Everand Logo

Welcome to Everand!

  • Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

    Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

    Petition for Certiorari: Denied Without Opinion Patent Case 93-1413
    Petition for Certiorari: Denied Without Opinion Patent Case 93-1413
    Petition for Certiorari: Denied Without Opinion Patent Case 93-1413
    Ebook96 pages1 hour

    Petition for Certiorari: Denied Without Opinion Patent Case 93-1413

    By James Constant

    ()

    Read preview

    About this ebook

    Affirmative Defenses of Patent Invalidity and Judicial Immunity Are Not Claims for Purposes of Jurisdiction and Federal Subject Matter Jurisdiction May Not Rest on Affirmative Defenses But Must Instead Rest On Affirmative Claims of Federal Rights. Why do Federal Judges Invalidate Patents Without Deciding Patent Claims? With Absolute Judicial Immunity?

    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherJames Constant
    Release dateSep 7, 2013
    ISBN9781301093557
    Petition for Certiorari: Denied Without Opinion Patent Case 93-1413
    Author

    James Constant

    writes on law, government, mathematics and science, as they are and as they should be

    Read more from James Constant

    Related to Petition for Certiorari

    Titles in the series (10)

    View More
    View More

    Related ebooks

    Constitutional Law For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related articles

    Related categories

    Reviews for Petition for Certiorari

    0 ratings

    0 ratings0 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

      Book preview

      Petition for Certiorari - James Constant

      Petition for Certiorari Denied Without Opinion – Patent Case 93-1413

      Affirmative Defenses of Patent Invalidity and Judicial Immunity Trump Claims of Federal Rights

      By James Constant

      Smashwords Edition

      Copyright © 2001 by James Constant

      Smashwords Edition, License Notes

      This ebook is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This ebook may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you’re reading this book and did not purchase it, or it was not purchased for your use only, then please return to Smashwords.com and purchase your own copy. Thank you for respecting the hard work of this author.

      CASE BACKGROUND IN THE INVENTOR’S OWN WORDS IN PLAIN ENGLISH

      This case illustrates why the American judicial system has become the greatest threat to inventor’s rights. When a patent owner claims patent infringement of his patent by a corporation, the federal court has jurisdiction to hear and decide the claim and the alleged infringer has a right to bring up his defense. It is important to follow this order because, if the court decides, as required by its jurisdiction, that the owner’s patent infringes the corporation’s patent the corporation will hesitate to bring up its defense of patent invalidity lest its own patent also becomes invalid. However, to protect corporate interests, judges decide the corporation defense of patent invalidity without hearing and deciding the owner’s claim of patent infringement. This happens most frequently when the patent owner is an individual and the alleged infringer is a large corporation. In theory, judges who hear and decide cases without jurisdiction lose immunity and, just like other government employees, should be subject to civil rights violations. In practice, to protect themselves and their corporate sponsors, judges have no fear to jump the law.

      In 1985, Mr. Constant brought suit in the Central District of California against twenty companies for patent infringement. Defendant Judge Wilson granted summary judgment in favor of defendants in that action, finding Constant's alleged patents invalid and his constitutional challenges to 35 U.S.C. 282 without merit. Constant v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. Case No. CV 85-0262-SVW (hereinafter First Patent Case) Judge Wilson's decision was upheld on appeal, and certiorari was denied by the Supreme Court. Constant v. Advanced Micro Devices,Inc. (CAFC 88)848 F.2d 1560, 7 USPQ2d 1057 cert. den. 109 S.Ct. 228 (1988)

      This is a 15 year case. Following the lower court’s finding that his patents were invalid, without hearing his claims for patent infringement, Mr. Constant sought relief by making appeals seeking review to reverse the lower court’s decision. Some dozen appeals reaching the Supreme Court were filed against corporate defendants and judges. In each appeal, Constant raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction for finding his patents invalid without deciding his claims for patent infringement. Under pressure for payment of costs and attorney’s fees to corporations, he declared bankruptcy and his corporate adversaries, always with the assistance of judges, claimed and obtained the balance of his intellectual property.

      The courts denied Constant’s petitions, some without opinion, and some setting their opinions not for publication and sanctions and pre filing orders were made. The method followed was standard, namely, forget jurisdiction and decide accused respondent’s defenses (here of judicial immunity, res judicata and failure to state a claim) without reviewing the petitioner’s claims for lack of jurisdiction. The Supreme Court denied Constant’s petitions without opinion making them, and many others like them, stand as law of the land. As precedents, these cases have totally corrupted the law. Mr. Constant’s large patent portfolio was confiscated in bankruptcy, his business was ruined and he was left penniless. For Constant, the judicial system turns the individual’s constitutional rights into mythology. For details of this inventor’s ordeal see http://www.coolissues.com/patentcases/jamesconstant.htm

      Appendices A, B and C provide court decisions in this case. After reading each decision, the reader should answer the following questions:

      1. Did the court decision address the petitioner’s claim of lack of jurisdiction? or ,

      2. Did the court decision forget jurisdiction and decide accused respondent’s defenses (here of judicial immunity, res judicata and failure to state a claim) without reviewing the petitioner’s claims for lack of jurisdiction?

      NO. 93-1413

      In The

      SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

      October Term, 1993

      In Re: JAMES CONSTANT, Debtor

      Appeal Court Nos 92-55891, 92-56045

      JAMES CONSTANT,

      Petitioner

      V.

      STEPHEN V. WILSON, District Judge;

      MANUEL REAL, Chief District Judge;

      ROBERT P. AGUILAR, District Judge;

      OSCAR DAVIS, Appeals Judge;

      WILSON COWEN, Appeals Judge;

      EDWARD SMITH, Appeals Judge;

      HELEN NIES, Appeals Judge;

      PAULINE NEWMAN, Appeals Judge;

      HOWARD MARKEY, Chief Appeals Judge;

      PAUL MICHEL, Appeals Judge;

      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

      Respondents.

      JAMES CONSTANT,

      Appeal Court Nos 92-55995

      Petitioner

      V.

      STEPHEN V. WILSON, District Judge;

      MANUEL REAL, Chief District Judge;

      ROBERT P. AGUILAR, District Judge;

      OSCAR DAVIS, Appeals Judge;

      WILSON COWEN, Appeals Judge;

      EDWARD SMITH, Appeals Judge;

      HELEN NIES, Appeals Judge;

      PAULINE NEWMAN, Appeals Judge;

      HOWARD MARKEY, Chief Appeals Judge;

      PAUL MICHEL, Appeals Judge;

      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

      Respondents.

      PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

      TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

      FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

      James Constant

      Pro-per Petitioner

      i

      QUESTIONS PRESENTED

      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

      Enjoying the preview?
      Page 1 of 1