{"cached_at":"2026-09-29T09:56:06.727412+00:00","cl_docket_id":"73471924","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73471924/","id":73471924,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/cafc/","court_id":"cafc","original_court_info":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/originating-court-information/971275/","id":971275,"date_created":"2026-06-11T09:38:15.506488-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-22T07:57:31.709192-07:00","docket_number":"1:26-cv-10304","docket_number_raw":"1:26-cv-10304","assigned_to_str":"Allison Dale Burroughs","ordering_judge_str":"","court_reporter":"","date_disposed":null,"date_filed":"2026-01-23","date_judgment":null,"date_judgment_eod":null,"date_filed_noa":"2026-04-20","date_received_coa":"2026-04-21","date_rehearing_denied":null,"assigned_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/477/","ordering_judge":null},"idb_data":null,"clusters":[],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":null,"referred_to":null,"bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/73471924/solos-technology-ltd-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-11T09:38:15.525457-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-22T07:58:53.368032-07:00","source":1,"appeal_from_str":"United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts","assigned_to_str":"","referred_to_str":"","panel_str":"","date_last_index":null,"date_cert_granted":null,"date_cert_denied":null,"date_argued":null,"date_reargued":null,"date_reargument_denied":null,"date_filed":"2026-04-22","date_terminated":null,"date_last_filing":"2026-09-21","case_name_short":"","case_name":"Solos Technology Ltd. v. Meta Platforms, Inc.","case_name_full":"","slug":"solos-technology-ltd-v-meta-platforms-inc","docket_number":"26-1721","docket_number_core":"26001721","docket_number_raw":"26-1721","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"","federal_dn_case_type":"","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"24274","cause":"","nature_of_suit":"830 Patent Infringement (Fed. Qst.)","jury_demand":"","jurisdiction_type":"","appellate_fee_status":"In Forma Pauperis","appellate_case_type_information":"Civil Private","mdl_status":"","filepath_ia":"","filepath_ia_json":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"ia_needs_upload":true,"ia_date_first_change":"2026-06-11T09:38:15.484528-07:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/mad/","parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/19985755/","id":19985755,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13703503/","attorney_id":13703503,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73471924/","docket_id":73471924,"role":null}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73471924/","docket_id":73471924,"name":"Movant\u00a0-\u00a0Appellant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-06-11T09:38:45.772436-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-11T09:38:45.772458-07:00","name":"DAITONA CARTER","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/19985754/","id":19985754,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73471924/","docket_id":73471924,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-06-11T09:38:45.754789-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-11T09:38:45.754807-07:00","name":"ESSILORLUXOTTICA USA, INC.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/19985753/","id":19985753,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73471924/","docket_id":73471924,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-06-11T09:38:45.734866-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-11T09:38:45.734885-07:00","name":"LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA, INC.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/19985752/","id":19985752,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73471924/","docket_id":73471924,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-06-11T09:38:45.717531-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-11T09:38:45.717544-07:00","name":"OAKLEY, INC.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/19985751/","id":19985751,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73471924/","docket_id":73471924,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-06-11T09:38:45.698916-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-11T09:38:45.698931-07:00","name":"META PLATFORMS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/19985750/","id":19985750,"attorneys":[],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73471924/","docket_id":73471924,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-06-11T09:38:45.643499-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-11T09:38:45.643523-07:00","name":"META PLATFORMS, INC.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/19985749/","id":19985749,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13703500/","attorney_id":13703500,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73471924/","docket_id":73471924,"role":null},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13703501/","attorney_id":13703501,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73471924/","docket_id":73471924,"role":null},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13703502/","attorney_id":13703502,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73471924/","docket_id":73471924,"role":null}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73471924/","docket_id":73471924,"name":"Plaintiff\u00a0-\u00a0Appellee","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-06-11T09:38:45.031165-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-11T09:38:45.031187-07:00","name":"SOLOS TECHNOLOGY LTD.","extra_info":""}],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/478914756/","id":478914756,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73471924/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/494551025/","id":494551025,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73471924/48/solos-technology-ltd-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-09-22T07:57:32.088917-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-22T07:57:32.088938-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"48","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-22T07:57:32.060940-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-22T07:57:32.070257-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-21","time_filed":null,"entry_number":48,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-21.002","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"6 paper copies of Doc. No. [39], [38] received from Appellee Solos Technology Ltd.. [1194978] [AG] [Entered: 09/21/2026 04:00 PM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/478914755/","id":478914755,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73471924/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/494551024/","id":494551024,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73471924/47/solos-technology-ltd-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-09-22T07:57:32.038670-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-22T07:58:53.211777-07:00","sha1":"579a3c3247179822df66d2b1f36c71418981a1cb","page_count":13,"file_size":218590,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cafc.24274/gov.uscourts.cafc.24274.47.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case: 26-1721 Document: 47 Page: 1 Filed: 09/21/2026\n\n\n\n\n 26-1721\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS\n FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT\n\n\n SOLOS TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,\n Plaintiff-Appellee\n\n v.\n\n META PLATFORMS, INC.,META PLATFORMS\n TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, OAKLEY, INC.,LUXOTTICA OF\n AMERICA, INC., ESSILORLUXOTTICA, USA, LLC,\n\n Defendants\n\n DAITONA CARTER,\n Movant-Appellant\n\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the Masschusetts in\n No. 1:26cv\u20131034\u2013ADB, Judge Allison D. Burroughs.\n\n\n DAITONA CARTER\u2019S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR CORRECTION OF\n STRUCTURAL DOCKETING ERRORS, EXPEDITED PANEL\n ASSIGNMENT, SHOW CAUSE ORDER ON DOCUMENT 19, AND\n IMMEDIATE PRESERVATION ORDER\n\n\n DAITONA CARTER, movant-appellant, respectfully moves this Court\n\nunder Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 27 and Federal Circuit Rule 27 for an\n\nemergency order correcting a series of cumulative, compounding clerk-level\n\nadministrative failures. Absent immediate intervention, these errors will\n\nstructurally insulate the true parties in interest, divest this Court of an enforceable\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 47 Page: 2 Filed: 09/21/2026\n\n\n\n\nremedy, and permanently destroy the underlying financial audit trail required to\n\ntrace the disputed commercialization proceeds.\n\n\nI. STATEMENT OF THE CUMULATIVE FAILURES\n The Clerk\u2019s Office has committed five distinct, severe administrative\n\nomissions in this appeal. While individual clerical errors are routinely corrected\n\nsua sponte, their cumulative effect operates as a systemic breakdown of the\n\nappellate process, resulting in an ongoing deprivation of due process under the\n\nFifth Amendment.\n\n\nFailure 1 \u2014 Non-Processing of Appellees to the Record\n The five named defendants\u2014the actual entities commercializing the\n\nproprietary technology at issue\u2014have not been formally processed as parties to\n\nthis appeal. No appearances have been entered on the consolidated appellate\n\nledger, and no service pathways have been validated. They remain complete\n\nstrangers to the active appellate record.\n\n\nFailure 2 \u2014 Facial Caption Non-Compliance (Fed. Cir. R. 12(b)(2))\n The named defendants remain listed under their lower-court designation of\n\n\"Defendant\" rather than the mandatory appellate designation of \"Appellee.\" Under\n\nFederal Circuit Rule 12(b)(2) \"Rules of Practice,\" any party with an adverse\n\ninterest who is not a cross-appellant must be deemed an appellee. This is an issue\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 47 Page: 3 Filed: 09/21/2026\n\n\n\n\nof explicit jurisdictional and remedial consequence: non-parties are not bound by\n\nthis Court's eventual mandates.\n\n\nFailure 3 \u2014 De-escalated Docketing of Emergency Mandamus (No. 26-153)\n On August 18, 2026, Movant filed an explicit Emergency Petition for Writ\n\nof Mandamus. The Clerk\u2019s Office erroneously designated the case as a routine,\n\nnon-expedited \"Miscellaneous Case,\" omitting the emergency flag, stripping out\n\nexpedited processing protocols, and withholding panel assignment. Despite the\n\nexplicit filing of a Notice of Correction (Doc. 3) and a refiled petition (Doc. 6) on\n\nAugust 24, 2026, the emergency designation has been ignored for 34 days.\n\n\nFailure 4 \u2014 129-Day Administrative Inaction on Constructive Trust (Doc. 19)\n On May 15, 2026, Movant moved for a Constructive Trust and Escrow\n\nFramework (Doc. 19) to sequester technology-derived revenue streams. The clerk's\n\nelectronic infrastructure omitted the mandatory docket number, verification header,\n\nand official entry date, leaving the document improperly indexed. This back-end\n\nprocessing failure is explicitly verified by the system's conflicting metadata\n\nbehavior: the live web browser tab exposes the original local laptop filename\n\n(\"INJ.pdf\"), yet the document generates a standardized court filename only upon\n\nlocalized download. Concurrently, the companion Omnibus filing (ECF 19) was\n\nsubjected to systemic editorial corruption, including the unauthorized insertion of\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 47 Page: 4 Filed: 09/21/2026\n\n\n\n\nan anomalous character (\"52\") into the plaintiff's corporate nomenclature and\n\nstructural formatting anomalies specifically designed to defeat automated federal\n\njudicial indexing. Furthermore, this interim equitable request has sat unreviewed,\n\nunassigned, and completely undisposed of for 129 days, presenting an existential\n\nthreat to asset preservation. Consequently, the administration of these distinct\n\nequitable remedies has been hopelessly entangled, necessitating that the\n\nconstructive trust and escrow matter be formally severed from the corrupted\n\nomnibus filing and maintained as a standalone, independent record.\n\n\nFailure 5 \u2014 Total Omission of Parallel PTAB IPR Notice (Doc. 34)\n On July 20, 2026, Movant formally filed a Notice of Related Case\n\nInformation (Doc. 34) detailing active, parallel Inter Partes Review (IPR)\n\nproceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The Clerk's Office\n\nhas failed to route this notice for case sequencing or active management. The\n\nadministrative obscurity has been weaponized by opposing counsel and corporate\n\naffiliates in parallel proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board\n\n(IPR2026-00376, IPR2026-00412, IPR2026-00413, IPR2026-00420). By\n\nexploiting the caption and absence of a verified docket stamp on the May 15\n\nconstructive trust filing, Appellees and co-conspirators have certified \"No Related\n\nMatters\" and \"No Real Parties in Interest,\" perpetrating a direct fraud upon\n\nadministrative tribunals while active equitable res claims remain jurisdictionally\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 47 Page: 5 Filed: 09/21/2026\n\n\n\n\nanchored before this Court. Under Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co.,\n\nadministrative concealment that compromises the integrity of the judicial record\n\nwarrants immediate, unsparing correction.Consequently, the PTAB may issue a\n\nfinal written decision while this appeal is pending, unconstitutionally mooting or\n\ncomplicating the statutory inventorship claims asserted under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 256.\n\n\nII. THE COMPREHENSIVE DUE PROCESS VIOLATION\n A single typographical error can be cured without consequence. The\n\nadministrative anomalies here, however, have crossed the threshold into structural\n\nerror. They operate in tandem to strip Movant of an effective, enforceable remedy,\n\nviolating the bedrock constitutional guarantees articulated in Mullane v. Central\n\nHanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 312\u201313 (1950) and Board of Regents v.\n\nRoth, 408 U.S. 564, 572\u201373 (1972).\n\n\n o Clerk Error: No Appellees Listed \u2500\u2500 Court Mandate Insulated from\n\n True Commercializing Parties\n\n o Clerk Error: Mandamus/PTAB Paused \u2500\u2500 PTAB IPR Petitions\n\n acceptance continue and are not reviewed despite USPTO Director\n\n petition misrerouted to PTAB panel. Nor are is the notice and\n\n petitions heard or stayed, which can moot 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 256 Claims\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 47 Page: 6 Filed: 09/21/2026\n\n\n\n\n o Clerk Error: Trust Motion Stalled \u2500\u2500 Stephen Feinberg Reforms\n\n Eradicate Forensic Audit Trail at the Department of Defense/War\n\n\n\n If the defendants are not formally added as Appellees (Failures 1 & 2), this\n\nCourt\u2019s ultimate ruling may be legally toothless against them. Concurrently, if the\n\nconstructive trust remains unruled (Failure 4) while the Mandamus and PTAB\n\nnotices languish unassigned (Failures 3 & 5), parallel administrative engines will\n\nalter the legal and accounting landscape before this Court can act. This is a severe,\n\ncompounding deprivation of the right to be heard at a meaningful time and in a\n\nmeaningful manner.\n\n\nIII. THE FEINBERG DIRECTIVES DEMAND EMERGENCY RELIEF\n The administrative stagnation has collided with an unprecedented, rapid\n\nregulatory restructuring within the defense-industrial base, elevating this matter to\n\na critical emergency.\n\n\n 1. The August 18, 2026 Memo: Deputy Secretary of Defense Steve Feinberg\n\n issued a binding directive requiring the Department of Defense (DoD) to\n\n draw cost data through automated APIs directly from contractor Enterprise\n\n Resource Planning (ERP) and financial transaction platforms for all\n\n agreements valued at \u2265 $10M.\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 47 Page: 7 Filed: 09/21/2026\n\n\n\n\n 2. The September 14, 2026 Memo: A subsequent directive\u2014Fostering One\n\n Strong Industrial Base\u2014explicitly orders the DoD to phase out government-\n\n unique Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) and switch to standard\n\n commercial Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).\n\n\nThe Accounting Conflict & Asset Commingling\n 1. CAS (The Status Quo): Requires strict, government-specific cost\n\n segregation, structural tracking, and granular accounting paths. It\n\n provides the necessary forensic blueprint to trace, isolate, and capture\n\n the exact proceeds generated by the proprietary technology at issue.\n\n 2. GAAP (The Feinberg Mandate): Eliminates government-unique\n\n cost-element isolation in favor of standardized corporate reporting.\n\n GAAP does not require, nor does it maintain, the segmented financial\n\n tracking necessary to satisfy a forensic accounting audit.\n\nThe implementation clock from the September 14 directive is actively running.\n\nOnce these corporate targets fully convert their accounting systems from CAS to\n\nGAAP, the underlying financial data streams will be permanently commingled. No\n\nfuture tracing order or retrospective damages award will be capable of\n\nreconstructing the erased cost trails. The threat of irreparable injury is immediate,\n\nabsolute, and structural.\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 47 Page: 8 Filed: 09/21/2026\n\n\n\n\nIV. RELIEF REQUESTED\nTo preserve its own Article III jurisdiction and protect the integrity of these\n\nproceedings, Movant-Appellant requests that this Court immediately issue an\n\nomnibus order directing the following:\n\n\n 1. Mandatory Docket Realignment: Order the Clerk to process all five\n\n named defendants as Appellees in Appeal No. 26-1721 and correct the\n\n caption to conform with Fed. Cir. R. 12(b)(2).\n\n 2. Emergency Re-Docketing: Direct the Clerk to immediately apply an\n\n Emergency Flag to Petition No. 26-153 and assign the matter to an\n\n active merits panel for expedited resolution.\n\n 3. Document Standardization: Apply the standard CAFC document\n\n header, formal entry verification stamp, and retroactive docket\n\n indexing to the May 15, 2026 filing.\n\n 4. Administrative Confirmation: Issue an administrative confirmation\n\n ensuring full searchability across the federal judiciary to neutralize\n\n ongoing collateral manipulation.\n\n 5. Severance of Trust and Escrow: Separate the Motion for\n\n Constructive Trust and Escrow (Doc. 19) from the omnibus filing,\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 47 Page: 9 Filed: 09/21/2026\n\n\n\n\n pulling it out into an independent, standalone record to prevent further\n\n administrative delay or blending of distinct legal remedies.\n\n6. Show Cause on Document 19: Issue an order directing the Clerk's\n\n Office or opposing parties to show cause why the Motion for\n\n Constructive Trust and Escrow (Doc. 19) has remained completely\n\n unaddressed for 129 days.\n\n7. Interim Financial Preservation Order: Issue an emergency\n\n preservation order requiring the targets to maintain all historical and\n\n active CAS cost-segregation records, data structures, and audit paths\n\n in their current format, explicitly staying any GAAP conversion as to\n\n the specific contracts at issue pending the final disposition of\n\n Document 19.\n\n8. Appellate Sequencing and Case Management: Order the integration\n\n of the parallel PTAB status information (Doc. 34) into the Court\u2019s\n\n scheduling calendar to avoid an administrative forfeiture of the\n\n inventorship claim under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 256.\n\n9. Expedited Panel Assignment: Order an immediate, expedited panel\n\n assignment on the collective merits of this appeal under Fed. Cir. R.\n\n 27.\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 47 Page: 10 Filed: 09/21/2026\n\n\n\n\nV. RELEVANT CHRONOLOGY & RUNNING DEADLINES\n\n\nDate / Milestone Docket / Regulatory Days Elapsed / Status\n\n\nMay 15, 2026 Movant files Motion for Day 0 (Awaiting\n Constructive Trust and Escrow judicial routing)\n (Doc. 19).\n\n\nJuly 20, 2026 Notice of Related Parallel PTAB Day 66 (No judicial\n IPR Proceedings filed (Doc. 34). acknowledgment)\n\n\n\nAugust 18, 2026 Emergency Mandamus Petition Day 95 (Docketed as\n filed (26-153); Stephen Feinberg routine\n API Data Extraction Memo \"Miscellaneous\")\n issued for DoD/Pentagon.\n\n\n\nAugust 24, 2026 Notice of Docketing Correction Day 101 (Uncorrected\n and Emergency Refiling filed by Clerk)\n (Docs. 3, 6).\n\n\n\nSeptember 14, Feinberg GAAP Transition Day 122 (Transition\n2026 Mandate issued (Fostering One clock initiated)\n Strong Industrial Base).\n\n\n\nSeptember 21, Present Emergency Omnibus Day 129 of Inaction on\n2026 Motion filed. Doc. 19\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 47 Page: 11 Filed: 09/21/2026\n\n\n\n\n Date / Milestone Docket / Regulatory Days Elapsed / Status\n\n\n\n ~October 14, 2026 30-Day Feinberg Transition Irreparable Harm\n Window Closes; System-Wide Realized (Est.)\n CAS Phaseout Begins.\n\n\n\nVI. CONCLUSION & LEGAL BASES\nThis Motion is firmly rooted in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 27(a)(1),\n\nFederal Circuit Rules 12(b)(2) and 27, the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause,\n\nand this Court\u2019s historical, inherent authority to oversee its docket. Under the\n\ntraditional equitable standards governing emergency relief, irreparable harm is the\n\n\"essential first consideration.\" Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.,\n\n555 U.S. 7, 16 (2008).\n\n\nIf the accounting records are modified and the parties remain un-joined, any\n\nsubsequent decree issued by this Court will be rendered completely hollow. The\n\nconfluence of clerical inaction and systemic defense-contracting standardizations\n\nrepresents an ongoing constitutional injury that requires immediate, decisive\n\njudicial correction.\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 47 Page: 12 Filed: 09/21/2026\n\n\n\n\n Dated: September 21, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n\n s/ Daitona Carter\n Daitona Carter, Pro Se\n General Delivery, Main Post Office\n 2 Massachusetts Ave NE\n Washington, DC 20002\n legal@daitonacarter.com\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE\n\n\n Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 27(d)(1)(E) and 27(d)(2), I\n\nhereby certify that this Emergency Motion complies with the type-volume\n\nlimitation rules of this Court.\n\n\n 1. Exclusive of the parts of the motion exempted by Federal Rule of\n\nAppellate Procedure 32(f), the body of this Emergency Motion contains 1754\n\nwords, as calculated by the word count function of the word processing software\n\nused to prepare this document.\n\n\n 2. This Motion complies with the typeface requirements of Federal Rule of\n\nAppellate Procedure 32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of Federal Rule of\n\nAppellate Procedure 32(a)(6) because it has been prepared in a proportionally\n\nspaced typeface using ONLYOffice in 14-point Times New Roman font.\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 47 Page: 13 Filed: 09/21/2026\n\n\n\n\nDated: September 21, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ Daitona Carter\n Daitona Carter, Pro Se\n General Delivery, Main Post Office\n 2 Massachusetts Ave NE\n Washington, DC 20002\n legal@daitonacarter.com\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I hereby certify that on September 21, 2026, a true and correct copy of the\n\nforegoing Emergency Motion For Correction Of Structural Docketing Errors,\n\nExpedited Panel Assignment, Show Cause Order On Document 19, And\n\nImmediate Preservation Order was served via the Court's CM/ECF electronic filing\n\nsystem, and/or via electronic mail, upon all counsel of record and active parties in\n\nthe underlying proceedings.\n\n\n Respectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ Daitona Carter\n Daitona Carter, Pro Se\n General Delivery, Main Post Office\n 2 Massachusetts Ave NE\n Washington, DC 20002\n legal@daitonacarter.com\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-09-22T07:58:53.202683-07:00","document_number":"47","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"01302758528","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-22T07:57:32.013428-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-22T07:57:32.022288-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-21","time_filed":null,"entry_number":47,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-21.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"MOTION of Appellant Daitona Carter to correct or supplement, to expedite., to modify the official caption, for an emergency stay pending appeal under Rule 8/18. Service: 09/21/2026 by email. [1194817] [26-1721] [Daitona Carter] [Entered: 09/21/2026 12:21 PM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/478914754/","id":478914754,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73471924/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/494551023/","id":494551023,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73471924/46/solos-technology-ltd-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-09-22T07:57:31.989267-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-22T07:57:31.989289-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"46","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-22T07:57:31.961277-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-22T07:57:31.970021-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-15","time_filed":null,"entry_number":46,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-15.002","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Outstanding paper copies of all briefs and appendices must be submitted within five business days from the date of issuance of this notice. See Fed. Cir. R. 25(c)(3)(A). [1193564] [IMH] [Entered: 09/15/2026 01:49 PM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/478914753/","id":478914753,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73471924/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/494551022/","id":494551022,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73471924/45/solos-technology-ltd-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-09-22T07:57:31.922623-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-22T07:57:31.922639-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":null,"file_size":null,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"45","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"01302755612","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-22T07:57:31.892904-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-22T07:57:31.902891-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-15","time_filed":null,"entry_number":45,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-15.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"ORDER filed deferring motion [41] to the merits panel assigned to this appeal. The Clerk of Court shall transmit a copy of this order and the motion papers to that panel. This case is ready for assignment to a merits panel for disposition, and any further submissions in this case shall be transmitted to that panel. (Per Curiam). Service as of this date by the Clerk of Court. [1193467] [NL] [Entered: 09/15/2026 10:38 AM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/477562926/","id":477562926,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73471924/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493161076/","id":493161076,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73471924/44/solos-technology-ltd-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-09-10T13:07:18.665180-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-28T09:27:29.981250-07:00","sha1":"7146c4df54746d2eaa8bee3994f1475e7de47484","page_count":4,"file_size":733850,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cafc.24274/gov.uscourts.cafc.24274.44.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cafc.24274/gov.uscourts.cafc.24274.44.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case: 26-1721 Document: 44 Page: 1 Filed: 09/10/2026\n\n\n\n\n No. 2026-1721\n\n\n\n United States Court of Appeals\n for the Federal Circuit\n SOLOS TECHNOLOGY LTD.,\n\n Plaintiff-Appellee,\n\n V.\n\nMETA PLATFORMS, INC., META PLATFORMS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC,\nOAKLEY, INC., LUXOTTICA OF AMERICA, INC., ESSILORLUXOTTICA,\n USA, LLC,\n\n Defendants,\n\n DAITONA CARTER,\n\n Movant-Appellant.\n\n Appeal from\n Appeal from the\n the United\n United States\n States District\n District Court\n Court\n for\n for the\n the District of Masschusetts\n District of Masschusetts\n in\n in 1:26cv\u20131034\u2013ADB\n 1:26cv-1034-ADB\n Judge Allison D.\n Judge Allison D. Burroughs\n Burroughs\n\n FRAP 28(j) LETTER\n FRAP 28(j) LETTER MOVANT-APPELLANT\n MOVANT-APPELLANT\n DAITONA CARTER\n DAITONA CARTER\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 44 Page: 2 Filed: 09/10/2026\n\n\n\n\nDAITONA CARTER\nDAITONA CARTER\nMovant-Appellant Pro Se\nMovant-Appellant Pro Se\n22 Massachusetts\n Massachusetts Ave NE\n Ave NE\nGeneral\n General Delivery, Main Post\n Delivery, Main Post Office\n Office\nWashington, DC 20002\nWashington, DC 20002\nlegal@daitonacarter.com\n legal@daitonacarter.com\n\nSeptember\nSeptember 10, 2026\n 10, 2026\nVIA\nVIA ELECTRONIC\n ELECTRONIC FILING\n FILING\nJarrett\nJarrett B.\n B. Perlow, Clerk of\n Perlow, Clerk of Court\n Court\nU.S. Court\nU.S. Court of\n of Appeals\n Appeals for\n for the\n the Federal\n Federal Circuit\n Circuit\n717\n717 Madison\n Madison Place,\n Place, N.W.\n N.W.\nWashington,\nWashington, DCDC 20439\n 20439\n\n\nRE: SolosTechnology\nRE: Solos TechnologyLtd.\n Ltd.v.v.Meta\n MetaPlatforms,\n Platforms,Inc.,\n Inc.,etetal.,\n al.,No.\n No.2026-1721\n 2026-1721\n Movant-Appellant\n Movant-Appellant Daitona\n Daitona Carter\u2019s Notice of\n Carter's Notice of Supplemental\n Supplemental Authority\n Authority\n (FRAP 28(j))\n (FRAP 28(i))\n\nDear Mr. Perlow:\nDear Mr. Perlow:\n\n\nPursuant to\nPursuant to Federal\n Federal Rule\n Rule of\n of Appellate\n Appellate Procedure\n Procedure 28(j),\n 28(j), Movant-Appellant\n Movant-AppellantDaitona\n Daitona\n\nCarter\nCarter respectfully\n respectfully directs\n directs the\n the Court\u2019s\n Court's attention\n attention to\n to this\n this Court\u2019s precedential\n Court's precedential\n\ndecision in\ndecision Versata Software,\n in Versata Software, LLC\n LLC v.\n v. Ford Motor Company,\n Ford Motor Company, No.\n No. 2024-1140\n 2024-1140 (Fed.\n (Fed.\n\nCir. May 22,\nCir. May 22, 2026,\n 2026, reissued\n reissued Sept.\n Sept. 10,\n 10, 2026).\n 2026).\n\n\nVersata is directly\nVersata is directly pertinent\n pertinent because\n because it\n it re-affirmed\n re-affirmed that\n that aa district\n district court\n court commits\n commits an\n an\n\nerror of\nerror of law\n law when\n when itit prematurely\n prematurely forecloses\n forecloses or\n or restricts\n restricts aa plaintiff's\n plaintiff's statutory\n statutory right\n right\n\nto pursue aa full\nto pursue full unjust\n unjust enrichment\n enrichment and\n and global\n global gains\n gains damages\n damages model\n model under\n under the\n the\n\nDefend Trade\nDefend Trade Secrets\n SecretsAct\n Act(DTSA).\n (DTSA).This\n ThisaCourt\n Courtheld\n held that\n that aa reasonable\n reasonable royalty\n royalty is\n is aa\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 44 Page: 3 Filed: 09/10/2026\n\n\n\n\nfallback measure\nfallback measure rather\n rather than\n than an\n an artificial\n artificial ceiling\n ceiling on\n on recovery,\n recovery, and\n and that\n that courts\n courts\n\ncannot\ncannot summarily\n summarily limit\n limit aa victim's\n victim's property\n property valuation\n valuation prior to discovery.\n prior to discovery.\n\n\nThis\nThis authority\n authority directly\n directly supports\n supportsSection\n SectionII.H of\n of Appellant's\n Appellant\u2019s Reply\n Reply Brief\n Brief (p.\n (p. 21).\n 21). It\n It\n\nreinforces that the\nreinforces that the District\n District Court\n Court erred\n erred by\n by transforming\n transforming aa gateway\n gateway right-of-entry\n right-of-entry\n\namotion\n motioninto\n intoa apremature,\n premature,pre-discovery\n pre-discoverysummary\n summaryjudgment\n judgmentruling\n rulingthat\n that precluded\n precluded\n\nproperty and\nproperty and accounting\n accounting interests\n interests based\n based on\n on pre-discovery\n pre-discovery assertions. As preserved\n assertions. As preserved\n\nin\nin the\n the record\n record (D.\n (D. Mass.\n Mass. Doc.\n Doc. 58,\n 58, p.\n p. 3;\n 3; Reply\n Reply Brief,\n Brief, p. 17), Versata\n p. 17), confirms\n Versata confirms\n\nAppellant's entitlement to\nAppellant's entitlement to pursue\n pursue aa complete\n complete accounting\n accounting framework\n framework encompassing\n encompassing\n\nthe integrated enterprise's\nthe integrated enterprise's gains.\n gains.\n\n\n Respectfully submitted,\n Respectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ Daitona\n /s/ Daitona Carter\n Carter\n DAITONA\n DAITONA CARTER\n CARTER\n Movant-Appellant, Pro\n Movant-Appellant, Pro Se\n Se\n 22 Massachusetts\n Massachusetts Ave NE\n Ave NE\n General\n General Delivery, Main Post\n Delivery, Main Post Office\n Office\n Washington, DC\n Washington, DC 20002\n 20002\n legal@daitonacarter.com\n legal@daitonacarter.com\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n\nI hereby\n hereby certify\n certify that\n that on\n on September\n September 10,\n 10, 2026,\n 2026, aa true\n true and\n and correct\n correct copy\n copy of\n of the\n the\n\nforegoing\nforegoing Rule\n Rule 28(j)\n 28(j) Letter\n Letter was\n was filed\n filed via\n via the\n the Court\u2019s CM/ECF system,\n Court's CM/ECF system, which\n which will\n will\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 44 Page: 4 Filed: 09/10/2026\n\n\n\n\nsend electronic notification of such filing and a copy of the document to all\n\nregistered counsel of record, and that a copy was also transmitted via electronic\n\nmail to the respective email addresses on record.\n\n\n /s/ Daitona Carter\n DAITONA CARTER\n Movant-Appellant, Pro Se\n 2 Massachusetts Ave NE\n General Delivery, Main Post Office\n Washington, DC 20002\n legal@daitonacarter.com\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-09-10T13:07:20.668688-07:00","document_number":"44","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"01302753837","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-10T13:07:18.623317-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-10T13:07:18.639761-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-10","time_filed":null,"entry_number":44,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-10.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Citation of Supplemental Authority pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 28(j) for Appellant Daitona Carter. Service: 09/10/2026 by email. [1192713] [26-1721] [Daitona Carter] [Entered: 09/10/2026 04:02 PM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/475813151/","id":475813151,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73471924/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/491358286/","id":491358286,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73471924/43/solos-technology-ltd-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-26T05:49:26.110682-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-08T12:50:33.270658-07:00","sha1":"3647a4e5446e3db678216fd973af037f85358ef2","page_count":4,"file_size":125123,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cafc.24274/gov.uscourts.cafc.24274.43.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cafc.24274/gov.uscourts.cafc.24274.43.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":"recap-thumbnails/gov.uscourts.cafc.24274/491358286.thumb.1068.png","thumbnail_status":1,"plain_text":" Case: 26-1721 Document: 43 Page: 1 Filed: 08/26/2026\n\n\n\n\n August 26, 2026\n\nVIA CM/ECF\nJarrett B. Perlow, Clerk of Court\nUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\n717 Madison Place, N.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20439\n\nRE: Solos Technology Ltd. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., et al.,\n Appeal No. 2026-1721\n\nSUBMISSION: Citation of Supplemental Regulatory Authority\n Under Fed. R. App. P. 28(j)\n\nDear Mr. Perlow:\n Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j), Movant-Appellant\nDaitona Carter advises the Court of an intervening, non-disputable regulatory\naction by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) that directly\nimpacts the threshold legal standards governing a \"significantly protectable\ninterest\" under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2), as argued at page 25 of Appellant\u2019s\nOpening Brief and page 9 of Appellant\u2019s Reply Brief.\n\n On August 20, 2026, the USPTO formally published and unsealed an official\nadministrative utility tracking record assigned to Defendant-Appellee Meta\nPlatforms Technologies, LLC (US 2026/0244794 A1), legally certifying the utility\nmetrics of a chip-level hardware privacy mute circuit and secure processing\npathway.\n\n This official agency action is material to the preserved appellate issue of\nwhether Appellant\u2019s hardware-enclaved sensor gating architecture\u2014independently\nanchored on the public record via the Technical Disclosure Commons on June 25,\n2026 (Article No. 10575)\u2014satisfies the threshold legal metrics of a protectable\nproperty right, an issue preserved below, raised on page 25 of Appellant's Opening\nBrief, and further elaborated on page 15 of Appellant's Reply Brief. Below,\nAppellees maintained that Appellant's technology parameters constituted an\nunprotectable \"generalized concept.