No. 18-276

Richard J. Baker v. Microsoft Corporation, et al.

Lower Court: Federal Circuit
Docketed: 2018-09-04
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: article-i-section-8-clause-8 compensation constitutional-interpretation contract due-process government-compensation government-obligation invention-security judicial-procedure judicial-proceedings patent-infringement patent-rights property-protection property-rights takings trial
Key Terms:
DueProcess Patent
Latest Conference: 2018-11-02
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether under rights given by Congress and contained in U.S. Constitution Article I Section 8 Clause 8 to all U.S. patent holders, courts must forward proceedings to the trier of fact for a trial on even a scintilla of evidence of a genuine dispute, otherwise the promise to secure inventors' personal property is broken

Question Presented (from Petition)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED : . Article I, Section 8, Clause 8, of the United States Constitution grants Congress the power "To | promote the progress of science and useful arts, by , “securing” for limited times to authors and inventors oo the exclusive right to their respective writings and : discoveries." US Patent holders when they give ve forth their discoveries petitioner believes form a So: binding contract agreement with the U.S. : Government and judiciary to “secure” their private property against infringement. In proceedings today lower courts are not helping to secure for inventors their patents which seriously conflicts with the spirit of the Patent Act of 1790 (1 Stat. 109). : The questions presented are: 1. Whether under rights given by Congress and contained in U.S. Constitution. Article I Section 8. Clause 8 to all U.S. patent holders for disclosure of invention on even a scintilla of evidence being shown of genuine dispute all courts must forward when requested proceedings to the trier of fact “a trial” : otherwise the promise to secure for all inventors their personal property invention is broken by the U.S. Government? 2. Should the U.S. Government compensate inventors when the judiciary have failed to help secure their issued patent, a promise contained in U.S. Constitution. Article I Section 8. Clause 8 is broken? ee a PARTIES-TO THE PROCEEDING) a —_ oon i “All parties are listed in the caption. Majesco eu nn Dh ~.. Entertainment has been listed as a respondent 0° 7 3:. 3. : ne =. because they did not participate at the Circuit Court errs Poh : aoa level but were listed as defendant. ee se rs (ESE Tn ESS" Betitioné#, ‘Richard JBaker’ has no'parent Ue edge er ‘corporation. or shares: held ‘by a publicly traded =). 02° 00 ss oe

Docket Entries

2018-11-05
Petition DENIED.
2018-10-17
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/2/2018.
2018-10-03
Waiver of right of respondent Ubisoft, Inc. to respond filed.
2018-09-08
Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Richard J. Baker.
2018-08-28
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 4, 2018)

Attorneys

Richard J. Baker
Richard J. Baker — Petitioner
Richard J. Baker — Petitioner
Ubisoft, Inc.
Abran J. KeanErise IP, P.A., Respondent
Abran J. KeanErise IP, P.A., Respondent