No. 23-299

ATM Shafiqul Khalid v. Citrix Systems, Inc.

Lower Court: Ninth Circuit
Docketed: 2023-09-26
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Relisted (2)
Tags: civil-rights constitutional-interpretation copyright due-process exclusive-right inventor-protection patent patent-rights standing state-action statutory-interpretation takings
Latest Conference: 2023-12-08 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (from Petition)

1. Whether "the exclusive Right" in inventions as written in the Constitution is a fundamental Right or Constitutional privilege separate from common law "exclusive right" and U.S. Const, Art I, Sec. 8, Cl. 8 sufficiently empowered the US Congress, irrespective of the Fourteenth Amendments, to enact 42 U.S. Code § 1983 to reach a private party without state action when the party burdens "the exclusive Right" and 42 U.S. Code § 1985 without class animus when the private party conspires to burden "the exclusive Right" by claiming false ownership of inventor's Patent.

2. Whether "the exclusive Right" in inventions as written in the Constitution is fundamental Right or Constitutional privilege separate from common law "exclusive right" and U.S. Const, Art I, Sec. 8, Cl. 8 sufficiently empowered the US congress, irrespective of the commerce clause, to enact 15 U.S. Code § 1 to reach a private party for claiming false ownership of inventor's Patent burdening "the exclusive Right" causing restraint to use the Patent and to enact 15 U.S. Code § 2 for taking substantial steps to take over the monopoly power of inventors patent.

3. Whether an Agreement between an inventor and an employer corporation is actionable under the Sherman Act Section 1 or 15 U.S. Code § 1 even when such Agreement is labeled as an Employee Agreement. Alternately if this Court in Copperweld Corp. v. Indep. Tube Corp., 467 U.S. 752, 769 (1984), foreclosed inventors' Constitutional Right to be the Constitutional anchor for "the exclusive Right" in Invention to be secured on.

4. Whether damage to patent term is controlled by State common law tort statute of limitation or subject to state res-judicata, when Congress conferred exclusive jurisdiction on the patent matter to Article III court, 28 U.S. Code § 1338(a), and when Congress set the 6-year statute of limitation, 35 U.S. Code § 286, for damage to Patent, when such damage claim is dressed under 42 U.S. Code §§ 1983 & 1985.

Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the exclusive Right in inventions as written in the Constitution is a fundamental Right or Constitutional privilege

Docket Entries

2023-12-11
Petition DENIED.
2023-12-01
Rescheduled.
2023-12-01
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/8/2023.
2023-11-08
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/1/2023.
2023-07-20

Attorneys

ATM Shafiqul Khalid
ATM Shafiqul Khalid — Petitioner