL & BLAUSTEIN, and ROBERT HILLMAN,

Respondents.

_______________________________________________

JAMES CONSTANT,

Petitioner,

V.

MARCIAN HOFF, ROBERT HILLMAN, INTEL, INC., TEXAS INSTRUMENTS, INC., BLAKELY, SOKOLOFF, TAYLOR & ZAFMAN, and MAKER SMITH & MILLS,

Respondents.

____________________________________________________________________________

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT

______________________________________________

James Constant

                                                                                                                                                                                                            Pro se petitioner

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

Whether sanctions under FRCP 11 and FRAP 38 against petitioner are arbitrary because:

1. the fraud complaint and appeal were well grounded in facts (the special master admitted that he was unqualified in any technology and was not qualified to testify under oath; see EXHIBITS) and warranted by existing law (decisions of other federal courts of appeal);

2. the dismissal of the fraud cases against the master and the judge on grounds of absolute immunity is arbitrary in the clear absence of all jurisdiction (the district court cannot perform but can only review the Patent Office function);

3. the retention of jurisdiction by the district court to invalidate petitioner's patents in the earlier patent case, using prior art not considered by the Patent Office in granting petitioner's patents, deprives petitioner's due process to obtain a determination of issue under 35 USC 303;

4. the granting of corporate respondent's motions for summary judgement on grounds of res judicata and collateral estoppel is arbitrary because different claims and issues were involved in the fraud and earlier patent cases;

5. in the absence of the same claims and issues in the fraud and earlier patent cases, the application of res judicata and collateral estoppel deprive petitioner's liberty and property without due process of law;

6. the decisions of other federal circuits, and the applicable decisions of this Court, support petitioner's position (both the Congressional policy under 35 USC 302 et seq. and the case law support petitioner's position, the courts below have failed to show any bad faith on the part of petitioner, sanctions actually assessed are grossly duplicative, unreasonable and do not take into account petitioner's ability to pay);

7, sanctions violate the due process clause because they were made without giving petitioner the opportunity to submit a response to respondent's applications for attorney's fees in the court of appeals; and

8. sanctions deny petitioner's equal protection because FRCP 11 and FRAP 38 treat pro se petitioner and corporate respondents differently.


2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Judge Wilson, over petitioner's objections, appointed a patent lawyer as special expert to make recommendations on the validity of petitioner's two patents in the earlier patent case. Prior to his appointment, the special, expert, Mr. Hillman, admitted having no technical qualifications in any technology and admitted that he was not qualified to testify as a technical expert. Mr. Hillman made two technical reports and testified twice under oath as a technical expert recommending that petitioner's two patents were invalid. Based on Hillman's technical reports and testimony, Judge Wilson found the two patents invalid (A—15). The court of appeals specifically affirmed that "Hillman was well qualified" (A—21).

Petitioner filed four lawsuits (the fraud cases) against the special


3

master, the judge, some attorneys, and some defendants in the earlier patent case. The issues were fraud in the procurement of the judgement and a variety of tortious activities such as misrepresentation, injurious falsehood, and interference with property and contract rights. A—5,6. Mr. Hillman was named as a defendant in each case. The four cases arise from the fact that Mr. Hillman admitted that he was not qualified in any technology and that this fact was known to Judge Wilson and to the other parties before Hillman was appointed as special master in the patent case. The fraud cases were considered together. A—7.

The district court dismissed the cases against the master and the judge on grounds of absolute judicial immunity. The district court granted summary judgement in favor of the remaining defendants on grounds that the fraud cases were impermissible collateral


4

attacks on the judgement in the earlier patent case invalidating the '491 and '635 patents and were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. A—7. The court of appeals affirmed. Both the district court and the court of appeals imposed sanctions against appellant in the form of attorney's fees for his alleged filing of a frivolous complaint and appeal. *

* Appendix ------------------Sanction------------------ For

CAFC A—29------------ ---2,000 ---------------------CAFC

------A—33 --------------18,303.35 ------------------HAL
---- ------"----------------- 12,707.50 ------------------Intel
-----------"----------------- 25,626.08 ------------------TI

Sub—total -------------------------------------------$58,636.93

DCT B—2 -------------------9,694.10 ------------------TI
B—4 -------------------------7,394.50 ------------------AD/NEC
B---6 -------------------------7,298.75 ------------------HAL
B—8 ------------------------16,016.16-------------------TI
B—l0 -------------------------4,425 ----------------------Intel

Sub—total --------------------------------------------$44,828.51

Total------------------------------------------------ $103,465.36

**************************************************************************
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

Smith, Nies, and Newman, Circuit Judges, Federal Circuit

U. S. Supreme Court (denied petition to supervise lower courts)

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