Which appeals court has the duty to issue supervisory writs of mandamus under the All Writs Act during a combined antitrust and patent infringement lawsuit?

No question identified. : ‘ > ‘ : +i Because of a 64-year split between the US Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit and eight United States circuit courts, the Supreme Court must revisit and settle the law and iterate the factors to be considered to determine which appeals court — the Federal Circuit or the local circuit has the duty during a combined antitrust and patent infringement lawsuit to issue supervisory writs of mandamus under the All Writs Act, 28 USC §1651 for a district court’s ongoing usurpations of duty when the relief sought is not clearly “in aide of’ the Federal Circuit's “arising under” appellate jurisdiction? [See, In re Innotron Diagnostics, 800 F. 2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1986), citing Za Buy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 US 249, 255 (1957); see also Supervisory and Advisory Mandamus under the All Writs Act, 86 Harv. L. Rev. 595 (1973)]; See Petitioner's Memorandum of Law, Section VII, pp. 32, infra; 2. Whether because the Federal Circuit issued the first order on June 23, 2020 finding that the Second Circuit abused discretion in deciding a previous 2017 arising under patent appeal to orders of SDNY on summary judgment concerning the Cowan Liebowitz & Latman law firm defendants only, did not transfer that appeal to the Federal Circuit and prematurely closed the case, which court now the Second Circuit or the Federal Circuit still has the duty to grant retroactive mandamus orders against the district court still owing to Petitioner including reversing sua sponie deletion from the docket of Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) and 15 motion datestamped and docketed April 22, 2010 to reinstate defendant Live Nation and make all named defendants answer for strict liability infringement and other patent damages? 3. Whether because the Federal Circuit issued the first order on June 23, 2020 finding that the Second Circuit abused discretion in 1 under-patent-appeal to-orders-of --——_—__ SDNY on summary judgment concerning the Cowan Liebowitz & Latman law firm defendants only, closed the case and did not transfer that appeal to the Federal Circuit under 28 USC§ 1631, which court now the Second Circuit or the Federal Circuit still has the duty post judgment to grant retroactive mandamus orders against the district court to disqualify the Cowan and Live Nation defendants’ defense at Hinshaw & Culbertson, as required by NY’s Judiciary Law Part 1240.6(d) no later than October 1, 2016, which date was five months prior to the district court’s improper order of summary judgment motions in chief from these attorneys? [See, In re Innotron Diagnostics, 800 F. 2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1986), citing La Buy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 US 249, 255 (1957); see also Supervisory and Advisory Mandamus under the All Writs Act, 86 Harv. L. Rev. 595 (1973); see also, Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp., 486 US 800 (1988)(Brennan, J.); Grant Williams v. Citicorp, 659 F. 3d 208 (2d Cir. 2011)] 4. Same as 2, but whether the Supreme Court must now reverse the order of the Second Circuit finding “mandamus cannot suffice for an appeal’ and closing the case prematurely for the third time because mandamus relief still owing to Petitioner by the Second Circuit remains outstanding and Petitioner’s constitutional access to recover patent strict liability infringement damages against the Live Nation defendants in this lawsuit was impeded by the district court in violation of the First and Fifth Amendments of the United States Constitution? 5. Whether the district court’s sua sponte deletion of Petitioner’s FRCP Rules 60(b), 15 vacatur motion with amended complaint post patent issuance docketed April 22, 2010 pursuant 35 USC §271, 284, 285, 286 violated due process when the amended complaint was in full compliance with Form 18 of the