Arunachalam v. International Business Machines Corp.

Pro Se

Question(s) Presented

“Preamble #1 Jurisdiction

1. Whether due process requires jurisdiction must be proven when challenged, when none existed to begin with.

2. Whether adjudicating collateral estoppel from a void order without proving jurisdiction, constitutes bias, RICO and antitrust.

3. Whether adjudicating non-issues of collateral estoppel from a void order by willful non-compliance with the Constitution — Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (1810) — to avoid the issue brought before the courts — the Fletcher Constitutional Challenge — without proving jurisdiction, constitutes bias, RICO and antitrust.

4. Whether this Court must act when it sees crime in progress and why it has not acted yet.

5. Whether a citizen’s right to call in the oaths of office to prove jurisdiction can be abrogated by the courts for the courts and tortfeasors in their malfeasance in their conflicts of interest.

6. Whether a judge adjudicating, with no proof of jurisdiction, causing financial harm and physical injury to a citizen and inventor’s rights is subject to a notice of liability.

7. Whether a court is duty-bound to provide oath of office upon request for demand to validate jurisdiction.

8. Whether no proof of jurisdiction by any Judge other than Justice Gorsuch places an inventor as sovereign over all the courts, in view of all courts violating the Court’s own decision — the law of the land that declares a grant is a contract — where Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (1810) constitutes contract.

9. Whether no proof of jurisdiction is ground for abatement.

10. Whether adjudicating without proof of jurisdiction is antitrust by choking inventors.

11. Whether adjudicating without proof of jurisdiction on record is evidence of a crime in progress under color of law to steal property, violating inventors’ rights.

12. Whether adjudicating without proof of jurisdiction in relation to patent contract grants constitutes an inherent antitrust process, legitimizing antitrust by Corporate Infringers’ scheme.

13. Whether adjudicating non-issues to date by all courts constitutes oppression, tort, promoting antitrust objectives.

14. Whether a judge adjudicating where he or she offers no proof of jurisdiction upon demand is engaged in acts of treason.

15. Whether non-issue adjudication when courts have a duty to adjudicate issues before them is crime in progress to promote Corporate Infringers’ misfeasance and antitrust objective.

16. Whether the law requires proof of jurisdiction on record upon demand, lack of which shows want of jurisdiction.

17. Whether a judge has discretion to ignore lack of jurisdiction.

18. Whether a judge must prove on the record all jurisdictional facts related to jurisdiction asserted.

19. Whether this Court can confer jurisdiction where none existed and make a void proceeding valid.

20. Whether the law of this case — want of jurisdiction lacking proof thereof on record — is the law of all, harming inventors’ rights and causing financial and personal injury in antitrust and RICO violations.

21. Whether the lower courts’ rulings are bills of attainder or ex post facto laws passed or laws impairing the obligation of contracts, violating the Contract Clause, Art. I, §10, clause 1 and Art. I, §§9 & 10, in dismissing the case for a false claim of Collateral Estoppel against the Government and private citizens after the Judge lost jurisdiction, prima facie evidence of which is the Judge himself admitted in writing he bought direct stock in a litigant.

22. Whether Collateral Estoppel cannot apply from a void Order by a Judge lacking jurisdiction by his own admission of direct stock holding in a litigant during the pendency of the case, of false invalidity of patent claims and false indefiniteness of claim terms without considering Patent Prosecution History, disparately denying an inventor’s protected rights to Federal Circuit’s Aqua Products Reversal of all Orders that did not consider ‘the entirety of the record’— Patent Prosecution History — and to her constitutional rights to the Law of the Land that a Patent Grant is a Contract, comforting Corporate Infringers in violating antitrust laws, denying the inventor access to justice, due process, an impartial tribunal, vacating Hearings, so as not to hear her case, to avoid adjudicating the Constitutional Challenge, induced by the Defendant’s Solicitation that failed to furnish the burden of proof of ‘clear and convincing evidence’ of patent invalidity, required by Patent Statute 35 USC § 282, has threatened the security of the nation and created a constitutional emergency requiring this Court to overrule Oil States to stop the waste, fraud and abuse of Government resources by Corporate infringers who knowingly and intentionally made false claims to and defrauded the United States Government of trillions of dollars — the biggest contract fraud, theft and heist of intellectual property in the history of the United States; that they had ownership of the technology, intellectual property and Web applications, induced the U.S. Government to buy defective goods and procured contracts from every Department of the United States, when in fact it was offered without the permission of the inventor and without paying a license fee to the Petitioner/inventor.

Preamble #2 A Patent Grant is A Contract. Oil States failed to consider Fletcher, Dartmouth College and this Court’s precedential rulings.

1. Whether this Court’s precedential ruling as declared by Chief Justice Marshall in Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (1810) that a Grant is a Contract, governs patent law.

2. Whether Oil States must be overruled in view of Fletcher.

3. Whether this Court’s Oil States’ ruling must be overruled, in view of this Court’s precedential rulings establishing the sanctity of legal contracts.

4. Whether the lower court rulings must be reversed because the District Court failed to consider that the patent claim terms and claims are unambiguous in view of intrinsic evidence.

5. Whether without impairing the obligation of the contract, the remedy may certainly be modified as the wisdom of the nation shall direct.”

Proceedings and Orders
February 25, 2019
Application (18A857) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until June 27, 2019.
July 17, 2019
Motion of united States for an extension of time not accepted for filing. (July 17, 2019)
August 15, 2019
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
October 7, 2019
Petition DENIED.
November 6, 2019
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/22/2019.
November 25, 2019
Rehearing DENIED.