Amy R. Gurvey v. Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C., et al.

E-QUES TION S -PRES E N-T-E D

1. Because of a 64-year split between the US Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit and eight United States circuit courts, the Supreme Court must revisit and settle the law and iterate the factors to be considered to determine which appeals court - the Federal Circuit or the local circuit - has the duty - during a combined antitrust and patent infringement lawsuit - to issue supervisory writs of mandamus under the All Writs Act, 28 USC §1651 for a district court’s ongoing usurpations of duty when the relief sought is not clearly “in aide of ’ the Federal Circuit’s “arising under” appellate jurisdiction? \See, In re Innotron Diagnostics. 800 F. 2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1986), citing La Buy v. Howes Leather Co.. 352 US 249, 255 (1957); see also Supervisory and Advisory Mandamus under the All Writs Act, 86 Harv. L. Rev. 595 (1973)]; See Petitioner’s Memorandum of Law, Section VII, pp. 32, infra;

2. Whether because the Federal Circuit issued the first order on June 23, 2020 finding that the Second Circuit abused discretion in deciding a previous 2017 arising under patent appeal to orders of SDNY on summary judgment concerning the Cowan Liebowitz & Latman law firm defendants only, did not transfer that appeal to the Federal Circuit and prematurely closed the case, which court now - the Second Circuit or the Federal Circuit still has the duty to grant retroactive mandamus orders against the district court still owing to Petitioner including reversing sua sponte deletion from the docket of Petitioner’s Rule 60(b) and 15 motion datestamped and docketed April 22, 2010 to reinstate defendant Live Nation and make all named defendants answer for strict liability infringement and other patent damages?

3. Whether because the Federal Circuit issued the first order on June 23, 2020 finding that the Second Circuit abused discretion in