Whether Justice Barrett must enforce the Supreme Court's stare decisis precedents prohibiting repudiation of government-issued patent grants

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether Justice Barrett, as the last standing Justice with original jurisdiction, with the same duty and oath as the lower courts to enforce the Supreme Law of the Land — this Court’s own stare decisis Mandated Prohibition from repudiating Government-issued patent grant contracts, declared in Trustees of Dartmouth College v. : Woodward (1819), Grant v. Raymond (1832), . Fletcher v. Peck (1810), must accept and grant this petition for writ of mandamus, in the interest of justice, whereas: Chief Justice Roberts recused, seven Justices lost subject matter jurisdiction, and failed in their ministerial duty to enforce Dartmouth College and Fletcher, whereby the courts and USPTO adversely dominated the process to prevent Dartmouth College and Fletcher from ever coming . before this Court, leaving the inventor with rights and no remedy, in violation of the Separation of Powers! and Contract Clauses of the Constitution. 1 Congress enacted the America Invents Act (AIA) for the Executive Branch (USPTO) to perform the function of the Judiciary by USPTO’s unconstitutionally appointed judges (APJs) in violation of the Separation of Powers and Contract Clauses and Appointments Clause of the Constitution— in contempt of the Mandated Prohibition of the Constitution — AGAINST REPUDIATING GOVERNMENT ISSUED PATENT CONTRACT GRANTS — _stere decisis Governing Supreme Court Precedents, as declared by Chief Justice Marshall — to fast iv , 2. Whether Justice Barrett has a duty to enforce this Court’s own stare decisis Mandated Prohibition from repudiating Government-issued patent grant contracts, as declared in Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819), Grant v. Raymond (1832), Fletcher v. Peck (1810) as the Supreme Law of the Land, failing which she must move against the lower courts and USPTO for their breach of their solemn oaths of office in failing to enforce the Supreme Law of the Land. 3. Where the Federal Circuit disparately reversed only in the inventor’s case its own Aqua Products’ reversal of Orders that failed to consider “the entirety of the record” but gave defendant Microsoft and the USPTO the benefit of its Aqua Products’ ruling, whether such process disorder ; constitutes denial of a fair hearing and equal protection of the laws, entitling the inventor to Constitutional redress. ‘ track invalidate granted patents in a corrupted _reexamination process, without considering material prima facie intrinsic evidence — Patent Prosecution History, which is no re-examination at all. Congress created the Federal Circuit in 1982 to invalidate granted patents, in contempt of the Mandated Prohibition from repudiating patent contract grants — the Supreme Law of the Land. Vv 4. Whether this Court’s Mandated Prohibition from repudiating Government-issued patent grant contracts may be reversed by mere mention of : Fletcher by the Federal Circuit in its Order; and if not, whether the Federal Circuit is under obligation to enforce it, even after dismissal of the case in process disorder, particularly where Chief Justice Marshall declared in Trustees of , Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819) that there , is no controversy and nothing for the courts to consider, save enforce the Constitution. , 5. Whether the courts and USPTO have the authority to reject and not enforce Dartmouth College, Grant v. Raymond or Fletcher, wherein is declared the . Mandated Prohibition from repudiating Government-issued patent grant contracts, by this Court as the Supreme Law of the Land. . i} , PREAMBLE This case is constitutionally more significant than Marbury v. Madison. Edison invented electricity. Alexander Graham Bell invented the telephone. Petitioner, Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam, invented the Internet of Things (oT) — Web Apps displayed on a Web browser. ; The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) granted Dr. Arunachalam a dozen patents that have a priority date of 1995, a time when two| way real-time Web transactions from Web A