No. 96-1177

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE

UNITED STATES

October Term, 1996

______________________________

In Re: ARGEREY CONSTANT

______________________________

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

______________________________

PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS

Argerey Constant

1603 Danbury Dr

Claremont, CA 91711

(909) 624-1801


i

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Are federal patent rights insulated from local rules and state laws?

2. Shall courts explicitly determine jurisdictional issues when challenged?

3. Shall courts explicitly state why remaining issues are moot in summary judgement dispositions?

______________________________________________

LIST OF PARTIES

All parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of all persons against whom relief is sought is as follows: BEEZER, KOZINSKI and KLEINFELD Circuit Judges, Ninth Circuit.


2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

In the bankruptcy court appellants [1] objected to the court order approving sale of twenty-two (22) patents on grounds, first, patent rights of non-debtor spouse are protected under the Patent Code, second, patent rights of non-debtor spouse are protected under the Bankruptcy Code and, third, the bankruptcy court lacks jurisdiction over patent rights of non-debtor spouse.

The bankruptcy court approved the sale of patents and appellants appealed to the bankruptcy appellate panel. The sale was made after appellants filed their notice of appeal in the bankruptcy appellate panel. On the trustee's motion, supported by a declaration of sale, the bankruptcy appellate panel dismissed the appeal on.grounds "appeal moot where sale of property completed and appellants failed to obtain stay".

Appellants appealed directing their appeals to the Federal Circuit. Appeals were sent by the bankruptcy clerk to the Ninth Circuit appeal court in violation of FRAP 3(d) [2]. The

_____________________________________

[1] Case No. 96-56122 appeal by debtor James Constant; Case No. 96-56123 appeal by non-debtor spouse Argerey Constant lienholder and owner of patents at bar. Debtor has filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus copending in this Court. Case No. ____

[2] Rederal Rule of Appelate Procedure 3

(c) ... A notice of appeal ... must name the court to which the appeal is taken.

(d) ... The clerk of the district court shall forthwith send a copy of the notice and of the docket entries to the clerk of the court of appeals named in the notice.


3

Ninth Circuit appeal court denied appellant's motion to transfer appeal to the Federal Circuit and summarily affirmed the bankruptcy appellate panel's order dismissing my appeal as moot citing local rules. App.A.

I join in debtor's copending Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

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

Beezer, Kozinski, and Kleinfeld, Circuit Judges, Ninth Circuit

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

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