\" The USPTO's subsequent regulatory\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 43 Page: 2 Filed: 08/26/2026\n\n\n\n\npublication establishes that this exact technical domain constitutes highly specific,\npatentable utility subject matter under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 101.\n\n Under established principles of judicial estoppel, referenced in Appellant's\nOpening Brief at page 41 and Corrected Reply Brief at page 32, a corporate litigant\ncannot maintain that a technological domain represents an empty factual void to\nblock an Article III intervention, while concurrently prosecuting a parallel federal\nadministrative track asserting that identical mechanical parameters are specific\nenough to merit a statutory patent monopoly. This regulatory development directly\nresolves the legal contradiction below, confirming Appellant's standing to seek\ninventorship correction under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 256.\n\n\nDated: August 26, 2026\n\n Respectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ Daitona Carter\n Daitona Carter, Appellant Pro Se\n General Delivery, Main Post Office\n 2 Massachusetts Ave NE\n Washington, DC 20002\n legal@daitonacarter.com\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 43 Page: 3 Filed: 08/26/2026\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\nPursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 21(a)(1) and Local Rule 25, the undersigned hereby\n\ncertifies under penalty of perjury that on August 26, 2026, a true and correct copy\n\nof the foregoing Emergency Notice of Subsequent Multi-Forum Factual\n\nDevelopments was served upon the parties to this proceeding via the following\n\napproved service channels:\n\n\n \u00b7 Electronically on counsel of record for Plaintiffs-Appellees and\n\n \u201cDefendants\u201d (Defendants-Appellees) via electronic mail and/or the\n\n Court's CM/ECF system, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 25 and Fed. Cir.\n\n R. 25\n\n \u00b7 Electronically on United States Patent and Trademark Office (Agency\n\n Respondents): Delivered via official service email to\n\n efileSO@uspto.gov pursuant to the service mandates of FRAP 21.\n\n \u00b7 Electronically on PTAB Administration (Advisement Copy):\n\n Delivered directly to Deputy Chief Clerk, Trials \u2013 PTAB, Andrew\n\n Kellogg, at andrew.kellogg@uspto.gov for tracking across active Case\n\n Nos. IPR2026-00376, IPR2026-00412, IPR2026-00413, and\n\n IPR2026-00420.\n\n\n\nDated: August 26, 2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 43 Page: 4 Filed: 08/26/2026\n\n\n\n\n Respectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ Daitona Carter\n Daitona Carter, Appellant Pro Se\n General Delivery, Main Post Office\n 2 Massachusetts Ave NE\n Washington, DC 20002\n legal@daitonacarter.com\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-08-26T05:49:57.907141-07:00","document_number":"43","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"01302745326","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-26T05:49:26.075644-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-26T05:49:26.087858-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-26","time_filed":null,"entry_number":43,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-26.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"Citation of Supplemental Authority pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 28(j) for Appellant Daitona Carter. Service: 08/26/2026 by email. [1188938] [26-1721] [Daitona Carter] [Entered: 08/26/2026 08:47 AM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/475278899/","id":475278899,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73471924/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/490806382/","id":490806382,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73471924/42/solos-technology-ltd-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-20T17:31:54.254156-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-23T08:47:20.676099-07:00","sha1":"741bceb12953583129aca32f66c3e0b0d9b4e312","page_count":45,"file_size":7571612,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cafc.24274/gov.uscourts.cafc.24274.42.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cafc.24274/gov.uscourts.cafc.24274.42.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Appeal from the United States District Court\n for District of Masschusetts\n in 1:26cv\u20131034\u2013ADB\n Judge Allison D. Burroughs\n\n REPLY BRIEF OF MOVANT-APPELLANT\n DAITONA CARTER\nAugust 20, 2026 DAITONA CARTER\n Movant-Appellant Pro Se\n 2 Massachusetts Ave NE\n General Delivery, Main\n Post Office\n Washington, DC 20002\n legal@daitonacarter.com\n\f TABLE OF CONTENTS\nTABLE OF CONTENTS........................................................................................2\nTABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................3\nI. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT ........................................................................ 5\nII. LEGAL ARGUMENT ....................................................................................... 7\n A. Solos Has Waived All Substantive Merits Defenses by Confining Its\n District Court Opposition Exclusively to Procedural and Pleading Shortcuts\n ................................................................................................................................7\n B. The Abuse of Discretion Standard: Deferring to an Erroneous Legal\n Standard Must Be Reversed................................................................................8\n C. Carter Adequately Alleged a \"Significantly Protectable Interest\" Under\n Section 256.............................................................................................................9\n D. Collateral Order Doctrine Preserves Interlocutory Posture Despite Post-\n Order Text Commands......................................................................................10\n E. Protection From Physical Duress, Intertwined Claims, and Supplemental\n Jurisdiction..........................................................................................................10\n F. Appellee\u2019s Chronological Narrative Regarding the Mandamus Petition Is\n Factually Incorrect and Misrepresents the Record.........................................12\n G. Solos\u2019 Explicit Admission of Factual \"Artifacts\" and Rapid\n Transnational Restructuring Dismantle Its Claim of a Pristine District\n Record..................................................................................................................13\n 1. The Judicial Admission of Record Tampering and \u201cMissing\u201d Entry 92\n ...........................................................................................................................13\n 2. Concealment of Senior Priority, Sole Conception, and Involuntary\n Derivation.........................................................................................................14\n 3. Transnational Restructuring, Evernote Exploitation, and Exhibit L\n Financial Interdependence.............................................................................15\n 4. Public Capital Markets as a Commercial Clearinghouse for Converted\n Assets................................................................................................................18\n H. Under Controlling First Circuit Law, Threshold Rule 24 Entry Requires\n\n\n 2\n\f Acceptance of Pleading Veracity Rather Than Pre-Discovery Mini-Trials on\n Substantive Proof................................................................................................20\n I. Solos' Concurrent Campaign Forensically Rebuts Their Section II.B\n Assertion that Carter's Intervention Would \"Unduly Expand\" or\n Complicate a Purportedly Adverse Infringement Action...............................28\n J. The Total Operational Appearance Default of Meta Platforms, Inc., Meta\n Platforms Technologies, LLC, Oakley, Inc., Luxottica of America, Inc., and\n EssilorLuxottica USA, Inc., Extinguishes Their Right to Rebut Senior Title\n and Invalidates Plaintiff-Appellee\u2019s Standing Arguments.............................31\n K. Solos and Meta Platforms, Inc., Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC,\n Oakley, Inc., Luxottica of America, Inc., and EssilorLuxottica USA, Inc.\u2019s\n Characterization of Ongoing Commercial Exploitation as Immaterial\n Misconstrues the Operative Record and Underscores a Coordinated\n Strategy of Sham Litigation and Inter-Tribunal Evasion..............................35\n L. Solos\u2019 Reliance on Eli Lilly, Ethicon, and Hedrick Impermissibly Imposes\n Post-Discovery Merits Burdens on a Preliminary Intervention Pleading.....38\n M. Solos\u2019 Invocation of Biltcliffe, Palmer, and Ofori Conceals an Absolute,\n Terminal Due Process Violation Below............................................................40\nIII. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF...........................................41\nIV. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE............................................................43\nV. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.......................................................................44\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n\nCases Page(s)\nAlice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014) 27\nArmstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 544 (1965) 41\nB. Fernandez & Hnos., Inc. v. Kellogg USA, Inc., 440 F.3d 541\n 21\n (1st Cir. 2006)\nBearBox LLC v. Lancium LLC, 125 F.4th 1101\n 10\n (Fed. Cir. 2025)\nBiltcliffe v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 772 F.3d 925\n 41\n (1st Cir. 2014)\nBlue Gentian, LLC v. Tristar Products, Inc., 54 F.4th 1360\n 16\n (Fed. Cir. 2022)\nCanon Computer Systems, Inc. v. Nu-Kote Int'l, Inc., 190 F.3d 1362\n 9\n (Fed. Cir. 1999)\nCardSoft, Inc. v. VeriFone, Inc., 807 F.3d 1346\n 16\n (Fed. Cir. 2015)\nChambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) 16\nDaggett v. Comm'n on Govtl. Ethics and Election Practices,\n 29\n 172 F.3d 104 (1st Cir. 1999)\nDonaldson v. United States, 400 U.S. 517 (1971) 10\nEli Lilly & Co. v. Aradigm Corp., 376 F.3d 1352\n Passim\n (Fed. Cir. 2004)\nErickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) 9, 22\nEthicon, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 135 F.3d 1456\n Passim\n (Fed. Cir. 1998)\nFortress Iron, L.P. v. Digger Specialties, Inc., No. 24-2313\n (Fed. Cir. Apr. 2, 2026) 34, 35\nGilead Sciences, Inc. v. Merck & Co., Inc., 888 F.3d 1231\n 32\n (Fed. Cir. 2018)\nGlobal Health Solutions LLC v. Selner, 148 F.4th 1363\n 10\n (Fed. Cir. 2025)\nHaines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) 9\nHazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944) 16\n\nHighmark Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc., 572 U.S. 559 (2014) 9\nHoneywell International Inc. v. Arkema Inc., 939 F.3d 1345\n (Fed. Cir. 2019) 29\n\n 4\n\fOfori v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc., 205 F. App'x 851 (1st Cir. 2006) Passim\nPalmer v. Champion Mortg., 465 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2006) Passim\nPannu v. Iolab Corp., 155 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1998) 25\nPei-Herng Hor v. Ching-Wu Chu, 699 F.3d 1331\n (Fed. Cir. 2012) 25\nPioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership,\n 507 U.S. 380 (1993) 12\nPrecision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co.,\n 324 U.S. 806 (1945) 20, 32\nSEC v. LBRY, Inc., 46 F.4th 1065 (Fed. Cir. 2022) 9\nT-Mobile Northeast LLC v. Town of Barnstable, 969 F.3d 33\n (1st Cir. 2020) 29\nUniv. of Pittsburgh v. Hedrick, 573 F.3d 1290\n (Fed. Cir. 2009) 25, 29\nWaetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., 604 U.S. 305 (2025) 16\nStatutes & Legislative Provisions\n18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1595 (Trafficking Victims Protection Act) 12, 34\n28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1367 (Supplemental Jurisdiction) 12\n28 U.S.C. \u00a7 2106 (Plenary Appellate Authority) Passim\n35 U.S.C. \u00a7 116 (Joint Inventorship Posture) 24\n35 U.S.C. \u00a7 181 (Invention Secrecy Act) 27\n35 U.S.C. \u00a7 256 (Correction of Inventorship) Passim\n35 U.S.C. \u00a7 256(b) Passim\n47 U.S.C. \u00a7 506 (RAY BAUM\u2019S Act) 12\n47 U.S.C. \u00a7 623 (Kari's Law) 12\nRules & Regulations\nFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) 12\nFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 Passim\nFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 31 Passim\nFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 32 Passim\nFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 41 Passim\nFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) 41\nFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3) 16\nFederal Circuit Rule 31 (Briefing Defaults) 33,38\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\f I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT\n\n Movant-Appellant Daitona Carter (\"Carter\") respectfully submits this Reply\n\nBrief to address and refute the core contentions advanced in the Answering Brief\n\nof Plaintiff-Appellee Solos Technology Ltd. (\"Solos\"). Solos urges this Court to\n\naffirm a series of summary, text-only electronic orders denying Appellant\n\nintervention of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2). To sustain\n\nthat exclusionary ruling, Solos invokes an extra-statutory pleading standard,\n\nasserting that Appellant failed to plead specific, claim-level contributions. That\n\nargument collapses upon examination of the record, exposing an untenable attempt\n\nto impose summary judgment burdens at the threshold pleading stage while\n\nignoring the coordinated multi-forum mechanisms through which the patents-in-\n\nsuit are commercially exploited.\n\n\n Crucially, Solos distorts the procedural history of this matter by\n\nmischaracterizing the nature of the proceedings and misrepresenting its own\n\nfilings. Specifically, Solos attempts to mislead this Panel regarding the April 8,\n\n2026 Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, which was initiated to remedy severe\n\njudicial gatekeeping and secure basic ADA and ECF access.\n\n\n The responsive submissions of Solos lock the primary parties into a terminal\n\nprocedural position. By confining their district court entries and appellate brief\n\n\n 6\n\fexclusively to regional pleading finality rules and generic dismissals of Carter\u2019s\n\nrecord as generalized or conclusory, Solos has legally and permanently waived any\n\nsubstantive right to challenge Carter's senior priority, reduction to practice, or\n\ntechnological provenance.\n\n\n In stark contrast, Carter maintains an unbending record of explicit\n\ntechnological mapping from inception. Carter\u2019s directional audio frameworks\n\npossess Pre-AIA seniority dating to May 2009. Furthermore, Carter reduced these\n\nconcepts to multiple fully functioning, full-stack consumer hardware and software\n\nprototypes completed in 2016, 2017, and 2019\u2014predating both the formation of\n\nPlaintiff-Appellee and the commercialization of the disputed technologies and\n\ntrademark \u201cARIA\u201d. These are the architectures misappropriated via joint\n\ncorporate-state acquisition and laundered into the $22 Billion Department of\n\nDefense (DoD) procurement pipeline under the aegis of Army Detachment 201.\n\n\n Furthermore, the five primary corporate defendants\u2014Meta Platforms, Inc.,\n\nMeta Platforms Technologies, LLC, Oakley, Inc., Luxottica of America, Inc., and\n\nEssilorLuxottica USA, Inc. (collectively, the \"Defaulting Corporate Defendant-\n\nAppellees\")\u2014have defaulted on appeal by failing to enter an appearance or submit\n\nanswering briefs, leaving their defense-contract revenue stream dependent on a\n\nvulnerable proxy shell. This collective default binds each entity, parent and\n\nsubsidiary alike, jointly and severally, spanning the commercial monetization of\n\n 7\n\fthe Ray-Ban Meta smart-glasses frameworks and the tactical arrays deployed\n\nunder Oakley\u2019s military contracts. Because the underlying technological priority\n\nstands uncontradicted on the merits across this enterprise, an appearance-of-bias\n\nremand is prohibited. This Court must exercise its direct authority under 28 U.S.C.\n\nSection 2106 and 35 U.S.C. Section 256(b) to direct the United States Patent and\n\nTrademark Office (USPTO) to correct the patent rolls and substitute Carter as the\n\nsole rightful title holder of the issued assets.\n\n\n II. LEGAL ARGUMENT\nA. Solos Has Waived All Substantive Merits Defenses by Confining Its District\nCourt Opposition Exclusively to Procedural and Pleading Shortcuts\n\n\nUnder the established waiver doctrine of this Court, an argument or defense not\n\nexplicitly raised and substantiated in the lower tribunal is irrevocably forfeited on\n\nappeal.\n\n\n \u00b7 The Merits Deficit: Throughout the proceedings below, Solos failed to\n\n submit an independent technical affidavit, a comparative claim chart, or a\n\n verified engineering timeline to rebut Carter's senior priority. Instead, Solos\n\n relied exclusively on procedural maneuvers under Rule 41 and technical\n\n pleading metrics.\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\f \u00b7 The Binding Consequence: By executing a total waiver on the merits of\n\n creation, conception, and reduction to practice, Solos is legally precluded\n\n from contesting Carter's priority before this panel. Carter\u2019s initial\n\n preservation\u2014detailing the exfiltration of the full-stack consumer \"ARIA\"\n\n framework\u2014stands as the uncontradicted factual record of authorship,\n\n leaving no genuine issue of material fact remaining regarding true\n\n inventorship.\n\n\nB. The Abuse of Discretion Standard: Deferring to an Erroneous Legal\nStandard Must Be Reversed\n\n\n \u00b7 Error of Law: Denial of intervention under Rule 24(a)(2) is reviewed for\n\n abuse of discretion. SEC v. LBRY, Inc., 46 F.4th 1065, 1071 (Fed. Cir.\n\n 2022). However, a district court automatically abuses its discretion when it\n\n bases its ruling on an erroneous view of the law. Highmark Inc. v. Allcare\n\n Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc., 572 U.S. 559, 563 (2014); Canon Computer\n\n Systems, Inc. v. Nu-Kote Int'l, Inc., 190 F.3d 1362, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 1999).\n\n \u00b7 Pro Se Liberal Construction: As a pro se litigant, Carter\u2019s pleadings are\n\n entitled to liberal construction and must be held to less stringent standards\n\n than formal pleadings drafted by counsel. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519,\n\n 520 (1972); Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).\n\n\n\n 9\n\f \u00b7 Improper Summary Judgment Threshold: The court below committed\n\n reversible error of law by treating a threshold Rule 24 intervention motion as\n\n a summary judgment adjudication on the merits of inventorship. Appellee\n\n improperly relies on post-discovery authorities (BearBox LLC v. Lancium\n\n LLC, 125 F.4th 1101 (Fed. Cir. 2025); Global Health Solutions LLC v.\n\n Selner, 148 F.4th 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2025)) to demand limitation-by-limitation\n\n evidentiary corroboration at the pleading stage, short-circuiting required\n\n claim construction proceedings.\n\n\nC. Carter Adequately Alleged a \"Significantly Protectable Interest\" Under\nSection 256\n\n\n \u00b7 Statutory Threshold: Carter moved to intervene under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 256 to\n\n correct inventorship. Standing requires a colorable claim of an ownership or\n\n inventorship stake, not absolute pre-discovery adjudication. Under the\n\n binding standard in Donaldson v. United States, 400 U.S. 517, 531 (1971),\n\n an applicant must demonstrate a significantly protectable interest recognized\n\n by law.\n\n \u00b7 Sufficient Allegations: Explicit allegations of prior conception and\n\n technology misappropriation satisfy this legal benchmark.\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\fD. Collateral Order Doctrine Preserves Interlocutory Posture Despite Post-\nOrder Text Commands\n\n\n Solos contends that because Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal on April 20,\n\n 2026, prior to the finalization of post-order summaries, this panel is restricted to\n\n reviewing a narrow snapshot of the initial April 15 text order (Appellee Br. at 6).\n\n\n This argument misconstrues the jurisdictional effect of an interlocutory\n\n appeal from the denial of a motion to intervene as of right. Under the collateral\n\n order doctrine, a district court order denying intervention of right constitutes an\n\n immediately appealable final determination that divests the lower court of\n\n jurisdiction exclusively regarding party status, while the underlying\n\n infringement docket remains active.\n\n\n Furthermore, Appellant perfected appellate jurisdiction by filing an\n\n Amended Notice of Appeal on May 17, 2026, preserving structural review over\n\n the expanding matrix of electronic docket closures and text-only commands.\n\n\n\n\nE. Protection From Physical Duress, Intertwined Claims, and Supplemental\nJurisdiction\n \u00b7 Mischaracterization: Solos frames ongoing duress, trafficking, and\n\n whistleblower requests as improper extraneous matters.\n\n\n\n 11\n\f\u00b7 The \"Wrong Forum\" Ploy: Solos urged the lower court to deny witness\n\n protection and U.S. Marshal referral as the \"wrong forum\" while offering no\n\n alternative venue, weaponizing procedure to cause gridlock. As raised below\n\n and detailed in docketed filings\u2014including the Mandatory Statutory Stay\n\n TVPA disclosures, and Urgent Emergency Notice of Incapacitation (CAFC\n\n EFC No. 19)\u2014continuous digital lockouts, telephony blocking (Kari's Law,\n\n 47 U.S.C. Section 623; RAY BAUM'S Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 506), and\n\n ongoing physical violence and intimidation obstruct appellate access under\n\n Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b) and Pioneer Investment Services Co. v.\n\n Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380 (1993).\n\n\u00b7 Supplemental Jurisdiction (28 U.S.C. Section 1367): Solos\u2019s demand to\n\n prune safety and whistleblower claims is meritless. Under Section 1367(a),\n\n federal courts possess broad supplemental jurisdiction over claims forming\n\n part of the same Article III case or controversy. Because these exact\n\n preservation arguments were presented below and derive directly from the\n\n nucleus of operative facts surrounding the IP capture and DoD contracting\n\n pipeline, this Panel possesses full statutory authority to resolve them.\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\fF. Appellee\u2019s Chronological Narrative Regarding the Mandamus Petition Is\nFactually Incorrect and Misrepresents the Record\n\n\n \u00b7 Distorting the Filing Timeline: Appellee asserts that Appellant rushed to\n\n seek appellate review on April 15, 2026\u2014the exact date of the district\n\n court\u2019s intervention order\u2014thereby bypassing pending post-order motions\n\n (Appellee Br. at 6). This narrative is flatly contradicted by the certified\n\n record.\n\n \u00b7 The True Origin of the Mandamus: The Petition for a Writ of Mandamus\n\n was executed and initially mailed on April 8, 2026\u2014a full week before the\n\n district court entered its April 15 text order. It was necessitated entirely by\n\n administrative gridlock: the lower court barred informal email submissions\n\n of confidential inventorship evidence while failing to rule on pending sealing\n\n and protective order motions (D. Mass. Docs. 59 and 62), leaving Appellant\n\n procedurally precluded from placing vital technical provenance on the\n\n record.\n\n \u00b7 Exploiting Judicial Deadlock: Appellee\u2019s inversion of this sequence\n\n constitutes an attempt to obscure lower court procedural roadblocks and\n\n manufacture a spurious jurisdictional defect. Mandamus was properly sought\n\n to compel action on stagnant sealing motions, and Solos cannot rewrite the\n\n record to penalize Appellant for seeking judicial access.\n\n\n 13\n\fG. Solos\u2019 Explicit Admission of Factual \"Artifacts\" and Rapid Transnational\nRestructuring Dismantle Its Claim of a Pristine District Record\n\n Solos\u2019 attempt to characterize this action as a streamlined private dispute\u2014\n\nbolstered by its assertion of a pristine, undisputed record\u2014is dismantled both by its\n\nown judicial admissions in Footnote 1, its concealment of senior priority, and the\n\nforensic evidence of record contained in Carter\u2019s Exhibit L (Appx161).\n\n\n1. The Judicial Admission of Record Tampering and \u201cMissing\u201d Entry 92\n In Footnote 1 of its brief, Solos makes an explicit judicial admission that\n\nconfirms Carter's well-pleaded claims of record spoliation and administrative\n\ncensorship while exposing its own procedural deception:\n\n\n \u00b7 The Deceptive Appendix Artifice: Solos attempts to manufacture a\n\n procedural default by claiming that Carter \"failed to include Solos in\n\n determining the contents of the Appendix\" (Appellee Br. at 5, n.1).\n\n This argument attempts to penalize an unrepresented litigant for\n\n independently exercising statutory and procedural rights to compile a\n\n complete record. An appellee's separate supplemental volume cannot\n\n be deployed as a tactical obfuscation to rewrite, censor, or filter the\n\n materials properly placed before this Panel.\n\n \u00b7 The Confession of Record Tampering: Solos explicitly concedes\n\n that it felt compelled to submit an entirely separate Supplemental\n\n\n 14\n\f Appendix because Carter\u2019s certified filings on the primary docket are\n\n plagued by severe \"character-encoding and formatting artifacts (e.g.,\n\n HTML rendering errors)\" that are absent from the official record\n\n entries (Appellee Br. at 5, n.1). This constitutes a direct, public\n\n admission by officers of the court that the electronic federal record\n\n submitted to this tribunal was structurally altered and corrupted.\n\n \u00b7 The Systemic Deletion of Entry 92: A review of Appellee's\n\n Supplemental Appendix Table of Contents (SAppx2\u20133) verifies that\n\n Entry 92 has been entirely deleted, erased, wiped, restricted or\n\n removed from their submissions. Entry 92 was the precise system\n\n node where Carter uploaded sixty-five (65) independent technical\n\n files, lab notes, and notices containing Carter's source code, optical\n\n calibrations, and foundational architecture.\n\n\n2. Concealment of Senior Priority, Sole Conception, and Involuntary\nDerivation\n Solos manufactured its appendix complaints to construct a pretextual barrier,\n\nutilizing its separate volume specifically to perpetuate the lower court's database\n\nlockout. By concealing Carter's codebase, architecture, proof of reduction to\n\npractice/prototypes, proof of \"ARIA\" trademark common law ownership, and\n\nnotices to Defendants and law enforcement behind blank placeholders to maintain\n\n\n\n 15\n\fan artificial \"factual void\" before this Panel, Solos attempts to insulate its position\n\nfrom the truth.\n\n\n Furthermore, Solos is judicially estopped from dismissing Carter's tracking-\n\nnetwork derivation evidence (Blue Gentian, LLC v. Tristar Products, Inc., 54 F.4th\n\n1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2022)) as an \"extraneous controversy\": Solos' own complaint\n\nrelies on an identical narrative of unauthorized technological absorption from Meta\n\nReality Labs. Because Carter\u2019s documented sole conception and involuntary data\n\nextraction pipeline via the 2009 Digital Signal Processor (DSP) case study and\n\nnotes, the 2013 Facebook export, and U.S. Navy/Kopin postures precede the\n\npatents-in-suit under CardSoft, Inc. v. VeriFone, Inc., 807 F.3d 1346, 1350 (Fed.\n\nCir. 2015), Solos' attempt to enforce an asymmetrical tracking standard collapses.\n\n\n Under Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 246\n\n(1944) and Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991), a federal court\n\nmaintains inherent, absolute ancillary jurisdiction under Rule 60(d)(3) to\n\ninvestigate an unconscionable scheme that defiles the integrity of the judicial\n\nmachinery itself, completely surviving a voluntary corporate dismissal under Rule\n\n41 (Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., 604 U.S. 305, 307 (2025)).\n\n\n3. Transnational Restructuring, Evernote Exploitation, and Exhibit L\nFinancial Interdependence\n\n\n\n 16\n\f While the district court issued summary text orders denying Carter entry and\n\nmirroring these database lockouts, a synchronized corporate restructuring and\n\nasset-laundering sequence unfolded behind the scenes:\n\n \u00b7 The Evernote and Meetup Acquisition Pipeline: The evidentiary\n\n record establishes the systematic migration of proprietary assets\n\n through serial corporate acquisitions\u2014specifically utilizing platforms\n\n like Evernote to ingest and transfer foundational 2009\u20132019 acoustic\n\n logic codebases, lab notes, and development logs to foreign servers in\n\n Milan, Italy. This unauthorized monetization and commercial\n\n deployment of Carter's proprietary archives directly fueled the public\n\n market valuations and technical architectures driving the Ray-Ban\n\n Meta smart-glasses and egocentric AI platforms operated by Meta and\n\n the Luxottica Entities.\n\n \u00b7 Financial Interdependence (Exhibit L): Exhibit L (Appx161)\n\n establishes the structural identity of interest among the parties,\n\n identifying communication conduits utilized for 2019\u20132020 API\n\n activity reflected in Carter\u2019s business records. Because these\n\n enterprise APIs provide the primary communication framework for\n\n Meta\u2019s business messaging and conversions APIs, Carter\u2019s private\n\n authentication and verification logs were bridged directly into Meta's\n\n\n 17\n\f data-harvesting networks. Furthermore, institutional financiers such as\n\n Apollo Global Management (which orchestrated major financing\n\n packages for Meta\u2019s AI data centers) maintain a strategic capital\n\n alliance with BNP Paribas, the financial institution backing Bending\n\n Spoons' corporate acquisitions. This corporate-acquisition pipeline\n\n operates under an interlocking advisory matrix where the enterprise's\n\n primary investment banking advisors actively sit on the board of\n\n directors of the successor entities, all operating under the coordinated\n\n direction of the exact same global law firm executing the defense of\n\n this active patent litigation.\n\n\u00b7 Corporate Shell Games and Equity Cleansing: The record further\n\n reflects a pattern of corporate restructuring\u2014including accelerated\n\n share repurchase mechanisms and structural spinoffs designed to\n\n purge equity stakes and execute absolute exits from consumer\n\n licensing agreements. These maneuvers are engineered to insulate the\n\n chain of title while under active litigation attack, shielding the highly\n\n lucrative tactical arrays currently driven into Oakley's institutional\n\n military and defense contracts behind a web of shifting corporate\n\n proxies.\n\n\n\n\n 18\n\f4. Public Capital Markets as a Commercial Clearinghouse for Converted\nAssets\n The record establishes that the corporate enterprise has utilized public capital\n\nmarkets to formalize the commercialization and monetization of Carter's\n\nmisappropriated proprietary assets, directly refuting Solos\u2019s assertion that the\n\nappellate record reflects a pristine factual void. By executing serial integrations\u2014\n\nmigrating foundational 2009\u20132019 acoustic logic codebases, developmental logs,\n\nand optical parameters across network nodes from Evernote platforms to foreign\n\nservers in Milan, Italy\u2014and translating those proprietary digital frameworks into\n\npublic registrations and corporate equities, the enterprise established an\n\ninstitutional mechanism to exchange public stock valuation and liquid capital for\n\nuncompensated civilian intellectual property.\n\n \u00b7 The Financial Bridge: As documented in Exhibit L (Appx161),\n\n institutional financiers\u2014including Apollo Global Management and\n\n BNP Paribas\u2014bridged these proprietary assets directly into Meta's\n\n commercial data-harvesting and AI data center infrastructure. This\n\n financial bridging mechanism operates under an interlocking advisory\n\n matrix wherein primary investment banking underwriters hold direct\n\n seats on the boards of directors of the public vehicle entities, while the\n\n entire transactional framework is orchestrated under the centralized\n\n guidance of the exact same global law firm defending this patent\n\n 19\n\f action. This coordinated capital track directly operationalizes the\n\n technology driving the multi-billion-dollar Ray-Ban Meta consumer\n\n smart-glasses market and the tactical arrays deployed under Oakley\u2019s\n\n military and defense portfolios, confirming that the disputed patents\n\n are commercially active components of a unified enterprise rather than\n\n isolated private assets.\n\n \u00b7 The Public Conversion: The transition of these private entities into\n\n publicly traded market vehicles is engineered to permanently sanitize\n\n the chain of title, laundering misappropriated lab notes into public\n\n market valuations while shielding the participants behind an artificial\n\n corporate wall. This public market laundering framework directly\n\n refutes Solos\u2019s core appellate argument that Carter\u2019s claims are too\n\n generalized to stand, proving that the record contains active,\n\n uncontradicted evidence of structural title laundering.\n\n Under Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery\n\nCo., 324 U.S. 806, 816 (1945), a federal court must reject attempts by litigants who\n\nseek to utilize the court's equitable machinery\u2014in tandem with public capital\n\nmarkets\u2014to finalize a non-adversarial asset wash built upon the systemic\n\nsuppression and conversion of a civilian creator's proprietary lab notes.\n\n\n\n\n 20\n\fH. Under Controlling First Circuit Law, Threshold Rule 24 Entry Requires\nAcceptance of Pleading Veracity Rather Than Pre-Discovery Mini-Trials on\nSubstantive Proof\n\n Solos' brief seeks to manufacture an extra-statutory barrier by demanding\n\nthat an unrepresented civilian produce final trial-stage claim charts merely to clear\n\nthe initial intervention gate. This hyper-technical hurdle is deployed precisely to\n\nshield a misappropriated, dual-use technology framework that the corporate\n\nenterprise has aggressively commercialized across both civilian and military\n\nsectors. Because Carter\u2019s foundational architectures are inherently dual-use, the\n\ncorporate enterprise refuses to surrender control or return the assets to their rightful\n\nauthor. Instead, they seek to lock the courtroom door prior to discovery.\n\n \u00b7 The Abuse of Rule 24(a)(2): Under controlling First Circuit\n\n procedural law (B. Fernandez & Hnos., Inc. v. Kellogg USA, Inc., 440\n\n F.3d 541, 544), a district court evaluating a threshold motion to\n\n intervene as a matter of right is required to accept all well-pleaded\n\n factual allegations as true. Carter's detailed operational timeline easily\n\n satisfied this prima facie gatekeeping threshold. By transforming a\n\n preliminary entry motion into an exhaustive, pre-discovery mini-trial\n\n on dual-use technical proof, the lower court applied an incorrect\n\n evidentiary standard, resulting in a clear abuse of discretion.\n\n\n\n 21\n\f \u00b7 The Post-Trial Misdirection: This Court has made clear that a trial\n\n court commits a reversible error of law by transforming a gateway\n\n right-of-entry motion into a premature summary judgment inquiry\n\n (Honeywell International Inc. v. Arkema Inc., 939 F.3d 1345, 1349\n\n (Fed. Cir. 2019)). Meta and the Luxottica Entities are actively\n\n utilizing this artificial threshold to permanently retain Carter's dual-\n\n use frameworks\u2014specifically, the consumer-facing Ray-Ban Meta\n\n smart-glasses architectures and the high-staked tactical arrays driven\n\n into Oakley\u2019s military and defense procurement contracts. Holding a\n\n pro se litigant to a hyper-technical patent attorney standard while\n\n manually cutting off electronic docket access violates Fifth\n\n Amendment Procedural Due Process (Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S.\n\n 89, 94 (2007)).\n\n Solos\u2019 argument that Carter's technical provenance was too \"generalized\" is\n\ncompletely hollow when evaluated against its own Complaint for Patent\n\nInfringement (Dist. Ct. ECF No. 1). While Solos successfully advocated for an\n\nunyielding evidentiary threshold to bar an unrepresented, civilian whistleblower, it\n\ninitiated this multi-billion-dollar litigation using the exact flexible notice-pleading\n\nstandards it now denounces:\n\n\n\n\n 22\n\f \u00b7 Pleading on Information and Belief: Solos asserts structural\n\n hardware infringement by stating that, upon information and belief,\n\n the accused products incorporate infringing elements. Solos claimed a\n\n right to utilize the discovery process to unearth internal, proprietary\n\n corporate schematics, while simultaneously demanding that Carter\n\n possess those exact hidden schematics prior to entering the suit.\n\n \u00b7 Admitted Factual Voids: Solos lumps distinct corporate subsidiaries\n\n into a singular operational enterprise while explicitly confessing that\n\n the precise nature, scope, and degree of direction among those entities\n\n are not yet fully known to the Plaintiff.\n\n Under long-standing equitable principles, a corporate litigant cannot harness\n\nthe relaxed standard of notice pleading to haul its adversaries into court while\n\nsimultaneously manufacturing a heightened, summary-judgment threshold to keep\n\na third-party claimant out of the courtroom.\n\n Solos asserts that an independent claim for correction of inventorship under\n\n35 U.S.C. Section 256 cannot constitute a \"significantly protectable interest\"\n\nrequired under Rule 24(a)(2) unless accompanied by an explicit showing of a pre-\n\nexisting contractual, operational, or collaborative history with the named inventors.