No. 93-1518

In The

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

October Term, 1993

-------------------------

In Re: JAMES CONSTANT, Appeal Court Nos 92-55465,92-56220, 92-56475

Debtor,

-------------------------------------------------------

JAMES CONSTANT

Petitioner,

v.

ADVANCED MICRO-DEVICES, INC.; KRISTIN M. CANO; KANE, DALSLMER, SULLIVAN, KURUCZ, LEVY, EISELE & RICHARD; AT&T PARADYNE; JONATHAN R. ELLOWITZ; ANTHONY DE ALCUAZ; SKJERVEN,MORRILL, MACPHERSON, FRANKLIN & FRIEL; MORRISON & FOERSTER; LIMBACH & SUTTON; FUJITSU, LTD; FUJITSU MICROELECTRONICS; PAUL MALINGAGIO; SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON; BAKER MILLS & GLAST; ACKER, UNDERWOOD & SMITH; FPS, INC; FULLBRIGHT & JAWORSKI; AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH; SPENSLEY, HORN, JUBAS & LUBITZ; HITACHI AMERICA, INC.; PRETTY SCHROE- DER, BRUEGGEMAN & CLARK; HOPGOODE, CALIMAFDE, KALIL,BLAUSTEIN & JUDLOWE; ANALOG DEVICES, INC.;NEC ELECTRONICS, INC.; BLAKELY, SOKO- LOFF, TAYLOR & ZAFMAN; BROWN & BAIN; MARCEL HOFF; INTEL CORP.; ROMNEY, GOLANT, MARTEN & ASHEN; AMERICAN MICROSYSTEMS, INC.; GOULD, INC.; TEXAS INSTRUMENTS, INC.; GROSSMAN, GRAVEN, PERRY & BLOCK; DIGITAL SWITCH, INC.; GRANGERASSOCIATES, INC.; MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON; ARNOLD; ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.; TRW, INC.; WHITE & DURKEE; DAVID L. RAY, Trustee; SALTZBURG, RAY & BERGMAN;

Respondents

-----------------------------------

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

James Constant


i

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Should this Court resolve direct confficts between the courtof appeal's decisions and decisions of this Court and other Circuit Courts on the following matters:

1. Whether affirmative defenses of patent invalidity and of res judicata are claims for purposes of final judgements under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).

2. Whether affirmative defenses of patent invalidity and of res judicata are claims for purposes of jurisdiction under 28 USC 1338,1331,1343,1334 and 28 USC 157(b)(2) (B) and (C).

3. Whether affirmative defenses of patent invalidity and res judicata offend due process when they deprive petitioner's right to be heard on claims of his complaints.

4. Whether the appeal court can make its decision without an inquiry into the question of subject matter jurisdiction raised by petitioner in the action.

5.Whether judgements in earlier cases may be subsequently attacked for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when it appears that the earlier judgements were manifest abuses of authority or have seriously impaired the public interest by deciding complaints on the basis of affirmative defenses of patent invalidity and res judicata or have infringed due process of a party's right to be heard on claims of a complaint.

ii

6. Whether sanctions under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure can be considered on issues of defense in papers not signed by petitioner.

7. Whether a creditor's judgement is a lien against United States Patents under 28 USC 1962.

8. Whether courts have jurisdiction of subject matter to order the assignment of United States Patents by operation of California State laws.

Book available at  https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/347006