“This is a petition for ‘Writ of Certiorari’ authorized by 28 U.S.C. §1651(a) because this Court has jurisdiction over several issues that were determined adversely by the United States Court ofAppeals for the Federal Circuit, which jeopardized the poorly funded individual inventors, lacking legal intelligence, ‘exclusive rights to their inventions’ granted under 35 U.S.C. §271 and guaranteed by the U.S. Congress under Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution.”
“The questions presented are:”
1. “Whether the Court erred in denying proper compensation, including ‘Cease and Desist order’, requested by the patentee.”
2. “Whether the Court erred when it granted a ‘non-infringement’ judgment under ‘Doctrine of equivalent’ by relying on non-infringing elements while neglecting the undisputable intrinsic evidences ofinfringing elements.”
3. “Whether the Court erred when it punished non-related third party, such as Mudguard Tech. LLC, because of a public notice published by a patent owner to protect his rights required under 35 U.S. Code § 287.”
4. “Whether the Court erred when it wrongly penalized Mudguard Tech. LLC instead of penalizing Fleet for the ‘Tortious Interference with Business Relations (Michigan Law)’ knowing that Great Dane Trailers was Mudguard’s customer when Fleet interfered with Mudguard business relationship.”