\n\nThis argument represents a fabricated barrier that stands in direct contradiction to\n\ndecades of settled patent law.\n\n\n 23\n\f Under binding Federal Circuit precedent, a joint inventor\u2019s interest is not\n\nremote, speculative, or contingent. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Section 116, a\n\ncontribution to the conception of even a single element of a single claim grants that\n\nco-inventor a presumptive, undivided interest in the entirety of the patent asset.\n\nStanding to seek correction under Section 256 requires only a colorable claim to an\n\nownership or inventorship stake in the disputed technology.\n\n Carter's initial motion explicitly identified Carter's prior conception and\n\nreduction to practice of the identical technical pillars anchoring this lawsuit:\n\ndirectional sound projection, adaptive beamforming, and multimodal acoustic\n\ncontrol. To demand that a pro se intervenor run a completed claim construction\n\nanalysis prior to being allowed to join the suit turns Rule 24 into an impossible\n\nbarrier.\n\n Solos\u2019 insistence that Carter's motion was legally defective due to the\n\nabsence of a detailed history of personal collaboration with Solos\u2019 corporate\n\nexecutives is completely foreclosed by established jurisprudence. Carter explicitly\n\nbrought to the district court's attention binding authorities that Solos has\n\nmethodically omitted or mischaracterized in its Response Brief:\n\n \u00b7 Pannu v. Iolab Corp., 155 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1998): Independent,\n\n omitted co-inventors retain absolute statutory standing to seek\n\n correction of a patent title under 35 U.S.C. Section 256 completely\n\n\n 24\n\f independent of, and without any pre-existing contractual or\n\n operational relationship to, the corporate assignees or patent holders.\n\n \u00b7 Pei-Herng Hor v. Ching-Wu Chu, 699 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2012):\n\n This Court explicitly establishes that an omitted co-inventor holds an\n\n absolute right to seek title protection under Section 256 at any phase\n\n of a patent's lifecycle, and no corporate litigant can strip that right by\n\n advancing their private pleadings.\n\n By ruling that the absence of a pre-existing corporate relationship was fatal\n\nto Carter\u2019s motion, the district court applied an incorrect legal standard, resulting\n\nin a clear abuse of discretion.\n\n Solos\u2019 attempts to secure its manufactured pleading hurdle by heavily citing\n\nEli Lilly & Co. v. Aradigm Corp., 376 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2004), Ethicon, Inc. v.\n\nU.S. Surgical Corp., 135 F.3d 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998), and Univ. of Pittsburgh v.\n\nHedrick, 573 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2009). This reliance constitutes a profound, bad-\n\nfaith misrepresentation of the governing procedural framework. Every single\n\nauthority cited by Solos to demand \"claim-level contributions\" at the threshold\n\nphase arose from a fundamentally distinct, post-discovery or post-trial procedural\n\nposture:\n\n\n\n\n 25\n\f 1. Eli Lilly was a post-trial appeal reviewing a final district court\n\n judgment on joint inventorship after a full evidentiary trial on the\n\n merits.\n\n 2. Ethicon was a post-discovery summary judgment decision rendered\n\n after the primary parties completed extensive depositions, expert\n\n reports, and comprehensive claim construction.\n\n 3. Hedrick was an appeal from a final bench trial on a fully developed\n\n record concerning laboratory notebooks and direct inventor testimony.\n\n Solos\u2019 attempt to transplant the intensive evidentiary burdens necessary to\n\nwin a completed trial into the preliminary threshold pleading rules of an initial\n\nright-of-entry motion is doctrinally unsustainable. These cases confirm that claim\n\nconstruction and contribution assessments are highly intensive factual inquiries\n\nthat require a fully developed record. By using post-trial and summary judgment\n\nrulings to deny Carter the right to enter the courtroom and build that record, Solos\n\nhas completely inverted the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.\n\n Solos continues to maintain before this Panel that the district court properly\n\nadopted its characterization of Carter\u2019s technical provenance as \"generalized\" work\n\nproduct. However, the official court docket reveals an unsustainable legal and\n\nprocedural contradiction: the 65 files of technical lab notes, Python source code,\n\nand signal processing benchmarks submitted by Carter were immediately subjected\n\n\n 26\n\fto high-level administrative suppression under a restricted status placeholder. This\n\ncovers the precise architectural nodes driving both the multi-billion-dollar Ray-Ban\n\nMeta consumer smart glasses and the specialized egocentric AI frameworks\n\ncurrently deployed across Oakley\u2019s military defense contracts.\n\n This triggers a fatal conflict with the Supreme Court's governing standard\n\nunder the Alice Doctrine (Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014)) and\n\nthe Invention Secrecy Act (35 U.S.C. Section 181):\n\n 1. Under the Alice standard, \"generalized,\" \"vague,\" or \"abstract\" ideas cannot\n\n be patented\u2014nor can they legally justify administrative classification or\n\n National Security-related suppression.\n\n 2. Material that rises to the level of strict administrative restriction necessarily\n\n contains dual-use technical particularity, specific algorithmic benchmarks,\n\n and discrete trade secret locations.\n\n Solos\u2019 and the Meta-Luxottica Defendants operated a profound legal fiction:\n\nthey utilized the administrative suppression mechanism to block Carter's claim-\n\nlevel evidence from public view, and then spun around to tell the appellate court\n\nthat Carter's record contained \"nothing concrete\". Because these architectures have\n\na dual-use profile spanning both consumer tech and defense frameworks, the\n\ncorporate enterprise refuses to surrender control or return the technology to its\n\nrightful author. If the material is sufficiently specific to be hidden from the public\n\n\n 27\n\frecord under a security lockout, it is per se specific enough to pass the low\n\nstatutory threshold required to show a \"significantly protectable interest\" under\n\nRule 24.\n\n This manufactured evidentiary lockout collapses under the weight of the\n\nPlaintiff\u2019s own judicial admissions of record. In its Complaint for Patent\n\nInfringement (Dist. Ct. ECF No. 1), Solos explicitly states that its entire multi-\n\nbillion-dollar lawsuit concerns the willful infringement of its \"smart-glasses\n\ntechnologies,\" identifying the foundational pillars of this dispute as \"multimodal\n\nsensing, real-time signal processing, directional audio, sensor fusion, and\n\ncontextual awareness\". Solos further asserts that these identical architectural\n\nconcepts\u2014disclosed across all five of the Asserted Patents ('389, '866, '055, '174,\n\nand '339)\u2014were systematically adopted by Meta and EssilorLuxottica to build and\n\nmonetize the Ray-Ban Meta smart-glasses platforms and Oakley Meta product\n\nlines.\n\n Because the uncontradicted record establishes that Carter conceptualized,\n\nengineered, and executed working prototypes of these exact dual-use signal\n\nprocessing architectures years before any named corporate defendant or Solos even\n\nexisted, Solos\u2019 own pleadings establish the direct \"property or transaction\"\n\nrequired for intervention under Rule 24(a)(2). Solos cannot haul Meta and the\n\nLuxottica Entities into court by claiming these five fused frameworks are\n\n\n 28\n\fstructurally concrete, while simultaneously telling this Panel that Carter\u2019s identical\n\nsenior technical priority is a \"generalized abstract idea\". By their own written\n\nwords, the technology driving these commercial and military portfolios is a\n\nsingular, integrated architecture; because Carter holds true original authorship over\n\nthat dual-use architecture, the law commands that the assets be returned to their\n\nrightful civilian owner.\n\nI. Solos' Concurrent Campaign Forensically Rebuts Their Section II.B\nAssertion that Carter's Intervention Would \"Unduly Expand\" or Complicate\na Purportedly Adverse Infringement Action\n\n Solos\u2019 attempts to defend the denial of permissive intervention under Rule\n\n24(b) by heavily citing T-Mobile Northeast LLC v. Town of Barnstable, 969 F.3d\n\n33, 42 (1st Cir. 2020) and Daggett v. Commission on Governmental Ethics and\n\nElection Practices, 172 F.3d 104, 113 (1st Cir. 1999), arguing that adding Carter\u2019s\n\nclaims would \"unduly expand\" and complicate a standard patent case. This\n\nprocedural positioning represents a fundamental distortion of regional circuit\n\npractice and a direct threat to judicial finality.\n\n The Misapplication of Precedent: In T-Mobile and Daggett, the First\n\nCircuit affirmed the threshold denial of permissive intervention because the absent\n\nparties merely sought to inject generic, cumulative political or consumer policy\n\narguments into narrow local zoning and campaign finance disputes. Adding those\n\n\n\n 29\n\foutside public policy arguments would have unnecessarily expanded the litigation\n\nfootprint.\n\n The Absolute Standing Boundary: A title and ownership controversy\n\nunder 35 U.S.C. Section 256 is structurally different. Standing is not a flexible\n\ncase-management factor left to discretionary balancing; it is an absolute, threshold\n\njurisdictional prerequisite. If Solos' patent portfolio is built upon technology\n\nextracted from Carter's notes, research, development, and/or working prototypes,\n\nSolos lacks the basic legal standing to maintain this multi-billion-dollar lawsuit\n\nagainst the Defaulting Corporate Defendant-Appellees without Carter\u2019s\n\nparticipation as a party. Likewise, if Meta Platforms, Inc., Meta Platforms\n\nTechnologies, LLC, Oakley, Inc., Luxottica of America, Inc., and EssilorLuxottica\n\nUSA, Inc.'s patent portfolio is built upon technology extracted from Carter's notes,\n\nresearch, development, and/or working prototypes, neither Solos nor the\n\nDefaulting Corporate Defendant-Appellees possess the basic legal standing to\n\nmaintain or dismiss this multi-billion-dollar lawsuit without Carter\u2019s participation\n\nas a party. Section 256 is fundamentally a remedial savings provision designed to\n\nprotect real inventors from corporate fraud or omission. True judicial efficiency\n\nrequires identifying the real owners of a property interest prior to evaluating\n\ndownstream liability.\n\n\n\n\n 30\n\f Solos' narrative ignores the structural reality of corporate occlusion\n\ndocumented throughout the record. As detailed in Carter's authenticated Forensic\n\nMap of Financial Interdependence (Exhibit L), the primary parties share an\n\nundisputed identity of strategic interest designed to avoid direct title discovery:\n\n \u00b7 Strategic Financing Conduits: Apollo Global Management and BNP\n\n Paribas maintain a documented $5 billion strategic capital alliance.\n\n \u00b7 Data Laundering Environment: BNP Paribas served as the lead financier\n\n backing Bending Spoons' acquisitions of Evernote and Meetup, effectively\n\n transferring Carter's proprietary full-stack technical pilot history to a foreign\n\n jurisdiction (Milan, Italy).\n\n \u00b7 Infrastructure Overlap: Simultaneously, Apollo Global Management\n\n actively led a $35 billion data center package directly for Defendant Meta\n\n Platforms, Inc.\n\n This financial ecosystem creates an incurable conflict of interest. Solos\u2019 lead\n\ncounsel simultaneously represents Samsung in patent actions where Samsung\u2019s\n\ncommercialized \"See-Through\" display architecture (Samsung Patent No.\n\n10,886,417 B2) is a copy of Carter's prototype lab notes, while originating\n\ncompany Kopin Corporation (formerly led by Dr. John C. Fan prior to the 2019\n\nSolos Technology Limited spin-off and sister spin-off company, both led by Dr.\n\nFan) serves as the discrete manufacturing link for those very and similar screens.\n\n\n 31\n\f Significantly, Meta\u2014the primary entity executing the operational footprint\n\nbelow\u2014remains entirely silent, offering no defense of the judgment on the merits.\n\nSolos\u2019 attempts to fill this void by declaring post-May 8 developments\n\n\"immaterial\" only highlight their inability to defend the underlying merits of the\n\ntitle laundering. By demonstrating this strategic alignment to facilitate an out-of-\n\ncourt asset split, Carter introduces these subsequent developments as critical\n\nevidentiary support to illustrate a continuing pattern of conduct. Under the long-\n\nstanding baseline affirmed in Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Merck & Co., Inc., 888 F.3d\n\n1231, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2018) and Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Automotive\n\nMaintenance Machinery Co., 324 U.S. 806, 814 (1945), this deep cross-forum\n\nconcealment taints the entire enterprise under the Doctrine of Unclean Hands,\n\npermanently precluding Solos, Meta, and the Luxottica Entities from asserting\n\nrigid procedural timelines to trap the true creator.\n\nJ. The Total Operational Appearance Default of Meta Platforms, Inc., Meta\nPlatforms Technologies, LLC, Oakley, Inc., Luxottica of America, Inc., and\nEssilorLuxottica USA, Inc., Extinguishes Their Right to Rebut Senior Title\nand Invalidates Plaintiff-Appellee\u2019s Standing Arguments\n\n\n A fatal vulnerability on this appellate record is the complete operational\n\nappearance default of the five primary corporate defendants\u2014Meta Platforms, Inc.,\n\nMeta Platforms Technologies, LLC, Oakley, Inc., Luxottica of America, Inc., and\n\nEssilorLuxottica USA, Inc. ).\n\n 32\n\f\u00b7 The Forfeiture of Right: Despite being named as direct Appellees on\n\n both the initial and amended notices of appeal (Appx24 and Appx29),\n\n each entity across this multi-billion dollar enterprise failed to register\n\n for the electronic registry, file certificates of interest, or submit\n\n responsive briefings by their mandatory deadlines. Under Federal\n\n Circuit Rule 31, this wholesale default operationally strips each\n\n individual Defendant-Appellee of any right to be heard during oral\n\n arguments or contest the senior priority of the record. They cannot\n\n utilize corporate shell games to insulate their revenue streams\u2014\n\n including the commercial monetization of the Ray-Ban Meta smart-\n\n glasses frameworks, the Oakley tactical contracts, and the\n\n misappropriated \"ARIA\" full-stack trademark portfolios\u2014while\n\n hiding safely behind a vulnerable proxy shell.\n\n\u00b7 The Admission of Standing Deficits: Because these five Defaulting\n\n Corporate Defendant-Appellees have completely defaulted on appeal,\n\n the primary factual allegations regarding their joint exploitation of\n\n Carter's dual-use frameworks stand uncontradicted. Solos' brief cannot\n\n legally fabricate a standing argument on behalf of absent defendants\n\n who have procedurally forfeited their right to entry. By choosing radio\n\n silence in an active Article III appeal, Meta and the Luxottica Entities\n\n\n 33\n\f have conceded the threshold multi-forum title laundering, creating an\n\n absolute bar to an appearance-of-bias remand. Because the underlying\n\n technological creation is frozen as undisputed, this Court must utilize\n\n its direct authority under 28 U.S.C. Section 2106 and 35 U.S.C.\n\n Section 256(b) to bypass further lower-court delays and order the\n\n United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to correct the\n\n patent rolls and substitute Carter as the sole rightful title holder of the\n\n issued assets.\n\n\u00b7 The Invalidation Alternative under Fortress Iron: Under the strict\n\n panel standard established by this Court in Fortress Iron, L.P. v.\n\n Digger Specialties, Inc., accurate inventorship is a threshold\n\n jurisdictional prerequisite. A patent portfolio that omits the true\n\n creator and cannot be corrected according to law due to an ongoing\n\n Force Majeure event (documented human trafficking and physical\n\n duress under 18 U.S.C. Section 1595) is structurally broken. Because\n\n Carter is present, standing on Carter's uncontradicted scripts, signal\n\n processing benchmarks and the overall full stack smart architecture\n\n invented and reduced to practice by Carter, the law mandates the\n\n restoration of Carter's property via complete title assignment under\n\n Section 256. If the Solos\u2019 and the non-appearing Defaulting Corporate\n\n\n 34\n\f Defendant-Appellees refuse to submit to Carter's rightful co-\n\n ownership, their multi-billion-dollar defense-supply asset is would\n\n traditionally be rendered void and invalid as a matter of law. However,\n\n in Fortress, the patent failed because the missing inventor was missing\n\n from the legal process entirely. In this case, the true creator is actively\n\n attempting to intervene, giving notice, asking for a hearing, and for a\n\n Correction of Inventorship. Therefore, this Panel does have the legal\n\n authority to issue a direct order correcting inventorship if the record.\n\n The record contains an unassailable 10-plus year paper trail from the\n\n true inventor, while the Solos and Meta Platforms, Inc., Meta\n\n Platforms Technologies, LLC, Oakley, Inc., Luxottica of America,\n\n Inc., and EssilorLuxottica USA, Inc. has produced zero historical\n\n development documents challenging Carter\u2019s seniority. Remanding\n\n this to the same forum simply invites further obstruction and delays\n\n justice for a victim who has been financially devastated ($0 IFP).\n\n\u00b7 The Defaulting Corporate Defendant-Appellees cannot utilize a\n\n procedural default to keep Carter's technology for free, shielding their\n\n commercial Ray-Ban Meta platforms and Oakley tactical military\n\n display contracts behind a wall of structural silence.\n\n\n\n\n 35\n\fK. Solos and Meta Platforms, Inc., Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC,\nOakley, Inc., Luxottica of America, Inc., and EssilorLuxottica USA, Inc.\u2019s\nCharacterization of Ongoing Commercial Exploitation as Immaterial\nMisconstrues the Operative Record and Underscores a Coordinated Strategy\nof Sham Litigation and Inter-Tribunal Evasion\n\n Solos\u2019s contention that subsequent operational and administrative\n\ndevelopments constitute immaterial grievances providing no legal basis to disturb\n\nthe judgment fundamentally misrepresents the certified record (Appellee Br. at 26).\n\nSolos cannot manufacture a pristine factual baseline by securing a truncated, text-\n\nonly closure below while contemporaneously reaping the commercial fruits of the\n\nproprietary architecture presented to the trial court. Characterizing these ongoing\n\ncommercial rollouts as collateral rings hollow when such deployment is the direct,\n\nintended legal consequence of the district court's erroneous refusal to safeguard the\n\nrecord under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2). Solos has opened the door\n\nto these inquiries by asserting the finality of proceedings, thereby permitting Carter\n\nto demonstrate that the underlying controversy remains active across multiple\n\njudicial and administrative forums.\n\n \u00b7 Evidentiary Proof of Continuing Bad-Faith Exploitation: Carter invokes\n\n these ongoing maneuvers not to interject independent, unpleaded causes of\n\n action, but as probative evidentiary support establishing a continuous pattern\n\n of title laundering and economic impairment. The corporate enterprise has\n\n systematically accelerated its commercial integration\u2014deploying the full-\n\n 36\n\f stack egocentric architecture derived directly from Carter\u2019s prototypes to\n\n drive the multi-billion-dollar Ray-Ban Meta smart-glasses platforms while\n\n channeling proprietary sensor-fusion codebases, designs, models, framework\n\n and other architectures designed and created by Carter into Oakley\u2019s defense\n\n and sovereign military procurement frameworks. Pursuant to established\n\n jurisprudence, this Court may take judicial notice of verifiable public\n\n dockets and inter-agency dockets that forensically substantiate the\n\n continuous economic prejudice and impairment of interest required to satisfy\n\n Rule 24(a)(2).\n\n\u00b7 Default of Corporate Appellees and Appellate Administration Evasion:\n\n The structural bad faith governing Meta and the Luxottica Entities' litigation\n\n posture extends directly into this tribunal's administrative framework. Under\n\n the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, because the five primary\n\n corporate entities carry over as mandatory adverse Defaulting Corporate\n\n Defendant-Appellees , respective counsel were strictly bound to file formal\n\n Entries of Appearance. To date, counsel for the primary Defaulting\n\n Corporate Defendant-Appellees have failed to comply, electing to\n\n disconnect from the automated electronic registry and forcing an\n\n unrepresented citizen to shoulder the procedural burdens of manual service.\n\n Confronted with this systematic evasion, Carter moved to compel\n\n\n 37\n\f appearance and enforce jurisdictional transparency (CAFC ECF No. 20).\n\n This Court may take judicial notice of its own active dockets regarding\n\n pending motions that remain unadjudicated, while the Defaulting\n\n Corporate Defendant-Appellees exploit this administrative gap to insulate\n\n themselves from substantive ownership scrutiny. Solos and Meta and the\n\n Luxottica cannot maintain before this panel that ongoing operational\n\n integration is collateral while simultaneously prosecuting parallel\n\n administrative challenges.\n\n\u00b7 Inter-Tribunal Pincer Tactics and Rule 31 Forfeiture: This inter-tribunal\n\n collusion manifests in Solos and Meta and the Luxottica dual-track strategy:\n\n coordinating aggressive administrative resistance before the patent office\n\n while maintaining absolute silence on the substantive technical merits before\n\n this Article III court. Solos and Meta and the Luxottica cannot utilize\n\n administrative proceedings to secure strategic advantages over these\n\n identical dual-use architectures while simultaneously invoking rigid\n\n procedural technicalities before this Panel to bar Carter from the appellate\n\n forum. Because the Defaulting Corporate Defendant-Appellees have\n\n completely defaulted on their mandatory appearance obligations under\n\n Federal Circuit Rule 31, they have forfeited any standing to contest the\n\n priority of the record or rebut Carter's uncontradicted ownership of the\n\n\n 38\n\f trademark \u201cARIA\u201d, scripts, designs, concepts, lab notes, algorithms,\n\n modeling, frameworks, transparent display design (lens), trade secrets\n\n (marketing activation, partnership leads, etc), neuromuscular input\n\n architecture/stack, Pre-AIA digital signal processing benchmarks and all\n\n other elements of the smart architecture including. This Court must reject\n\n these procedural pincer tactics, recognize that the multi-forum administrative\n\n maneuvers forensically prove an un-adversarial title wash, vacate the\n\n improper text-only orders below, and direct the appropriate administrative\n\n correction of the patent rolls pursuant to its direct statutory authority under\n\n 28 U.S.C. Section 2106 and 35 U.S.C. Section 256(b).\n\nL. Solos\u2019 Reliance on Eli Lilly, Ethicon, and Hedrick Impermissibly Imposes\nPost-Discovery Merits Burdens on a Preliminary Intervention Pleading\n\n Solos anchors the core of its substantive opposition (Appellee Br. at 11\u201312)\n\non the proposition that an intervention applicant must demonstrate a contribution\n\nthat is \"not insignificant in quality\" to a specific claim limitation. To manufacture\n\nthis prohibitive barrier, Solos leans heavily on Eli Lilly & Co. v. Aradigm Corp.,\n\n376 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2004), Ethicon, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 135 F.3d\n\n1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998), and Univ. of Pittsburgh v. Hedrick, 573 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir.\n\n2009). This reliance is doctrinally untenable and misrepresents the governing\n\nprocedural framework.\n\n\n 39\n\f Every single authority invoked by Solos to exact \"claim-level contributions\"\n\nat the threshold pleading stage arose from a fundamentally distinct, post-discovery\n\nor post-trial posture:\n\n 1. reviewed a final district court judgment on joint inventorship following a\n\n complete, multi-day evidentiary trial on the merits.\n\n 2. Ethicon was a post-discovery summary judgment adjudication rendered only\n\n after the parties had exhausted comprehensive depositions, expert discovery,\n\n and formal claim construction proceedings.\n\n 3. Hedrick evaluated an appeal from a final bench trial grounded in a fully\n\n developed factual record regarding laboratory notebooks and direct party\n\n testimony.\n\n Solos\u2019 attempt to transplant the rigorous evidentiary burdens required to\n\nprevail at a final merits trial into the preliminary, threshold inquiry of an initial\n\nright-of-entry motion inverts federal pleading rules. These decisions explicitly\n\nunderscore that inventorship and contribution assessments are intensely fact-bound\n\ninquiries that presuppose a developed record. By utilizing post-trial and summary\n\njudgment precedents to lock Carter out of the courthouse before discovery can\n\neven commence, Solos attempts to trap the litigant in an impossible Catch-22:\n\ndenying access to the record while penalizing the absence of it.\n\n\n\n\n 40\n\fM. Solos\u2019 Invocation of Biltcliffe, Palmer, and Ofori Conceals an Absolute,\nTerminal Due Process Violation Below\n Solos attempts to excuse the district court's summary denials of Carter's\n\npost-order submissions by citing Biltcliffe v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 772 F.3d 925 (1st\n\nCir. 2014), Palmer v. Champion Mortgage, 465 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2006), and Ofori\n\nv. Ruby Tuesday, Inc., 205 F. App\u2019x 851 (1st Cir. 2006), characterizing Carter's\n\nfilings as repetitive \"simple disagreements\" devoid of \"newly discovered evidence\"\n\nunder Rule 59(e) (Appellee Br. at 20, 24\u201325). This argument fundamentally\n\nmisstates the record.\n\n Biltcliffe, Palmer, and Ofori govern the standard application where a party\n\nattempts to use a motion for reconsideration to rehash failed arguments or\n\nintroduce evidence that was freely available prior to judgment. This action, by\n\ncontrast, presents a structural administrative lockout: the district court explicitly\n\nGRANTED Carter leave to file Carter's Authorized Reply (Dist. Ct. ECF No.\n\n106), yet simultaneously TERMINATED the entire civil action and issued its\n\nfinal text orders before Carter's authorized response could be processed, docketed,\n\nor reviewed by the bench.\n\n Under the Supreme Court's clear mandate in Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S.\n\n544, 552 (1965), procedural due process guarantees an uncompromised right to be\n\nheard \"at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.\" By executing this\n\nsimultaneous \"Grant-and-Terminate\" sequence, the lower court nullified its own\n\n 41\n\forder granting leave, effectively cutting off Carter's right to be heard behind a\n\ntruncated record that is void ab initio.\n\n\n III. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF\nFor the foregoing reasons, Movant-Appellant Daitona Carter respectfully requests\n\nthat this Court:\n\n\n 1. VACATE the District Court\u2019s unreasoned text orders across Appx12,\n\n Appx15, and Appx19 for a total absence of subject-matter jurisdiction post-\n\n April 21, 2026, and a flagrant violation of Fifth Amendment Procedural Due\n\n Process;\n\n 2. GRANT intervention as a matter of right under Federal Rule of Civil\n\n Procedure 24(a)(2); and\n\n 3. ISSUE A DIRECT MANDATE to the Director of the United States Patent\n\n and Trademark Office under 28 U.S.C. Section 2106 and 35 U.S.C. Section\n\n 256(b) instructing the agency to correct the patent rolls and substitute\n\n Daitona Carter as the sole rightful title holder of U.S. Patent Nos.\n\n 10,306,389; 10,651,866; 11,082,055; 11,871,174; and 12,216,339, ensuring\n\n the complete return of a trafficking victim\u2019s stolen property.\n\n\nIn the alternative, should this Court determine that ancillary factual findings are\n\nrequired, venue must be stripped from the compromised District of Massachusetts\n\n\n 42\n\fand REASSIGNED to the United States District Court for the Southern District of\n\nNew York (SDNY) pursuant to the three-part partiality standard set forth in United\n\nStates v. Robin, 553 F.2d 8 (2d Cir. 1977), to purge the systemic institutional\n\nconflicts logging the local clerk nodes; and\n\n\n 4. GRANT such other and further relief as this Court deems just, equitable,\n\n and proper under the circumstances.\n\n\nDated: August 20, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n /s/ Daitona Carter\n DAITONA CARTER\n Movant=Appellant, Pro Se\n 2 Massachusetts Ave NE, General\n Delivery, Main Post Office\n Washington, DC 20002\n legal@daitonacarter.com\n\n\n\n\n 43\n\f IV. CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE\nPursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(g)\n\n 1. This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Federal Rule of\n Appellate Procedure 32(a)(7)(B) because, excluding the parts of the brief\n exempted by Federal Circuit Rule 32(b), this brief contains exactly 6,959\n words as calculated by the word count function of the word processing\n system used to prepare this brief.\n 2. This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Federal Rule of\n Appellate Procedure 32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of Federal\n Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(6) because this brief has been prepared in\n a proportionally spaced typeface, 14-point Times New Roman font, using\n OnlyOffice.\n\n\nDated: August 20, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n /s/ Daitona Carter\n DAITONA CARTER\n Movant=Appellant, Pro Se\n 2 Massachusetts Ave NE, General\n Delivery, Main Post Office\n Washington, DC 20002\n legal@daitonacarter.com\n\n\n\n\n 44\n\f V. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\nI hereby certify that on August 20, 2026, a true and correct copy of the foregoing\n\nReply Brief of Movant-Appellant Daitona Carter was served upon all counsel of\n\nrecord for Plaintiff-Appellee Solos Technology Ltd. via the court's CM/ECF\n\nsystem and for the Defendants (Defendant-Appellees Meta Platforms, Inc., Meta\n\nPlatforms Technologies, LLC, Oakley, Inc., Luxottica of America, Inc., and\n\nEssilorLuxottica USA, Inc. via electronic mail.\n\n\nDated: August 20, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n /s/ Daitona Carter\n DAITONA CARTER\n Movant=Appellant, Pro Se\n 2 Massachusetts Ave NE, General\n Delivery, Main Post Office\n Washington, DC 20002\n legal@daitonacarter.com\n\n\n\n\n 45\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-08-20T17:32:14.785934-07:00","document_number":"42","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"01302742538","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-20T17:31:54.191600-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-10T13:07:18.503846-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-20","time_filed":null,"entry_number":42,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-20.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"MODIFIED ENTRY: REPLY BRIEF FILED by Appellant Daitona Carter. Service: 08/20/2026 by email. [1187755] --[Edited 08/27/2026 by IMH - Reason: compliance review complete] [Daitona Carter] [Entered: 08/20/2026 08:30 PM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/474983330/","id":474983330,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73471924/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/490501180/","id":490501180,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73471924/41/solos-technology-ltd-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-18T22:46:35.589663-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-23T07:53:06.949742-07:00","sha1":"ff4743678993f2d28ae0d2b5c66f8640ebc09ab0","page_count":247,"file_size":15326607,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cafc.24274/gov.uscourts.cafc.24274.41.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cafc.24274/gov.uscourts.cafc.24274.41.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":"recap-thumbnails/gov.uscourts.cafc.24274/490501180.thumb.1068.png","thumbnail_status":1,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":"2026-08-18T22:46:59.603308-07:00","document_number":"41","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"01302741396","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-08-18T22:46:35.441293-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-18T22:46:35.497175-07:00","date_filed":"2026-08-19","time_filed":null,"entry_number":41,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-08-19.002","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"MOTION of Appellant Daitona Carter to take judicial notice, to correct or supplement. Service: 08/19/2026 by email. [1187301] [26-1721] [Daitona Carter] [Entered: 08/19/2026 01:45 AM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/474982843/","id":474982843,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73471924/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/490500243/","id":490500243,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73471924/40/solos-technology-ltd-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-08-18T22:11:32.146091-07:00","date_modified":"2026-08-22T23:23:46.348093-07:00","sha1":"f27a0ffe4abc7d57513bf6727e434e6659bf1b01","page_count":247,"file_size":2036439,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cafc.24274/gov.uscourts.cafc.24274.40.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cafc.24274/gov.uscourts.cafc.24274.40.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":"recap-thumbnails/gov.uscourts.cafc.24274/490500243.thumb.1068.png","thumbnail_status":1,"plain_text":" Case: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 1 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\n\n\n\n Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of\n Masschusetts\n in 1:26cv\u20131034\u2013ADB\n Judge Allison D. Burroughs\n\n MOTION FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE\n AND TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD\n\nAugust 19, 2026 DAITONA CARTER\n Movant-Appellant Pro Se\n 2 Massachusetts Ave NE\n General Delivery, Main\n Post Office\n Washington, DC 20002\n legal@daitonacarter.com\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 2 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\n\n\n\n Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201, Federal Rule of Appellate\n\nProcedure 27, and this Court\u2019s inherent supervisory authority over the integrity of\n\nits judicial proceedings, Movant-Appellant Daitona Carter (\u201cCarter\u201d) respectfully\n\nmoves this Court to take judicial notice of\u2014and supplement the appellate record\n\nwith\u2014subsequent public records, administrative filings, and parallel tribunal\n\nproceedings that have occurred since the filing of the initial notice of appeal.\n\n These post-judgment developments directly implicate the core jurisdictional\n\nissues, standing, equitable estoppel, and the multi-forum closed loop maintained by\n\nAppellees. In support thereof, Movant states as follows:\nI. INTRODUCTION AND GROUNDS FOR RELIEF\n\n 1. The Need to Prevent Judicial Miscarriage: While this appeal has been\n\n pending to review the district court's summary text-order denials of\n\n intervention under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), a synchronized\n\n sequence of corporate restructurings, multi-forum patent challenges, and\n\n executive agency filings has unfolded between June and August 2026.\n\n 2. Post-Judgment Judicial Notice: Under Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b), a\n\n federal appellate court may judicially notice a fact that is not subject to\n\n reasonable dispute because it can be accurately and readily determined from\n\n sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned, including official\n\n government agency records (such as USPTO/PTAB dockets, SEC filings,\n\n and Department of Defense procurement releases).\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 3 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\n\n\n\n 3. Relevance to Current Appeal: These subsequent records are not introduced\n\n to re-litigate the merits below, but to expose the ongoing administrative\n\n contradictions and the breach of the duty of candor highlighted in the Reply\n\n Brief\u2014specifically demonstrating how Appellees are utilizing the PTAB and\n\n corporate restructurings to \"wash\" title while blocking Movant\u2019s\n\n participation across every available forum.\nII. CHRONOLOGICAL INDEX OF SUBSEQUENT PUBLIC &\nADMINISTRATIVE EVENTS\n\nMovant respectfully requests that this Court take official notice of the following\n\nverifiable timeline of events occurring between June and August 2026:\n\n \u00b7 June 8, 2026: Exactly one month following the closure of lower court\n\n proceedings on May 8, Bending Spoons S.p.A. initiates its public market\n\n positioning by filing its Form F-1 registration statement with the U.S.\n\n Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) relating to its proposed initial\n\n public offering. This 2026 market transition directly operationalizes an\n\n unbroken capital track tracing back to the entity's December 29, 2023, SEC\n\n Form D filing, which finalized a $30,373,394 exempt equity offering\n\n managed exclusively by Meta\u2019s primary investment banking advisor, Allen\n\n & Company LLC, as the designated sales commission recipient.