THE MYTHOLOGY OF CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES
US Supreme Court - Web Posts - Petitions Denied Without Opinion
Appeal Court Nos Case No Petitioner's Brief Supreme Court Nos
919 F.1st 654
406-78 617 F.2d 239 None
Secrecy Order Case CAFC (encodingarray for vehicle identification. On defendant's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment. No compensation for taking of patent by secrecy order). James N. Constant v. the United States, 617 F2.d 239 (1980).
679-72 827 F.2d 728 None
Patent Application CaseCAFC (The decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (Board), Appeal No. 679-72: (1) affirming the Examiner's rejection of all the claims of the reissue application and (2) entering new grounds of rejection for claims). In Re James N. Constant United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit. - 827 F.2d 728 April 13, 1987. Unpublished Opinion Issued April 13, 1987. Published Opinion Issued July 13, 1987.1.
86-786 85-1845 Not Posted on Web
Patent Case CAFC (Defendant's motion to dismiss non patent issues granted). James Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc. et als. Pet. Denied 85-1485.
Patent Case CAFC (Breach of Contract)
88-1101 848 F.2d 1560 88-308
FIRST PATENT INFRINGEMENT CASE
(District Court Case No 85-0262-JVW; Appeal Case No 88-1101, 848 F.2d 1560)
Patents held invalid without determining claims for infringement of 2 patents. Held, patents were declared invalid and summary judgment was properly granted on a patent holder's infringement claims where the holder failed to demonstrate that there were genuine issues of material fact precluding judgment. James Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc et als, 848 F.2d 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1988) No. 88-1101, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 7814 (Constant I). Pet.denied 88-308. http://ftp.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F2/848/848.F2d.1560.88-1101.html http://www.coolissues.com/courtreform/88-308.htm
Patent infringement case with U.S. Patents 3,950,635 ('635) and 4,438,491 ('491) owned by inventor-plaintiff in which the U.S. District Court of California Central District (trial court) entered judgment in favor of corporate defendants finding both patents invalid. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed the trial court's decision (No 88-1101) and the Supreme Court denied certiorari (No 88-308).
Composed by the corporate defendant's attorneys and signed by the District Court Judge, the judgment in Case No 85-0262-JVW determined that inventor-plaintiff's '635 and '491 patents, were invalid without determining plaintiff's patent infringement claims.
Full Book available at https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/340059