Whether lower courts erred in prejudicing innovation in nutrition arts by failing to uphold constitutional standards for patent advancement and due process

The Respondents and the U.S. patent courts are obstructing advancement in nutrition and prevention by unlawfully denying patents, neutering innovation in piecemeal patents, and arbitrarily forcing absurdly narrow patents causing the rising national burden of chronic and infectious (weakened immunity) diseases, violating the standard for advancement in the art mandated by the US Constitution Art. I §8 cl. 8, 35 U.S.C. §101, §103, Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966) and Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int% 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355, 2358-2359 (2014). To reach obstruction, District Court repeatedly violated due process^ refused to hear the Petitioner, unlawfully dismissed causes of action, refused timely request to enlarge discovery for good cause, refused to make explicit relevancy and reliability determinations of challenged Respondents ’ expert testimony, granted Respondents ’ premature Motion for Summary Judgment (MSJ) relying on challenged testimony despite pending appeal and Second Amended Complaint (SAC) seeking proper relief from issues raised in MSJ six weeks earlier, excising limitations from claims and disobeying Graham and Alice to deny patent under §101 and §103, then next day denied SAC entry. Federal Circuit affirmed the violations. The questions are: 1. Whether lower courts erred in prejudice against innovation in nutrition arts in failing to uphold the constitutional standard of advancement ordained by Art. I §8 cl. 8, §101, §103, Alice, and Graham in failing to consider claims as a whole, failing to resolve level of skill in the art, failure of others, and unmet critical public health need? 2. Whether lower courts erred in holding new and useful processes, machine, manufacture, and composition of matter, reciting “formulations are so 11 packaged and labeled indicating suitability for consumption that collectively provide a [daily] dosage [based on cohorts] from 1 to 40g of omega6 fatty acids and from 25mg to lOg of antioxidants, and wherein the antioxidants comprise one or more polyphenols [specific phytochemicals including polyphenols] in the dosage of greater than 5mg; wherein [the intermixture of] omega-6 fatty acid(s) and antioxidant(s) is not any single specific variety of a vegetable, a fruit, a nut, or a seed [almonds], ” unpatentable under §101 over a variety of almonds disregarding the incontrovertible disclaimer , violating Abbott Laboratories v. Sandoz, Inc., 566 F.3d 1282, 1288 (Fed.Cir. 2009)), interjecting arbitrary interpretation into the claims contradicting the terms, and failing to construe specification as “legal instrument ” defining the invention's scope “by the appended claims ” violating Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370, 388 (1996)? 3. Whether the lower courts committed extreme due process violations , substantially disregarding and dismissing Petitioner ’s complaints, causes of action, motions and briefs, and imposing unfair procedure upon pro se Petitioner, violating Snyder v. Com. of Mass, 291 U.S. 97, 116, 137 (1934) mandate "the proceedings shall be fair." This includes^ a) Violating Fed. R. of Civ. Proc. (FRCP) 6(b)(1)(A) and 16(b)(4) and Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation, 497 U.S. 871 n.5 (1990), in denying Petitioner ’s informal request for extension of time before expiry of time, and providing lesser discovery time to Petitioner than Respondents? b) Violating Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and Daubert v. MerrellDowPharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 592 (1993) and Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 146 (1997) in District Court ’s failure to make explicit relevancy and reliability determinations when Petitioner challenged Respondents ’ expert testimony as irrelevant and unreliable? Ill c) Violating FRCP 15(a)(2) and Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962) in District Court ’s grant of summary judgement in favor of Respondents while Petitioner ’s appeal and SAC conforming to new issues raised in MSJ filed six weeks before were pending and subsequent denial