\n\n \u00b7 July 6\u201311, 2026 (Sun Valley Strategic Briefings & Interlocking Board\n\n Oversight): At the closed-door Allen & Company Sun Valley Conference,\n\n senior executives from Meta, EssilorLuxottica, and Bending Spoons S.p.A.\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 4 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\n\n\n\n convene parallel to Bending Spoons\u2019 Wall Street debut. SEC regulatory\n\n disclosures from this window establish that Allen & Company\u2014the primary\n\n investment bank underwriter for Bending Spoons\u2019 July 1 IPO, the broker-\n\n dealer for its historical December 2023 Form D financing, and lead advisor\n\n to Meta\u2014maintains interlocking structural control over the transferred\n\n architectures via an Allen & Company Managing Director who actively\n\n holds a seat on the Board of Directors of Bending Spoons S.p.A. This\n\n advisory matrix operates under Meta\u2019s restructured executive leadership,\n\n which includes President and Vice Chairman Dina Powell McCormick, an\n\n elite corporate and former national security strategist positioned at the head\n\n of Meta\u2019s artificial intelligence and hardware portfolios concurrent with the\n\n active tracking of Movant's military-grade prototypes and defense industrial\n\n base infrastructure.\n\n\u00b7 June 18, 2026 (Commencement of Parallel IPR Track): Corporate\n\n defendants Meta Platforms, Inc. and Luxottica Retail North America Inc.\n\n (erroneously sued as Luxottica America) initiate their administrative assault\n\n by filing an initial Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition before the Patent Trial\n\n and Appeal Board (PTAB), attempting to execute an executive-forum end-\n\n run around active judicial review:\n\n \u00b7 Case No. IPR2026-00376: Launched jointly by Luxottica and Meta\n\n Platforms, Inc., targeting U.S. Patent No. 12,216,339.\n\n\u00b7 June 18, 2026: Solos's sister spin-off entity (established post-Evernote\n\n acquisition) repurchases $18 million in shares from Kopin Corporation,\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 5 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\n\n\n\n securing structural control over the precise display hardware and micro-\n\n display architecture utilized in the disputed smart-glasses technology.\n\n\u00b7 June 30, 2026 (Eight Days Post-Movant's Opening Brief Deadline): The\n\n SEC declares Bending Spoons S.p.A.\u2019s registration statement effective,\n\n formalizing the corporate restructuring and asset positioning while the entity\n\n maintains exclusive control over the stolen proprietary work product and\n\n business records housed within the Evernote application.\n\n\u00b7 July 1, 2026: Bending Spoons S.p.A. officially completes its initial public\n\n offering and begins trading on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the\n\n ticker symbol BSP, maintaining continuous custody, possession, and control\n\n of the material electronic evidence subject to Movant\u2019s pending protective\n\n order request.\n\n\u00b7 July 6\u201311, 2026 (Sun Valley Strategic Briefings & Interlocking Board\n\n Oversight): At the closed-door Allen & Company Sun Valley Conference,\n\n senior executives from Meta, EssilorLuxottica, and Bending Spoons S.p.A.\n\n convene parallel to Bending Spoons\u2019 Wall Street debut. SEC regulatory\n\n disclosures from this window establish that Allen & Company\u2014the primary\n\n investment bank underwriter for Bending Spoons\u2019 July 1 IPO and lead\n\n advisor to Meta\u2014maintains interlocking structural control over the\n\n transferred architectures via an Allen & Company Managing Director who\n\n actively holds a seat on the Board of Directors of Bending Spoons S.p.A.\n\n This advisory matrix operates under Meta\u2019s restructured executive\n\n leadership, which includes President and Vice Chairman Dina Powell\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 6 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\n\n\n\n McCormick, an elite corporate and former national security strategist\n\n positioned at the head of Meta\u2019s artificial intelligence and hardware\n\n portfolios concurrent with the active tracking of Movant's military-grade\n\n prototypes and defense industrial base infrastructure.\n\n\u00b7 July 7, 2026 (Parallel Proceeding Identification): Formal identification\n\n and tracking of parallel administrative activities concerning the patents-in-\n\n suit, highlighting conflicting, irreconcilable representations made by\n\n Appellees across separate tribunals.\n\n\u00b7 July 14, 2026 (DOD Contract & IBAS Milestones): Kopin Corporation\n\n (NASDAQ: KOPN) officially announces the clearance of three critical\n\n manufacturing milestones under the Department of Defense's Industrial Base\n\n Analysis and Sustainment (IBAS) initiative\u2014exceeding 150,000 nits of\n\n brightness and advancing the Soldier Borne Mission Command (SBMC)\n\n tactical headset integration tied directly to the disputed smart-glasses\n\n architecture.\n\n\u00b7 July 18, 2026 (Admitted Corporate Nexus to Defendants): Public\n\n corporate disclosures verified via the official professional record of Raoul\n\n Baccanelli, Global Partnerships Director at Bending Spoons S.p.A., establish\n\n a direct commercial and technical nexus between the newly public entity and\n\n corporate defendants Meta and Luxottica. The disclosure explicitly\n\n documents Bending Spoons\u2019 active role in developing media formats and\n\n interactive user-interface architectures for Ray-Ban\u2019s (Luxottica/Meta) latest\n\n collection\u2014authenticating the immediate, cross-proxy commercial\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 7 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\n\n\n\n deployment of the disputed technology during the active pendency of this\n\n appeal.\n\n\u00b7 July 20, 2026 (Related-Proceeding Filing Attempt): Movant attempts to\n\n file notices and disclosures in parallel PTAB Case No. IPR2026-00376 to\n\n formally notify the Board of active Federal Circuit appeal proceedings and\n\n the attendant breach of 37 C.F.R. \u00a7 42.11, testing the boundaries of non-\n\n party standing.\n\n\u00b7 July 30, 2026 (Appellee Response Fixed): Appellee Solos finalizes its\n\n appellate merits position, maintaining its boilerplate assertion of a \"factual\n\n void\" while actively concealing the true breadth of its concurrent\n\n administrative and corporate maneuvers.\n\n\u00b7 August 1, 2026 (Statutory FOIA Expedited Processing & Status\n\n Inquiry): Submission of formal expedited Freedom of Information Act\n\n (FOIA) requests and subsequent 10-day status inquiries to the U.S. Army\n\n Materiel Command (AMC) and the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) under\n\n 5 U.S.C. \u00a7 552 and 32 C.F.R. \u00a7 286.8. These requests target DFARS\n\n 252.227-7017 Technical Data Rights Assertions and contract signature\n\n blocks linked to the EagleEye and Soldier Borne Mission Command\n\n (SBMC) programs, establishing an administrative record of active efforts to\n\n secure underlying defense procurement documentation required to protect\n\n Movant's due process rights in CAFC Appeal No. 2026-1721.\n\n\u00b7 August 3, 2026 (Director Petition): A USPTO Director-level oversight\n\n petition is formally invoked to challenge administrative gatekeeping and\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 8 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\n\n\n\n examine the systemic exclusion of senior priority inventors from inter partes\n\n review proceedings.\n\n\u00b7 August 4, 2026: Release of the United States Senate Committee on Finance\n\n investigative report (led by Senator Ron Wyden) exposing systemic\n\n institutional blind spots, opaque capital transfers, and corporate money-\n\n laundering pathways utilized by major financial institutions and private\n\n equity networks\u2014including Apollo Global Management-linked channels\u2014\n\n to obscure asset origins and shelter transferred technologies. This\n\n administrative and financial record directly parallels the methods used to\n\n extract, insulate, and relocate Movant's intellectual property and digital\n\n evidence across corporate proxies (including Yahoo, AOL,\n\n Evernote/Bending Spoons architectures, and Meetup.com infrastructure).\n\n\u00b7 August 7, 2026 (Multiplication of IPRs): Administrative invalidity\n\n challenges formally multiply across the PTAB docket, demonstrating that\n\n corporate defendants Meta and Luxottica are aggressively deploying a multi-\n\n front assault on patent validity in an executive forum while Appellee Solos\n\n seeks to clear title in court. This calculated multiplication incorporates the\n\n following concurrent administrative proceedings:\n\n o Case No. IPR2026-00412: Launched symmetrically by Luxottica of\n\n America Inc., et al., targeting U.S. Patent No. 11,082,055.\n\n o Case No. IPR2026-00420: Launched symmetrically by Meta\n\n Platforms, Inc., et al, targeting the identical U.S. Patent No.\n\n 11,082,055.\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 9 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\n\n\n\n\u00b7 August 12, 2026 (Institutional Underwriter and Compliance Council\n\n Matrix): Public corporate department disclosures and professional records\n\n published by Paul Hastings LLP (New York) verify an established, systemic\n\n transactional relationship with underwriter gatekeeper Allen & Company\n\n LLC. The firm's documented history executing major debt offerings, capital\n\n restructuring, and SEC compliance pipelines mirrors the exact structural\n\n machinery deployed to transition Bending Spoons S.p.A. into public markets\n\n while parallel patent disputes multiply. This record establishes that the\n\n primary legal actors executing administrative tracks before the PTAB and\n\n the banking advisors financing the successor entities operate within an\n\n interlocking, highly coordinated corporate network.\n\n\u00b7 August 13, 2026 (Emergency USPTO Director Amended Supplemental\n\n Filing): Following a 10:29 AM EST administrative update by the PTAB\n\n Trial Division re-routing Movant\u2019s August 3 Director-level petition down to\n\n an internal Board review under 37 C.F.R. \u00a7 41.3(a), Movant submits an\n\n Emergency Amended Supplemental Submission to the USPTO Director\n\n pursuant to 37 C.F.R. \u00a7 1.181. This filing exposes an un-deadlined\n\n administrative vacuum and requests the immediate invocation of absolute\n\n supervisory authority under United States v. Arthrex, Inc. to issue a\n\n compulsory blanket stay over all three active dockets (IPR2026-00376,\n\n IPR2026-00412, and IPR2026-00420), halting an ongoing fraud involving\n\n the concealment of active title litigation in CAFC Appeal No. 26-1721.\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 10 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\n\n\n\n \"! 73- ./.0 8%! %\"5 && \"!:#\n\n\n\n\n+\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 11 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\n\n\n\n * /.\n\n- 5 *0\n\n\n\n+A\n\n B \"# $ /\n\n 3\n\n 0 \" \" 9F\n\n + #!* .\n\n < *. N\n\n 0 && %\" F0 :# -\n\n * 6 ./\n\n .- 9 :N\n\n ?0 \"C\" *#* 1\n\n > %1>) %2:#? 2:#7\n\n 2:#7) 6 * .\n\n / /. !\n\n * !N\n\n 70 \" * ! /.\n\n 0\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 12 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\n\n\n\n +D ' '(\n\n>1 8>&!:#\n\n\n\n\n>1 ( 8>&!:#\n\n\n\n\n>1 #\n\n\n\n\n>1 #\n\n\n\n>1 #\n\n\n\n>1 #\n\n\n\n>1 #\n\n\n\n>1 #\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 13 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\n\n\n\n>1 8>&!:#\n\n\n\n\n>1 #\n\n\n\n\n>1 E#\n\n\n\n>1 8>&!:#\n\n\n\n\n>1 8>&!:#\n\n\n\n\n>1 #\n\n\n\n>1 8>&!:#\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 14 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\n\n\n\n;0<0 K J: % ? :)0 2\n\n.+ 6 * . * 0\n\n . <\n\n$ * > H. $ >\n\n< <0 %9 :) * **\n\n - $ E6 #> 0\n\n $ 6*\n\n\" * 20 %9 :) * *\n\n * $ - \"*+0\n\n < * $ F 6*\n\n< %$ $*. C ?) * > <5\n\nB?0 \" / + B?0J \" **\n\n D * EE - 9=9 : < # -\n\n +.0\n\n $*\n\n 1 M EE %F- L+) *\n\n . ;-##;-5\n\n 6 --+ D\n\n* EE 0\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 15 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 16 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 17 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 18 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 19 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 20 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 21 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 22 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 23 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 24 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 25 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 26 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 27 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 28 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 29 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 30 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 31 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 32 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 33 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 34 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 35 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 36 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 37 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 38 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 39 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 40 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 41 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 42 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 43 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 44 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 45 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 46 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 47 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 48 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 49 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 50 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 51 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 52 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 53 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 54 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 55 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 56 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 57 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 58 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 59 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 60 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 61 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 62 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 63 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 64 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 65 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 66 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 67 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 68 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 69 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 70 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 71 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 72 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 73 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 74 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 75 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 76 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 77 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 78 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 79 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 80 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 81 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 82 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 83 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 84 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 85 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 86 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 87 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 88 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 89 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 90 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 91 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 92 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 93 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 94 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 95 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 96 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 97 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 98 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 99 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 100 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 101 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 102 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 103 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 104 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 105 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 106 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 107 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 108 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 109 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 110 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 111 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 112 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 113 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 114 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 115 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 116 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 117 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 118 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 119 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 120 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 121 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 122 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\n\n\n\n '(\n\n\"F1< 11\"1$ F12 E1$ $2FH< 2F\n\n < F0 2:#?:\n\n %$1$ 9;EL : :\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 123 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 124 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 125 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 126 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase:\n Case:26-1721\n 26-1721 Document:\n Document:40\n 38 Page:\n Page:127\n 1 Filed:\n Filed:08/07/2026\n 08/19/2026\n\fCase:\n Case:26-1721\n 26-1721 Document:\n Document:40\n 38 Page:\n Page:128\n 5 Filed:\n Filed:08/07/2026\n 08/19/2026\n\fCase:\nCase:26-1721\n 26-1721 Document:\n Document:40\n 38 Page:\n Page:129\n 26 Filed:\n Filed:08/07/2026\n 08/19/2026\n\fCase:\nCase:26-1721\n 26-1721 Document:\n Document:40\n 38 Page:\n Page:130\n 27 Filed:\n Filed:08/07/2026\n 08/19/2026\n\fCase:\nCase:26-1721\n 26-1721 Document:\n Document:40\n 38 Page:\n Page:131\n 28 Filed:\n Filed:08/07/2026\n 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 132 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 133 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 134 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 135 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 136 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 137 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 138 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\n\n\n\n ! \"\n # $% &'(\n % ) &*'(\n\n\n+, ,-,+.,/0 ,/ 1, !+,+ /!,+ 2 #3+# 4 \n\n $ /# +*2 6# /# &78\n 3 /# *&2\n !\n\n\n\n!!\n\n , ! 2 #3+# 4\n 9\" 9 9 3 $\" :\n 9 2 #3+# 4 '#68 ,%: $ ! ,\n3#\n\n ; 9 9\n 9# % # 9< = & : !9\n 9 * > 9 9<#\n\n+:\n\n?!\n!\n+@ #\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 139 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\n\n\n\n /,! , ,/ /! +!,-+A 3,\n $,3+, 1, /!,+ ,+,+0 3 -,+,\n 3+ /,BB,B +,+0 /! !+,+ 3 1,\n\n\n $ 8\n 8\n BC 3 -,+ /# 8\n 8\n -, B3+- /# 8\n 8\n 8\n 9# 8 $ /# +*2\n 8 # /# &7\n B ,1/B.0 B-,! 8\n <# 8\n 9# 8\n 8\n !/ + ,+ 8\n 8\n -9 6-9* 8\n 3 /# *&28# 8\n\n ,-,+.,/0 ,/ 1, !+,+ /!,+ 2 #3+# 4 \n /)A, ,+)+0 1+0\n /! ),++B, B,+B 3B/. $BA.,\n\n\n -9 ! !\n \" 2 #3+# 4 ᘶ 9\" %\n9 9< 9 9 = & 9\n%: ! \" #\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 140 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\n\n\n\n :< ! \" % :\n:9 -9D ; (5\n+: / + # -9\n ; ! 9 :\" :\n 9 = 9\n #\n\n# ,-,/ 3 ,C++!/+0 +-/,\n\n\n +*2 9 9\n : 3\n B 9# - # # 6\n! 8 /# *&2 6,%: !8# 9\n : 2 #3+# '#56:8 : !\n . 3 : 2 #3+# '#&\n -9 9 , / +\n , - B9 : /*, 3 2 #3+#\n '#6:8& (5 +: 67 ## 27'8\n= 6,%: $8#\n =& ! \"; 9 *\n < #$ \">\n =&9% 9\n <# 9 9 :\n #\n\n\n# +0,+ 3+ +,B,3\n\n 9 ; >\n ; !\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 142 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\n\n\n\n&# 9\" 9 2 #3+# 4  9< J),J\n! \"D = & 9 % K\n\n# +!,+ !9 D = : (5\n: ,%: \"\n 9: 9 =K\n\n# +!,+\n9 3 /# *&2#\n\n ! +:\n $?!\n !\n , +@ #\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 143 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\n\n\n\n,+ 3 , 3 ,+),\n\n 2 #3+# 4 '#68 :\n ! 2 #3+# 4  <\n99 <\n\n\n\n\nL < A 6! \" 8 H <#\"@#9\nL B% B $\" H :*%*7@<#\nL - B $\" H **@#\nL +G H #G@<#\nL =: H >:#@<#\nL = . H >#@<#\nL B / H @#\nL !9 H 9 @ #\nL . I H <@ #\nL A H \"@<<#\nL 9 H 9@<<#\nL = H >@<<#\nL B< $\" H <<%@<<<%#\nL B< $\" H @<<<%#\nL B< $\" H <@<<<%#\nL B< $\" H <@<<<%#\nL B< $\" H @<<<%#\nL B $\" H M@<<<%#\n\n\nL $ - \" H @#9\n ! +:\n $?!\n !\n , +@ #\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 144 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\n\n\n\n ,C1$ /!,C\n\n\n\n\n,C1$ 3,/ 5 : & ! . !\"#\n $% &' 0 5 5 : : !?\n :5 ()(*+)),( ()(*+)),() # - ?:\n ! 5 !!6 3$\n\n (-. !!5\n ! 5 ! :\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 174 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\n\n\n\n 5 ! !$ !\n 6 6! ! @ %\n! ! $\n\n ! A 5\n 6 !5 5 6\n #9 6# B 5 *\n 6# 5# ! B\n $\n\n\n\n \" ,! 6\n %1\"\n \"\n 4 ,C $\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 175 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\n\n\n\n /\n\n\n\n % 0\n 0\n 0 12 0\n 0\n 33 0\n 0\n 0\n 5$ 0 % +$ ,*-\n 0 $$ +$ /\n 0\n :$ 0\n 5$ 0\n 0\n \"+ ,4, 0\n 0\n 85 .85*!! 0\n 3 !! +$ *-0$ 0\n\n\n\n\n 85 \" ! 6 !!\n\" # ! - $3$,$ ; $2$\n6 !5 ! 5 >\n 6 \"5 5 *\n 5 ! B 5:$\n /0\n4\n\n 859 ! \"! # : D\n5& 6 65\n*! $ 85 # A @ !E\n 85 !! 6 5 &' 2 !'2&15#\n *!$\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 176 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\n\n\n\n 6 ! *! ! 6 6\n !6! !# !$ 6 # !\n ! !@\n B 6$ ! 5\n > B! ! B! !\n ! 5:$ % 5 & ! 859 6\n < A @ $ < #\n : ! B 6# 5\n %$\n\n\n /6 6\n ,-7.-.\n\n 5 6 % !6\n ! !!# 88 (*+( $\n\n\n 9 12 !: !!:+;! $ (-. !!\n5 ! 5 !\n : 5 !\n !$\n !&' 89 12 $1# $ % 6 8 $ F&\n $ # ! :*@ <*\n!< 3 #9 ! !$ 8 7\n !? $ #&15# !513 <&# = '>&$# ?&!\n *! 2 &!\n,-7.-. $\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 177 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\n\n\n\n 12!#2 &1 \"8 : ?3 ()* 85 4\n8 ! !!7 !!$ !! B\n !! 5 ? !\n:5 : ! ! 6 : ! !$\n!! 6 :!@ 5 5 ! 6 %\n 5! &$\n\n\n\n\n /\n\n 5 6# &! 6\n ! $ F :* 6 #9 @ > &\n : 5 !! ! !! ! 6\n3 6 6 !5 6 $\n\n \"! 5 ! 5*\n.8 F&0 &! 5 ! - 6\n()*+, ()*+, $$ +$ 2(($\n\n 3 * ! ! : 6*\n &! 4$1 (3 ()* 8 !6 &\n : !5 <@<\n! 66 ! : 5! 5 $\n :# # 5\n! ! 6 : *: ! %\n#$\n\n : +$ ,*- *\n ! !B - ::\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 178 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\n\n\n\n!B 5 ! ! !\n 88 (*+( $\n\n\n\n@\n\n # B! !\n! 5 ! !$\n,(-7.-(. 6\" 6 ,( !\n 3 ! $\n\n 85 !5 &! 8(/ \"\n * ! - / *# :#\n ! * 9 6# 5 6 5\n 5 1!! 5 ! 8 $ #9 & #\n 5 * 9 * 5: 5 %\n 6 ! ! ! 5 !\n 6B !$\n\n\n\n @ @A 3 ()(*\n B\n @ C@ /\n\n & / 8 4?!\n 4 ! ? \"! # 5\n 5 $ : !\n !9 4 \" - $3,$ ; $2\n \"5\n G 5 \" - 3, ; $2\n !5 ,5: ,*- *! \" $\n 6 ! !5 5: 6\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 179 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\n\n\n\n 5 > - 3, ; '$.0$ !\n 5: : 6 $H\n\n % &! #7 !\n5 ! 6 > #$ A 7\n 65 *! ! A 6\n 6 6 ! :5\n! ! ! 6 *! $\n\n J:5 6 # ! 5\n!5 5: < < ! - $3,$ ; '$.0 5 5\n!! ! !! :\nB $ !5 ! !@ 5 5\n5 * *: ! #\n. ()(*+))*3 ()(*+)),(3 12 ()(*+)),() 0 5!\n ! ! !\n!5 5: $\n\n\n\n@\n\n ! B\n !A \"\n\n $ @ \"! #9 > 5 & E\n $ 9 &!' ! !5 5\n 5 \"59 * % 5: -\n $3,$ ; '$.0 ! 7 > +\n , 6 ! &6 6\n ! 5 E\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 180 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\n\n\n\n $ 1 &\"\"2&3 \"12 !: #: 5!\n 5#. ()(*+))*3 ()(*+)),(3 12\n ()(*+)),() 0 \" !5 5:E\n '$ !\n 5# ! 3 ! +$ *-\n ! 5 5$\n\n\n\n\" ,! 6\n %1\"\n \"\n 4 ,C $\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 181 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\n\n\n\n @\n\n - $3$,$ ; '$.0 6\n ! \" - $3$,$ ; $2 :\n55 ! : !\n\n\n\nK : D .\"! # 0 ? :$#C!$5\nK F& F %# ? 6*&*!*/C:$\nK 8 F %# ? !***!C!$\nK ,@ ? $@C:$\nK >6 ? B6$!C:$\nK > L ? B$C:$\nK F + ? C!$\nK \"5 ? 5C!$\nK L = ? :C!$\nK D ? #C::$\nK 5 ? 5C::$\nK > ? BC::$\nK F: %# ? ::&C:::&$\nK F: %# ? C:::&$\nK F: %# ? :C:::&$\nK F: %# ? :C:::&$\nK F: %# ? C:::&$\nK F %# ? M!C:::&$\n\n\nK % 8 # ? C!$5\n\n\n\" ,! 6\n % 11 \"\n \"\n 4 ,C$\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 182 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 183 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 184 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 185 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 186 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\n\n\n\n !\"#$\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 187 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\n\n\n % & ' () *) #+)) ,\n + ))- . / - + 0\n 1 2 - 0 +)\n+)) 1 + + () *) #+)) !\n , +.) + )-/\n, - + )) ) + / . 3 )\n#+) $ 43#$5 6 +)) 7\n\n\n\n\n + ))- 8\n\n\n +)) / ) 1 )- ) 1\n+ 9 )- ) )) - - +\n )0 +/, +))- // ), :,\n) 3)/, ;;, ) 3)/- ;, ;2 #, :,\n <);2 #, ;; #+))=\n\n\n +))/ #+))6 ) .)1 )- +)- 0 ( *\n\"9!4.5 .- )/ - < #+=\n\n\n! -/ )) +))) +/ . 3#$ 1\n:*!9, :*\", :*\" )- /\n ) +- / +/ +) ) 7\n )-/ + )\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 188 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\n\n\n\n 1 + ) 2)\n +.) )0 +>- (*# !\n > ) + + )/ (\n * \"9!4.545 ++ , .- / +) ) /\n ./ 00\n 2- ) 0 0 ) +\n + .)>/ )1\n +.) ++)) ++ 0) ))-\n +/ +) ))/ . 3#$\n .7 +/ ++)\n ! ) 1 . )? 2\n 0/ + 0 0\n 0 )-/ ) .7 ,\n +))) #) ::: ) +\n \" 3) #++) $@ // ) -\n ) +/> ))- -/\n @ ) ))/ + +- 0>\n .- + + )0))-\n + 2) ++)) 7 (*#\n 45\n\n\n\n - 9, , )- )- ++) +\n++- / + + -\n!' & ' 3 )-/ )/ ) 0+ /)\n. ) )) /) /) +/ 45\n-0 )/- )+ .-\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 189 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\n\n\n 3/ )0 +/, / +\n ) )/) )/ 0 )-/ .7\n .)-, 0) + -+\n+ + / )0 7 , - ) )-\n + ) + ) / // +\n + )?/ +)) + , ) +\n +))) ))) ))/ . 3#$ / )\n + 2+) @ --\n\n 4: A %, 5 ; .- ;2\n # :, ), / / ,!B\n 4: #/ 9, 5 ; -))-\n .- ;2 # :, ), // ,%'\n 4: #/ 9, 5 ; -))-\n .- ), :, ), // ,%'\n\n : )/, + 2 -\n ) +))- / ) +-\n ) / +)) 1 3 + ) )\n#/ , , 0 0 ) 3)/- ; )\n -) :*\" 4 5+/\n )- ) #+) 9 7 - +\n#/ 9, ) 2+))- 0 +)- +7- 0\n\n\n\n\n ())0/ @ /- )- 3\n 2+/ - ), $@ 3) 0 )\n ) )1 #/ !, , 2)- \"B! 3 4B # <35,\n +- ) 1 #0 C))/ )\n4 5, 2+))- )/ + +- 0 .-\n # A/ !9 (* & \"!45\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 190 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\n\n\n ) ) /- @\n) ) ) ))/ /?.) D+\n0,D 3) ))- ) +/ $-\n8 / @ ) )/ ) +-\n) . D D !9 (* & \"!45, /-\n + 3 ) + +)\n+))- ) +)) , .)/ +- )/\n/ )- + 0 0) @\n+)) 7 -))- .-+\n\n&\n\n 2- - 2-\n, 0 ))- .) + )\n+.) / +)) + (*# ! ,\n. .- ) +) .)\n\n 3 3) #+) $ )- +/ )\n 0 7) . $-\n0- +- )16 #/ !, ) , /-\n ))- #+))@ ))/ + +-\n0 )-? .) 7) $@\n2+ *) - : 4*:5 01 + !' & !454\n ./ +\n , ) ) - *)\n!9 (* & \"%4.5, +) 7- .) ) 3\n+- )/ )- .) )0 +) +/ )\n+)) ) +, / +0 -\n- + .)\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 191 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\n\n\n (, + .7 2+) - +\n )) 3 1/ E\n*? # 43E*#5, % & 'B, 0 + .) /\n ) - +- 3 )-/ )/- +\n + .7 , )\n - ) !' & '\n\n 3 + - ) / )- 0 +? / + )) ) )\n 3#$ )) ) ) + / 3 +\n 2 / )-/ + ) )- : )0 .) +\n ) .7 + 0) @ ) /\n 8, - +- / 3E*#\n0)) . +)- , / .) .) 7-\n\n (*# 45, . ), : )0\n 0 + / / , - ))-\n - - #+)) #( #+) 9 3-\n)0))- #) : +), ) ) +\n ) % & 'B, .- )?/ /- +) )1\n - + +- #))0/ ))- / +\n ) ? + )) ) ) 2 / + - / 0)\n +)/ +)) + #) : +- )- .\n @ +)) - ) ) ++) +)\n+ ) 8 ) /) - + / -\n + . +)- .\n\n&\n\n , + ))- +-\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 192 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\n\n\n ) +)) +\n 1 ) )) +.) + )0 +\n #+))=\n / ) ) #+)) )- )\n + + ( * \"9!4.5 .) +) #)\n : +-=\n ! ))\n + , ) /, + )) ) 3 )\n #+) $ 1 !\"!!#$ !\"!!% '( !\"\n !!%! + 8 + 2) +)) 7\n =\n\" 2- ) )\n - + /- 7 ) /- ,\n ))\n\n\n\n\n)(* #/ \", * + ))- . ,\n\n FF\n , #+))\n G) )-,\n #<\n /,\n ) /)H\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 193 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\n\n\n\n (+, -, . /,,) +0(-+ #123 , /\n /- + +) 0 -+) -+ )\n (+, -, . /,,) +0(-+ 1(3\n\n +( -')* 3 + +) 0 0 ) (*#\n 4545 ., 2)/ + + 2+ .- (*# !45,\n .- 2)- %4 5+( )) .-\n .) / / 0\n 6/.0 '( ') 78* 3 + +) 0 -+\n 8 (*# !454'5 -+ -) 8 (*#\n !4545 . . ++ ++))- + -+, \"\n + 3 0 *, 0 .)) +/ / .- 2\n\n)(* #/ !, *+))- .,\n\n FF\n , #++))\n G) )-,\n #<\n /,\n )/)H\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 40 Page: 194 Filed: 08/19/2026\n\n\n &\n\n ( * #++ 4545 ;) *) ', / .-\n +)- +7- #/ \", , +-\n// $ <2HM1 F$ >F$2FH\n\n American\n Korean<>American ventures.\n ventures.\n - Acting\n Acting Manager\n Manager to\n to two\n two Korean\n Korean American\n American entertainers- artist music\n entertainers- artist music\n campaigns; global\n campaigns; global release\n release schedules,\n schedules, promo,\n promo, social\n social media,\n media, press,\n press, marketing\n marketing\n and\n and touring\n touring ++ tour\n tour support.\n support.\n\n\n Organization 4\n Organization 4\n - Fan\n Fan engagement\n engagement and\n and activation\n activation technologies.\n technologies. (Developmental\n (Developmental stage)\n stage)\n\n\n *I*|could\n couldnot\n notfind\n ndan\n anAPAC\n APAC MBA\n MBA internship\n internship that\n that focused\n focused on\n on my interest and\n my interest and\n strongest\n strongest skill, \u201cglobal strategy\",\n skill, \"global strategy\u201d, so\n so II had\n had to\n to create\n create one.\n one. II ended\n ended up\n up with\n with a\n a few\n few\n unexpected business\n unexpected business opportunities\n opportunities and\n and hundreds\n hundreds of\n of customers.\n customers. II am\n am very\n very\n grateful\n grateful for\n for the real-time learning\n the real-time learning experience\n experience and\n and look\n look forward\n forward to\n to working\n working with\n with\n executives within\n executives within the\n the region.\n region. As\n As of\n ofJanuary\n January2020,\n 2020,businesses\n businesses11and\n and1 22 will\n will be\n be\n run by\n run by the\n the \"community\"\n \u201ccommunity\u201d (they\n (they are\n are pretty\n pretty much\n much automated\n automated thanks\n thanks to AI) and\n to Al) and lI\n will continue\n will continue on\n on with\n with networking\n networking and\n and seeking\n seeking out\n out new\n new opportunities\n opportunities in\n in the Asia-\n the Asia-\n Pacific region.\n Paci region.\n\n\n Undisclosed\n Undisclosed Multinational\n Multinational Tech Start-up\n Tech Start-up\n Founder\n Founder and\n and Engineer\n Engineer\n July\n July 2016\n 2016 -- Present\n Present\n Think,\n Think, create,\n create, test...\n test...\n Wearables, edtech,\n Wearables, edtech, and\n and other\n other consumer\n consumer electronics.\n electronics. 2020\n 2020 ~\n ~ revising\n revising design\n design +\n +\n updating patents.\n updating patents.\n\n\n Consultant to\n Consultant to Multiple\n Multiple Companies\n Companies\n Social Media Marketing | Digital PR | Business Development\n Appx95\n APpX94\n Social Media Marketing | Digital PR Business Development\n 2005 - Present\n 2005 - Present\n 94\nfi\n fi\n\f CaseCase:\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 26-1721 Document\n Document: 29-1 83-2\n Page:Filed\n 83-2 96 04/10/26 Page 4 of 66\n Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n Inclusive\n Inclusive list\n list of\n of projects:\n projects: City\n City Of\n Of New\n New York, NY Department\n York, NY Department of\n of Health,\n Health,\n American Apparel,\n American Apparel, Rihanna,\n Rihanna, Turner\n Turner ClassicMovies,\n ClassicMovies, Be\n Be Sickle\n Sickle Smart,\n Smart, PEPSI,\n PEPSI,\n Save the\n Save the Children,\n Children, Armand\n Armand de\n de Brignac\n Brignac (Ace\n (Ace of\n of Spades),\n Spades), Abyssinian\n Abyssinian Baptist\n Baptist\n Church,SkullCandy,\n Church, SkullCandy, UPS,\n UPS, Burger\n Burger King,\n King, Dannon,\n Dannon, Clear\n Clear Channel, Home Goods,\n Channel, Home Goods,\n FreshDirect, over\n FreshDirect, over 50\n 50 well-known\n well-known media\n media executives,\n executives, professional\n professional NBA/NFL\n NBA/NFL\n athletes, and\n athletes, and celebrities.\n celebrities.\n\n\n Thoth Academics\n Thoth Academics\n STEM + AP\n STEM AP Teacher\n Teacher\n 2011 -- 2017\n 2011 2017 (6\n (6 years)\n years)\n\n\n Edelman\n Edelman\n Marketing\n Marketing and\n and PR\n PR || Independent\n Independent Contractor\n Contractor\n 2008 -- 2009\n 2008 2009 (1\n (1 year)\n year)\n\n\n Warner Music\n Warner Music Group\n Group\n C-Level\n C-Level Executive Assistant (Senior\n Executive Assistant (Senior Management)/Atlantic\n Management)/Atlantic A&R\n A&R and\n and\n Marketing Dept\n Marketing Dept\n 2005 -- 2007\n 2005 2007 (2\n (2 years)\n years)\n Multiple\n Multiple Positions\n Positions at\n at Warner\n Warner Music\n Music Group and Atlantic\n Group and Atlantic Records\n Records\n\n\n C-level\n C-level Executive Assistant, Warner\n Executive Assistant, Warner Music\n Music Group:\n Group:\n CEO,\n CEO, SVP\n SVP Legal\n Legal Affairs,\n Affairs, SVP Taxation and\n SVP Taxation and Finance,\n Finance, SVP\n SVP Corporate\n Corporate\n Communications\n Communications\n (Conway, Tanos, Bronfman,\n (Conway, Tanos, Bronfman, Stockdale\n Stockdale and\n and others.)\n others.)\n\n\n Assistant A&R\n Assistant A&R Manager, Atlantic Records,\n Manager, Atlantic Records, New\n New York, NY\n York, NY\n\n\n A&R Assistant,\n A&R Assistant, Atlantic\n Atlantic Records,\n Records, New\n New York, NY\n York, NY\n\n\n MarketingAssistant,\n Marketing Assistant, Atlantic\n Atlantic Records,\n Records, New\n New York,\n York, NY\n NY\n\n\n Viacom\n Viacom\n Senior\n Senior Level\n Level Executive\n Executive Assistant\n Assistant +\n + Freelancer\n Freelancer +\n + In-House\n In-House Temp\n Temp\n 2002\n 2002 -- 2007\n 2007 (5\n (5 years)\n years)\n Multiple\n Multiple positions\n positions over\n over a\n a period\n period of\n of five years including assistance\n years including assistance to\n to the\n the\n General\n General Manager\n Manager and VP at\n and VP at LOGO\n LOGO (TV\n (TV network.)\n network.)\n\n\n The\n The Metropolitan\n Metropolitan Museum\n Museum of Art\n of Art\n Assistant Appx96\n Assistant Ecommerce Marketing Manager\n EcoRRfede Marketing Manager via\n via Randstad\n Randstad\n 2004 -- 2005\n 2004 2005 (1\n (1 year)\n year)\n Page 4 of\n Page 4 of 6\n 6\nfi\n\f CaseCase:\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 26-1721 Document\n 29-1 83-2\n Document\n Document: Page:Filed\n 83-2 97 04/10/26 Page 5 of 66\n Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n\n Randstad USA\n Randstad USA\n Marketing Assistant\n Marketing Assistant\n 2000 -- 2005\n 2000 2005 (5\n (5 years)\n years)\n Key Temp\n Key Temp Assignments:\n Assignments: Wachovia\n WachoviaSecurities\n Securitiesand\n and PriceWaterCooper\n PriceWaterCooper\n\n\n Hal\n Hal Leonard LLC\n Leonard LLC\n Assistant (Book\n Assistant (Book Editor\n Editor and\n and Public\n Public Relations)\n Relations)\n May\n May 2002\n 2002 -- September 2003 (1\n September 2003 (1 year\n year 5\n 5 months)\n months)\n Greater\n Greater New\n New York City Area\n York City Area\n\n Hal\n Hal Leonard/Cherry\n Leonard/Cherry Lane\n Lane Music/ Applause Theate\n Music/ Applause Theate &\n & Cinema\n Cinema Books\n Books\n Hal\n Hal Leonard\n Leonard is\n is the\n the world\u2019s largest music\n world's largest music publisher.\n publisher. In\n In its\n its catalog\n catalog of\n of more\n more than\n than 11\n million available\n million available titles,\n titles, Hal\n Hal Leonard\n Leonard represents\n represents many\n many of\n of the\n the world's\n world's best\n best known\n known\n and\n and most respected publishers,\n most respected publishers, artists,\n artists, songwriters,\n songwriters, arrangers\n arrangers and\n and musical\n musical\n instrument manufacturers.\n instrument manufacturers. Its\n Its products\n products are\n are sold\n sold in\n in more\n more than\n than 65\n 65 countries\n countries\n throughout the\n throughout the world\n world through\n through Hal\n Hal Leonard\n Leonard of\n offices and\n and a\n a large\n large network\n network of\n of\n distributors.\n distributors. Domestically, the company\n Domestically, the company markets\n markets to\n to more\n more than\n than 7,500\n 7,500 music\n music\n stores\n stores in\n in the\n the United\n United States and Canada\n States and Canada through\n through a\n a team\n team of\n of 50\n 50 in-house\n in-house sales\n sales\n representatives.\n representatives.\n\n\n Cherry\n Cherry Lane\n Lane Music developed a\n Music developed a wide\n wide range\n range of\n of high-quality\n high-quality sheet\n sheet music,\n music,\n DVDs,\n DVDs, and\n and educational\n educational tools\n tools for\n for musicians.\n musicians. In\n In March 2010, Cherry\n March 2010, Cherry Lane\n Lane was\n was\n acquired by\n acquired by BMG\n BMG Rights\n Rights Management,\n Management, which\n which had\n had been\n been formed\n formed in\n in 2008\n 2008 jointly\n jointly\n by Bertelsmann\n by Bertelsmann AG\n AG and\n and Kohlberg\n Kohlberg Kravis\n Kravis Roberts\n Roberts &\n & Co.