No patent issued by the Patent Office (PTO) is secure and getting patents is time consuming and costly, especially for individuals. Far from securing patents, the PTO unsecures them under an unconstitutional presumption of validity and makes them tickets to federal courts. See The PTO is always under the leadership of global executives and this is the global's first line of defense of controlling the nation's intellectual property. For the individual inventor, without disparaging the capable examiners, the PTO is an organization under the absolute control of the globals, who also control the legislators who write the patent laws and appoint the PTO administrators provided by the globals. The global's second line of defense of controlling the nation's intellectual property are the federal courts where legislators write the laws and appoint the judges, all paid for by the globals. Once in court, individual inventors get slaughtered by the simple method of summary judgement of patent invalidity without being heard on their claims of infringement of their patents by the globals and their requests for jury trials. Only the globals are permitted this treatment. In effect, the federal courts are designed only to hear disputes between the globals. They are designed to crush inventors. See Wake up people, your patent system belongs to the globals.

For example, consider U.S. Patent No. 3,950,635 issued to inventor James Constant. On summary judgement motions by 17 global corporations, the federal courts dutifully obliged by asking the global's hack attorneys to write up and then rubberstamping the facts and law. The Constant '635 patent was held invalid under 35 USC 102 (b) in view of the Allen and Westerfield article (A&W)1 and the Stalcup patent 2and further was held invalid under 35 USC 103 in view of the Springer article3.Constant v. Advanced Micro-Devices, Inc., (CAFC 88) 848 F.2d 1560, 7 USPQ2d 1057,1063, cert.den. 488 U.S. 892 (1988). However, a court's jurisdiction rests on the patent owner's claim of patent infringement and not on the alleged corporate infringer's defense of patent invalidity. Christianson v. Colt Industries (1988) 108 SCt 2166, 100 LEd2d 811. Had the inventor been heard on his claims of patent infringement, as required by Christianson, and proved that the global corporations were infringing his patents, the summary judgement would have been in his favor. As it stands, the courts arbitrarily decided the case without jurisdiction without giving the inventor his due right to be heard on his claims of infringement by the global corporations.

Bookm available at