THE MYTHOLOGY OF CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES
PRESENTED - SUPREME COURT PATENT
(DENIED WITHOUT OPINION)
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 (Patents held invalid without
determining claims for infringement of 2 patents). 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.
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 Constitution.
3. Whether the validity of the two patents in suit was decided in conflict with applicable decisions of this Court.
Full book available at https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/339310