\n Co. BMG\n BMG operated\n operated Cherry\n Cherry\n Lane\n Lane as\n as a\n a subsidiary.\n subsidiary.\n\n\n Applause is\n Applause is America's\n America's foremost\n foremost publisher\n publisher of\n of theatre\n theatre and\n and cinema\n cinema books.\n books. Books\n Books\n range\n range from\n from biographies of film and\n biographies of and theatre\n theatre luminaries,\n luminaries, to\n to play\n play scripts,\n scripts, librettos,\n librettos,\n monologue\n monologue books,\n books, and\n and explorations\n explorations of\n of film and\n and theatre\n theatre history.\n history.\n\n\n United States\n United States Senate\n Senate\n Constituent\n Constituent Affairs\n Affairs |Media\n MediaRelations\n Relations Intern\n Intern\n 2000 -- 2001\n 2000 2001 (1\n (1 year)\n year)\n Hillary Rodham\n Hillary Rodham Clinton\n Clinton\n\n\n Arthur Andersen\n Arthur Andersen && Co.\n Co.\n Junior\n Junior Executive\n Executive Assistant\n Assistant to\n to VP\n VP of\n of Finance\n Finance || CO-OP\n CO-OP (High\n (High School:\n School:\n Sophomore)\n Sophomore)\n 1997 -- 1998\n 1997 1998 (1\n (1 year)\n year)\n Appx97\n Appx96\n\n Page 55 of\n of 6\nfi\n fi\n fi\n\fCaseCase:\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 26-1721 Document\n 29-1 83-2\n Document\n Document: Page:Filed\n 83-2 98 04/10/26 Page of 66\n Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n Education\n Education\n Yonsei University\n Yonsei University\n Korean\n Korean Language\n Language\n\n\n USC\n USC Gould\n Gould School\n School of Law\n of Law\n Business Law\n Business Law\n\n\n Western New\n Western New Mexico\n Mexico University\n University\n Master of\n Master of Business\n Business Administration\n Administration (M.B.A.),\n (M.B.A.), International\n International Business\n Business ++ Digital\n Digital\n Technology\n Technology\n\n\n Western New\n Western New Mexico\n Mexico University\n University\n Instructional Technologies\n Instructional Technologies and\n and Design\n Design\n\n\n Johnson Graduate School\n Johnson Graduate School of\n of Management\n Management at\n at Cornell\n Cornell\n\n\n\n\n Appx98\n Appx97\n\n Page 6 of 6\n\f aldas-Mobile-10304-ADB\n CaseCase:\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 26-1721 DocAH8429-1 BAV\n Document\n Document: 83-3\n Page:Filed\n 99 04/10/26\n Filed 04/10/26 Page 1 of 1\n Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n Daitona (G||0| ELF) Carter (7}E|) 4\n 165 1,114 26\n Who viewed Post views Search\n your pro le appearances\n\n\n Career interests\n Connect with recruiters and relevant\n opportunities\n\n\n Saved items (46)\n Save interesting articles and jobs for later\n\n\n\n\n Your Articles\n 1,899 Followers Manage followers\n\n\n\n\n Tech Lab \"Blog\" Public Notes for AR\n VR Development + Women's Retail Pr\n Daitona (L| 0|ELF) Carter (7}El) on Linke...\n Julv 27 2017\n Appx98\n Appx99\n\n Home My Network\n LE\n Messaging\n A\n Noti cations Jobs\nfi\n fi\n\fAUVLU EYED I\nCase\nCase 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 1:26-cV-10304-ADB\n Case: 26-1721 29-1 83-4\n Document\n Document\n Document: 83-4 Filed\n Page:Filed 04/10/26\n 100 04/10/26 Page 1 of 1\n Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n\n\n Smart Glasses\n lens\n No views \u2022 13 seconds...\n 0:18 CO\n\n\n\n Aria Smart\n Glasses Pitch\n \u2022W - year ago\n 1:56 CO\n Aria Smart Glaccoc\n\n\n\n\n Aria Smart\n Glasses\n 1 year ago\n\nAria Smart Glaccoc\n 1:55\n 8\n\n\n\n Appx100\n Appx99\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 29-1 Page: 101 Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n\n\n test Ca Hv-\n Name Size Modi ed\n\n\n 40.0 kB 25 Oct 2017\n Ja 1.wav\n 38.6 kB 25 Oct 2017\n 83 2 wav\n 38.4 kB 25 Oct 2017\n J3 3 wav\n test_ask.py 468 bytes 25 Oct 2017\n\n test_multiple.py 625 bytes 25 Oct 2017\n\n\n\n\n Appx101\nfi\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 29-1 Page: 102 Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n\n\n Modi ed\n May 2017\n\n\n 558 bytes 2 May 2017\n tesseract exe name = 'tesseract' # Name of executable to be called at\n command line 833.7 kB 2 May 2017\n scratch image name = \"temp.bmp\" # This file must be .bmp or other Tesseract-\n compatible format\n scratch text name root = \"temp\" # Leave out the . txt extension 337 bytes 2 May 2017\n = cleanup scratch flag = True # Temporary files cleaned up after OCR\n operation 38.7 kB 2 May 2017\n\n def call tesseract(input filename, output filename):\n ***Calls external tesseract.exe on input file (restrictions on types), 2.6 kB 2 May 2017\n outputting output filename+'txt'\"\n args [tesseract_exe_name, input _filename, output_filename]\n 2.7 kB 2 May 2017\n proc = subprocess. Popen(args)\n retcode proc. wait ()\n if retcode!=0: 2.7 kB 2 May 2017\n errors. check for errors()\n def image to string(im, cleanup cleanup scratch ag): 17 items 19 Jan 2022\n ***Converts im to le, applies tesseract, and fetches resulting text.\n If cleanup-True, delete scratch les after operation.-=* 827,4 kB 2 May 2017\n try:\n util.image to scratch(im, scratch image name)\n call tesseract (scratch image name, scratch text name root) 669 bytes 2 May 2017\n\n 1.3 kB 2 May 2017\n\n\n\n\n Appx102\nfi\n fi\n fi\n fl\n\fCase 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Case: 26-1721 Document\n 29-1 83-7\n Document\n Document: Page:Filed\n 83-7 103 04/10/26 Page 1 of 66\n Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n\n\n Appx103\n Appx102\n\fCase 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Case: 26-1721 Document\n 29-1 83-7\n Document\n Document: Page:Filed\n 83-7 104 04/10/26 Page 2 of 66\n Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n\n\n @da_ee_yuy\n\n\n\n LIE 230| HE 9 tl\u00e4x| %0.\n I tried to melt it.\n\n\n\n\n Appx104\n Appx103\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 29-1 Page: 105 Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n\n\n citions Animations Slide Show ACRo VE\n Cation (500x)\n\n\n BE U MY K O SAT\n Convert lo Picture Shacos\n\n\n\n\n 900\u20ac\n Color\n\n Transp\n\n\n\n\n Cick to add notes\n\ndish (United States) Notes: Comments er--\n Layer 1\n Apply to /\n\n\n\n\n Bacapround\n\n\n\n\n co & DO.\n\n\n\n\n Appx105\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 29-1 Page: 106 Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n\n\n SNOW\n Appx106\n\fCase 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Case: 26-1721 Document\n 29-1 83-7\n Document\n Document: Page:Filed\n 83-7 107 04/10/26 Page 5 of 66\n Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n\n\n DONT HAVE A WAY CUT THE GLASS.\n BUT IT WORKS SO... NOW I CAN ADD\n\n\n\n\n Appx107\n Appx106\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 29-1 Page: 108 Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n\n\n USPO\n\n\n\n\n C0 COALaA\n\n eatere\n\n\n\n\n Appx108\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 29-1 Page: 109 Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n O mail.google.com/mail/mu/mp/G\n\n Upgrade to a smarter Gmail\n OPEN\n Secure, fast & organized email\n\n\n 'youno...\n\n\n\n\n Daitona Carter (2}E| GI0| ELF):\n\n Congratulations. Your application Aria\" -\n has been successfully submitted to Entrepreneurship World\n Cup on June 15, 2019 am (UTC).\n\n You are now of cially entered into your country's\n Entrepreneurship World Cup competition where you will be\n competing for national prizes and a shot to represent your\n country at the Global Finals in November at the Misk Global\n Forum during Global Entrepreneurship Week.\n\n To view your application, follow the secure link below:\n http://platform.younoodle.com/client/entry-rounds/\n entrepreneurship_world_cup/entries/\n /checklist\n\n Note: Your application documents are private, secure, and\n can only be accessed by the relevant program judges and\n organizers.\n\n Good luck!\n\n\n\n\n Top Tips:\n\n For any questions regarding the process of Entrepreneurship\n\n +\n Appx109\nfi\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 29-1 Page: 110 Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n\n\n ECF No. 82 - Plaintiff Solos Technology Limited's Opposition\n to Motion to Intervene\n\n\n\n\n Appx110\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Case: 26-1721 Document\n 29-1 82Page:\n Document\n Document: 11104/10/26\n Filed Page 1 of 11\n Filed: 06/21/2026 11\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE DISTRICT\n DISTRICT OF\n OF MASSACHUSETTS\n MASSACHUSETTS\n__________________________________________\n )\nSOLOS TECHNOLOGY LIMITED, )\n )\n Plaintiff, )\n ) Case No. 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n v.\n V. )\n )\nMETA PLATFORMS, INC., et al., )\n )\n Defendants. )\n__________________________________________)\n\n PLAINTIFF'S OPPOSITION\n PLAINTIFF\u2019S OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED INTERVENOR'S\n INTERVENOR\u2019S MOTION TO\n INTERVENE\n INTERVENEAND\n AND ANCILLARY MOTIONS\n ANCILLARY MOTIONS\n\n Plaintiff Solos\n Plaintiff Solos Technology\n Technology Limited\n Limited(\u201cPlaintiff\u201d)\n (Plaintiff\") submits this opposition filings of\n opposition to the filings\n\nDaitona Carter\nDaitona Carter (\u201cMovant\u201d),\n (\"Movant\"), who\n who moves\n moves for\n for intervention pursuant to\n intervention pursuant to Federal\n Federal Rule\n Rule of Civil\n Civil\n\nProcedure 24 while also seeking a range of ancillary relief, including witness protection, protective\n\norders,\norders, judicial notice of unrelated\n judicial notice unrelated matters,\n matters, in camera review\n review of\n of immaterial\n immaterial information,\n information, and\n\nemergency accommodations. These filings reflect an attempt by a non-party to improperly insert\n\nitself into a patent\n patent infringement\n infringement action\n action while\n while simultaneously\n simultaneously requesting\n requesting relief unrelated\n unrelated to the\n\nclaims, parties, or subject matter before the Court.\n\n As a preliminary matter, Movant\u2019s\n Movant's initial filings were marked as filed on March 27, 2026,\n\nalthough Plaintiff\nalthough Plaintiffdid\n didnot\n not receive\n receiveECF\n CF notice\n notice of\n of those\n those filings\n filings until\n until March\n March 30,\n 30, 2026.\n 2026. Plaintiff\n Plaintiff\n\ninitially intended\n intended to submit\n submit its response\n response on Monday,\n Monday, April\n April 13,\n 13, 2026,\n 2026, but,\n but, out\n out of an abundance\n abundance of\n\ncaution and to avoid any potential waiver, submits this response within fourteen days of the marked\n\nfiling date.\nfiling date. Plaintiff further notes that, on April 8, 2026, and again on April 9, 2026,\n 2026, Movant\n Movant filed\n filed\n\n a Supplemental\na Supplemental Memorandum\n Memorandum in inSupport\n Supportofof the\n the Motion\n Motion to\n to Intervene\n Intervene (\"Supplemental\n (\u201cSupplemental\n\nMemorandum\u201d),\nMemorandum\"), a Notice of Supplemental Authority, and a Supplemental Affidavit without leave\n\n\n\n Appx111\n Appx110\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Case: 26-1721 Document\n 29-1 82Page:\n Document\n Document: 11204/10/26\n Filed Page 2 of 11\n Filed: 06/21/2026 11\n\n\n\nof Court.\n Court. On April 10, 2026,\n 2026, Movant\n Movant then filed a Motion\n Motion for\n for Status\n Status Conference or, in the\n Conference or, the\n\nalternative, for an Order regarding certain ancillary motions.\n\n Although Plaintiff addresses portions of the Supplemental Memorandum and Motion for\n\nStatus Conference herein to the extent practicable given their timing, Plaintiff respectfully reserves\n\nthe right to submit a more complete response within fourteen days of any order indicating\n indicating that\n that the\n the\n\nCourt intends to consider\n consider the\n the Supplemental\n Supplemental Memorandum,\n Memorandum, Notice\n Notice of\n of Supplemental\n Supplemental Authority,\n Authority,\n\nSupplemental Affidavit, or\nSupplemental Affidavit, or Motion\n Motion for\n for Status\n Status Conference.\n Conference.IfIf the\n the Court\n Court denies\n denies the\n the Motion\n Motion to\n\nIntervene outright, however, no further response would be necessary.\n\n ARGUMENT\n ARGUMENT\n\n Legally Protectable\n 1. The Motion to Intervene Fails to Identify a Legally Protectable Interest\n Interest\n\n The Motion to Intervene fails as a matter of law because Movant has not demonstrated a\n\nlegally protectable\nlegally protectable interest\n interest in\n in the\n the subject\n subject matter\n matter of this litigation.\n litigation. As the\n the Federal\n Federal Circuit\n Circuit has\n has\n\nexplained, \"[c]onception\n \u201c[c]onception is the touchstone of inventorship.\"\n inventorship.\u201d Siemens Gamesa Renewable\n Siemens Gamesa Renewable Energy\n Energy\n\nA/S v.V.Gen.\nA/S Gen.Electric\n ElectricCo.,\n Co.,617\n 617F.F.Supp.\n Supp.3d\n 3d55, 63 (D.\n 55, 63 (D. Mass.\n Mass. 2022)\n 2022) (quoting\n (quoting Univ.\n Univ.of\n ofPittsburgh\n Pittsburgh of\n of\n\nCommonwealthSys.\nCommonwealth Sys.ofofHigher\n HigherEduc.\n Educ.v.v. Hedrick,\n Hedrick, 573\n 573 F.3d\n F.3d 1290,\n 1290, 1297 (Fed.\n (Fed. Cir.\n Cir. 2009)).\n 2009)).\n\nConception exists only when \"a\n \u201ca definite\n definite and\n andpermanent\n permanentidea\n ideaofofan\n anoperative\n operativeinvention,\n invention,including\n including\n\nevery\nevery feature\n feature of\n of the\n the subject\n subject matter\n matter sought to be patented, is formed in the mind of the inventor.\"\n inventor.\u201d\n\nCardiAQ Valve Techs.,\n Techs., Inc.\n Inc. v.\n V.Neovasc,\n Neovasc,Inc.,\n Inc.,57\n 57F.F.Supp.\n Supp.3d\n 3d118,\n 118,122\n 122(D.\n (D.Mass.\n Mass.2014)\n 2014)(emphasis\n (emphasis\n\nadded) (internal citations omitted).\n\n To qualify as a joint\n joint inventor,\n inventor, an individual\n individual must contribute to the conception of the claimed\n\ninvention, and\ninvention, and that contribution must be significant when measured against the full invention. See\n See\n\nEli Lilly & Co. v. Aradigm Corp., 376\n Aradigm Corp., 376 F.3d\n F.3d 1352,\n 1352, 1361\u201362\n 1361-62 (Fed.\n (Fed. Cir.\n Cir. 2004)\n 2004) (joint\n (joint inventorship\n inventorship\n\nrequires a specific\nrequires specific contribution);\n contribution); U. of Utah v.\n v. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft Zur Foerderung\n Max-Planck-Gesellschaft Zur Foerderung Der\n\n\n 2\n Appx112\n Appx111\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Case: 26-1721 Document\n 29-1 82Page:\n Document\n Document: 11304/10/26\n Filed Page 3 of 11\n Filed: 06/21/2026 11\n\n\n\nWissenschaften\nWissenschaften e.V.,\n V.,134\n 134F.F.Supp.\n Supp.3d\n 3d576,\n 576,584\u201385\n 584 -85(D.\n (D.Mass.\n Mass.2015).\n 2015).Joint\n Joint inventorship\n inventorship also requires\n\ncollaboration among the inventors. See Kimberly-Clark Corp. v.\n v. Procter\n Procter &\n &Gamble\n GambleDistrib.\n Distrib.Co.,\n Co.,\n\n973 F.2d 911, 916\u201317 (Fed. Cir.\n 916-17 (Fed. Cir. 1992);\n 1992); Vanderbilt\n Vanderbilt Univ.\n Univ. v.\n v. ICOS Corp., 601 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed.\n\nCir. 2010). The joint inventor\n inventor must propose\n propose an idea that becomes\n becomes \"an\n \u201can essential\n essential feature of the\n the\n\nclaimed invention\u201d\nclaimed invention\" to\n to have made a sufficient\n sufficient contribution\n contribution to inventorship. See Dana-Farber\n inventorship. See\n\nCancer Institute, Inc. V.\n v. Ono\n Ono Pharmaceutical\n Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., 379 F. Supp. 3d 53, 81\u201383\n 81-83 (D. Mass. 2019)\n\n(quoting In re VerHoef, 888 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2018), as amended\n amended (May 7, 2018)). A person\n\nwho merely assists in reduction to practice, provides well-known principles,\n principles, or explains\n explains the\n the state\n state\n\nof the art does not qualify as aa joint\n joint inventor.\n inventor. See\n See Ethicon, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 135 F.3d\n\n1456,\n1456, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Murdock Webbing Co. V.\n v. Dalloz\n Dalloz Safety,\n Safety, Inc.,\n Inc., 213\n 213 F. Supp. 2d 95, 99\n\n(D.R.I. 2002).\n\n Here, Movant\n Movant asserts that she\n she conceived\n conceived technology which overlaps\n technology which overlaps with\n with the\n the Asserted\n Asserted\n\nPatents but\nPatents but fails\n fails to identify\n identify any specific\n specific contribution to the\n contribution to the claimed\n claimed inventions\u2014this\n inventions this alone\n alone\n\nprovides\nprovides a sufficient basis for denial.\n sufficient basis denial. See CardiAQ Valve, 57\n CardiAQ Valve, 57 F.\n F. Supp.\n Supp. 3d at\n at 122\n 122 (requiring\n (requiring\n\nformation of every feature\n feature of the subject matter\n matter sought\n sought to be patented).\n patented). Movant\n Movant merely recites a\n merely recites\n\ngeneralized\ngeneralized chronology\n chronology of alleged prior technical\n technical activities,\n activities, prototype\n prototype development,\n development, marketing\n marketing\n\nefforts, and professional associations spanning from 2007 through 2021. These allegations, even\n\nif accepted as true, at most describe familiarity with or work within the general technological field\n\nand purported development of certain products. They do not identify which patent claims allegedly\n\nembody\nembody Movant's\n Movant\u2019s contributions,\n contributions, what claim limitations Movant purportedly conceived, or\n purportedly conceived, or how\n\nMovant\nMovant contributed to the conception\n contributed to of any complete\n conception of complete or essential\n essential feature\n feature of the\n the claimed\n claimed\n\ninventions. Thus, to the extent Movant claims sole inventorship, she fails to allege sufficient\n sufficient facts.\n facts.\n\nId.\n\n\n\n 3\n Appx113\n App&112\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Case: 26-1721 Document\n 29-1 82Page:\n Document\n Document: 11404/10/26\n Filed Page 4 of 11\n Filed: 06/21/2026 11\n\n\n\n To the\n the extent\n extent Movant\n Movant contends\n contends that\n that she\n she was\n was aa joint\n jointinventor,\n inventor,the\n theabove-referenced\n above-referenced\n\ndeficiencies likewise\n likewise defeat\n defeat any\n any such\n such allegation.\n allegation. An\n An alleged\n alleged joint\n joint inventor\n inventor must\n must identify\n identifyspecific\n specific\n\ncontributions to the conception of the claimed invention. See\n See Eli\n Eli Lilly,\n Lilly, 376\n 376 F.3d\n F.3d at\n at 1361\u201362\n 1361-62 (joint\n\ninventorship\ninventorship requires\n requires a specific contribution).\n contribution). Movant\n Movant fails to identify any such contribution. In\n\naddition, joint inventorship requires some degree of collaboration\n collaboration among the\n the alleged\n alleged inventors.\n inventors.\n\nYet Movant concedes that she had no\n no employment,\n employment, contractual,\n contractual, or assignment\n assignment relationship with\n\nPlaintiff and no collaboration\n collaboration or connection with the named\n named inventors.\n inventors. See Kimberly-Clark, 973\n Kimberly-Clark, 973\n\nF.2d at 916-17\n 916\u201317 (requiring\n (requiring some\n some quantum\n quantum of\n ofcollaboration\n collaboration or\n orjoint\n jointconception).\n conception).Accordingly,\n Accordingly,\n\nMovant fails to plausibly allege sole or joint inventorship.\n\n Movant\u2019s Supplemental Memorandum,\n Next, assuming arguendo that the Court considers Movant's\n\nit simply reiterates broad and conclusory assertions, without identifying any specific contributions\n\nto the claimed subject matter. Movant appears to rely\n rely primarily\n primarily on\n on arguments\n arguments concerning\n concerning reduction\n reduction\n\nto practice rather than contributions at the time of conception. See Siemens,\n Siemens, 617\n 617 F.\n F. Supp.\n Supp. 3d\n 3d at\n at 63\u2013\n 63-\n\n conception is the touchstone of inventorship\n64 (explaining that conception inventorship and that reducing an inventor\u2019s\n inventor's\n\nidea to practice does not qualify\n qualify one as\n as aa joint\n joint inventor).\n inventor). The\n The Supplemental\n Supplemental Memorandum\n Memorandum also\n\nreferences generalized\nreferences categories of purported\n generalized categories purported evidence,\n evidence, including\n including independent\n independent witnesses,\n witnesses,\n\npassport\npassport records,\n records, and technical repositories,but\n technical repositories, but fails\n fails to\n to describe the substance\n describe the of any such\n substance of\n\nevidence, its relevance to the Asserted Patents, or how it substantiates conception of any claimed\n\ninvention. It also\n also expands\n expands upon\n upon allegations\n allegations of\n of purported\n purported confinement,\n confinement, communications\n communications fencing,\n fencing,\n\nand other extraordinary circumstances that are unrelated to the legal question of inventorship.\n\n For example, in support\n support of alleged\n alleged inventorship,\n inventorship, Movant states \"that\n \u201cthat federal\n federal authorities\n authorities\n\nwere aware of certain unlawful activities involving\n involving her work prior to her own awareness.\"\n awareness.\u201d That\n\nstatement\nstatement is nonsensical and does\n nonsensical and does not explain\n explain how such\n such alleged\n alleged knowledge is relevant\n knowledge is relevant to\n\n\n\n 4\n Appx114\n App% 113\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Case: 26-1721 Document\n 29-1 82Page:\n Document\n Document: 11504/10/26\n Filed Page 5 of 11\n Filed: 06/21/2026 11\n\n\n\nconception. Even\nconception. Even ifif accepted\n accepted as\n as true,\n true, such\n such allegations\n allegations do not establish that Movant contributed to\n\nthe conception of any relevant\n conception of claim. In sum,\n relevant claim. sum, Movant's\n Movant\u2019s allegations\n allegations bear\n bear no\n nomeaningful\n meaningful\n\nrelationship to the parties, inventorship issues, or infringement claims before the Court.\n Court. Rather,\n Rather,\n\nthey inject\n inject collateral\n collateral and\n and extraneous\n extraneous matters into the\n the proceedings,\n proceedings, substantially\n substantially expanding\n expanding the\n\nscope of\nscope of the\n the litigation\n litigation and\n and prejudicing\n prejudicing the\n the existing\n existing parties.\n parties. See\n See In re Fin.\n Fin. Oversight\n Oversight &\n & Mgmt.\n Mgmt. Bd.\n\n for P.R.,\nfor P.R., 301\n 301 F. Supp. 3d 272, 274 (D.P.R. 2017) (denying motion where intervention would unduly\n\nprejudice existing parties by substantially expanding the scope of litigation). Thus, even if Movant\n\nhad articulated an interest, intervention would be\nhad be improper\n improper because\n because ititwould\n wouldneedlessly\n needlesslycomplicate\n complicate\n\nand obscure this litigation.\n\n Furthermore, Movant\u2019s\n Furthermore, Movant's cited\n cited authorities\n authorities do\n do not alter this analysis. Movant's\n Movant\u2019s reliance on\n\nPannu, for\n for instance,\n instance, is\n is misplaced.\n misplaced. Pannu does\n does not\n not hold\n hold that\n that independent\n independent inventors\n inventors may assert\n assert\n\ninventorship claims\ninventorship claims absent\n absent any\n any relationship\n relationship to\n to the patent holder. Rather, Pannu addresses\n addresses the\n\nrequirements for joint inventorship and whether an omitted inventor contributed to conception of\n\n claimed\nthe V. invention.\n claimed See\n invention. Pannu\n See 155F.3d\n Corp.,155\n IolabCorp.,\n Pannuv. v.Iolab F.3d1344,\n 1344,1351\n 1351(Fed.\n (Fed. Cir.\n Cir. 1998)\n 1998) (requiring\n\nsignificant contribution\nsignificant contribution to\n to conception\n conception of\n of the invention).\n invention). Second,\n Second, Chou addressed whether an\n\nomitted inventor had standing to pursue a correction-of-inventorship\n correction-of-inventorship claim despite having assigned\n\nownership rights\nownership rights to their employer,\n employer, not the\n the substantive\n substantive sufficiency\n sufficiency of allegations\n allegations required to\n\nestablish inventorship.\n inventorship. See Chou v. Univ.\n Univ. of\n ofChi.,\n Chi.,254\n 254F.3d\n F.3d1347,\n 1347,1358\u201359\n 1358-59 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding\n\nthat a putative\n putative inventor\n inventor had standing\n standing to pursue\n pursue aa p\u00a7 256\n 256claim\n claimdespite\n despiteassignment\n assignment obligations).\n obligations).\n\nFinally, Intellisoft\nFinally, Intellisoft involved\n involved whether\n whether a declaratory\n declaratory inventorship\n inventorship counterclaim\n counterclaim created\n created federal\n federal\n\njurisdiction\n jurisdiction sufficient\n sufficient to support\n support removal,\n removal, not the\n the substantive\n substantive requirements\n requirements for pleading\n pleading\n\ninventorship or intervention. See Intellisoft, Ltd.\n Ltd. v.\n V.Acer\n Acer Am.\n Am.Corp.,\n Corp., 955\n 955 F.3d\n F.3d 927,\n 927, 930\u201331\n 930-31 (Fed.\n\n\n\n\n 5\n Appx115\n App&114\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Case: 26-1721 Document\n 29-1 82Page:\n Document\n Document: 11604/10/26\n Filed Page 6 of 11\n Filed: 06/21/2026 11\n\n\n\nCir. 2020)1\nCir. 2020) 1 (addressing\n (addressing removal\n removal and patent\n patent jurisdiction\n jurisdiction based\n based on\n on asserted\n asserted inventorship\n inventorship\n\ncounterclaim).\n\n sum, Movant\n In sum, Movant fails to allege any specific\n specific contribution to the relevant patent claims, and\n\nher cited case law is inapposite. Accordingly, the Motion to Intervene should be denied.\n\n 2. The\n TheMotion\n Motionfor\n for aa Protective\n Protective Order Is\n Is Procedurally Improper and Unsupported\n\n Movant's additional requests for relief. The Motion for\n These same deficiencies extend to Movant\u2019s\n\na Protective Order fails\n fails because\n because Movant\n Movant aisisaa non-party\n non-party and\n and therefore\n therefore lacks\n lacks standing\n standing to invoke\n\nFederal Rule\nFederal Rule of\n of Civil\n Civil Procedure\n Procedure 26(c).\n 26(c). See\n SeeCommonwealth\n Commonwealth of\n of Massachusetts\n Massachusetts v.\n v. Mylan\n Mylan\n\nLaboratories,\nLaboratories, Inc.,\n Inc., 246\n 246 F.R.D.\n F.R.D. 87, 91-92\n 91\u201392 (D.\n (D. Mass.\n Mass. 2007)\n 2007) (holding\n (holding that the proper means for a\n means for\n\nthird party to seek protection is first through intervention);\n intervention); Pub.\n Pub. Citizen\n Citizen v.\n v. Liggett Group, Inc., 858\n\nF.2d 775, 783\u201387 (1st Cir.\n 783-87 (1st Cir. 1988)\n 1988) (a\n (a non-party\n non-party must\n must first intervene before seeking relief relating to\n\na protective order). After seeking to intervene, a movant remains a prospective intervenor unless\n\nand until intervention is granted. See Mutual Produce, Inc. v.\n v. Penn\n Penn Central\n CentralTransportation\n TransportationCo.,\n Co.,\n\n119 F.R.D.\n119 F.R.D. 619,\n 619, 620\u201321\n 620-21 (D. Mass.\n Mass. 1988)\n 1988) (holding\n (holding that intervenors\n intervenors are not parties\n parties until their\n their\n\nmotions to intervene are granted and that filing does not confer party status). Because Movant has\n\nnot been granted intervenor status, she lacks standing to seek any of the ancillary relief requested.\n\n Even if Movant had standing, the type of relief sought further underscores the deficiencies\n\nof the request. Movant asks the Court to permit filings under seal purportedly\n purportedly based\n based on\n on alleged\n alleged\n\npersonal safety concerns and \u201cconstructive seizure\u201d of her family and business assets. That request\n \"constructive seizure\"\n\nis untethered to any discovery obligation, confidentiality dispute, or any issue properly before\n before the\n the\n\nCourt. Rule 26(c) does not provide a mechanism for a non-party to obtain sealing or redaction\n\n\n\n1\n Federal Circuit\n Although Movant cites a 2020 Federal Circuit matter\n matter under\n under Case\n Case No.\n No. 2019-1522,\n 2019-1522, the\n the cited\n cited proposition\n proposition appears\n appears tO\n to\n Intellisoft, Ltd. v. Acer\nrelate to Intellisoft, Acer America\n America Corp.,\n Corp., 955 F.3d 927 (Fed. Cir. 2020), which corresponds to Case No. 2019-\n2163.\n\n 6\n Appx116\n App&115\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Case: 26-1721 Document\n 29-1 82Page:\n Document\n Document: 11704/10/26\n Filed Page 7 of 11\n Filed: 06/21/2026 11\n\n\n\nrelief based on\nrelief on generalized\n generalized personal\n personal circumstances, particularly where\n circumstances, particularly where Movant\n Movant has\n has not been\n been\n\ngranted\ngranted intervention. Mutual Produce,\n intervention. Mutual Produce, 119\n 119 F.R.D.\n F.R.D. at\n at 620\u201321.\n 620-21. Nor does the motion identify any\n\nconfidential information whose\nconfidential information whose disclosure\n disclosure would\n would cause\n cause harm\n harm within\n within the\n the meaning\n meaning of\n of Rule 26.\n\nAccordingly, the Motion for Protective Order should be denied.\n\n 3. The Motion for Witness Protection and Technical\n Technical Safeguards\n Safeguards Seeks\n Seeks Relief Outside\n the Scope of This Action\n\n The lack of any connection to this case\n case is\n is even\n even more\n more apparent\n apparent when\n when considering\n consideringMovant\u2019s\n Movant's\n\nrequest 2 for witness protection and technical safeguards. Movant\nrequest? Movant seeks\n seeks an\n an \u201cemergency\n \"emergency protective\n protective\n\norder\"\norder\u201d directing\n directing Defendants\n Defendants to cease\n cease alleged\n alleged \"electronic\n \u201celectronic signal\n signal emissions\"\n emissions\u201d and\n and unspecified\n unspecified\n\ntechnological interference, to restore access to family and business bank accounts and educational\n\nfunds, and to\n to prohibit\n prohibit alleged\n alleged \"retaliatory\n \u201cretaliatory discrediting\"\n discrediting\u201d through unspecified proceedings. These\n proceedings. These\n\nrequests are not grounded\n grounded in any claim in this action, do not relate to the\n the Asserted\n Asserted Patents, and\n\ninstead concern alleged personal, financial, and technological grievances\n grievances that are extraneous to\n\nthis litigation.\n\n Moreover, the\n Moreover, the requested\n requested orders\n orders are\n are extraordinary\n extraordinary in\n in nature\n nature and\n and far\n far beyond\n beyond the\n the scope\n scope of\n\nrelief available in a patent\n patent infringement\n infringement action, including attempts to regulate alleged electronic\n\n financial account access. See Smith v.\nactivity and financial V. Sununu,\n Sununu,2025\n 2025WL\n WL2627984,\n 2627984,atat *2\u20133\n *2-3 (D.N.H.\n\nAug. 18, 2025) (denying requests for witness protection and other relief unrelated to the case and\n\noutside the court's\n court\u2019s authority). Because the Motion for Witness\n Witness Protection\n Protection provides\n provides no\n no legitimate\n legitimate\n\n Court\u2019s authority,\nbasis for such relief and seeks relief outside the Court's authority, it should be denied.\n\n\n\n\n22 Movant\u2019s\n Movant's initial request was transmitted to counsel by email on March 26, 2026. Movant provided, but did not file,\n a document styled as a motion for a temporary restraining order. That submission sought relief similar to the present\n Motion for Witness Protection and included allegations of personal threats, financial account interference, and travel-\n related issues, as well as requests for intervention by the United States Marshals. It further\n further sought\n sought to\n to regulate\n regulate private\n private\n financial activity and impose protective\n protective measures\n measures unrelated\n unrelatedto\n tothis\n thisaction.\n action.\n\n 7\n Appx117\n App&116\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Case: 26-1721 Document\n 29-1 82Page:\n Document\n Document: 11804/10/26\n Filed Page 8 of 11\n Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n\n\n 4. The\n TheMotion\n Motionfor\n for Judicial\n Judicial Notice Improper and Irrelevant\n Notice Is Improper\n\n Movant's request for judicial notice fares no better. Judicial notice is limited to facts that\n Movant\u2019s\n\nare not subject to reasonable dispute and are relevant to the matters before the Court. In the motion,\n\nMovant asks the Court to take notice of aa series\n series of\n of unrelated\n unrelated matters,\n matters,including\n includingfilings\n filingsin\n inaaseparate\n separate\n\nFlorida state court action\n action allegedly\n allegedly involving\n involving \"electronic\n \u201celectronicinterference\n interferenceand\n anddenial\n denialofofdue\n dueprocess,\"\n process,\u201d\n\nthe purported \"suppression\"\n \u201csuppression\u201d of another case\n case in\n in Broward\n Broward County,\n County, Florida\n Florida involving\n involving aa \"Jane\n \u201cJane Doe,\"\n Doe,\u201d\n\nand regulatory enforcement actions involving third-party financial institutions, including FINRA\n\nfines against Alpaca Securities and an SEC fine against Citadel Securities. None of these materials\n\nconstitute undisputed\n undisputed adjudicative\n adjudicative facts\n facts properly\n properly subject\n subject to\n to judicial\n judicial notice,\n notice, nor do they bear any\n\nrelevance to\nrelevance to the\n the patents\n patents or\n or claims\n claims before\n before the Court. See\n the Court. See Jones\n JonesV.\n v. Bank of New York,\n York, 542\n 542 F.\n F. Supp.\n Supp.\n\n3d 44,\n3d 44, 51 n.3 (D. Mass. 2021) (judicial notice is limited\n limited to\n to facts\n facts that\n that are\n are not\n not subject\n subjectto\n toreasonable\n reasonable\n\ndispute); see also Mitchell v.\ndispute); v. United\n United States,\n States, 2020\n 2020 WL\n WL 130578,\n 130578, at\n at *1 n.1 (D. Me. Jan. 10, 2020)\n 2020)\n\n(denying\n(denying request\n request for judicial\n judicial notice\n notice because\n because the matters\n matters identified\n identified were not adjudicative\n adjudicative facts\n\nsubject to notice under Rule 201); Fed. R. Evid. 201 (limiting judicial notice to adjudicative facts).\n\nBecause the request is irrelevant, improper, and unrelated to any issue before the Court, it should\n\nbe denied.\n\n 5. The\n TheMotion\n Motionfor\n forIn\n InCamera\n Camera Review Is\n Is Improper\n Improper and\n and Unsupported\n Unsupported\n\n In camera\n camera review\n review is\n is not\n not aavehicle\n vehiclefor\n forpresenting\n presenting unrelated\n unrelated allegations\n allegations or extraneous\n extraneous\n\nmaterials\nmaterials outside the scope\n scope of the litigation. Movant seeks to submit\n submit for\n for private\n private review\n reviewpurported\n purported\n\n \"suppressedlegal\n\u201csuppressed legaldocuments\u201d\n documents\"from\n fromaaBroward\n BrowardCounty\n County\u201cJane\n \"JaneDoe\u201d\n Doe\" matter,\n matter, as\n as well as alleged\n alleged\n\nevidence of \"real-time\n \u201creal-time hacking,'\n hacking,\u201d including\n including drafts\n drafts and\n and logs\n logs reflecting the purported deletion of her\n her\n\nlegal work. Movant asserts that such review is necessary to demonstrate\n demonstrate aa \u201cmulti-state\n \"multi-state pattern\n pattern of\n of\n\nwitness intimidation and case suppression,\u201d\n suppression,\" but these references concern proceedings unrelated to\n\n\n\n 8\n Appx118\n AppX117\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Case: 26-1721 Document\n 29-1 82Page:\n Document\n Document: 11904/10/26\n Filed Page 9 of 11\n Filed: 06/21/2026 11\n\n\n\nthis case as well as alleged\n alleged external\n external conduct that has no connection\n connection to the\n the Asserted\n Asserted Patents, the\n\nparties in\nparties in this\n this case, or the issues raised by the Motion to Intervene. See Hydron\n Hydron Laboratories,\n Laboratories, Inc.\n\nv. Environmental\n Environmental Protection Agency, 560 F. Supp. 718,\n 718, 722\n 722 n.5\n n.5 (D.R.I.\n (D.R.I. 1983)\n 1983) (in\n (in camera\n camera inspection\n\n be avoided\nis to be avoided unless\n unless ititappears\n appearsreasonably\n reasonablyrequired).\n required).Because\n Becausethe\n therequest\n requestisisunsupported,\n unsupported,there\n thereis\n\nis no justification (let alone reasonable requirement) for such review. Accordingly, the Motion for\n\nIn Camera Review should be denied.\n\n 6. The\n TheRemaining\n RemainingADA\n ADAAccommodation\n Accommodation Requests Are\n Are Unclear, and Electronic\n Access Has\n Access Has Already\n Already Been\n Been Granted\n Granted\n\n The Court has already Movant's request for access\n already addressed Movant\u2019s access to the Court's\n Court\u2019s electronic\n electronic\n\nfiling system.\n system. ECF\n ECF No. 69 (granting leave to file electronically\n electronically for this matter only, subject to\n\ncompliance\ncompliance with applicable\n applicable rules).\n rules). Movant\u2019s request for\n Movant's request for additional\n additional accommodations\n accommodations appears to\n\nrest on\n on alleged\n alleged physical\n physical injury,\n injury, financial\n financial hardship,\n hardship, mail interference,\n interference, and other technological\n technological\n\nissues.\n\n These assertions, however, concern personal circumstances and alleged external conditions\n\nthat are unrelated to the Asserted\n Asserted Patents, the parties, or any issue presented by the Motion to\n\nIntervene. See Calderia, LLC v. City of Claremont,\n Claremont, 768\n 768 F.\n F. Supp. 3d 261, 269\u201370\n 269-70 (D.N.H. 2025)\n\n(requiring\n(requiring a showing that the requested\n requested accommodation is reasonable\n accommodation is reasonable and\n and necessary\n necessary to\n to afford\n afford\n\nmeaningful access\nmeaningful access to\n to the relevant\n relevant proceeding). Movant has\n proceeding). Movant has not\n not shown,\n shown, however,\n however, that any\n any\n\nadditional accommodations are reasonably necessary or relevant to the matters before the Court.