FEDERAL CIRCUIT METHODOLOGY FOR DECIDING PATENT CASES BROUGHT BY INDIVIDUAL INVENTOR

So the Patent Office issued your patent. Now you have the priviledge of going to court and have your rights established against the corporate globals who are infringing your patent with impunity. Now listen carefully. First, remember, the 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 judgment 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 the full treatment. In effect, the federal courts are designed only to hear disputes between globals and to protect them from (patent, insurance, etc.) claims by individuals. In short, the federal courts are designed to crush individuals. See http://inventors.coolissues.com/fcourts.htm The present post will give you some ideas how this was done in a case involving U.S. Patent 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 global's facts and law.

A. Absence of Jurisdiction

[1]. 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 patent2 and 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 infringement, as required by Christianson, and proved that the global corporations were infringing his patents, judgment would have been in his favor. As it stands, the courts arbitrarily decided the case without jurisdiction, and without giving the inventor his due right to be heard on his claims of infringement by the global corporations. The inventor was permanently railroaded out of sight by courts acting without jurisdiction.

B. Fraud in the Administration of Justice

Book available at https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/341644