THE MYTHOLOGY OF CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES 

http://www.coolissues.com/constitutionalmythology.htm

Patent Cases

http://www.coolissues.com/patentcases/jamesconstant.htm

QUESTIONS PRESENTED - SUPREME COURT PATENT CASES
(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.
http://www.coolissues.com/courtreform/88-308.htm

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.

Patent Case CAFC (Judgment fraud by judge and special master and sanctions). James Constant v. Stephen Wilson and Robert Hillman, James Constant v. Hitachi America, Ltd et als, James Constant v.Marcian Hoff et als. 856 F.2d 202, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 11799. Pet. Denied 89-425. http://www.coolissues.com/courtreform/89-425.htm

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 judgment 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.

Patent Case CAFC (order retaxing costs and denying motion to dismiss). James Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc. et als, 862 F.2d 320 No 88-1414 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Pet denied No 88-1356.

Patent Case CAFC (order dismissing complaint and attorney's fees; infringement case arbitrarily dismissed by judge accused of fraud by inventor). James Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc. et als, 873 F.2d 1451, 1989 WL 33681 (Fed. Cir. 1989), 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 4784 (unpublished disposition) (Constant III). Pet. denied No 88-1933.

Secrecy Order Case CAFC (Gravitational Mass Detector. No compensation for taking of patent by secrecy order). James Constant v. U.S. (1991). Pet Denied 89-471

Patent Case CAFC (AMD motion for summary judgment granted non infringment of 351 and 660 patents by 29300 and 29500 families; patents invalid and 458 patent). James Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc. Pet Denied 89-881.

Bankruptcy Case Ninth Circuit (3 actions by inventor against 10 federal judges for pre-bankruptcy fraud, conspiracy and judicial misconduct in deciding patent claims. Actions dismissed on grounds of judicial immunity and, alternatively, res judicata). James Constant v. Stephen Wilson et als, 856 F.2d 202, 1988 WL 87358 (Fed. Cir. 1988)(unpublished disposition) (Constant II). Pet. Denied 93-1413. http://www.coolissues.com/courtreform/93-1413.htm

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

1. Whether affirmative defenses of patent invalidity and judicial immunity are claims for purposes of final judgments under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).

2. Whether affirmative defenses of patent invalidity and judicial immunity 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 judicial immunity 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 with- out an inquiry into the question of subject matter jurisdiction raised by petitioner in the actions.

5. Whether judgments in earlier cases may be subsequently attacked for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when it appears that the earlier judgments 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 judicial immunity or have infringed due process of a party's right to be heard on claims of a complaint.

6. Whether a judge is not immune for actions, though judicial in nature, are taken in the complete absence of all jurisdiction of the subject matter.

7. Whether a judge is not immune for violations of constitutional and civil rights.

8. Whether a judge is subject to declaratory and injunctive relief.

Bankruptcy Case Ninth Circuit (Orders (1) dismissing bankruptcy complaint, (2) enjoining from filing further papersa without court approval, (3) imposing sanctions, and (4) assigning patents and copyrights to the US marshal to satisfy court's judgment). James Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc. (In re James Constant), 1993 U.S. App. LEXIS 31939, Nos. 92-55465, 92-56220, 92-56475, 12 F.3d 1105, 1993 WL 501665 (9th Cir. Dec. 3, 1993) (unpublished disposition) (Constant IV); http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/12/12.F3d.1105.92-56475.92-56220.92-55465.html.Pet. Denied 93-1518. http://www.coolissues.com/courtreform/93-1518.htm

Should this Court resolve direct conflicts between the court of 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 judgments 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 judgments in earlier cases may be subsequently attacked for lack of subject matter jurisdiction when it appears that the earlier judgments 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.

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 judgment 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.

Bankruptcy Case Ninth Circuit (Debtor transferred 22 patents to his wife. Held debtor did not have standing to directly appeal the bankruptcy court's decision to the district court on grounds that he was not a party to his wife's adversary proceeding due to the denial of his motion to intervene). David Ray v. Argerey & James Constant. (In re James Constant), No. 94-55053, 1994 U.S. App. LEXIS 25263 (9th Cir. Sept. 12, 1994) (unpublished disposition) (Constant V). Pet. Denied 94-782. http://www.coolissues.com/courtreform/94-782.htm

1. Should this Court resolve direct conflicts between the court of appeal's decision on jurisdiction and decisions on jurisdiction of this Court and other Circuit Courts on the following matters:

2. Does Civil Rule 12(h)(3) require that a court must decide a question of jurisdiction before it?

3. Does patent statute 35 USC 261 bar a court's jurisdiction to void the assignment of United States Patents by operation of California State laws?