\n Court.\n\nAccordingly, any\nAccordingly, any remaining\n remaining relief requested in the Motion for ADA Accommodation\n Accommodation should\n should be\n be\n\ndenied.\n\n 7. Failure\n FailuretotoMeet\n Meetand\n andConfer\n ConferUnder\n UnderRule\n Rule7.1(a)(2)\n 7.1(a)(2)\n\n Movant certifies\n Movant certifies that\n that she attempted\n attempted to confer\n confer with\n with counsel\n counsel regarding\n regarding the Motion\n Motion to\n\nIntervene. Movant asserts that, due to alleged systemic technical obstructions and restricted access\n\n 9\n Appx119\n App&118\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Case: 26-1721 Document\n Document: 29-1 82Page:\n Filed\n 1204/10/26\n 04/10/26 Page 10 of\n of 11\n Filed: 06/21/2026 11\n\n\n\n to filing\n to systems, she\n ling systems, she was\n was unable\n unable to\n to obtain\n obtain consent prior to\n consentprior to filing and therefore\n ling and therefore served\n served her\n her motion\n motion\n\n via emergency email. Although\n emergency email. Movant transmitted\n Although Movant transmittedan\n an email\n email to\n to counsel\n counsel on\n on March\n March 26,\n 26, 2026,\n 2026,\n\n attaching the\n attaching the materials\n materials she intended to file, she did not request a conference,\n conference, propose\n propose discussion,\n discussion,\n\n or otherwise\n otherwise seek\n seek to\n to engage\n engage opposing counsel regarding the substance\n substance of\n of the\n the motion\n motion or\n or the\n the relief\n relief\n\n requested. Movant nevertheless appears to understand the conferral requirement, as she signed a\n\n certification representing that she attempted to confer with counsel; however, the March 26 email\n\n merely provided notice of filing. Thus, Movant\u2019s\n Movant's Rule 7.1(a)(2) certification is improper.\n\n 8. The\n TheMotion\n Motionfor\n forStatus\n StatusConference\n Conference Should\n Should Be\n Be Denied\n Denied\n\n Movant\u2019srequest\n Movant's requestfor\n foraa status\n status conference\n conference or expedited ruling on her pending motions\n motions should\n should\n\n be denied. Movant seeks a conference to facilitate submission of purported confidential evidence\n\n in support of her Motion to Intervene; however, as explained above, Movant has failed to establish\n\n alegally\n legallycognizable\n cognizable basis\n basis for\n for intervention\n intervention and lacks standing to seek additional relief. See\n See Mutual\n Mutual\n\n Produce,\n Produce, 119\n 119 F.R.D.\n F.R.D. at 620-21\n 620\u201321 (intervenors\n (intervenors are\n are not\n not parties\n parties until\n until their\n their motions\n motions to intervene\n intervene are\n\n granted).\n granted). Nor\n Nor does\n does Movant\n Movant identify\n identify any\n any authority\n authority entitling\n entitling aa non-party\n non-party proposed\n proposed intervenor\n intervenor to\n\n expedited consideration\n expedited consideration of\n of motions\n motions or special\n special scheduling\n scheduling accommodations.\n accommodations. Accordingly,\n Accordingly, the\n\n Motion for Status Conference should be denied.\n\n CONCLUSION\n\n For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court deny the Motion\n Motion to\n to\n\n Intervene in its entirety, deny the ancillary motions, and deny all other requested relief.\n\n\n Respectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ Jameson J. Pasek\n Jameson J. Pasek, Esq. (BBO# 692924)\n CALDWELL\n ALDWELL\n 200 Clarendon Street, 59th Floor\n Boston, MA 02116\n 02116\n\n 10\n Appx120\n App/119\nfi\n fi\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Case: 26-1721 Document\n Document: 29-1 82Page:\n Filed 04/10/26\n 04/10/26\n 121 Page 11\n 11 of\n Filed: 06/21/2026of 11\n 11\n\n\n\n jameson@caldwelllaw.com\n jameson@caldwelllaw.com\n Tel: (857)\n (857) 990-4914\n 990-4914\n\n Counsel for Plaintiff\n Plaintiff Solos Technology\n Limited\nDated: April 10, 2026\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n CERTIFICATE\n\n I hereby certify that this document, filed through the Court\u2019s\n Court's CM/ECF system on April 10,\n\n2026, will\n2026, will be sent\n sent electronically\n electronically to the registered\n registered participants as identified\n participants as identified on\n on the\n the Notice\n Notice of\n\nElectronic Filing (NEF).\n\n /s/ Jameson\n JamesonJ.J.Pasek\n Pasek\n Jameson J. Pasek (BBO# 692924)\n\n\n\n\n 11\n Appx121\n Appx120\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 29-1 Page: 122 Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n\n\nE. POST-JUDGMENT MOTIONS RECORD (FCR 30(b)(2)(B)(vi))\n\n\n\n\n Appx122\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 29-1 Page: 123 Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n\n\nECF No. 91 \u2013 FRCP 59(e) Motion for Reconsideration filed by Daitona Carter\n\n\n\n\n Appx 82\n Appx123\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Case: 26-1721 29-1 91\n Document\n Document: Filed\n Page: 12404/17/26\n 04/17/26 Page 1 of 5\n Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n UNITED STATES\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n COURT\n DISTRICT\n DISTRICT OF\n OF MASSACHUSETTS\n MASSACHUSETTS\n\n\n SOLOS TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,\n Plaintiff,\n\n v.\n V. Case No. 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Judge Allison D. Burroughs\n META PLATFORMS, INC., et al.,\n Defendants.\n Defendants.\n\n\n In re: DAITONA CARTER\n Proposed Intervenor.\n Intervenor.\n\n\n\n MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND RELIEF\n RELIEF FROM ORDER\n (Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and 60(b)(2))\n\n\nI. INTRODUCTION\n INTRODUCTIONMovant,\n Movant,Daitona\n DaitonaCarter,\n Carter,respectfully\n respectfully requests\n requests that\n that the\n the Court\n Court reconsider its Order\ndenying intervention\ndenying intervention (ECF grant relief from\n (ECF No. 58) entered on April 15, 2026, or, in the alternative, grant from\n that judgment\nthat judgment under\n under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b)(2).\n\nThis request is grounded in newly discovered evidence establishing\n establishing that\n that Movant\n Movant isis either\n either the\n the source\n source of\n of\nthe derivation of the Defendants' inventions or an omitted co-inventor who contributed to the\n conception of\nconception of essential\n essential features. Under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 116\n U.S.C.\u00a7\u00a7 116 and 256, Movant is entitled\n entitled to\n to correction\n correctionof\n of\ninventorship to be named as a co-inventor. Even if the Court declines immediate correction, Movant\nhas a direct, protectable interest in the validity of the patents as an omitted inventor, entitling her to\nintervene.\n\nCrucially, Movant\nCrucially, Movant faces\n faces irreparable harm if denied intervention. Solos Technology Limited is suing\n suing\nMeta Platforms, Inc. over intellectual property that Movant\nMeta Movant likely\n likely owns\n owns (via\n (via derivation\n derivationor\n orjoint\n joint\ninventorship). Furthermore, Solos's own IP claims are derivative of Movant's prior work. If the Court\nallows Solos to proceed without Movant, it risks validating a patent that is invalid due to the omission\nof the true inventor, thereby permanently stripping Movant of her rights and allowing Solos to profit\nfrom stolen technology.\n\n\n\n Appx124\n Appx123\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Case: 26-1721 29-1 91\n Document\n Document: Filed\n Page: 12504/17/26\n 04/17/26 Page 2 of\n of 55\n Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\nOn April 13, 2026, the Court granted Movant Leave to File evidence but did not set\n set aa specific\n specific deadline.\n deadline.\nBetween the\nBetween the granting\n granting of this leave and the present, Movant was subjected to\n to severe\n severe external\n external\n interference that\ninterference that rendered her unable to access, compile, or submit the evidence. Furthermore,\n Furthermore, Movant's\n Movant's\npending motions for\n for In\n In Camera\n Camera Protective\n ProtectiveOrders\u2014essential\n Orders essential totosubmitting\n submittingevidence\n evidence containing\n containing Trade\nSecrets\u2014werenever\nSecrets--were neverruled\n ruledupon,\n upon,rendering\n rendering them\n them moot\n moot upon\n upon the\n the denial of intervention. This procedural\n procedural\ndeadlock, combined with active spoliation of evidence, constitutes a clear error of law.\n\nII.\nIL. LEGAL\n LEGAL STANDARD\n\n\u2022Rule\n\u2022Rule59(e)\n 59(e) &\n &60(b)(2):\n 60(b)(2):Permit\n Permitrelief\n relief for\n for \"clear\n \"clear error\n error of\n of law\" or \"newly discovered evidence\"\n evidence\" that\n that\ncould not have been discovered with due diligence.\n\u202235 U.S.C. \u00a7 116: Requires that all joint inventors apply for a patent. If an inventor\n inventor is\n is omitted,\n omitted, the\n the\npatent may be corrected.\npatent corrected.\n \u202235U.S.C.\n\u202235 U.S.C.\u00a7 256: Provides that a patent with an omitted inventor is invalid unless the error is\ncorrected. An omitted inventor has a direct, protectable interest in the patent's validity and is entitled to\nintervene\n intervene to assert that interest.\n\u2022Irreparable Harm:\n\u2022Irreparable Harm:Denial\n Denialofofintervention\n interventioncauses\n causesirreparable\n irreparableharm\n harmbecause\n becausethe\n the outcome\n outcome of this\nlitigation (validating a patent derived from Movant's work) will permanently extinguish Movant's rights\nto her own invention.\nIII. FACTUAL BACKGROUND: PROCEDURAL ERROR AND ACTIVE SPOILATION\nIII.\n\nA. The \"Non-Stated\"\n \"Non-Stated\"Deadline\n Deadlineand\n andLeave\n LeavetotoFile\n FileOn\n OnApril\n April13,\n 13,2026,\n 2026,the\n theCourt\n Court issued\n issued an\n an Order\ngranting Movant\ngranting Movant Leave\n Leave to\n to File\n File evidence\n evidence to\n to support\n support her\n her intervention.\n intervention. Crucially, no deadline was\nspecified in this Order. Movant was actively preparing to submit this evidence when she encountered\ninsurmountable barriers. The Court's subsequent denial of intervention was based\n based on\n on the\n the assumption\n assumption\nthat Movant had failed to file, ignoring the fact that no deadline had been set and that Movant was\nactively prevented\nactively prevented from filing by external forces.\n\nB. Mootness of Protective Motions\n Motions and\n andTrade\n TradeSecret\n SecretRisk\n RiskMovant\n Movanthad\n hadfiled\n filedpending\n pending motions\n motions for In\nCamera Protective Orders to ensure that the submission of her technical evidence (containing Trade\nSecrets and specific IP locations) would not result in public disclosure\n disclosure or\n or further\n further spoliation.\n spoliation. These\n These\nmotions were never ruled\n ruled upon. When the Court denied intervention, these protective motions\neffectively became moot, stripping Movant of the legal shield required to submit her\neffectively her evidence\n evidence safely.\n safely.\nThis created an impossible situation: Movant could not submit the evidence without exposing her\n her Trade\n Trade\nSecrets to the Defendants, nor could she withhold it without losing her right to intervene.\n\n Appx125\n Appx124\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Case: 26-1721 29-1 91\n Document\n Document: Filed\n Page: 12604/17/26\n 04/17/26 Page 3 of\n of 55\n Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\nC. Active Spoliation and\n andInaccessibility\n InaccessibilitySince\n Sincethe\n theApril\n April13\n 13Order,\n Order,Movant\n Movant has\n has faced\n faced escalating\n escalating\ninterference:\n\n1.Digital Lockout (April16-17,\n Lockout (April 16-17,2026):\n 2026):Movant's\n Movant'sprimary\n primary evidence\n evidence repository\n repository (Evernote)\n (Evernote) became\ninaccessible. The dashboard failed to load entirely, preventing access to thousands of pages\n pages of\n of\ndocumentation.\n2.Historical\n Historical Spoliation (Oct21,\n Spoliation (Oct 21,2024):\n 2024):Movant\n Movantrecently\n recently discovered\n discovered they\n they suffered\n suffered aa catastrophic loss\nof data during a staged evaluation and four hour unlawful detention\n detention on\n on October\n October 21,\n 21, 2024,\n 2024, at\n at the\n the\nCamden Brickell apartment. During this incident,\n incident, she\n she was\n was questioned\n questioned about\n about her\n her technical\n technicalknowledge\n knowledge\n(specifically regarding Python), and critical backup data was subsequently lost. This event is\ndocumented in the related proceeding involving the same premises and parties, Carter v. Camden\nBrickell, Case No. 24-CA-XXXXX (Fla. Cir. Ct.), in which Movant was\n was an\n an affected\n affected party.\n party.\n3.Current Inaccessibility:While\n Current Inaccessibility: WhileMovant\n Movantretains\n retainsthe\n the original\n original copies\n copies of the evidence, they are currently\n currently\nheld in an offsite location. Due to Movant's limited mobility and the ongoing interference, she is\nphysically unable to retrieve these originals to submit them to the Court.\n EVIDENCE: DERIVATION OR OMITTED\nIV. NEWLY DISCOVERED EVIDENCE:\nINVENTORSHIP Despitethe\nINVENTORSHIP Despite thespoliation\n spoliationand\n andaccess\n access issues,\n issues, Movant\n Movant has\n has recovered\n recovered a significant portion\nof the evidence from legacy storage.\n storage. This evidence proves Movant is either\n either the\n the source\n source of\n of\nderivation or a Joint Inventor who was Omitted.\n\nA. Derivation or Joint\n JointInventorship\n InventorshipThe\n Theevidence\n evidenceproves\n provesthat\n thatthe\n the Defendants\n Defendants derived\n derived the\n the claimed\n claimed\ninventions from Movant's prior work. Alternatively, even if derivation is not found, Movant contributed\nto the conception of at least one essential feature of the asserted claims:\n\n\u2022Essential\n Essential Feature\n Feature 1:\n 1: The\n The specific\n specific optical\n optical architecture\n architecture(transparent\n (transparentmirrors,\n mirrors, LCD\n LCD mounts, DLP\noptics, the\n the \"lens\"\n \u201clens\u201dused\n used by\n by modern\n modernsmart\n smartglasses)\n glasses)described\n describedin\n inthe\n thecurrent\n current Exhibits\n Exhibits M-10\n M-10 through\n through M-22\nand previously provided Exhibit E, G, I, and K.\n Essential Feature\n\u2022Essential 2: The\n Feature 2: The \"Discovery\n \"DiscoveryMode\"\n Mode\"logic\n logicfor\n forreal-time\n real-timeobject\n objectdetection\n detection and\n and translation\n translation\noverlay, described in Exhibits M-11, M-17, M-88.\n\u2022 Essential Feature\n\u2022Essential Feature 3: The audio/visual\n audio/visual synchronization\n synchronizationfor\n forreal-time\n real-timetranslation,\n translation, described\n described\nin Exhibits M-51, M-93, M-95.\nUnder 35 U.S.C.\u00a7\u00a7 116,\n 116, contribution\n contribution to\n to the\n the conception of a single claim element establishes\n establishes joint\n joint\ninventorship. Movant did not merely suggest an idea; she reduced it to practice with detailed code,\nprototypes, and public disclosures years before the Defendants' filings.\n\n Appx126\n Appx125\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Case: 26-1721 29-1 91\n Document\n Document: Filed\n Page: 12704/17/26\n 04/17/26 Page 4 of\n of 55\n Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n Irreparable Harm\nB. Irreparable Harm and\n andDerivative\n Derivative Standing suffer irreparable\n Standing Movant will suffer irreparable harm\n harm if\n if denied\nintervention.\n\n1.Ownership\n1.Ownershipof\n ofthe\n theIP:\n IP:Solos\n Solosisissuing\n suingMeta\n Metaover\n overIP\n IPthat\n thatMovant\n Movant likely\n likely owns. If Solos's claims are\n are\nderived from Movant's work, Solos has no standing to enforce them.\n Derivative Nature\n2.Derivative Nature of Solos's IP:\n IP: Solos's\n Solos's own\n own IP\n IP is derivative\n derivativeof\n ofMovant's\n Movant's prior\n prior work.\n work. Allowing\nSolos to proceed without Movant risks the Court validating a patent that is invalid due to the omission\nof the true inventor (Movant).\n Permanent Loss\n3.Permanent Loss of\n of Rights:\n Rights:IfIfthe\n theCourt\n Courtrules\n rulesin\n infavor\n favor of\n of Solos\n Solos or\n or Meta\n Meta without\n without Movant's\n participation,Movant\nparticipation, Movantwill\n willbe\n be permanently\n permanently barred\n barred from\n from asserting\n asserting her rights to her own invention, as the\npatent will be deemed valid (or invalid) without her input. This constitutes irreparable harm.\nV. MATERIALITY\n MATERIALITY The\n TheCourt\n Courtdenied\n denied intervention\n intervention because Movant failed\n failed to\n to show\n show aaprotectable\n protectable\ninterest. The newly discovered evidence directly cures this deficiency by establishing\ninterest. establishing Movant\n Movant as\n as either\n either\nthe source of derivation or a Joint Inventor who was Omitted. This status grants her a statutory right to\nintervene and seek correction of the patent under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 256.\n\n EQUITABLECONSIDERATIONS\nVI. EQUITABLE CONSIDERATIONSDenying\n Denyingreconsideration\n reconsiderationwould\n would uphold\n uphold aa judgment based on\na judicial error(the\n judicial error (thebelief\n beliefthat\n thatno\n noevidence\n evidenceexisted\n existedor\n orthat\n thataa deadline\n deadline was\n was missed)\n missed) and\n and reward the\nexternal interference that suppressed that evidence. The delay was not due to a lack of diligence, but to\na temporary incapacitation caused by the very interference Movant seeks to address, compounded by\nthe Court's failure to rule on protective motions.\n\nVII.CONCLUSION\nVI. CONCLUSIONFor\n Forthe\n theforegoing\n foregoingreasons,\n reasons,Movant\n Movantrespectfully\n respectfullyrequests\n requests that\n that the\n the Court:\n Court:\n\n1.Grant\n Grant the Motion for Reconsideration\n Reconsideration under\n under Rule\n Rule 59(e) and/or Relief\n 59e) and/or Relief under\n under Rule\n Rule 60(b)(2);\n 60(b)(2);\n2.Vacate\n Vacate the Order denying intervention (ECF No. 58) due to the judicial error of relying on an\nincomplete record and failing to rule on protective motions;\n3.Allow Movant to file the newly discovered evidence (Exhibits\n (Exhibits M-1 through\n through M-104)\n M-104) under\n under an\n an In\nCamera Protective\nCamera ProtectiveOrder\n Ordertotoprevent\n preventfurther\n furtherspoliation;\n spoliation;\n4.Recognize\n RecognizeMovant's\n Movant'sstatus\n statusasaseither\n eitherthe\n thesource\n sourceof\n ofderivation\n derivation or\n or a Joint Inventor\n Inventorunder\n under35\n 35 U.S.C.\n U.S.C.\n\u00a7\u00a7 116 and\n and 256;\n 256;\n.Acknowledge that\n5.Acknowledge thatdenial\n denialof\n of intervention\n intervention causes irreparable\n irreparable harm\n harmby\n byallowing\n allowingSolos\n Solosto\n to litigate\n litigate over\nIP that Movant owns or co-owns, and by risking the validation of a patent derived from Movant's work;\n6.Order thecorrection\n6.Order the correctionof\n ofinventorship\n inventorship to\n to include\n include Movant\n Movant as\n as aa named\n named inventor\n inventor on\n on the\n the relevant\n relevant patents;\nand\n\n Appx127\n Appx126\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Case: 26-1721 29-1 91\n Document\n Document: Filed\n Page: 12804/17/26\n 04/17/26 Page 5 of 5\n Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n7.Grant such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.\n Grant such proper.\n\n\n\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n/s/ Daitona Carter\nDaitona Carter Pro Se Proposed Intervenor\nlegal@daitonacarter.com\n legal@daitonacarter.com\nDated: April 17, 2026\n\n\n\n\n Appx128\n Appx127\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 29-1 Page: 129 Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n\n\n ECF No. 91-1 \u2013 Attachment 1\nDeclaration Of Daitona Carter In Support Of Motion For Reconsideration\n Pursuant To Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(B)\n\n\n\n\n Appx129\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Case: 26-1721 Document\n 29-1 91-1\n Document\n Document: Page:Filed\n 91-1 130 04/17/26 Page 1 of 33\n Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n DISTRICT\n DISTRICT OF\n OF MASSACHUSETTS\n MASSACHUSETTS\n\n\nSOLOS TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,\n Plaintiff,\n\n v.\n V. Case No. 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Judge Allison D. Burroughs\nMETA PLATFORMS, INC., et al.,\n Defendants.\n Defendants.\n\n\nIn re:\n re: DAITONA\n DAITONA CARTER\n Proposed Intervenor.\n Proposed Intervenor.\n\n\n\n DECLARATION OF DAITONA CARTER\n CARTER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR\n RECONSIDERATION\n RECONSIDERATION PURSUANT\n PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P.\n P. 60(b)\n\n\nI, Daitona Carter, declare as follows:\n\n1.I am\n1.I am the\n the Movant\n Movant in\n in this\n this matter.\n matter. II submit this declaration\n submit this declaration in\n in support\n supportof\n ofmy\n myMotion\n Motionfor\n forReconsideration\n Reconsideration\n\nand related requests for\n for relief\n relief concerning\n concerning the\n the denial\n denialof\n ofintervention.\n intervention.\n\n2.The\n The statements\n statements in\n in this\n this declaration\n declaration are\n are based\n basedon my personal knowledge, review of records in my\n my\n\npossession, and\npossession, and familiarity with the development of the materials referenced\n referenced herein.\n herein.\n\n3.The\n Theexhibits\n exhibits referenced\n referenced in\n in the\n the Master\n Master Evidence\n Evidence Index\n Index (Exhibit M-71) consist of materials created,\n\ncollected, or maintained by me in connection with my technical and research\n research activities\n activities spanning\n spanning\n\napproximately 2009 through 2019.\napproximately 2019.\n\n4.Procedural\n Procedural Error\n Error and\n and Mootness:\n Mootness: On\n On April\n April 13,\n 13, 2026,\n 2026, the Court granted me Leave to File evidence\n\nbut did not set a specific deadline. I was actively preparing to submit this evidence when I was blocked\n\nby external\n external interference.\n interference.Furthermore,\n Furthermore,my\n mypending\n pendingmotions\n motionsforforInIn Camera\n Camera Protective\n Protective Orders\n Orders\u2014\n\nnecessary to submit\n submit evidence\n evidence containing\n containingTrade\n TradeSecrets\n Secretsand\n andIPIPlocations\n locationswithout\n withoutpublic\n publicexposure\u2014were\n exposure\n\n Appx130\n Appx129\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Case: 26-1721 Document\n 29-1 91-1\n Document\n Document: Page:Filed\n 91-1 131 04/17/26 Page 2 of 33\n Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\nnever ruled upon. The denial of intervention rendered these motions moot, leaving me with no legal\n\nmechanism to submit the evidence safely. This procedural failure directly contributed to the inability to\nmechanism\n\npresent\npresent the evidence.\n evidence.\n\n5.Active Spoliation\n5.Active Spoliation and Inaccessibility:\n\n\u2022Current Event: On\n \u2022Current Event: OnApril\n April 16-17,\n 16-17, 2026,\n 2026, my\n my primary\n primary evidence\n evidence repository\n repository (Evernote) became\n\ninaccessible. The dashboard failed to load, preventing access to the files.\n\n\u2022Historical Event:I Isuffered\n\u2022Historical Event: sufferedaacatastrophic\n catastrophicloss\n lossof\n ofdata\n dataduring\n during aa staged\n staged evaluation\n evaluation and unlawful\n\ndetention for\ndetention for reporting\n reporting this exact crime and others on October 21, 2024, at the Camden Brickell\n Brickell\n\napartment. During this incident, I was questioned about my technical knowledge (specifically\n\nregarding Python), and critical\n Python), and critical backup\n backup data\n data was\n was subsequently\n subsequently lost. This event is documented in\n\nthe related proceeding involving the same premises and parties, Carter v. Camden Brickell, Case No.\n\n24-CA-XXXXX (Fla. Cir. Ct.), in which I was an affected party.\n\n\u2022Current Status:While\n \u2022Current Status: WhileIIretain\n retainthe\n theoriginal\n original copies\n copies of\n of the\n the evidence,\n evidence, they\n they are\n are currently\n currently held in an offsite\n\nlocation. Due to my limited mobility and the ongoing interference, I am physically unable to retrieve\n\n these originals\nthese originals to\n to submit\n submit them to the Court at this time.\n\n Basisfor\n6.Basis forIntervention\n Intervention and Irreparable\n IrreparableHarm:\n Harm:The\n Therecovered\n recoveredevidence\n evidencedemonstrates\n demonstrates that I\n\nam either the source of the derivation of the Defendants' inventions or an omitted co-inventor who\n\ncontributed to the conception of essential features (specifically the optical architecture and real-time\n\ntranslation logic). Under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 256, my omission from the patent claims renders the patents\n\ninvalid unless corrected, giving me a direct protectable interest in this case.\n\n\u2022Irreparable\n\u2022IrreparableHarm:\n Harm:IfIIfam notnot\n I am allowed\n allowedtotointervene,\n intervene,I Iwill\n willsuffer\n sufferirreparable\n irreparable harm. suing\n harm. Solos is suing\n\nMeta over IP that I likely own. Furthermore, Solos's IP is derivative of my work. If the Court allows\n\nSolos to proceed without me, it risks validating a patent that is invalid because it omits the true\nSolos true\n\ninventor. This would permanently strip me of my rights and allow Solos\ninventor. Solos to\n to profit\n profit from\n from stolen\n stolen\n\ntechnology.\n Appx131\n Appx130\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Case: 26-1721 Document\n 29-1 91-1\n Document\n Document: Page:Filed\n 91-1 132 04/17/26 Page 3 of 33\n Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n7.I have\n7.1 have organized\n organizedthe\n thematerials\n materialsinto\n intoEvidence\n EvidenceTable\n Table to\n to provide\n provide aa chronological\n chronologicalindex,\n index,and\n andTimeline\n Timeline\n\nComparison\nComparisonChart\n Chartotoprovide\n provideaatechnical\n technical mapping\n mapping between my documented work and\n and the\n the features\n features\n\ndescribed in the asserted systems.\n\n8.I respectfully\n8.1 respectfully submit\n submit that\n that this\n this evidence\n evidence was\n was not\n not fully accessible at\n fully accessible at the\n the time\n time of\n of my\n my earlier\n earlier submissions\n submissions\n\nand that its inclusion is necessary for the Court's complete\n complete understanding\n understanding of\n of the\n the record\n record and\n and to\n to correct\n correct\n\nthe judicial error.\n\n9.I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is\n\ntrue and correct.\n\nExecuted on: April 17, 2026\n\n\n\n\nSignature: /s/\n Is/ Daitona Carter\n\nDaitona Carter Pro Se Proposed Intervenor\nlegal@daitonacarter.com\n legal@daitonacarter.com\n\n\n\n\n Appx132\n Appx131\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 29-1 Page: 133 Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n\n\n ECF No. 91-2 \u2013 Attachment 2\nDeclaration Of Daitona Carter In Support Of Motion For Reconsideration\n Joint Inventorship, Derivation, And Irreparable Harm\n\n\n\n\n Appx 84\n Appx133\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Case: 26-1721 Document\n 29-1 91-2\n Document\n Document: Page:Filed\n 91-2 134 04/17/26 Page 1 of 44\n Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n UNITED STATES\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n COURT\n DISTRICT\n DISTRICT OF\n OF MASSACHUSETTS\n MASSACHUSETTS\n\n\n SOLOS TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,\n Plaintiff,\n\n v.\n V. Case No. 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Judge Allison D. Burroughs\n META PLATFORMS, INC., et al.,\n Defendants.\n Defendants.\n\n\n In re: DAITONA CARTER\n Proposed Intervenor:\n Proposed Intervenor.\n\n DECLARATION OF DAITONA CARTER\n CARTER IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR\n RECONSIDERATION JOINT\n JOINT INVENTORSHIP,\n INVENTORSHIP, DERIVATION,\n DERIVATION, AND\n AND IRREPARABLE HARM\n\n I,\n I. Daitona Carter, declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the\n\n following is true and correct:\n\n 1.I\n 1.I am\n am the\n the movant\n movant in this action and the originator of the smart wearable technology at issue.\n\n 2.Between\n Between2009\n 2009and\n and 2019,\n 2019, II conceived,\n conceived, documented,\n documented, and\n and publicly\n publicly disclosed core features of smart\n\n wearable AR/VR glasses and AI language-teaching devices. These include real-time\n\n bidirectional/object-awaretranslation,\nbidirectional/object-aware translation, lens-based\n lens-based object\n object detection with name/translation\n name/translation overlay,\n overlay,\n\nvoice/speech interfaces,\nvoice/speech interfaces, store/shopping assistance scenarios, and physical optical prototyping.\n\n Claimof\n 3.Claim ofDerivation\n Derivationor\n or Joint\n Joint Inventorship:\n Inventorship: am\n I ameither\n eitherthe\n thesource\n sourceofofthe\n thederivation\n derivation of\n of the\n\n Defendants' inventions or a Joint Inventor who contributed to the conception of at least one essential\n\n feature:\n\n \u2022OpticalArchitecture:\n \u2022Optical Architecture: IIconceived\n conceived the\n the specific\n specific arrangement\n arrangement of\n of transparent\n transparent mirrors, LCD mounts, and\n\n DLP optics (see Exhibits M-10 through M-22).\n\n Mode Logic:\n \u2022Discovery Mode Logic:IIconceived\n conceivedthe\n the specific\n specific algorithm\n algorithm for\n for object\n object detection\n detection and translation overlay\n\n (see Exhibits M-11, M-17, M-88).\n\n Appx134\n Appx133\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Case: 26-1721 Document\n 29-1 91-2\n Document\n Document: Page:Filed\n 91-2 135 04/17/26 Page 2 of\n Filed: 06/21/2026 of 44\n\n\n \u2022Audio/Visual Sync: I conceived the method for synchronizing audio and visual data for real-time\n\u2022Audio/Visual\n\ntranslation (see Exhibits M-51, M-93, M-95).\n\nUnder 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 116, contribution to the conception of a single claim element establishes joint\n\ninventorship. I did not merely suggest an idea; I reduced it to practice with detailed code, prototypes,\n\nand public disclosures years before the Defendants' filings.\n\n4.Omitted\n4.Omitted Inventor\n InventorStatus:\n Status:Because\n BecauseI Iam\n amaajoint\n jointinventor\n inventor who\n who was\n was not named in the\n the patent\n patent\n\napplications, I am an Omitted Inventor under\n under 35\n 35 U.S.\n U.S.C.\n C. \u00a7\u00a7 256.\n 256. The law mandates that such an error be\n\ncorrected. Until corrected, the patents are invalid. This gives me a direct, protectable interest in the\ncorrected. the\n\nlitigation, as Ihave\n haveaastatutory\n statutoryright\n rightto\n toseek\n seek correction\n correction of the inventorship.\n inventorship.\n\n5.Irreparable Harm\n5.Irreparable Harm ifif Denied\n Denied Intervention:\n\n \u2022Solos'sStanding:\n\u2022Solos's Standing: Solos is suing Meta over IP that I likely own. If Solos's\n Solos's claims\n claims are\n are derived from my\n derived from\n\nwork, Solos has no standing to sue.\n\n\u2022Derivative\n\u2022DerivativeNature\n NatureofofSolos's\n Solos'sIP:\n IP:Solos's\n Solos'sown\n ownIPIPisisderivative\n derivativeof\n ofmy\n myprior\n prior work.\n work. Allowing\n Allowing Solos to\n\nproceed without me\n me risks\n risks the\n the Court\n Courtvalidating\n validatingapatent\n patentthat\n thatisisinvalid\n invaliddue\n dueto\n to the\n the omission\n omission of\n of the true\n\ninventor.\n\n\u2022Permanent\n\u2022PermanentLoss:\n Loss:IfIfthe\n theCourt\n Courtrules\n rulesininfavor\n favorof\n ofSolos\n Solosor\n or Meta\n Meta without\n without my participation, I will\n will be\n be\n\npermanently barred from asserting my rights to my own invention. This constitutes irreparable harm.\n\n6.Newly Discovered Evidence:\n Evidence:The\n Thefollowing\n following exhibits,\n exhibits, recovered\n recovered after\n after the\n the April\n April 16, 2026 access\n\ndisruption, demonstrate this derivation, joint inventorship, and omitted status:\n\n \u2022AudioFoundation\n\u2022Audio (2009): Exhibit\n Foundation (2009): Exhibit M-51\n M-51 (MirrorMixing\n (MirrorMixing audio\n audio compressor).\n\n \u2022Context-Aware Systems (2013): Exhibit\n\u2022Context-Aware Exhibit M-1\n M-1 (ASR-driven\n (ASR-driven ad-insertion).\n\n\u2022AI LanguageConception\n\u2022AI Language Conception(2016):\n (2016):Exhibits\n ExhibitsM-76,\n M-76,M-77,\n M-77,M-75\n M-75(Public\n (Public posts\n posts and\n and translation\n translation demos).\n\n \u2022 Reductionto\n\u2022Reduction toPractice\n Practice (2017): Exhibits M-93, M-92, M-95, M-96, M-88, M-89, M-90, M-102, M-32,\n\nM-83 (Source code, prototype photos, assembly logs).\n\n \u2022Prior \"Aria\"\n\u2022Prior \"Aria\" Branding\n Branding(2019):\n (2019):Exhibits\n ExhibitsM-52,\n M-52,M-53,\n M-53,M-54\n M-54 (Pitch\n (Pitch deck).\n deck).\n Appx135\n Appx134\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Case: 26-1721 Document\n 29-1 91-2\n Document\n Document: Page:Filed\n 91-2 136 04/17/26 Page 3 of 44\n Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n Feature Comparison\n7.Feature Comparison (Derivation/Inventorship):\n (Derivation/Inventorship):The\n Thetable\n tablebelow\n belowcompares\n comparesthe\n the specific\n specific features I\n\ndocumented in my recovered evidence against the features now appearing in Solos products and\ndocumented\n\nMeta/Project Aria.\nMeta/Project Aria. The\n The similarity in specific implementation details confirms my status as a Joint\n Joint\n\nInventor\n Inventor or\n or the\n the source of derivation.\n\n Derivation/\n Movant's Prior Solos Smart\n Solos Smart Meta/Project\nFeature Inventorship\n Conception\n Conception (2009-2019)\n (2009\u20132019) Glasses Aria\n Indicator\n Yes \u2013- Lens/camera\n Lens/camera\nReal-time object/word detection + Yes \u2013- Speech\n Speech Identical\n Identical\n Yes \u2013- Live\nBidirectional/Obj translation (store/shopping\nBidirectional/Obi translation (store/shopping recognition + \"Discovery\n \"Discovery Mode\"\n Mode\"\n translation +\nect-Aware scenarios). See Exhibits object logic and use-case\n \"Listen mode\".\n \"Listen mode\".\nTranslation M-09, M-11\n M-02, M-08, M-09, M-11 perception. scenarios.\n (Discovery Mode).\n Mode).\n Yes \u2013- \"Discovery mode\"\n mode\" Yes\n Yes \u2013\nLens-Based Yes \u2013- Camera Specific overlay\n via lens + OpenCV-style RGB/SLAM\nObject Detection integration for logic matches my\n detection and overlay. See cameras for\n& Overlay translation. 2017 code.\n Exhibit M-11. object tracking.\n Yes \u2013 Optional wearable\n Optional wearable\n earpiece,\n earpiece, bi-directional and Specific \"AI\nVoice/Speech Yes \u2013- Open-ear\n Yes Open-ear YesYes-\u2013Spatial\n Spatial\n cardioid microphones teaching\" pedagogy\nInterface & AI speakers\n speakers ++ voice microphones +\n voice microphones\n TTS/LP for\n TTS/NLP fordaily\n dailydialogue\n dialogue matches my 2016\nTeaching commands. ASR.\n and teaching. See Exhibits\n Exhibits docs.\n M-08, M-15.\n M-08, M-15.\n Yes\n Yes -\u2013 Transparent mirrors,\n Transparent mirrors,\n Specific optical\nOptical/See- LCD mounts, curved Yes \u2013- See-\n See-\n Yes \u2013- Advanced\n Advanced stack\n stack design\nThrough frames, DLP optics, through or\n sensors forAR\n sensors for AR (M-81) matches\n (M-81) matches\nHardware\nHardware physical lens/glass camera-based AR\n Defendants'\n Defendants'\n perception.\nPrototyping work. See Exhibits M-10\n M-10 elements.\n patents.\n through M-22.\n M-22.\n Yes \u2013- \"Aria\" name andand\n Defendants adopted\nBranding\n pitch deck (2019). See\n N/A\n Yes \u2013- \"Project\n \"Project\n Aria\" (2020).\n my specific project\n Exhibits M-52, M-53,\n M-53,\n name.\n M-54.\n M-54.\n8.The\n Theevidence\n evidencerecovered\n recovered (specifically\n (specifically Exhibits\n Exhibits M-51,\n M-51, M-1, M-3, M-76, M-93, M-92, M-95, M-96,\n\nM-88, M-89, M-90, M-102, M-32, M-83, M-52, M-53, M-54) demonstrates that Movant's work on\n\nthese specific features predates the defendants' public disclosures and product launches, and that I\n\nam either the source of derivation or a Joint\n Joint Inventor\n Inventorwho\n who was\n was Omitted\n Omitted from\n from the patent\n patent\n\napplications.\n\n\n\n Appx136\n Appx135\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Case: 26-1721 Document\n 29-1 91-2\n Document\n Document: Page:Filed\n 91-2 137 04/17/26 Page 4 of\n Filed: 06/21/2026 of 44\n\n\n9.This\n This evidence\n evidence was\n was not\n not presented\n presented in\n in the\n the initial\n initial motion\n motion solely\n solely because it was rendered inaccessible by\n\nthe external interference, the procedural deadlock regarding\n regarding protective\n protective orders,\n orders, and\n and the\n the physical\n physical\n\n inaccessibility of\ninaccessibility of the\n the original\n original offsite copies.\n\nI declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.