Steven C. Chudik v. Andrei Iancu, Director, United States Patent and Trademark Office

Was the petitioner, an applicant for a patent, denied a patent without due process of law, contrary to the doctrine of stare decisis and contrary to the deprivation of property provision in the United States Constitution’s Fifth Amendment

1. when the United States Patent and Trademark Office and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that a prior development described in a French patent application was capable of being modified, and thus corresponded to and vitiated the petitioner’s claims to his invention, despite directly contrary holdings in Topliff v. Topliff, 145 U.S. 156, 12 S. Ct. 825, 36 L.Ed. 658 (1892), In re Wells, 53 F.2d 537 (C.C.P.A., 1931) and In re Chudik, 851 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir., March 27, 2017), and

2. when the Court of Appeals also, in rejecting the claims in the petitioner’s patent application, relied upon a paragraph of the application describing a different invention and thus departed from the holding in In re Man Mach. Interface Tech. LLC, 822 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2016) that the terms in an inventor’s patent claims should not be construed in a manner which contradicts the detailed description of the claimed invention in the inventor’s written specification, and

3. when the Court of Appeals also, in rejecting the claims in the petitioner’s patent application, relied upon an irrelevant portion of its opinion in Catalina Marketing International, Inc. v. Coolsaving.com, 289 F.3d 801, 809, 810-811 (Fed. Cir. 2002), instead of following the relevant portion which approved the form of the petitioner’s claims, and