Whether the Second Circuit was void of jurisdiction to adjudicate the instant appeal and improperly defied US patent statutes and Federal Circuit law

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the Second Circuit was void of jurisdiction to adjudicate the instant appeal and improperly defied US patent statutes and Federal Circuit law in denying Petitioner’s motion to transfer the instant patent appeal to the final orders of the SDNY to the Federal Circuit because the Federal Circuit has , : exclusive appellate jurisdiction over matters related to patents? 28 USC §§1338, 1295 . 2. Whether Petitioner was denied all access to the SDNY for twelve years to recover patent fraudulent breach of fiduciary duty and conflicts of interest damages against her NY patent practitioners at Cowan Liebowitz & Latman because SDNY denied patent conflicts of interest discovery mandated under 37 CFR 11.18, 11.116, 10.40, 1.36(b), defied the Second Circuit’s 2012 discovery ’ mandates, and also denied subpoenas against the USPTO to produce the Cowan defendants complete patent filings that were being unlawfully withheld by defendants and were spoliated in anticipation of litigation? ; 3. Whether Petitioner, a pro se US patentee, was denied all constitutional access to the SDNY for twelve years (12) in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution in retaliation for her filing ; otherwise proper ethics complaints seeking production her complete patent files at the NYS Attorney Grievance Committee (“AGC”) and because the Cowan : firm’s defense lawyer was dually serving as an executive AGC committee ‘member and was found by the Appellate Division First Department to have unilaterally and fraudulently altered the ethics files and Petitioner’s confidential state files ex parte without a warrant while he was Petitioner’s adversary in this ; lawsuit? 4, Whether Petitioner, a pro se Patentee, was denied constitutional access to the SDNY to litigate patent infringement, and inducing infringement claims against the patent lawyers’ defendant clients Clear Channel and Live Nation, Instant Live Concerts, LLC and Mike Gordon of Phish in violation of Federal Circuit law including to file and serve an amended complaint once her first US patents issued during the case? : iii 5. Whether Petitioner continued to be denied her constitutional rights by the SDNY to adjudicate practitioner damage claims once the USPTO issued an order that the defendant practitioners filed defective applications under Petitioner’s name that lost her valuable priority dates and claims in her 2009 issued patent oo and filed an untruthful declaration of inventorship in favor of a competing client with Petitioner’s inventions taken to achieve a patentable disclosure for that client in breach of attorney client privilege ? 35 USC 271, 281 : 6. Whether Petitioner was improperly denied a summary judgment order on patent delay, fraudulent breach and nonjoinder torts by SDNY misapplication of a . blanket 3-year NYS malpractice statutes of limitation when a minimum sixyear statute applies to intentional torts? 7. Whether the Second Circuit abused discretion in not granting rehearing after the SDNY also denied Petitioner’s FRCP Rule 62.1 motion to file an amended complaint without giving a reason and defendants Instant Live Concerts and : NexTicketing were still infringing the patents and were never dismissed from : the lawsuit? See, e.g., Bond v. United States, 742 Fed. Appx. 735 (4th Cir. 2018)(Petition for Certiorari to this Court pending), citing Foman v. Davis!; 8. Whether Petitioner was denied access to the court by the SDNYs misapplication of state conflicts of interest statutes when Federal Circuit law and preempting USPTO practitioner statutes govern under 37 CFR 11. 18, 11.116, 10.40, 1.386(b) . because the practitioner has agreed to comply with these statutes when he is licensed before the USTPO? ! Foman v. Davis, 371 US 178 (1962) iv 9. Whether Petitioner was denied her constitutional rights to an unbiased tribunal by the SDNY’s failure to timely order withdrawal of the practitioner’s defense attorney that is mand