\n\nExecuted on: April 17, 2026\n\nSignature: /s/ Daitona Carter\nDaitona Carter, Proposed Intervenor\nlegal@daitonacarter.com\n\n\n\n\n Appx137\n Appx136\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 29-1 Page: 138 Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n\nECF No. 91-3 \u2013 Attachment 3: Exhibit Granted Leave to File April 13 \u2014\n Supplemental Evidence AND (Proposed) ORDER\n\n\n\n\n Appx138\n\f 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n CaseCase:\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 26-1721 Document\n Document: 29-1 91-3\n Page:Filed\n 91-3 139 04/17/26\n 04/17/26 Page 1 of 14\n Filed: 06/21/2026 14\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT\n UNITED DISTRICT COURT\n COURT\n DISTRICT\n DISTRICT OF\n OF MASSACHUSETTS\n MASSACHUSETTS\n\n\n SOLOS TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,\n Plaintiff,\n\n v.\n V. Case\n Case No. 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Judge Allison D. Burroughs\n META PLATFORMS, INC., et al.,\n Defendants.\n Defendants.\n\n\nIn re:\n re: DAITONA CARTER\n DAITONA CARTER\n Proposed Intervenor.\n Proposed Intervenor.\n\n Leave to file granted on\n on April\n April 13,\n 13,2026\n 2026\n SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE AND (PROPOSED) ORDER\n\n\n Holding a Master\u2019s Degree in Interdisciplinary Studies (Psychology and Management\n Master's Degree\n\nInformation Systems) and a Graduate Certificate in Digital Forensics, Proposed Intervenor\n\nDaitona Carter (\u201cMovant\u201d)\n (\"Movant\") respectfully moves this Court for leave to file supplemental evidence\n\n(Exhibits G, H, and L) and a Proposed Order regarding forensic integrity, commercial\n\nmisappropriation, and digital interference.\nmisappropriation, interference.\n\n I. Statement\n StatementOf\n OfNecessity Forensic Qualifications\n Necessity & Forensic Qualifications\n\n The '2009 BlueRadios Theory' is inextricably linked to Movant's 2019 priority evidence.\n\nMovant asserts that the Defendants, upon\n upon accessing\n accessing the\n the Proprietary\n ProprietaryAudio\n Audio Research\n Research notes on her\n\nstolen hardware\n hardware (March\n (March23,\n 23,2026),\n 2026),performed\n performeda areactive\n reactivesearch\n searchforfor legacy\n legacy anchors specifically\n anchors\u2014specifically\n\nthe 2009 BlueRadios\n BlueRadios contract\u2014to\n contract to obscure\n obscurethe\n thefact\n factthat\n thatthe\n theAria\n Ariatechnology\n technology originated\n originated with\n\nMovant's\nMovant\u2019s2019\n 2019 EWC\n EWC submission.\n submission. The\n The Court\n Court must review the 2019 EWC Anchor to see that\n that the\n the\n\n\n\n\n Appx139\n Appx138\n\f 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n CaseCase:\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 26-1721 Document\n Document: 29-1 91-3\n Page:Filed\n 91-3 140 04/17/26\n 04/17/26 Page of 14\n Filed: 06/21/2026 14\n\n\n\n technology Meta\ntechnology Meta currently\n currently sells\n sells as 'Project Aria' was commercially documented by Movant a\n\nyear\nyear before Meta's\n Meta\u2019s own launch.\n\n Movant is filing this Motion for Leave\n Movant Leave following\n following the\n the Plaintiff's\n Plaintiff'sApril\n April10,\n 10,2026\n 2026Opposition\n Opposition\n\n(Doc. 82) to ensure the Court has the Forensic Priority Evidence (Exhibits G, H, and L)\n\nnecessary to address the standing defects and digital\n digital interference\n interference claims\n claims before\n before the\n the Movant's\n Movant's\n\n formal Reply\nformal Reply iS\n is submitted.\n submitted.\n\n II. Notice Attacks\n Notice Of MITM AttacksAnd\n AndDigital\n Digital Interference\n Interference\n\n Movant alerts the Court to active\n active Man-In-The-Middle\n Man-In-The-Middle (MITM)\n (MITM) attacks\n attacks and malware that\n\nhave inverted\nhave inverted exhibit sequences and removed Court headers. These are deliberate manipulations,\n manipulations,\n\nnot user errors. These attacks, combined with ongoing physical harassment and collusion\n\nbetween\nbetween the\n the parties, are designed to create a false narrative of incompetence to \"box out\"\n\nMovant\u2019s superior 2019 priority claims.\nMovant's\n\n II.\n III.Request\n RequestFor\n ForForensic\n Forensic Preservation\n Preservation\n\n Given the documented tampering, Movant requests the preservation of all internal\n\nmetadata and\nmetadata and communication\n communication logs related to the Defendants'\n Defendants' April\n April 2026\n 2026 filings.\n filings.Movant\u2019s\n Movant's\n\nforensic qualifications enable her to assist the Court in identifying these digital traces to ensure\n\nthe accuracy of the judicial record.\n\n IV. Interference\n InterferenceWith\n WithFederal\n FederalReporting\n Reporting (Ic3)\n (Ic3)\n\n Movant attempted to report the March 21\u201323\n Movant 21-23 hardware theft and subsequent digital\n\ninterference to the FBI\u2019s\n FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3). However, upon attempting to\n\nsubmit the report,\n report, Movant encountered aa technical\n technical block\u2014receiving\n block--receiving a message that the\n the \"request\n \"request\n\ncannot be made\"\u2014which prevented the\n _which prevented the establishment\n establishment of a formal federal record.\n\n\n\n Appx140\n Appx139\n\f 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n CaseCase:\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 26-1721 Document\n Document: 29-1 91-3\n Page:Filed\n 91-3 141 04/17/26\n 04/17/26 Page 3 of 14\n Filed: 06/21/2026 14\n\n\n\n As an expert\n As expert in\n in Digital Forensics, Movant\n Digital Forensics, Movant identifies\n es this as\n as aa\"Digital\n \"Digital Barrier\" and\n and\n\n potential evidence of Electronic Filing Tampering. This interference shares characteristics with\n\n documented threat actor activity aimed at spoofing IC3 protocols to misdirect victims. Movant\n\n requests the\n requests the Court\n Court recognize this failed reporting attempt as further evidence\n evidence of\n of the\n the Information\n Information\n\n Laundering\n Laundering scheme\n scheme used\n used to manufacture the \"2009 BlueRadios\" defense.\n\n\n V. Documented\n Documented History\n History Of\n Of Federal\n Federal Reporting\n Reporting (2023-Present)\n (2023\u2013Present)\n\n Movant has been actively reporting findings of digital interference, IP theft, and\n Movant\n\n unauthorized access to the FBI\u2019s\n FBI's IC3 and other state and federal agencies since 2021. These prior\n\n reports establish a consistent, multi-year record of the harassment and misappropriation that\n\n culminated in the March 21\u201323, 2026, hardware capture.\n 21-23, 2026,\n\n The recent failure\n failure of\n of the\n the IC3\n IC3submission\n submissionportal\n portalon\n onMarch\n March25\u2014returning\n 25 returning an error message\n\n 'request cannot\n of 'request cannot be\n be made'\u2014stands\n made' stands inindirect\n directcontrast\n contrasttotoMovant's\n Movant\u2019ssuccessful\n successfulreporting\n reporting history.\n history.\n\n As a Digital Forensics professional, Movant identifies this\n this anomaly\n anomaly as\n as aa targeted\n targeted escalation\n escalation of\n of\n\n the 'Digital Barrier' designed to prevent the establishment of a forensic record regarding the\n\n Defendants' 2009\n Defendants' 2009BlueRadios\n BlueRadiospivot.\"\n pivot.\"\n\n\n VI. Regulatory\n Regulatory Corroboration\n CorroborationAnd\n And Market Integrity\n\n Plaintiff characterizes Movant\u2019s\n Movant's forensic leads as \"immaterial\" (p. 1); however, these\n\n leads directly\n directly align\n align with\n with active\n activefederal\n federaloversight.\n oversight.On\n OnMarch\n March20,\n 20,2026\u2014just 24 hours\n 2026 just 24 hours prior\n prior to the\n\n documented theft of Movant's hardware\u2014FINRA\n hardware- -FINRA issued a $300,000 fine against Alpaca\n\n Securities for systemic failures in maintaining Electronic Communication logs (FINRA Case\n\n #2020068800101).\n\n\n\n\n Appx141\n Appx140\nfi\n\f 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n CaseCase:\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 26-1721 Document\n Document: 29-1 91-3\n Page:Filed\n 91-3 142 04/17/26\n 04/17/26 Page 4 of 14\n Filed: 06/21/2026 14\n\n\n\n Movant\u2019s proprietary research connects the misappropriated \"Aria\" technology to these\n Movant's\n\nregulatory failures, as well as to systemic market irregularities involving Citadel, GameStop\n\n(GME), and the MMTLP U3 halt. The Plaintiff's awareness of these specific leads confirms\n\nunauthorized access to Movant's digital work product. To deny intervention now would allow the\n\nparties to finalize a \"Standing Trap\" based on theories harvested from these documented forensic\n\nleads, constituting\nleads, constituting a permanent deprivation of Movant's property rights.\n\n\n VI. Forensic\n VII. Forensic Evidence\n Evidence Of Data Laundering\n Laundering And Corporate\n Corporate Collusion\n Collusion\n\n Movant, a forensics professional, alerts the Court to a documented web of strategic\n\nfinancing that connects the misappropriation of her Proprietary Audio Research to the primary\n\nparties. Apollo Global Management and BNP Paribas (Opera Tech Ventures) have established a\n\n$5 billion strategic collaboration for capital markets and credit origination.\n\n This partnership is\n is currently\n currently being\n beingutilized\n utilizedtotofund\n fundMeta\n MetaaPlatforms\n Platforms via\n via aa $35\n $35 billion data\n\ncenter package and to facilitate Bending Spoons' $2.8 billion acquisition of AOL. Movant's R&D\n\ndata-including\ndata\u2014including2019\n 2019Aria\n Ariapriority\n priority evidence\n evidence on Evernote\n Evernote and\n andMeetup\u2014was\n Meetup was transferred\n transferred to a\n\nforeign jurisdiction (Italy) using debt financing from the same banks (BNP Paribas/Apollo) that\n\nare currently litigating this case. The Yahoo\n Yahoo account\n account wipe\n wipe and\n and the\n the Plaintiff's\n Plaintiffs use of Alpaca\n\nSecurities data are forensic 'cleaning' events designed to protect this multi-billion dollar\n\ninvestment ahead of any\n any legal\n legal action\n action taken\n taken by\n by the\n the Movant.\n\n\n Plaintiff\u2019s Opposition\n Plaintiff's Opposition (Doc.\n (Doc. 82)\n 82) avoids\n avoids the technical reality of the Apollo Global/Bending\n\nSpoons ecosystem. Movant, a forensics professional, alerts the Court that her proprietary R&D\n\ndata and legal communications were methodically 'laundered' through the following documented\n\ncorporate actions:\ncorporate actions:\n\n\n\n Appx142\n Appx141\n\f 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n CaseCase:\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 26-1721 Document\n Document: 29-1 91-3\n Page:Filed\n 91-3 143 04/17/26\n 04/17/26 Page 5 of 14\n Filed: 06/21/2026 14\n\n\n\n Jurisdictional\n JurisdictionalData\n DataShift:\n Shift:Movant's\n Movant\u2019sEvernote\n Evernotelab\n labnotes\n notesand\n and Meetup\n Meetup R&D history\n\n(including 3D printing and patent workshop RSVPs) were transferred to Italy\n Italy following\n following their\n their\n\nacquisition by Bending Spoons (2023-2024). These records contain\nacquisition contain evidence\n evidence of\n of the\n the physical\n physical\n\nharassment by 'Randy' aimed at preventing Movant\u2019s\n Movant's reduction to practice.\n\n\n The Yahoo/Apollo\n Yahoo/Apollo Wipe:\n Wipe:Movant's\n Movant\u2019sYahoo\n Yahooaccount,\n account, owned\n owned by\n by Apollo\n Apollo Global\n\nManagement, was forensicly 'wiped' despite active logins. This destroyed critical evidence of\n\nUSC Gould School of Law communications regarding the 'Aria' smart glasses project and its\n\nconnection to Korea.\n\n\n Financial Motivefor\n Financial Motive forCollusion:\n Collusion:At\n Atthe\n thetime\n timeofofthese\n thesedata\n datawipes\n wipes and\n and transfers,\n transfers, Apollo\n\nGlobal Management was negotiating a $35 billion financing package with Meta Platforms. This\n\ncreates\ncreates aa direct\n direct financial incentive for Apollo-backed\n Apollo-backed entities\n entities(Yahoo/AOL)\n (Yahoo/AOL)totosuppress\n suppressMovant\u2019s\n Movant's\n\n2019 priority evidence to protect Meta\u2019s\n Meta's 'Project Aria' interests.\n\n\n AOL/Meetup Integration:\n AOL/Meetup Integration:The\n Therecent\n recentacquisition\n acquisitionof\n ofAOL\n AOLand\n and Meetup\n Meetup by\n by Bending\n\nSpoons further consolidates Movant\u2019s\n Movant's pre-2012 audio communications and client data into a\n\nsingle, foreign-held repository, effectively 'boxing in' the forensic record ahead of the April 22nd\n\ndeadline.\n\n\n Public records (Exhibit L) confirm a $5 billion collaboration between Apollo and BNP\n\nParibas and a $35 billion financing package for Meta led by Apollo. These links prove that the\n\nentities controlling Movant's R&D data (Bending Spoons/AOL) and the parties in this case are\n\nfinancially interdependent. This 'Identity of Interest' confirms that Movant's 2019 Aria\n\ntechnology is being suppressed to protect these multi-billion dollar investments ahead of the\n\nApril 22nd deadline.\n\n\n Appx143\n Appx142\n\f 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n CaseCase:\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 26-1721 Document\n Document: 29-1 91-3\n Page:Filed\n 91-3 144 04/17/26\n 04/17/26 Page 6 of 14\n Filed: 06/21/2026 14\n\n\n\n Movant submits Exhibit L to demonstrate the Identity\n Movant Identity of\n of Interest\n Interest between\n betweenthe\n thePlaintiff\n Plaintiff\n\nand Defendants. Forensic analysis reveals that BNP Paribas (via Opera Tech Ventures) and\n\nApollo Global Management are the primary financiers for both the platforms holding Movant\u2019s\n Movant's\n\nstolen R&D (Bending Spoons/AOL) and the Defendants' $35 billion infrastructure expansion.\n\nThe strategic partnership between BNP and Apollo proves that the parties are not true\n\nadversaries, but are instead colluding to 'launder' Movant's 2019 priority evidence to protect their\n\nshared\nshared multi-billion dollar investments.\n investments.\n\n\n VIII. Rebuttal\n RebuttalTo\n ToPlaintiff's\n Plaintiff\u2019sClaim\n Claim Of\n Of Immateriality\n\n Plaintiff argues that these financial transactions are unrelated to a patent infringement\n\naction. However, in patent law, standing and ownership are the threshold issues. Movant, a\n\nDigital Forensics professional, asserts that the Apollo-BNP $5 billion collaboration and the $35\n\nbillion Meta financing constitute a 'Strategic Interest Merger.'\n\n If the Defendants and Plaintiff are funded by the same strategic partners\n\n(Apollo/BNP/Citadel), their interests are aligned in suppressing a superior, third-party 2019\n(Apollo/BNP/Citadel),\n\npriority claim. The Yahoo wipe and Bending Spoons/AOL/Evernote data transfer are not\n\n'unrelated matters'; they are the physical destruction and jurisdictional\n jurisdictional removal\n removal of\n of the\n the Chain\n Chain of\n of\n\nTitle evidence.\nTitle evidence. To ignore these links is to allow the parties to use the Court to finalize a\n\n'fraudulent\n 'fraudulent standing'\n standing' defense\n defense based\n based on work product stolen from Movant on March 23, 2026.\n\n\n Plaintiff argues these are unrelated matters, but the BNP/Apollo\n BNP/Apollo $5\n $5 billion\n billion collaboration\n collaboration\n\nproves that the entities funding Solos\u2019s\n Solos's business interests are the same ones financing Meta\u2019s\n Meta's $35\n\nbillion smart-glasses expansion. This 'Identity of Interest' confirms that the current litigation is a\n\n\n\n\n Appx144\n Appx143\n\f 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n CaseCase:\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 26-1721 Document\n Document: 29-1 91-3\n Page:Filed\n 91-3 145 04/17/26\n 04/17/26 Page 7 of 14\n Filed: 06/21/2026 14\n\n\n\nstaged conflict designed to use Movant's stolen research to finalize a 'standing defense' that\n\nprotects their\nprotects their shared financial stakeholders.\n\n\n Again, Plaintiff argues these are unrelated matters, but the BNP/Apollo $5 billion\n\ncollaboration\ncollaboration proves\n proves that the entities funding\n funding Solos\u2019s\n Solos' business\n business interests\n interests are the same ones\n\nfinancing Meta\u2019s\n Meta's $35 billion smart-glasses expansion. This 'Identity of Interest' confirms that the\n\ncurrent\na currentlitigation\n litigationisisa astaged\n stagedconflict\n conflictdesigned\n designedtotouse\n useMovant's\n Movant's stolen\n stolen research\n research to finalize a\n\n'standing\n 'standing defense'\n defense' that\n that protects\n protects their shared financial stakeholders.\n\n\n IX. Standing\n StandingDefects\n Defects Due To\n To Omitted\n OmittedJoint\n JointInventorship\n Inventorship\n\n Movant asserts that the Defendants\u2019\n Defendants' current technology incorporates essential features\n\nand commercial logic (specifically 'environmental\n 'environmental interaction'\n interaction' and\n and 'bidirectional\n 'bidirectional NLP')\n NLP')conceived\n conceived\n\nby Movant and documented in her 2019 EWC priority evidence. Under U.S. patent law, the\n\ncontribution to the conception of a single claim constitutes joint inventorship, which grants a\n\npresumptive undivided interest in the entire patent.\n\n Consequently, pursuant to the 'all co-owners rule,' the Plaintiff (Solos) lacks standing to\n\nmaintain this action without Movant\u2019s\n Movant's voluntary joinder. Movant has not consented to this\n\nlawsuit. Furthermore,\n Furthermore, to\n to the\n the extent\n extent that\n that the\n theaPlaintiff\u2019s\n Plaintiff'swork\n workisis aa derivative\n derivative of\n of Movant\u2019s\n Movant's 2019\n\nprior art and misappropriated trade secrets, the patents are unenforceable. The Court must review\n\nMovant\u2019s 2019 Aria video in camera to determine if Movant is an omitted co-inventor, which\nMovant's\n\nwould necessitate the dismissal of this action for lack of standing, independent of the\n the\n\nDefendants'\nDefendants\u2019'2009\n '2009 BlueRadios'\n BlueRadios' theory.\n\n\n\n\n Appx145\n Appx144\n\f 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n CaseCase:\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 26-1721 Document\n Document: 29-1 91-3\n Page:Filed\n 91-3 146 04/17/26\n 04/17/26 Page 8 of 14\n Filed: 06/21/2026 14\n\n\n\n X. Claim\n ClaimOf\n OfOwnership\n OwnershipAnd\n And Inventorship\n Inventorship Over\n Over Subject Patents\n\n Movant asserts a direct claim of ownership and inventorship over the patents currently\n\nheld by Plaintiff Solos Technology Limited. Based on (but not limited to) the 2019 EWC Priority\n\nEvidence, lab notes and Proprietary Audio Research/Studies (MirrorMixing), Movant contends\n\nshe is the true source of the 'Aria' smart-glasses logic.\n\n Movant\u2019s objective\n Movant's objective is the correction of inventorship\n inventorship and\n and legal\n legal title\n title under\n under35\n 35U.S.C.\n U.S.C.\u00a7\u00a7 256\n\nfor all patents-in-suit. Movant seeks to intervene\n intervene to\n to establish\n establish that\n that the\n the Plaintiff\u2019s\n Plaintiff's claimed\n claimed\n\nintellectual property is a derivative of Movant\u2019s\n Movant's original work. Recognition of Movant\u2019s\n Movant's\n\nownership is necessary to prevent the Plaintiff and Defendants from litigating\n litigating or\n or settling\n settling claims\n claims\n\ninvolving technology that forensically belongs to the Movant. Movant does not seek to invalidate\n\nthe technology, but to be recognized as its rightful legal owner and inventor.\n\n\n XI. Notice\n Notice Of\n Of Incapacity,\n Incapacity, Forced\n Forced Transfer,\n Transfer, And\n And Protected Vetted Status\n\n the Court\n Movant alerts the Court that\n thatthe\n theFederal\n FederalGovernment\n Governmentmaintains\n maintainsa apersistent,\n persistent,vetted\n vettedrecord\n recorda\n\nof her identity and professional conduct dating back to her 2001 service as a U.S. Senate intern\n\nfor the former First Lady (Senator Hillary Clinton). This history of high-level security vetting by\n\nthe Senate Sergeant at Arms establishes Movant\u2019s\n Movant's credibility and refutes any attempt by the\n\nparties to characterize her forensic findings as speculative.\n\n Movant asserts that the 'Aria' technology was finalized and transferred from Kopin to\n\nSolos pursuant to an Asset Purchase Agreement executed on September 30, 2019, and publicly\n\nannounced on October 7, 2019. This transfer occurred immediately following a documented\n\nabduction attempt and blunt-force injury to the Movant in Korea. The Movant\nabduction Movant was\n was 'extracted'\n 'extracted'\n\nfrom Korea without undergoing traditional immigration processing on October 7.\n 7, 2019, during\n\nwhich time her proprietary Aria lab notes were unlawfully harvested.\n\n Appx146\n Appx145\n\f 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n CaseCase:\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 26-1721 Document\n Document: 29-1 91-3\n Page:Filed\n 91-3 147 04/17/26\n 04/17/26 Page 9 of 14\n Filed: 06/21/2026 14\n\n\n\n While awaiting departure at the boarding gate, the Movant was called by the airline\n\ncounter attendant, who inquired whether the Movant wished to retrieve her $100+ battery pack.\n\nThis inquiry suggests that, despite the Movant\u2019s\n Movant's preparation to board, someone was scrutinizing\n\nher belongings\nher belongings and may have been attempting to verify her identity or inspect her\n her personal\n personal items.\n items.\n\nIt is highly unusual for airline personnel to permit a passenger to return to the security gate for an\n\nitem as\nitem as insignificant as a charger, raising questions about the intent behind the inquiry\n inquiry and\n and the\n the\n\nhandling of her personal effects.\n\n This sequence establishes a Broken Chain of Title involving physical duress and\n\nunauthorized access. Movant requests an In Camera Status\nunauthorized Status Conference\n Conference to\n to present\n present forensic\n forensic\n\nevidence of this 2019 timeline, which proves that the Plaintiff lacks the 'clean hands' necessary to\n\nmaintain this action. Movant asserts\nmaintain asserts that\n that the\n the Federal\n FederalGovernment\n Governmentand\n andselect\n selectIndependent\n Independent\n\nAgencies maintains a persistent, vetted record of her 2019 Aria priority and the documented\n\nevents in Korea. This federal knowledge\n knowledge 'defeats\n 'defeats the\n the purpose'\n purpose'of\n ofthe\n thePlaintiff\u2019s\n Plaintiff's attempt\n attempt to\n to dismiss\n dismiss\n\nMovant\u2019s claims. Movant requests an In Camera Threshold Inquiry for the Court to verify these\nMovant's\n\nrecords (IC3/Senate SAA), which establish that the legal title to the Aria technology resides with\n\nthe Movant, independent of any corporate asset transfer.\n\n XII. Long-Term Pattern Of Harvesting\n\n Movant alerts the Court that the 'Information Laundering' scheme utilized by the\n\nDefendants has roots in the 2007\u20132010\n 2007-2010 period. While a vetted former Senate official, Movant\n\nwas warned of Patriot Act-related software abuse by third parties and unauthorized API\n\n coincide with\nharvesting. These warnings coincide with the\n the 2009\n 2009 Blue\n BlueRadios\n Radios date that the Defendants are now\n\nusing to\nusing to manufacture\n manufacture aa derivative standing defense. This historical awareness proves\n proves that\n that\n\nMovant\u2019sAria\nMovant's Aria research\n research and\n and case\n case study\n study has\n has been targeted by the Defendants and their affiliates\n affiliates\n\n\n Appx147\n Appx146\n\f CaseCase:\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 26-1721 Document\n 29-191-3\n Document\n Document: 91-3 14804/17/26\n Filed\n Page: 04/17/26 Page 10 of 14\n Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n\n\nfor nearly two\nfor nearly two decades,\n decades, utilizing surveillance tools\n utilizing surveillance tools designed\n designed for\n for national\n national security\n security to\n to facilitate\n facilitate\n\nprivate intellectual property theft.\n\n The Staged\n 1. The Staged Misappropriation\n Misappropriation (2017-2026):\n (2017\u20132026):\n\n Movant alerts the Court to a multi-stage misappropriation:\n\nDigital\nDigital Harvesting (April\u2013June\n (April-June 2019):\n 2019): Coinciding\n Coincidingwith\n withMovant\u2019s\n Movant'sYouNoodle/EWC\n YouNoodle/EW submission,\n submission,\n\nher proprietary Acoustic Logic research and case management was subjected to unauthorized\n\ndigital harvesting while federal authorities and Meta were on high alert.\n\nPhysical Seizure\nPhysical Seizure (October\n (October 2019):\n 2019): Following the Kopin-Solos transfer, Movant was subjected to\n\nphysical injury in Korea and her physical hardware\nphysical hardware was\n was seized.\n seized.\n\n The Retail\n Retail Mirroring:\n Mirroring:The\n Thecommercial\n commercialtimeline\n timelineof\n of Meta's\n Meta's hardware direct\n hardware proves a direct\n\nmirroring of Movant\u2019s\n Movant's stolen R&D, culminating in the September 30, 2025, U.S. launch of the\n\nRay-Ban Display, which finally incorporated the in-lens display and real-time translation Movant\n\nreduced to practice in 2017. This commercialization was fueled by a $35.2 billion cumulative\n\ncommitment ($14.2B agreement in Sep 2025 and a $21B expansion on April 9, 2026) for AI\n\ncloud computing capacity through December 2032.\n\n Movant alerts the Court to the definitive 24-hour proximity between the September 30,\n\n2025, commercial launch of the Meta Ray-Ban Display and the announcement of the initial\n\n$14.2 billion AI infrastructure agreement. This 'Market-Moving' synchronization proves that\n that the\n the\n\ncommercialization of Movant's stolen 2017/2019 Aria features (in-lens display and real-time\n\n capitalization. The\ntranslation) was the primary driver for this multi-billion dollar capitalization. The subsequent\n subsequent $21\n $21\n\nbillion expansion\n expansion on\n onApril\n April9,\n 9,2026\u2014announced immediately following\n 2026 announced immediately following the\n the Defendants'\n Defendants\u2019 motion\n\nto dismiss\u2014constitutes\n constitutes the\n the'Final\n 'FinalClean'\n Clean'ofofthe\n thetechnology's\n technology\u2019stitle\n titletotofacilitate\n facilitate the\n the December\n December 2032\n\ncommitment.\n\n Appx148\n Appx147\n\f CaseCase:\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 26-1721 Document\n 29-191-3\n Document\n Document: 91-3 14904/17/26\n Filed\n Page: 04/17/26 Page 11 of 14\n Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n\n\n 2. The USC Gould School of Law\n Law Academic Anchor:\n\n asserts that\n Movant asserts that her\n her2019\n 2019Aria\n Ariapriority\n priorityisisanchored\n anchoredininher\n herisUSC\n USCGould\n Gould School\n School of Law\n\nadmissions and academic record. This file contains reference to the 2019 Korea travel from the\n\nOctober extraction, medical forensics from a U.S. doctor's office, and explicit references to the\n\ntech startup and smart glasses technology in Movant's 2019 admissions essay/resume and\n and\n\ndisability services request.\n\n Movant alerts the Court that her Yahoo account (Apollo-owned) was forensically wiped\n\nto destroy critical evidence, including the email sequence where Movant was unjustly\n unjustly denied\n denied\n\ndisability services after a party falsely claimed her 2019 physical injury was\n was 'fake.'\n 'fake.' Movant\n Movant\n\n requests an\nrequests an In\n In Camera\n Camera review\n review of\n of her\n her USC\n USC admissions packet and archived emails, which\n\nmaintain original, unaltered timestamps from 2019, proving that the 'Aria' technology\n\nforensically belongs to the Movant and was misappropriated during the course of the Defendants\u2019\n Defendants'\n\nunlawful actions.\n\n XIII: INSTITUTIONAL CORROBORATION\n INSTITUTIONAL CORROBORATION\n\n Movant further alerts the Court to a verified December 31, 2021, internal data breach at\n\nWells Fargo, where an employee exfiltrated sensitive account data to a personal email account.\n account.\n\nThis breach targeted\n targeted aa highly\n highlyspecific\n specificpool\n poolofofvictims\u2014including anincident\n victims including an incident involving\n involving only\n only two\n\ntargeted individuals\u2014yet Movantwas\n individuals-yet Movant wasnever\n neverformally\n formallynotified\n notifiedof\n of the\n the subsequent\n subsequent class action\n\ninvestigations (e.g., Bacon V.\n v. Wells Fargo, Case 3:24-cv-06974).\n\n Movant, a Digital Forensics professional, asserts that this was a targeted exfiltration of\n\nher trade secrets and financial records, timed to facilitate the commercialization of the 'Aria'\n\ntechnology. The intentional omission of Movant from the victim notification list (class action),\ntechnology.\n\ncombined with the forensic 'wiping' of her Yahoo/Apollo records,\ncombined records, constitutes\n constitutes aa coordinated\n coordinatedact\n actof\n of\n\n\n Appx149\n Appx148\n\f CaseCase:\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 26-1721 Document\n 29-191-3\n Document\n Document: 91-3 15004/17/26\n Filed\n Page: 04/17/26 Page 12 of 14\n Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n\n\nCommunication Fencing\n Fencing designed\n designedto\n toprotect\n protectthe\n theDefendants\u2019\n Defendants'multi-billion\n multi-billion dollar capitalization.\n capitalization.\n\nMovant requests an In Camera disclosure of the identity of the terminated Wells Fargo employee\nMovant employee\n\nto determine his possible links to Solos, or the Apollo/Meta financing web.\n\n Movant alerts the Court that Twilio Inc. is technically and financially integrated into\n\n Atlas ecosystem, which is managed and financed by Apollo Global Management (via\nthe Atlas (via ATLAS\n ATLAS\n\nSP Partners). Movant\u2019s\n Movant's Business 2FA (Two-Factor Authentication) was anchored on Twilio\u2019s\n Twilio's\n\ninfrastructure, which suffered targeted internal breaches in August 2022 and July 2024 (Exhibit\n\nL). Movant asserts that these breaches allowed for the registration of 'rogue devices' within the\n\nApollo-integrated Atlas environment, facilitating the\n the unauthorized\n unauthorized access\n access and\n and 're-indexing'\n 're-indexing'of\n of\n\nthe Aria lab notes currently sitting in the Bending Spoons repositories\n\n the Court\n Movant alerts the Court to\n to aacritical\n criticalforensic\n forensicaevent\n eventin\n inlate\n late 2020,\n 2020, coinciding\n coinciding exactly with\n\nthe public\nthe public announcement of Meta's 'Project Aria.' During this window, Twilio Customer Support\n Support\n\ninformed Movant of several unauthorized API keys active on her business account. Although the\n\nsupport agent initially identified these keys as unauthorized and assisted in their removal, the\n\nagent subsequently attempted to retract these statements after Movant identified the connection\n\n the 'Project\nto the 'Project aAria'\n Aria'launch.\n launch.Movant\n Movantmaintains\n maintainsaarecord\n recordof\n ofthis\n thisconversation,\n conversation, which\n which proves\n proves that\n that\n\nthe Digital Harvesting of her 'Aria' logic was actively facilitated through unauthorized API\n\naccess\u2014the\naccess- exact method\n -the exact method Movant\n Movant was warned about during and after her vetted\n vetted Senate\n Senate service.\n service.\n\n Movant assertsthat\n Movant asserts thatthese\n theseAPIs\u2014active\n APIs active during\n during the 2019-2020\n 2019-2020harvesting\n harvestingwindow\u2014were\n window-were\n\nthe primary conduit for the exfiltration of her acoustic logic, generative algorithms, natural\n\nlanguage processing, mapping and Aria prototypes. This interaction proves the Digital\n\nHarvesting phase\nHarvesting phase was\n was aided\n aided by\n by internal\n internal administrative access or software abuse, necessitating\n necessitating the\n the\n\ndisclosure of the original, un-redacted support transcripts requested in the Proposed Order.\n\n\n Appx150\n Appx149\n\f CaseCase:\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 26-1721 Document\n 29-191-3\n Document\n Document: 91-3 15104/17/26\n Filed\n Page: 04/17/26 Page 13 of 14\n Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n\n\nCONCLUSION\n\nTo protect the integrity of these proceedings from ongoing technical tampering and collusion,\n\nand to ensure the rightful owner of the technology is present to maintain the action, Movant\n\n respectfully requests\nrespectfully requests leave\n leave to\n to file\n file the\n the attached\n attached Supplemental Evidence and Proposed Order.\n\nLOCAL RULE 7.1(a)(2) CERTIFICATION\n\nPursuant to Local Rule 7.1(a)(2), Movant was unable to confer with counsel prior to filing\n\nbecause advance\nbecause advance notice\n notice would risk the alteration or destruction of relevant evidence. Movant will\n\npromptly confer with all parties following filing and will update the Court regarding the parties\u2019\n parties'\n\npositions.\n\n\n\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n/s/ Daitona Carter\nDaitona\nDaitona Carter\n Carter\nPro Se Proposed Intervenor\nContact Information: Redacted pursuant to pending Motion to Seal (ECF No. 59)\nContact 59) and\n and Motion\n Motion for\n for\nProtective\nProtective Order (ECF No. 60); current contact information has been provided to the Clerk.\n Clerk.\n\n\n\n\n Appx151\n Appx150\n\f CaseCase:\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 26-1721 Document\n 29-191-3\n Document\n Document: 91-3 15204/17/26\n Filed\n Page: 04/17/26 Page 14 of 14\n Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n\n\nCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\nI hereby certify that on April 16,\n 16, 2026,\n 2026, aa copy\n copy of\n of the\n the foregoing\n foregoingwas\n wasfiled\n filedvia\n viathe\n theCourt\u2019s\n Court'sCM/ECF\n CM/ECF\nsystem, which will send notice of such filing to all counsel of record.\nsystem,\n\n\n/s/ Daitona Carter\nDaitona\nDaitona Carter\nPro Se Proposed Intervenor\n\n\n\n\n Appx152\n Appx151\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 29-1 Page: 153 Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n\nECF No. 91-4 \u2013 Attachment 4: Exhibit Granted Leave to File April 13 \u2014\n (Proposed) Order Re: Digital Interference And Forensic Integrity\n\n\n\n\n Appx 86\n Appx153\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Case: 26-1721 Document\n 29-1 91-4\n Document\n Document: Page:Filed\n 91-4 154 04/17/26 Page 1 of 33\n Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n\n\n UNITED\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n DISTRICT\n DISTRICT OF\n OF MASSACHUSETTS\n MASSACHUSETTS\n\n\n SOLOS TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,\n Plaintiff,\n\n v.\n V. Case No. 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Judge Allison D.\n D. Burroughs\n Burroughs\n META PLATFORMS, INC., et al.,\n Defendants.\n Defendants.\n\n\n In re: DAITONA CARTER\n Proposed Intervenor.\n Proposed Intervenor.\n\n Leave to file granted on April 13, 2026\n (PROPOSED) ORDERRE:\n (PROPOSED) ORDER RE:DIGITAL\n DIGITALINTERFERENCE\n INTERFERENCE\n FORENSIC INTEGRITY\n AND FORENSIC\n\n\n 1. Cease and Desist (Technical\n (Technical Interference):\n Interference):Defendants\n Defendantsand\n andtheir\n their agents,\n agents, including\n including\n\nany third-party collaborators or onsite actors, are strictly prohibited from interfering with the\n\ndigital integrity of Movant\u2019s\n Movant's court filings and internet access. This includes a prohibition on\n\nElectronic Filing Tampering\nElectronic Tampering (exhibit\n (exhibitswapping),\n swapping),Traffic\n TrafficHijacking\n Hijacking(IMSI Catchers/Stingrays),\n (ISI Catchers/Stingrays),\n\nand IP-Based Geofencing.\n\n\n 2. Prohibition ofAlgorithmic\n Prohibition of AlgorithmicShadowing:\n Shadowing:Defendants\n Defendantsare\n areprohibited\n prohibited from\n from utilizing\n utilizing AI\n\nPrompt Injections or Search/Cache Poisoning to distort the forensic record or misrepresent\n\nMovant\u2019s professional competence. Any manipulation of AI-driven research results related to the\nMovant's\n\n \"Aria\"oror\"Acoustic\n\"Aria\" \"AcousticLogic\"\n Logic\"technology\n technologyisisa direct\n direct violation\n violation of\n of this\n this Order.\n Order.\n\n\n 3. Forensic Preservation\n Preservationof\n ofMetadata:\n Metadata:Defendants\n Defendantsare\n areordered\n ordered to\n to preserve internal\n preserve all internal\n\nmetadataand\nmetadata and communication\n communication logs\n logs related\n related to their April 2026 filings. This is to determine if their\n their\n\n\n\n Appx154\n Appx153\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Case: 26-1721 Document\n 29-1 91-4\n Document\n Document: Page:Filed\n 91-4 155 04/17/26 Page 2 of 33\n Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n\n\n\"2009\n \"2009BlueRadios\n BlueRadiosPivot\"\n Pivot\"was\n wasaareactive\n reactivestrategy\n strategy derived\n derived from\n from Movant's\n Movant's captured hardware or\n\n Billion Meta-Core\nthe documented $35.2 Billion Meta-CoreWeave infrastructure deal.\n\n\n Mandatory Disclosure\n 4. Mandatory Disclosure of\n of Strategic\n StrategicFinancing:\n Financing:The\n TheCourt\n Courtorders\n ordersthe\n the Defendants\n Defendants to\n\ndisclose all internal records regarding the $35.2 billion cumulative AI cloud commitment. This\n\ninquiry is\ninquiry is required\n required to determine if an Identity of Interest exists between the Plaintiff and\n\nDefendants that would render the current litigation a staged attempt to suppress\nDefendants suppress the\n the Movant\u2019s\n Movant's\n\nsuperior 2019\nsuperior 2019 Aria\n Aria priority and cure standing defects ahead of multi-billion\n multi-billion dollar\n dollar commercial\n commercial\n\nmilestones.\n\n\n 5. Threshold Inquiry\n Inquiryinto\n intoFederal\n FederalRecords:\n Records:The\n TheCourt\n Courtshall\n shallinitiate\n initiatean\n an In\n In Camera\n Camera\n\nThreshold Inquiry\nThreshold Inquiry into\n into the\n the records\n records of\n of the\n the FBI\n FBI (IC3)\n (IC3) and the U.S. Senate Sergeant at Arms (SAA).\n\nThis inquiry will verify Movant\u2019s\n Movant's 2001 vetted\n vetted status\n status and\n and her\n her 2023\u20132026\n 2023 reports of hardware\n hardware theft\n theft\n\nand trade secret misappropriation.