Whether the District Court abused discretion and obstructed justice

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In extreme bad faith, the United States Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO) abused the examination of patent application no. 13/877,847 filed under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) for over eight years, damaging the Petitioner and obstructing exceptional innovations for public health that could have mitigated the COVID-19 pandemic. The Petitioner filed a complaint at the District Court pairing interdependent causes of action under 28 USS.C. §§ 1331, 1338(a), 1361, and 35 U.S.C. § 145 asserting misconduct by USPTO in violation of constitutionally protected patent rights and that the patent should have been issued many years ago, and claiming damages due to bad faith delay, Takings , claim under the Fifth Amendment, and seeking mandamus relief. Pretending lack of jurisdiction, immunity, and failure to state claims, the District Court on USPTO’s motion dismissed interdependent causes of action as to damages, Takings claim, and mandamus relief, refusing to acknowledge facts and invocation of jurisdiction under §§ 1331, 1338(a), and 1361 in the First Amended Complaint and without answering arguments in Opposition. The District Court also granted the motion to strike jury trial without answering arguments in Opposition. The questions are: 1. Whether. the District Court abused discretion and obstructed justice in denying the existence of arguments and facts recited in the complaint refusing to even acknowledge ; invocations of §§1331 and 1338(a) refusing to answer entirety of the Petitioner’s Brief in Opposition invoking this Court’s precedents? 2. Whether the District Court abused discretion and obstructed justice in ruling lack ii of subject matter jurisdiction on “civil actions arising under the Constitution [Art.I.S8.C8], laws (§1338{a) and §145], or treaties of the United States [PCT]” as per 28 U.S.C. § 1331, for damages and/or Takings claims? 3. Whether the USPTO, an agency engaged in business with the. public, is immune to damages and jury trial, unlike private enterprises in violation of FHA v. Burr, 309 U.S. 242, 245 (1940), particularly when the agency invades federally protected patent rights in extreme bad faith? 4. Whether the District Court obstructed justice in requiring more than a short/plain statement of the claim showing the pleader is entitled to relief and prejudged the outcome by dismissing the causes of action before deliberating on complete facts from discovery and trial? The questions are in context of extraordinary judicial usurpation of power violating the US constitution, statutes, and this Court’s precedents: e “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S. Code § 1331; e the federal district courts have original federal question jurisdiction under § 1331 when a claim . arises out of a federal statute (Grable & Sons Metal Products, Inc. v. Darue Engineering & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308 (2005)); e Takings claim can be brought under § 1331 where federally protected rights have been invaded (Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, 438 US 59 (1978)): 2 | ili | e Tucker Act is not a prerequisite to a Fifth | Amendment Takings claim (Knick v. Township of Scott, 139 S. Ct. 2162, 2174 (2019)); e Just Compensation clause is self-executing (First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Cnty. of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304, 314 (1987)); e "sue or be sued" agencies are equally amenable to judicial process as a private enterprise under } like circumstances and waivers of governmental immunity should be liberally construed (FHA v. Burr, 309 U.S. 242, 245-246, 250 (1940)): e statutes can be paired for money damages (United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (1980)); e piecemeal litigation to be avoided (Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U. S. 104, 111 (1964)); e sovereign immunity does not shield bad faith ! actions of the federal government, its agencies and officials when constitutional rights