Whether the USPTO/PTAB (the "Agency ") and Federal Circuit were aware of
the prohibition of the Constitution mandated by this Court 1 against
repudiating Government-issued contract grants prior to the enactment of the
America Invents Act.

Whether enforcing this Court 's Governing Precedents as declared by Chief
Justice J. Marshall in Fletcher v. Peck (1810) and Trustees of Dartmouth
College v. Woodward, (1819) makes this case even more constitutionally
significant in its consequences than Marburv v. Madison .

Whether nine Justices losing jurisdiction by sedition, misprision of treason and
breach of solemn oaths of office requires this Court to send this case to
the President to issue an Executive Order to grant the inventor
Constitutional redress by ordering Respondents to pay royalties; extend the
time period of the patents for another 20 years : destroyed bv the Judiciary,
USPTO and Congress promoting antitrust bv oppressing the inventor and
Small Business ; void America Invents Act; void all Orders by courts and the
PTAB against the inventor; all of which violate the Contract Clause and the
Separation of Powers Clause of the Constitution.

Whether the Supreme Court must order Respondents to pay back illegal
profits to prevent unjust enrichment obtained by their illegal and/or unethical
acts, upon demand by Petitioner/inventor herewith or by legal compulsion,
pursuant to the Disgorgement Law .

Whether Chief Justice Roberts ' financial conflicts of interest from his wife
running a legal recruiting firm placing lawyers at opposing law firms and
opposing corporations, IBM, Microsoft, and his recusal from his conflict of
interest against inventors as a member of the Knights of Malta require him
to leave the bench, voiding all his Orders in any and all inventors ' cases .

Whether Chief Justice Roberts ' recusal on 5/18/20 and his conflicts of interests
require this Court to vacate all of this Court 's Orders in all of Petitioner 's Cases
and in Case 18-9383.

Whether Congress knew, or should have known, that creating the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in 1982 to adjudicate, in corrupt
reexamination concert, finally reversed by the Federal Circuit itself in its 2017
Aqua Products v. Matal ruling, its Arthrex and 5/13/20 VirnetX rulings, the
USPTO/PTAB 's 'Breach of conflicting Contract Grant Invalidity Claims ',
propounded on behalf of Infringing Respondents to avoid imposed royalties
owed Inventor; was, ULTRA VIRES in direct contempt with the STARE
DECISIS Law of the Case and Law of the Land, prohibiting repudiations of
government-issued grants of any kind even by the highest authority without
just compensation; delineated, in the famous case of Fletcher v. Peck, (Et. Seq.
1810); herein, 'THE FLETCHER CHALLENGE '; IF NOT,

Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and Federal District
Court Judges, should have known, PROCEDURALLY via stare decisis and
CONSTITUTIONALLY within both letter and spirit of Marbury v. Madison;
that, accepting judicial comm

Whether the USPTO/PTAB and Federal Circuit were aware of the prohibition of the Constitution against repudiating Government-issued contract grants