Questions presented

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Under this Court’s Rule 10(a), certiorari can be granted where a United States court of appeals has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings and/or sanctioned such a departure by a lower court, as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power. That is exactly what happened here where: (1) Respondents deliberately cropped a key Table in their Proposed Post-Trial Findings of Fact so as to constitute a fraud upon the court; (2) the District Court was misled to the point of literally copying the Cropped Table into its Opinion and then relying upon it to erroneously invalidate otherwise valid patents on grounds of obviousness in a situation where if the full Table was relied upon, the District Court would have reached the exact opposite conclusion and would have not invalidated the otherwise valid patents on grounds of obviousness; (3) in direct contravention of Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. HartfordEmpire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944), both the District Court and the Federal Circuit wholly ignored and failed to remedy Respondents’ fraud on the court on grounds of standing, when Petitioner attempted to intervene to right this wrong; and (4) the consequences of this unremedied fraud upon the court have been devastating on multiple levels. The questions presented are: 1. By completely ignoring and failing to remedy Respondents’ fraud upon the court in direct contravention of Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. HartfordEmpire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944), did the Federal Circuit so far depart from the accepted and usual u course of judicial proceedings and/or sanction such a departure by the District Court, as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power? 2. Where Petitioner, a third-party intervenor whose interests were adversely affected, was denied standing to uncover, expose, and seek a remedy for Respondents’ fraud upon the court, did the Federal Circuit so far depart from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings and/or sanction such a departure by the District Court, as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power?