4. Does judgment lien statute 28 USC 1962 bar a court's jurisdiction to hear a suit to void the assignment of United States patents by operation of California State laws?

Bankruptcy Case Ninth Circuit (sua sponte Pre-filing Review Order). http://www.coolissues.com/courtreform/94-1257.htm

1. Whether the Court of Appeals abused its discretion in entering a pre-filing order, first, on the basis that it made no substantive findings of frivolousness on questions of lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter raised in the contents of petitioner's filings and, second, on the basis that the pre-filing order is overly broad.

2. Whether the Court of Appeals lacked discretion in entering a pre-filing order, first, on the basis that it had a duty to determine the questions of lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter raised by petitioner and, second, on the basis that a litigant cannot be coerced into accepting counsel rather than proceeding pro-se.

3. Does the pre-filing order violate petitioner's rights of free speech, petition, and due process as guaranteed by the First and Fifth Amendments.

4. Whether this Court should exercise its discretion to issue a writ of prohibition/mandamus to stay the pre-filing order and to mandate that decisions shall be obtained on questions of jurisdiction raised by the petitioner?

5. Whether this Court should determine the merits of questions of jurisdiction raised by petitioner, or should, instead, remand the cause to the Court of Appeals to determine such issues?

6. Whether the questions of jurisdiction set forth in Part VII A and B infra shall be the ones for decision?

7. Whether the principle of finality of judgments shall be permitted to compromise the principle of validity of judgments.

Bankruptcy Case Ninth Circuit (motion to vacate prefiling order). James, Argerey Constant v. David L. Ray. Pet. Denied 96-1177. http://www.coolissues.com/courtreform/96-1177.htm

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 judgment dispositions?

Bankruptcy Case Ninth Circuit (entry of prefiling order). James, Argerey Constant v. David L. Ray. Pet. Denied 96-1178. http://www.coolissues.com/courtreform/96-1178.htm

1. Does the Ninth Circuit appeal court lack jurisdiction to docket appeals directed to the Federal Circuit?

2. Does the Ninth Circuit appeal court have the power to require an appellant to obtain counsel before he can appeal?

Bankruptcy Case Ninth Circuit (inventor's motion to dismiss Adversary Proceeding). James Constant v. American Micro-Devices, etc. And David L. Ray, Trustee. Pet. Denied 98-1151. http://www.coolissues.com/courtreform/98-1151.htm

1. Has the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided an important federal question in a way that conflicts with a decision of the California Supreme Court and with relevant decisions of this Court?

94 -80318                                                                                                                                                 98-1972

Bankruptcy Case Ninth Circuit (objection to sale of inventor's 8 patents and 4 copyrights under California laws are overruled. Argerey Constant has waived her lien on patents and copyrights). James Constant v. American Micro-Devices, etc. And David L. Ray, Trustee. Pet. Denied 98-1972. Http://www.coolissues.com/courtreform/98-1972.htm

1. Has the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals decided an important question of patent law in an abbreviated manner which makes it impossible for the petitioner to tell why his appeal was denied and why he should not petition this Court?

Bankruptcy Case Ninth Circuit (bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction to sell patents under California laws; special counsel had a conflict of interest and his compensation was paid by American Micro-Devices, Inc. Held, appeal lacks merit). James Constant v. American Micro-Devices, etc. And David L. Ray, Trustee. Pet. Denied 99-396. http://www.coolissues.com/courtreform/99-396.htm

1. Does a federal court have an obligation to actually litigate and finally determine its jurisdiction to void, assign, and sell patents under California state laws when the issue of such jurisdiction is raised by a party?

2. Can the inferior courts constitutionally decide a case against debtor without actually litigating and finally deciding issues presented to them by debtor for the first time?

1. Did the Federal Circuit review the Patent Office decision impermissibly under the "clearly erroneous" standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) and thus nullify the "substantial evidence" standard required by 5 USC 706?

2. Does the "substantial evidence" standard of 5 USC 706 dictate a different outcome of judgment than does the "clearly erroneous" standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)?

3. Is the "clearly erroneous" standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) so vaguely defined making its use inherently arbitrary?

4. Does the judiciary share with Congress the power to make the "clearly erroneous" standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)?

5. Is the "clearly erroneous" standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a) necessary and proper for carrying into execution the power to promote the progress of science?

By the same author.

PATENT REFORM http://www.coolissues.com/patentreform/sameauthor.htm

COURT REFORM http://www.coolissues.com/courtreform/sameauthor.htm