Whether the Supreme Court has a constitutional duty to exercise original jurisdiction in a patent infringement dispute between New York and California involving due process violations and state sovereign immunity

The State of New York has a long history of retaliating and engaging in malicious prosecution and unprivileged defamation of individuals who pursue federally-protected property assets in conflict with the State ’s financial interests. This US Patent theft, forgery and ex parte fraud and obstruction of justice Petition seeks a writ of mandamus pursuant to 28 USC §165 1(a) to vacate orders entered by the Southern District of NY (SDNY), Northern District of NY (NDNY), Federal Circuit, NY Court of Claims, NY Court of Appeals and more recently, the Central District of California (CACD) denying Petitioner infringement hearings sua sponte by anticipatory repudiation in violation of Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. 1 There is no other remedy except mandamus. In this case the State got caught submitting forged 1 Gurvey US Patent Nos. 7603321 (October 13, 2009), D647910S (November 1, 2011), 11403566 (August 2, 2022); US Registered Copyright TXu001265644 iii '? and fraudulent state documents ex parte to the Federal Circuit to prevent direct appeals to unconstitutional SDNY patent orders. In 2025 it was discovered that since 2018 a NYS Office of Court Administration (OCA) attorney Shawn Kerby had been circulating fraudulent documents ex parte to the Federal Circuit clerk without standing, pleading that the court not hear Petitioner ’s arising under patent appeals to SDNY orders, and fraudulent averring that Petitioner is “disbarred ”. Petitioner is not admitted in ? NYS, is admitted in California in good standing since 1979, has never been disbarred or sanctioned as an attorney . As a result, the Federal Circuit transferred three arising under patent appeals under its exclusive appellate jurisdiction to the Second Circuit that has no authority or power to hear patent appeals or order mandamus relief. [#sl8-2076, 20-1620. 23-134] 28 USC§ 1338, 1291; Supremacy Cl. Art. VI, Cl. 2, Haywood v. Drown, 556 US 729 (2009). Moreover, neither the SDNY nor the Federal Circuit ever ordered service on Petitioner with Kerby ’s ex parte proffers. ABA Rule 2.9 on Ex parte Communications. Other NYS officers were involved in the fraud including J. Richard Supple and Jorge Dopico chief counsel of the NYS attorney grievance committee (AGC). Supple was dually serving as infringer defendants Live Nation and Cowan Liebowitz & Latman ’s SDNY defense attorney and at all times was required to be disqualified by the SDNY based on conflicts of interest. NY’s Judiciary Law (JL) Part 1240. 6d, .18. An AGC state order entered on April 21, 2016 identified Supple as the creator of the forged and circulated state documents. They affixed the signature of a dead 2002 former AGC chief counsel Paul Curran. An AGC supervising judge expressly held that Petitioner would continue to be denied access to all NYS files in defiance of due process. The NY Court of Appeals has still not heard Petitioner ’s direct appeal in violation of equal protection, delaying Petitioner ’s constitutional remedies. Sholes v. Meagher, v 100 NY 2d 333 (NY 2003) In a separate complaint, the SDNY also summarily denied prospective injunctive relief against the state AGC judge in violation of Ex parte Young, 209 US 123 (1908) allowing these acts to continue, spread and fester. A conflict of interest existed between the protocols governing both patent procedure and out-of-state attorney procedures mandated by the US Supreme Court and the protocols adopted by NYS that must be determined unconstitutional by this Court. SCA Hygiene Products v. First Quality Baby Products, 137 S. Ct. 954 (2017) The granting of a writ of mandamus to vacate orders will be in aid of the US Supreme Court ’s original appellate jurisdiction. Exceptional circumstances warrant exercise of the Court ’s discretionary powers. Adequate relief cannot be obtained in any other form or from any other court. #1: Under Article III, §11 of the United States Constitution does the Supreme Court have a constitutional duty to exercise its VI origi