Whether the District and Appellate Courts' denial of Petitioner's Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial against a White-Owned Foreign Corporation that admitted patent infringement is due to systemic racism

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Are the District and Appellate Courts so blinded by its systemic and structural racism against Blacks and/or African American inventors; so fixated on being judicially bias against Blacks and/or African American inventors, that even after the White-Owned Foreign Corporation Samsung, boldly and repeatedly admits guilt to “joint” and/or “divided” patent infringement; that the Courts were willing to deprive the Black and/or African American inventor his Seventh Amendment right to a trial by jury, and rule in favor of the White-Owned Foreign Corporation Samsung? Why was Petitioner denied his Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial, against Samsung, a WhiteOwned Foreign Corporation, “but for” the decision of the Dred Scott case is still promulgated as “rule of law” that “Blacks are not allowed to sue Whites in a Court of law over property”? “Joint” or “divided” patent infringement liability for direct infringement are shared between two or more actors but can be legally attributed to a single actor. Travel Sentry, Inc. v. Tropp, Appeal No. 16-2386 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 19, 2017); Does this law apply when Samsung openly admits the infringement only occurs when Samsung is joined by the Department of Defense (DoD); Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA)?