Urvashi Bhagat v. United States Patent and Trademark Office, et al.

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