Whether the Federal Circuit improperly removed an Article III judge from judicial duties and undermined patent appeals adjudication by mandating a mental health evaluation outside the constitutional impeachment process

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. Whether the Federal Circuit in removing a duly appointed Article III judge from judicial duties for her refusal to submit to a mental health evaluation usurped the exclusive constitutional authority vested in Congress by the United States Constitution, which provides that federal judges may only be removed through the impeachment process, and if so, whether such an act undermines the impartiality and integrity of patent appeals adjudication by depriving the patent owner of a fair hearing before a duly constituted appellate panel? 2. Whether the Federal Circuit erred, contrary to this Court’s precedent in Carter v. Stanton, 405 U.S. 669, 92S. Ct. 1232, 31 L. Ed. 2d 569 (1972), and deepening a recognized split among the circuits, by allowing the lower court to circumvent the requirements of Rule 12(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which mandates that when matters outside the pleadings are presented in a motion to dismiss, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment, thereby providing the plaintiff a fair opportunity to present responsive evidence and engage in the summary judgment process? 3. Whether the current judicial exception to patentability for abstract ideas for Section 101 of the Patent Act, which lacks a clear definition or objective criteria, allows courts to invalidate patents arbitrarily without factual development or evidentiary support, thus undermining the predictability and stability necessary for the patent system to function effectively? u 4. Whether the Court should eliminate the judicial exception to patentability for abstract ideas given that it does not enjoy the historical provenance of the other, much older judicial exceptions, is in derogation of the 1952 Patent Act, has never been defined nor objective criteria provided, and has created great uncertainty and chaos in the courts, at the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and among patent owners and the business community?