Whether the USPTO/PTAB and Federal Circuit were aware of the prohibition of the Constitution against repudiating Government-issued contract grants

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1, Whether the USPTO/PTAB (the “Agency”) and Federal Circuit were aware of the prohibition of the Constitution mandated by this Court! against repudiating Government-issued contract grants prior to the enactment of the America Invents Act. 2. Whether enforcing this Court’s Governing Precedents as declared by Chief Justice J. Marshall in Fletcher v. Peck (1810) and Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, (1819) makes this case even more constitutionally significant in its consequences than Marbury v. Madison. 3. Whether nine Justices losing jurisdiction by sedition, misprision of treason and breach of solemn oaths of office requires this Court to send this case to the President to issue _an Executive Order to grant the inventor Constitutional redress by ordering Respondents to pay royalties; extend the time period of the patents for another 20 years; destroyed by the Judiciary, USPTO and Congress promoting antitrust by oppressing the inventor and Small Business; void: America Invents Act; void all Orders by courts and the PTAB against the inventor; all of which violate the Contract Clause and the Separation of Powers Clause of the Constitution. 4, Whether the Supreme Court must order Respondents to pay back illegal profits to prevent unjust enrichment obtained by their illegal and/or unethical acts, upon demand by Petitioner/inventor herewith or by legal compulsion, pursuant to the Disgorgement Law. 5. Whether Chief Justice Roberts’ financial conflicts of interest from his wife running a legal recruiting firm placing lawyers at opposing law firms and opposing corporations, IBM, Microsoft, and his recusal from his conflict of interest against inventors as a member of the Knights of Malta require him to leave the bench, voiding all his Orders in any and all inventors’ cases. 1 Fletcher v. Peck, 10 U.S. 87 (1810); Ogden v. Saunders, 25 U.S. 213 (1827); apply the logic of sanctity of contracts and vested rights directly to federal grants of patents under the IP Clause. By entering into public contracts with inventors, the federal government must ensure what Chief Justice Marshall described in Grant v. Raymond, 31 U.S. 218 (1832) as a “faithful execution of the solemn promise made by the United States.” In U.S. v. American Bell Telephone Company, 167 U.S. 224 (1897), Justice Brewer declared: “the contract basis for intellectual property rights heightens the federal government’s obligations to protect those rights. ...give the federal government “higher rights” to cancel land patents than to cancel patents for inventions.” In Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819), Chief Justice Marshall declared the “Law of this Case is the Law of all.” 6 6. Whether Chief Justice Roberts’ recusal on 5/18/20 and his conflicts of interests , require this Court to vacate all of this Court’s Orders in all of Petitioner’s Cases and in Case 18-9383. 7. Whether Congress knew, or should have known, that creating the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in 1982 to adjudicate, in corrupt reexamination concert, finally reversed by the Federal Circuit itself in its 2017 Aqua Products v. Matal ruling, its Arthrex and 5/13/20 VirnetX rulings, the USPTO/PTAB’s ‘Breach of conflicting Contract Grant Invalidity Claims’, propounded on behalf of Infringing Respondents to avoid imposed royalties owed Inventor; was, ULTRA VIRES in direct contempt with the STARE DECISIS Law of the Case and Law of the Land, prohibiting repudiations of 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’, IF NOT, 8. Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and Federal District Court Judges, should have known, PROCEDURALLY via stare decisis and CONSTITUTIONALLY within both letter and spirit of Marbury v. Madison; that, accepting judicial commissions predicated on CONCERTED stare