Arunachalam v. SAP America, Inc.

 
DOCKET NO.
OP. BELOW
Fed. Cir.
SUBJECT
Patent

Question(s) Presented

1. “Whether the inventor’s government-issued patent contract grant is protected by the Constitution of the United States. If so,” 2. “Whether the inventor’s government-issued patent contract grant is impaired by the acts of this Court or inferior Courts or USPTO/PTAB.” 3. “Whether the inventor’s government-issued patent contract grant is a contract the obligation of which cannot be impaired without violating the Constitution of the United States.” 4. “Whether any acts and Orders by the Judiciary that impair the obligation of the patent grant contract within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States ‘are consequently unconstitutional and void’ and this Court must declare them void.” 5. “Whether the rescinding acts by the Judiciary have left inventors without a remedy for a crime committed by the adjudicators by their Orders which unconstitutionally impaired the patent grant contract with inventors, which this Court’s own stare decisis Law of the Case and Law of the Land found a contract that the grant should not be revoked, for which inventors are entitled to Constitutional redress.” 6. “Whether this Court must enforce this Court’s own stare decisis Law of the Case and Law of the Land — prohibition of the Constitution mandated by this Court against repudiating government-issued grants of any kind even by the highest authority without just compensation, delineated, in the famous case of Fletcher v. Peck, (Et. Seq. 1810); herein, ‘The Fletcher Challenge.’ — even if Judges and Justices recuse or lose their jurisdiction by breach of solemn oaths of office.” 7. “Whether breach of solemn oaths of office by the Judiciary not enforcing this Court’s own state decisis Law of the Case and Law of the Land — prohibition of the Constitution mandated by this Court against repudiating government-issued grants of any kind even by the highest authority without just compensation, robbing the inventor of color of significant inventions that have enabled the nation to function remotely during the COVID-19 Pandemic, is a breach of public trust and violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 5th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution.” 8. “Whether this Court has anything to act upon hut enforce the Supreme Law of the Land, as declared by Chief Justice John Marshall in Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (1810) ‘A grant is a contract that cannot be repudiated by the highest authority;’ Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819): ‘The law of this case is the law of all. . . applies to contracts of every description. . . ;’ Grant u. Raymond, 31 U.S. 218 (1832); and U.S. v. American Bell Telephone Company, 167 U.S. 224 (1897).”

Posts About this Case