\n\n\n 6. Correction of Inventorship\n Correction of Inventorship(35\n (35U.S.C.\n U.S.C.\u00a7\u00a7256):\n 256):Should\n Shouldthe\n thein\n incamera\n camera review\n review of the\n\n2019 EWC\n2019 EWC anchor\n anchor and\n and USC Gould academic records confirm Movant\u2019s\n Movant's contribution to the\n\nconception of the technology, the Court shall initiate proceedings to correct\nconception correct the\n the patent\n patent record\n record and\n and\n\nrecognize Movant's legal title and ownership\nrecognize ownership interest.\n interest.\n\n\n Internal Bank\n 7. Disclosure of Internal BankBreaches\n Breaches(Wells\n (WellsFargo):\n Fargo):The\n TheDefendants\n Defendantsand\n and Plaintiffs\n Plaintiffs\n\nare ordered\nare ordered to disclose any communications with Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. regarding the\n\nDecember 31, 2021, internal data breach. Further, the Court orders the disclosure of the identity\n\nof the terminated employee involved in the unauthorized transfer of data to a personal email\n\naccount. This\naccount. This inquiry\n inquiry is necessary to determine if the exfiltrated data of the 'Targeted Two'\n\n\n\n\n Appx155\n Appx154\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Case: 26-1721 Document\n 29-1 91-4\n Document\n Document: Page:Filed\n 91-4 156 04/17/26 Page 3 of 33\n Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n\n\nvictims, or the broader 2021 class, included the Movant\u2019s\n Movant's trade secrets or research logic currently\n\nbeing litigated.\n\n\n 8. Recognition of ADA and Forensic\n Forensic Protocols:\n Protocols:The\n TheCourt\n Court acknowledges\n acknowledges Movant's\n Movant\u2019s\n\n Forensics qualifications\nDigital Forensics qualificationsand\n andher\n herstatus\n statusasasaavetted\n vettedformer\n formerSenate\n Senateofficial.\n official.The\n TheCourt\n Courtwill\n willa\n\naccept the 2019 EWCPriority\naccept PriorityEvidence\n Evidence(Exhibit\n (ExhibitH)\n H)and\n andthe\n theFinancial\n Financial Map\n Map (Exhibit\n (Exhibit L)\n\nregardless of any malware-driven sequencing errors within the ECF upload.\n\n\n Communication Interception\n 9. Disclosure of Communication Interception(Twilio):\n (Twilio):The\n TheDefendants\n Defendants and\n and Plaintiffs\n Plaintiffs\n\nare ordered to disclose any communications with Twilio Inc. regarding unauthorized\n unauthorized API\n API keys\n keys\n\ndiscovered on Movant's account between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2020. Further,\n\nTwilio is ordered to produce the original, un-redacted\n un-redacted transcript\n transcript and\n and internal\n internallogs\n logsof\n ofthe\n thesupport\n support\n\ninteraction wherein unauthorized 'keys' were identified and subsequently removed, to determine\n\nif these APIs provided the conduit for the misappropriation of the\n the Aria\n Aria research\n research logic.\n logic.\n\n\nSO ORDERED.\n\n\n\n\nDated: April __, 2026\n\n\nHon. Allison D. Burroughs, U.S. District Judge\n\n\n\n\n Appx156\n Appx155\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 29-1 Page: 157 Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n\n\nECF No. 91-5 \u2013 Attachment 5: Exhibit Granted Leave to File April 13 \u2014\n Notice Of Authentication (Exhibits G, H, & L)\n\n\n\n\n Appx157\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Case: 26-1721 Document\n 29-1 91-5\n Document\n Document: Page:Filed\n 91-5 158 04/17/26 Page 1 of 33\n Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n\n\n UNITED\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n DISTRICT\n DISTRICT OF\n OF MASSACHUSETTS\n MASSACHUSETTS\n\n\nSOLOS TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,\n Plaintiff,\n\n v.\n V. Case No. 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Judge Allison D. Burroughs\nMETA\nMETA PLATFORMS,\n PLATFORMS, INC., et al.,\n Defendants.\n Defendants.\n\n\nIn re: DAITONA\n DAITONA CARTER\n Proposed Intervenor.\n Proposed Intervenor.\n\n Leave to file granted on April 13, 2026\n NOTICE\n NOTICEOF\n OFAUTHENTICATION\n AUTHENTICATION (EXHIBITS\n (EXHIBITS G, H, & L)\n\n\n Holding a Master's\n Holding Master\u2019s Degree\n Degree in Interdisciplinary Studies (Psychology\n (Psychology and\n and Management\n Management\n\nInformation Systems) and a Graduate Certificate in Digital Forensics, Proposed Intervenor\n\n (\u201cMovant\u201d) hereby authenticates the following supplemental exhibits in support\nDaitona Carter (*Movant\")\n\nof establishing a 2019 priority date, a broken chain of title, and an identity\n identity of\n of interest\n interest among\n among the\n the\n\nrelevant parties.\n\n\n \u2022\u2022 EXHIBIT G (Technical Sketches and Prototypes):\n\n \"Aria\" smart-glasses. These records document USB-C\n Original 2017 diagrams for the \u201cAria\u201d\n\n integration, battery placement, and nano-coating, demonstrating physical reduction to\n\n practice of features currently being commercialized by Defendants.\n Defendants.\n\n \u2022 (Entrepreneurship World\n EXHIBIT H (Entrepreneurship World Cup\n Cup 2019\n 2019 Confirmation):\n\n A June 15, 2019 third-party confirmation from the Entrepreneurship World Cup\n\n \"Aria\" name and its commercial\n (EWC). This independent record establishes that the \u201cAria\u201d\n\n\n\n Appx158\n Appx157\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Case: 26-1721 Document\n 29-1 91-5\n Document\n Document: Page:Filed\n 91-5 159 04/17/26 Page 2 of 33\n Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n\n\n framework were\n framework were submitted\n submitted to\n to aa global\n global competition nearly one\n competition nearly one year\n year prior\n prior to\n to the\n the public\n public\n\n announcement of Defendants\u2019\n Defendants' research platform.\n\n\n \u2022 EXHIBIT\n EXHIBIT LL (Forensic of Financial\n (Forensic Map of FinancialInterdependence):\n Interdependence):\n\n Public records documenting the cumulative $35.2 billion infrastructure relationship\n\n between Meta\n between Meta and\n and CoreWeave,\n Weave, as\n as well\n well as\n asthe\n thestrategic\n strategicacquisition\n acquisitionof\n ofAOL/Yahoo\n AOL/Yahoo\n\n assets. Exhibit L further identifies the Twilio Inc. communication conduit allegedly\n assets. allegedly\n\n utilized for the 2019\u20132020 Movant\u2019s business records. These\n 2019-2020 API activity reflected in Movant's\n\n materials are offered to support an asserted identity of interest among the parties and\n\n the need for a threshold inquiry into Plaintiff\u2019s\n Plaintiff's standing.\n\n\n Notice RegardingMITM\n Notice Regarding MIT Interference\n Interference\n\n\n Due to documented man-in-the-middle (MITM) interference and traffic hijacking, the\n\ndigital sequencing of the uploaded PDF exhibits may appear altered or out of order.\n order. Movant\n Movant\n\nrespectfully requests that the Court rely on the internal timestamps and technical content of the\n\nexhibits to assess their forensic authenticity, irrespective of their sequential presentation within\n\nthe ECF filing.\n\n\n\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n/s/ Daitona Carter\n Carter\nDaitona Carter\nPro Se Proposed Intervenor\nContact Information: Redacted pursuant to pending Motion to Seal (ECF No. 59) and Motion for\nProtective Order (ECF No. 60); current contact information has been provided to the Clerk.\n\n\n\n\n Appx159\n Appx158\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Case: 26-1721 Document\n 29-1 91-5\n Document\n Document: Page:Filed\n 91-5 160 04/17/26 Page 3 of 33\n Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n\n\nCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n\nI hereby certify that on April 13, 2026, a copy of the foregoing was served through the Court\u2019s\n Court's\nCM/ECF system, which will send a Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) to all counsel of record.\n/s/ Daitona Carter\nIs/\nDaitona Carter\nPro Se Proposed Intervenor\n\n\n\n\n Appx160\n Appx159\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 29-1 Page: 161 Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n\n\nECF No. 91-6 \u2013 Attachment 6: Exhibit Granted Leave to File April 13 \u2014\n Exhibit L: Forensic Map OF Financial Interdependence\n\n\n\n\n Appx 88\n Appx161\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Case: 26-1721 Document\n 29-1 91-6\n Document\n Document: Page:Filed\n 91-6 162 04/17/26 Page 1 of 33\n Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n UNITED\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT\n DISTRICT COURT\n COURT\n DISTRICT\n DISTRICT OF\n OF MASSACHUSETTS\n MASSACHUSETTS\n\n\nSOLOS TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,\n Plaintiff,\n\n v.\n V. 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Case No. 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Judge Allison D. Burroughs\n PLATFORMS, INC., et al.,\nMETA PLATFORMS,\n Defendants.\n Defendants.\n\n\nIn re: DAITONA CARTER\n Proposed Intervenor.\n Proposed Intervenor.\n\n EXHIBIT L:FORENSIC\n EXHIBIT L: FORENSIC MAP\n MAP OFOF FINANCIAL\n FINANCIAL INTERDEPENDENCE\n INTERDEPENDENCE\n\n Movant submits Exhibit L as forensic proof of the Identity of Interest between the parties and\n\nidentifies the Twilio Inc. communication conduit allegedly\n allegedly utilized\n utilized for\n for the\n the 2019\u20132020\n 2019-2020 API activity\n\nreflected in Movant\u2019s\n Movant's business records. These materials are offered to support an asserted identity of\n\ninterest among the parties and the need for a threshold inquiry into Plaintiff\u2019s\n Plaintiff's standing.\n\n\n\n\n Appx162\n Appx161\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Case: 26-1721 Document\n 29-1 91-6\n Document\n Document: Page:Filed\n 91-6 163 04/17/26 Page 2 of 33\n Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n\n EXHIBIT L: FORENSIC\n FORENSIC MAP\n MAP OF FINANCIAL INTERDEPENDENCE\n\nForensic Link Verified\n Verified Connection & Event\n Event Date\n Date Direct Public Plain-Text URL (Source)\n Asset Purchase (Sept 30, 2019)\n Purchase Agreement (Sept 2019)https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/\n https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/\nSolos & Kopin\n Kopin documenting the spinoff of \"Aria\" (Solos)\n data/771266/000077126620000008/\n data/771266/000077126620000008/\nCorp. and \"MirrorMixing/Acoustic Logic\"\n kopn-20192812xexx1019.htm\n kopn-20192812xexx1019.htm\n (Whisper Audio) assets.\n\n $35.2B Cumulative\n $35.2B Cumulative Commitment:\n Commitment: A https://investors.coreweave.com/news/\n https://investors.coreweave.com/news/\nMeta & ~$14.2B\n ~$14.2B agreement (Sept 2025)\n agreement (Sept 2025)and $21Bnews-details/2026/CoreWeave-and-Meta-\n andaa$21B news-details/2026/CoreWeave-and-Meta-\nCoreWeave\nCore Weave expansion (April 9,\n expansion (April 9, 2026)\n 2026) for AI cloud Announce-21-Billion-Expanded-AI-\n Announce-21-Billion-Expanded-AI-\n capacity through 2032. Infrastructure-Agreement/default.aspx\n Infrastructure-Agreement/default.aspx\n\n https://www.reuters.com/technology/meta-\n https://www.reuters.com/technology/meta-\n Apollo Global Management in talks (Feb talks-raise-35-billion-data-center-\nApollo & talks-raise-35-billion-data-center-\n 2025) to lead\n lead aa $35B\n $35Bfinancing\n financing package\n package for\nMeta financing-led-by-apollo-bloomberg-\n financing-led-by-apollo-bloomberg-\n Meta's\n Meta\u2019s U.S. data center expansion.\n news-2025-02-27/\n news-2025-02-27/\n\n Strategic collaboration for $5 Billion in https://usa.bnpparibas/en/apollos-atlas-sp-\n https://usa.bnpparibas/en/apollos-atlas-sp-\nApollo & BNP credit origination\n origination(Sept\n (Sept2024),\n 2024), bridging\n bridging the\n \" and-bnp-paribas-announce-5-billion-\n and-bnp-paribas-announce-5-billion-\nParibas data wipes (Apollo) to the case\n case financiers\n financiers\n strategic-collaboration/\n strategic-collaboration/\n (BNP).\n\nBending Bending Spoons\n Bending Spoons acquired\n acquired in Jan inhttps://www.willkie.com/news/\n Evernote\n Evernote Jan https://www.willkie.com/news/\nSpoons 2023, moving operations and 11 billion 2023/01/willkie-advises-bending-\n(Evernote) notes to Milan, Italy. spoons-in-acquisition\n spoons-in-acquisition\n\nBending Bending Spoons acquired Meetup in Jan https://finance.yahoo.com/news/\n https://finance.yahoo.com/news/\nSpoons 2024,securing\n 2024, securing\n thethe record\n record of Movant's\n of Movant's italys-bending-spoons-scoops-\n 2019-2019- italys-bending-spoons-scoops-\n(Meetup)\n(Meetup) 2023 networking\n 2023 networkingand patent\n and workshop\n patent logs. logs.\n workshop social-153103546.html\n social-153103546. html\n\n BNP Paribas acted as lead financier for https://pitchbook.com/news/articles/\n https://pitchbook.com/news/articles/\nBNP &\n the $2.8B debt\n debt package used byby Bending\n Bending bending-spoons-lines-up-3b-debt-\n bending-spoons-lines-up-3b-debt-\nBending\n Spoons to acquire AOL from Apollo-backed\nSpoons package-backing-aol-buy-from-yahoo\n package-backing-aol-buy-from-yahoo\n Yahoo.\n\n An employee transferred sensitive data\n for\n for only two targeted\n targeted individuals (Movant\n (Movant https://lebelaw.com/wp-content/uploads/\n https://lebelaw.com/wp-content/uploads/\nWells Fargo\n confirmed via 2022 letter; likely split\nBreach 2022/06/Wells-Fargo-Complaint.pdf\n 2022/06/Wells-Fargo-Complaint.pdf\n aprofiles)\n profiles)totoaapersonal\n personalemail\n email on\n on Dec 31,\n 2021.\n\n\n Appx163\n Appx162\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Case: 26-1721 Document\n 29-1 91-6\n Document\n Document: Page:Filed\n 91-6 164 04/17/26 Page33ofof3 33\n Filed: 06/21/2026\n Page\n\n\n\n Meta-Apollo-TwilioInfrastructure\n The Meta-Apollo-Twilio Infrastructure Bridge\n\nConnection Documented\nConnection Documented Link\n Link &\n & Verified\n Verified Facts Forensic Significance to Movant\n\n Twilio provides the primary API Links your business 2FA and\nTwilio &\n infrastructure for Meta\u2019s\n infrastructure for Meta's WhatsApp\n WhatsApp communication\n communication logs directly toto Meta's\n Meta's\nMeta\n Business API and Conversions\n ConversionsAPI. internalsurveillance\n API. internal surveillance and\n and AI\n AI harvesting tools.\n\n Apollo Global Management led Establishes Apollo as a primary stakeholder\nApollo & initial talks for a $35 billion in the success of Meta\u2019s\n Meta's smart glasses,\nMeta financing package for Meta\u2019s\n Meta's AI data creating a motive for Yahoo (Apollo-\n centers in Feb 2025. owned) data wipes.\n\n Apollo (via ATLAS SP) and BNP\n Apollo BNP Connects the \"supply chain\" of your data\nTwilio &\n Paribas (Bending Spoons'\n Spoons' financier) directlyto\n financier) directly tothe\n the asset\n asset managers\n managers funding\n funding the\nApollo\n have a $5B strategic collaboration. litigation.\n have litigation.\n\n\n\n\n Appx164\n Appx163\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 29-1 Page: 165 Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n\n\nECF No. 91-7 \u2013 Attachment 7: Exhibit 2009 Prior Work and Research with\n DSP/Audio\n\n\n\n\n Appx165\n\f 4/15/26, 11:59 PM Case\n Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Case: 26-1721 Mira\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document\n Document:\n 0 Gugrant Audy7 91-7\n 29-1 Page:\n Waves Filed\n il A166 04/17/26\n drily 4d Filed: 06/21/2026\n dm or sor Page11ofof7 7\n Pilgage 1\n More Create Blog Sign In\n\n\n\n MirrorMixing Case Study\n Case Study performed by Daitona Carter www.daitonacarter.com\n\n\n\n Waves H(ybrid)-Compressor Plugin\n 2\n Sponsors\n\n\n\n It has been a while since posted my last post and I almost forgot to publish the\n following about the new Waves H-Compressor, H stands for Hybrid. Which I had a\n little to do with. Endorsement Links\n Focusrite Audio Engineering, Ltd.\n\n KRK Systems, L.I.c.\n\n Novation DMS, Ltd.\n\n Ableton, AG\n\n TL Audio, Ltd.\n\n Full Armour Clothing, L.I.C.\n\n Sonnox Oxford Plugins, Ltd.\n\n\n\n\n Categories\n\n 1 (3)\n\n Taken from the Waves website: 1231 (3)\n\n \"H-Comp a is a brand new dynamics processor that combines the 2231 (3)\n modeled behavior of transformers, tubes, and transistors, together with 231 (3)\n the power and precision that only a plug-in can provide. The result is a\n 3 dimensional (3)\n compressor with capabilities that engineers could only dream about\n back in the day. H-Comp lends a whole new meaning to the concept of about (1)\n THD: Total Harmonic Distinction.\"\n addictive (3)\n The idea for this plugin came along about a year ago when I was talking to Gilad\n advanced (3)\n Keren the co-\n founder of Waves. He referred me to his head developer Amir Vinci. We started aitken (3)\n talking about the concept he was working on and my concept of creating a more\n america (3)\n musical compressor resulting in the H-Compressor.\n analyzer (6)\n Various issues we resolved in the design were; antares (3)\n Parallel Compression (Dry/ Wet) anti piracy (3)\n Pre-Delay Attack (Punch)\n ardour (3)\n and my concept to implement more musical release times (Release)\n assistant (6)\n Parallel Compression:\n Appx166\n Appx165 attack (3)\n\n\nhttps:/mirrormixing2.blogspot.com/2009/05/waves-hybrid-compressor-plugin_5468.html 1/7\n\f 4/15/26, 11:59 PM Case\n Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Case: 26-1721\n 1:26-CV-10304-ADB Document: Page:Filed\n 29-1 91-7\n Document 167 04/17/26 Page 22 of\n Filed: 06/21/2026\n Miro/oncugrantAubty/WavdsHednO)d/dn7pf26sorpilgage of 7\n 7\n Parallel Compression is achieved in the compressor by mixing the dry signal (un- audio engineering (90)\n compressed) with the wet (compressed) signal using the Dry/ Wet pot.\n augspurgers (3)\n\n Pre-Delay Attack: auto tune (3)\n Pre-Delay Attack is technique I some times apply to create additional \"punch\" to\n automation (6)\n a kick drum and or snare drum. You achieve this by making a dupe of the original\n track and slightly delay this with 4 to 10ms, using this as the trigger to the original barack obama (3)\n track. This is now implemented in the plugin as the \"Punch\"-pot.\n bargain (3)\n\n Free, Host & Whole Note Based Release Times: beat making (3)\n\n beatboxing (3)\n\n beyonce (6)\n\n billboard (3)\n\n bob (3)\n This S my very own concept to create a more musical compressor starting of with\n release times. Its the reverse trick of using a delay calculator as release time bogard (3)\n\n calculator as explained many times before on my blog. This is now included for the brandy (3)\n rst time in an actual device, in this case a plugin.\n britney spears (6)\n\n The plugin is de nitely some thing to look at for! broadcast (3)\n http://www.waves.com/Content.aspx?id=9111\n bryan (3)\n\n Yours truly, buss compressor (3)\n\n chart (3)\n The Surgeon ;-)\n chris brown (3)\n at 12:40 AM\n clients (1)\n Labels: audio engineering, entertainment, mixing, music, waves\n college (6)\n No comments: compression (9)\n\n Post a Comment console (6)\n\n contact (1)\n To leave comment, click the button below to sign in with Google.\n copy protection (3)\n SIGN IN WITH GOOGLE\n cox (3)\n\n dancer (6)\n\n darkchild (3)\n\n Home Older Post david (3)\n\n DAW (6)\n Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)\n dbx (3)\n\n decay (3)\n\n defjam (3)\n\n digidesign (3)\n\n divi baby (3)\n\n dorrough (3)\n\n da (3)\n\n Appx167\n Appx166 drums (3)\n\n\n\n https://mirrormixing2.blogspot.com/2009/05/waves-hybrid-compressor-plugin_5468.html 2/7\nfi\n fi\n\f 4/15/26, 11:59 PM Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Case:\n Case 26-1721\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document\n Document: 29-1 91-7\n Page:Filed\n 168 04/17/26 Page of 7\n Filed: 06/21/2026\n Mirto/oncupruentMudy/WavesileydrOddmpf26sorpilgage3of7 3\n dx (3)\n\n dynamics (3)\n\n editing (3)\n\n education (3)\n\n effect (3)\n\n ex (3)\n\n electronics (3)\n\n engineering (48)\n\n entertainment (159)\n\n entertainment preparation (3)\n\n entertertainment (3)\n\n entertianment (3)\n\n equalization (9)\n\n equipment (12)\n\n erika (3)\n\n evan (3)\n\n evo (3)\n\n Faders (3)\n\n Flying (3)\n\n focusrite (6)\n\n free (3)\n\n free online music primer course solid\n state logic 4000 (2)\n\n frequency (9)\n\n fundamental (3)\n\n fx384 (3)\n\n giles (3)\n\n girl group (3)\n\n group (3)\n\n Guidelines (3)\n\n harmonics (3)\n\n help (16)\n\n horn (3)\n\n hotel (3)\n\n icon (1)\n\n ikonix (3)\n\n imaging (3)\n\n industry (3)\n Appx168\n Appx167\n internships (6)\n\nhttps://mirrormixing2.blogspot.com/2009/05/waves-hybrid-compressor-plugin_5468.html 3/7\n\f 4/15/26, 11:59 PM Case\n Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Case: 26-1721\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Mirtor0 Document\n Document:\n GuartentAudy7 WavesFiled\n 29-1 91-7\n Page: 169 04/17/26\n Filed: 06/21/2026\n il0 dr 0)4/dmo/26sor of 7\n Pilage44of\n Page 7\n jerkins (3)\n\n k west (3)\n\n katz (3)\n\n keri hilson (3)\n\n keyboard (3)\n\n kidd (3)\n\n killa kela (3)\n\n level (6)\n\n liquid mix (6)\n\n Logic Pro (3)\n\n london (3)\n\n los angeles (3)\n\n loudness (6)\n\n m/s technique (9)\n\n magic (6)\n\n major label (9)\n\n mastering (21)\n\n mc divinity (3)\n\n metering (3)\n\n michael (3)\n\n missing (3)\n\n mix (3)\n\n mix engineer (3)\n\n mixing (162)\n\n monitoring (3)\n\n mono (3)\n\n multi (3)\n\n multi platinum (3)\n\n music (192)\n\n new (6)\n\n news (3)\n\n norwood (3)\n\n ns10m (3)\n\n number one (3)\n\n nuri (3)\n\n of (3)\n\n of cial (3)\n\n over compression (3) Appx169\n Appx168\n\n https://mirrormixing2.blogspot.com/2009/05/waves-hybrid-compressor-plugin_5468.html 4/7\nfi\n\f 4/15/26, 11:59 PM Case\n Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Case: 26-1721\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Mirtor0 Document\n Document:\n GuartentAudy7 WavesFiled\n 29-1 91-7\n Page: 170 04/17/26\n Filed: 06/21/2026\n il0 dr 0)4/dmo/26sor of 7\n Pilage55of\n Page 7\n Penny (3)\n\n PG (3)\n\n phase (3)\n\n physics (3)\n\n pink (3)\n\n platinum (3)\n\n plugins (3)\n\n pop (6)\n\n presets (6)\n\n president (3)\n\n Pro Tools (16)\n\n pro tools 8 (3)\n\n producer (9)\n\n producing (6)\n\n production (114)\n\n programming (3)\n\n publishing (6)\n\n quines (3)\n\n radio (6)\n\n recording (36)\n\n records (3)\n\n reduced price (3)\n\n releases (3)\n\n remixes (6)\n\n rnb (6)\n\n rodney (3)\n\n rtas (3)\n\n samples (3)\n\n schools (9)\n\n science (3)\n\n scrambler (3)\n\n search (9)\n\n Sequencer (3)\n\n sequencers (3)\n\n shell (3)\n\n shortcuts (3)\n\n side chain (3)\n\n singer (6) Appx170\n Appx169\n\nhttps://mirrormixing2.blogspot.com/2009/05/waves-hybrid-compressor-plugin_5468.html 5/7\n\f 4/15/26, 11:59 PM Case\n Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Case: 26-1721 Mirtor0\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document\n Document: 29-1 91-7\n GlartentAudy7 Filed\n Page:il0\n Waves 171 04/17/26\n Filed: 06/21/2026\n dr 0)4/dmo/26sor Page66ofof7 7\n Pilage 6\n snapshot (3)\n\n software (3)\n\n solid state logic (6)\n\n songs (3)\n\n songwriter (6)\n\n sony bmg entertainment (6)\n\n sound eld (3)\n\n stand alone (3)\n\n starting (3)\n\n stereo (6)\n\n stock (3)\n\n studios (3)\n\n surgeon (3)\n\n t-pain (3)\n\n talent (6)\n\n thank you (3)\n\n the (3)\n\n the grinehouse (6)\n\n the writing camp (3)\n\n timbaland (3)\n\n tips (9)\n\n tips and tricks (6)\n\n top 40 (6)\n\n track freeze (3)\n\n tracking (6)\n\n transients (3)\n\n tricks (6)\n\n uk (3)\n\n united states of america (3)\n\n universal (3)\n\n university (3)\n\n update (3)\n\n victoria (3)\n\n videos (1)\n\n vocal (3)\n\n vst (3)\n\n war (6)\n\n waterman (3) Appx171\n Appx170\n\n https://mirrormixing2.blogspot.com/2009/05/waves-hybrid-compressor-plugin_5468.html 6/7\nfi\n\f4/15/26, 11:59 PM Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Case:\n Case 26-1721\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document\n Document: 29-1 91-7\n Page:Filed\n 172 04/17/26 Page 7 of\n Filed: 06/21/2026\n Mirto/oncupruentMudy/WavesileydrOddmp/26sorpilgage7of7\n waves (20)\n\n womanizer (3)\n\n work (3)\n\n works (3)\n\n\n\n Blog Archive\n 2009 (41)\n May (3)\n Waves H(ybrid)-\n Compressor Plugin\n Waves H(ybrid)-\n Compressor Plugin\n Pro Tools Snap\n Automation V2: ICON\n\n April (2)\n March (21)\n February (6)\n January (9)\n\n 2008 (181)\n 2007 (1)\n\n\n\n\n Awesome Inc. theme. Powered by Blogger.\n\n\n\n\n Appx172\n Appx171\n\nhttps://mirrormixing2.blogspot.com/2009/05/waves-hybrid-compressor-plugin_5468.html 7/7\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 29-1 Page: 173 Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n\n\n ECF No. 91-8 \u2013 Attachment 8: Exhibit 2013 Conception\n of Context-Aware AV System\n\n\n\n\n Appx 90\n Appx173\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Case: 26-1721 Document\n 29-1 91-8\n Document\n Document: Page:Filed\n 91-8 174 04/17/26 Page 1 of 1\n Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n\n\n 00 How to add Ads to videos without disorted. 88 = 0 . 2 60 0- 2 se\n Screen Shot Screen Shot\n 16.13 PM 2026-0...10.06 PM 2026-0...00.59 PM\n Favorites\n \u00ae AirDrop\n How to add Ads to videos without disorted. disorted.-2013-...17T21/25/51Z.txt\n O Recents Plain Text Document - 1 KB\n about WRAPPING the actual video?\n A Applications YOUTUBE frame inlarged thus framing the original posters video???\n Information\n 707 DM 2026-0.\n Created Sunday, March 17, 2013 at 2:50 PM\n \"hologrammed\" into egal?\n Documents Sunday, March 17, 2013 at 2:50 PM\n technology needed... use program to transcribe the video isting the top 10 repeated terms from a list of\n Downloads lags\n Add Tags...\n Convert voice to text technology_thus using he Intelligence to \"watch\" nillions of uploaded videos and extract Screen Shot Screen Shot\n 2026-0...11.39 PM 2026-0....03.16 PM\n @ iCloud Drive\n Google's automatic speech recognition (ASR) technology\n E Seagate BUP Slim BK Me...\n\n lags\n Cheap shots are often red at Microsoft for being a little behind the \"cutting edge\" curve. Screen Shot Screen Shot\n Not so, as we well know; And the world's leader in speech recognition technology has ventured into huge leap 2026-0....11.52 PM 2026-0..03.39 PM\n Orange cognition,\n forward, yet, again robynanically served contextual advertising,\n Yellow\n This technology enables ads to be rendered based the contextual spoken audio in a video. For example, if the\n of the v\n text-based ad as the video played. For advertisers, this provides new unique access to consumers.\n Blue\n The video be low makes: \"video words..\" 2026-0....12.09 PM 2026-0..\n Purple\n iPhones.\n Gray\n All Tags...\n Screen Shot Screen Shot\n 2026-0.12.31 PM 2026-0...04.27 PM\n\n\n\n\n Screen Shot Screen Shot\n 2026-0...13.05 PM 2026-0....05.15 PA\n\n\n \u00ae\n More..\n\n\n\n 026-0...\n\n\n\n\n Appx174\n Appx173\nfi\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 29-1 Page: 175 Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n\n\n ECF No. 91-9 \u2013 Attachment 9: Exhibit Conception of AI\n Language Translation Device\n\n\n\n\n Appx175\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Case: 26-1721 Document\n 29-1 91-9\n Document\n Document: Page:Filed\n 91-9 176 04/17/26 Page 1 of 1\n Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n\n\n Finder File Edit View Go Window Help Wed Apr 15 4\n\n\n\n\n Nurture by Breaking Barriers 88 = 0 @ @- 60 O Q Search treen Shat en Shot\n 6.13 PM 2026-0...10.06 PM 2026-0...00.59 Pl\n Favorites\n Nurture by Breaking\n @ AirDrop\n Nurture by Breaking Barriers Barriers-2016-07-27T16/41/23Z.txt\n What does Nurture do? Plain Text Document - 2 KB\n Applications Nurture simplifies the process of learning a foreign language using an intelligent interface on top of built\n Information\n 2026-0.. 2026-0...1\n It teaches you 1 speak and read a new language. Nuture also acts : an translator allowing you to speak with Created Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 9:41 AM\n D Documents Modi ed Wednesday, July 27, 2016 at 9:41 AM\n\n Downloads\n How to does Nurture work?\n \"parent\" teaching parentese) language j and Tags\n tan Ciar way us ang Ya gn Speech 'accuracarthis teadthneveda fantegh sophisticated natural language processing\n receive Idd Tags...\n ALP sloorithms built into the Murtures -tomspeech./ttS. engine t: Nurture a llows you speak Screen Shot Screen Shot\n 8.24 PM 2026-0...11.39 PM 2026-0..03.16 PM\n & iCloud Drive\n Mearable technology looking ear piece warn. Unlike other ear piece, nurture does not monitor what authorized\n E Seagate BUP Slim BK Me... party is saying. Nurture studies you're daily speech pattern and dialogue to develop a customized lesson plan.\n you say everything say anguage.\n\n For example:\n Screen Shot Screen Shot\n You may say, \" Good morning Mr. Park. How are you?\" 2026-0....11.52 PM 2026-0...03.39 PM\n Orange Nuture, would logged the entry, into your learning cloud to create a learning List. This learning list is store\n and pessimabe phrases cano n she peE eSt a B I A I A P IT n o h Per , E y re ima do its\n Yellow\n\n Green\n\n unat technologies are being used? algorithms\n Screen Shot Screen Shot\n Text-to-speech TTS engine 2026-0...12.09 PM 2026-0...04.00 PM\n Purple\n Speech unit selection technology\n Gray Voice Synthesis\n\n All Tags...\n Actively learn a new language by:\n reen Shot\n \" NE\n 2026-0...12.31 PM 2026-0...04.27 PJ\n\n\n\n\n Screen Sh\n 2026-0.. 2026-0....0!\n\n\n\n .\n More.\n\n\n Screen Shot Screen Shot\n 2026-0...14.14 PM 2026-0...08.50 PM\n\n\n\n\n Appx176\n Appx175\nfi\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 29-1 Page: 177 Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n\n\nECF No. 91-10 \u2013 Attachment 10: Exhibit Earliest Public Conception\n of AI Device\n\n\n\n\n Appx 92\n Appx177\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 29-1 Page: 178 Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n December 1, 2016 at 8:33 AM\nHello to all. I wanted to give you a heads\nup. I'm wrapping up my digital teaching\nand cryptography course this week. I'll\nbe free to meet if anyone wants to pick\nmy brain or collaborate with me on one of\nmy many projects. Projects include: Mil Ro\n(\"robot\" for bachelorette or lazy people),\nAl parents (will teach new language), shoe\naccessory (prevents corns, callus, ridge\nhammertoe and keeps high heel pumps\non your feet), Mash-up of \"Al\" Personally\nresearch assistant and Editor (studies the\ntopic for you and helps edit the nal\npaper), Digital Professor (created a new\nteaching model/ strategy for \"millennial\nlearners\" - it can replace OR assist online\nprofessors.) 4 offshore business ideas\nand a start-up idea that supports\noccupational wellness at other start-ups\n(LA, SF, and NYC; estimated rev for 1.9M\nyear 1.\n\ndaitona.linkedin@gmail.com\n\n\n\n Appx178\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 29-1 Page: 179 Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n\n\nECF No. 91-11 \u2013 Attachment 11: Exhibit Thermal Eye-Tracking STL (M-97)\n\n\n\n\n Appx179\n\f 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n CaseCase:\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 26-1721 Document\n 29-1 91-11\n Document\n Document: Page: Filed\n 91-11 180 04/17/26\n 04/17/26 Page 1 of 1\n Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n\n\n User guide\nScreen Shot 2017-10-04 at 7.47.49 AM.png Oct 4, 2017 at 7:47 AM 208 KB PNG image\n Shot 2017-10-07 at 8.19.11 PM.png Oct 7, 2017 t 8:19 PM 85 KB PNG image\nScreen Shot 2017-10-08 at 8.32.50 AM.png Oct 8, 2017 at 8:32 AM 274 KB PNG image\nScreen Shot 2018-11-14 at 4.31.03 PM copy.png Nov 14, 2018 at 4:31 PM 261 KB PNG image\nScreen Shot 2018-11-16 at 7.52.21 PM copy.png Nov 16, 2018 at 7:52 PM 55 KB PNG mage\n artglassesUniTrans-f1be65b3cc2d.jso Feb 19, 2018 at 4:28 PM Plain Text\nsouble.png Oct 11, 2017 a 12:44 PM 92 KB PNG image\nThermalEyetap_STL_Files.zip Feb 1, 2018 at 11:10 AM 3.1 MB ZIP archive\nthing-translator-master.zip Apr 18, 2019 at 2:38 PM 68 KB ZIP archive\nVRARXRglasses2blackandwhite.png Jul 25, 2017 at 10:56 AM 56 KB PNG image\n\n\n\n\n Appx180\n Appx179\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 29-1 Page: 181 Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n\n\nECF No. 91-12 \u2013 Attachment 12: Exhibit Meet Aria - M52-54 (Younoodle\n EWC Ex H)\n\n\n\n\n Appx 94\n Appx181\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 29-1 Page: 182 Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n\n\n MEET ARIA\n Smart Devices for Smarter People\n\n\n\n\n Appx182\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 29-1 Page: 183 Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n\n\n Ina 1:26-C0-40204-ADD Occurrew90 az Fled QUILTING Page 2 of 3\n\n\n\n Features\n Real-time Translation\n Audio and visual input/out of text and images.\n\n\n\n\n Maps/Walking Guide\n Turn by turn directions and mass transit directions.\n\n\n\n\n Productivity Tools\n Digital Personal Assistant; call and message alerts, reminders, tness tracking and more.\n\n\n\n\n Cinematic Mode\n Personal entertainment system, using can view content and play audio without disturbing others.\n\n\n\n\n Appx183\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 29-1 Page: 184 Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n\n\n Cane 1:26-EV-10204-ADD Deca/WaV/01-42 Fled DUITIAG\n\n\n\n Business Model\n\n Open Business Model\n An open Business Model will allow Skypad Tech to\n work with external business partners for extensive\n research, development, and innovation\n without detailed planning, thus allowing us to\n build new product ideas.\n\n 2020 2022 2024\n\n Licensing Retail\nLicensing will be used to generate revenu Offer consumer electronics\ncan partake in additional RAD activities. Bene ts\n include but is not limited to ownership of the\nintellectual property, technology will reach the\nmarket faster/ more markets and no nance the\n commarcialization process.\n\n\n\n\n Appx184\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 29-1 Page: 185 Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n\n\nECF No. 91-13 \u2013 Attachment 13: Exhibit Meetup.com Patent Meetup Log\n\n\n\n\n Appx185\n\f 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n CaseCase:\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 26-1721 Document\n 29-1 91-13\n Document\n Document: Page: Filed\n 91-13 186 04/17/26\n 04/17/26 Page 1 of 1\n Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n\n\n \u203a Meetups =0 . 99- 00 0 Q Search\n\n Meetups\n\n LEARN+THE+STEPS+TO+PATENT%2C+PITCH%2\n 17 C++PRODUCE+%26+FU...+DRAWING+%24%24.ics\n ICS le - 2 KB\n\n Information Show More\n Created Wednesday, January 19, 2022 at 9:08 AM\n Modi ed Thursday, April 4, 2019 at 8:42 AM\n\n Tags\n 3 PM Add Tags...\n\n\n\n\n \u2022 LEARN THE STEPS TO PATENT, PITCH, PRODUCE & FUNDING... ENTER OUR DRAWI\n Microsoft New Flagship Store (677 Fifth Avenue 6th Floor, New York, NY)\n\n\n 7 PM\n\n\n\n\n 3 PM\n\n\n\n\n 9 PM\n\n\n\n\n 23 21 \u2022\n More...\n\n\n\n\n Appx186\n Appx185\nfi\nfi\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 29-1 Page: 187 Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n\n\nECF No. 91-14 \u2013 Attachment 14: Exhibit Samsung Patent/LinkedIn Outreach\n\n\n\n\n Appx 96\n Appx187\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 29-1 Page: 188 Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n\n\n 0501086641782\n\n\n(2) United States Patent (10) Patent No.: US 10.866,417 B2\n Sung ct al. (45) Date of Patent: Dec. 15, 2020\n\n(54) LENS UNIT AND SEE-THROUGH TYPE (56) References Cited\n DISPLAY APPARATUS INCLUDING THE\n SAME U.S. PATENT DOCUMENTS\n(71) Appot SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO- 6816314 82 11/2004 Shiia et al.\n LTD., SuNon-# (KR); SEOUL. 2004 0858971 A1\u00b0 6/2004 Wilders GOB 27/8000\n NATIONAL UNIVERSITY RADES 145 8\n FOUNDATION. Seoul (KR) (Contineal)\n(72) lowestors: Geryoung Sung. Daegu (KR),\n FOREIGN PATENT DOCUMENTS\n Hanseek Lee, Seval (KR), By cancho\n Lev, Seoul (KR); Changkun Lev, Soul 200290587 A 3.2002\n (KRk Seokal Mosn. Secol (KRE. dr 3413555 112 63001\n Jongyeung Hong. Soul (KR) (Continued)\n(73) Assignors: SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO,\n LTE, SuwOn-& (KR): SEDUL OTHER PUBLICATIONS\n NATIONAL UNIVERSITY R&DE\n FOUNDATION, S. (KR) Commanication dated Me. 6, 2018, fum the Enropcas Palc\n(*) Notice: Sabjoot to any disclaimer, the term of this Office is ensempert Earpem Application Ne 171984124.\n patent in extended or adjuded ander 35 (Continued)\n Usc. 154(h) by 285 days.\n(21) Appl No.: 15/788,402 Prinery Essiver -- Kristina M. Deberrera\n(22) Filed: (74) Anonry, Agent, or Fir - Sughrus Mica, PLLC\n Oct. 19, 2017\n(65) Prior Publication Data ABSTRACT\n (57)\n US 20180107000 A1 Apr. 19, 2018\n A sco-danagh type display appareas inchackos a so-through\n(30) Foreign Application Prierity Deta type optical system configured to transmit a first intege via\n a first goth lighe. which is light traveling on a first put, to\n Qt. 19, 2016 (KR) 10-2016-0135926 ecubir cozan of a user, and 3 secund image via\n second-outh Ephr, which is light oveling on a scound path,\n151) Int. (L\n 682B 2701 (2006.01) to the ocular organ of the tser. and an incident light-\n dependent loss unit provided between the sep-through type\n GN2B 27/28 (2006.01) optical water and the ocuse crasn of the user and having\n (Contined)\n(32) US. CT. different setractive powers according to characteristics of\n CPC G0ZN 27/9172 (2013.01); GO2N 3/70\n incident lighe, where the incident light-dependent lens unik\n low a positive final refractive power with napat lo tha\n (2013.01); GOZE 3/74 (2015.01): COZE first-put Highs and hars second refractive poo er diSeren\n 5/3083 (2013.01\u00a2\n (Contired) from the first refractive power with respect to the second-\n push light.\n(58) Field of Classification Search\n CPC -.......... 002B 27/0172: 002B 27/01: CCCB\n 27/0101: 0009 27/0149; G028 27017: 18 Claims, 19 Drawing Sheets\n\n (Contined) (1 of 19 Drawing Sheet(s) Filed in Cobar)\n\n\n Ln1 ST13\n\n\n\n\n L23\n\n\n\n\n WP10 TD10 P15\n LU10\n\n\n\n\n Appx188\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 29-1 Page: 189 Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n\n\nECF No. 91-15 \u2013 Attachment 15: Exhibit Twitter Post Tagging\n Misappropriation\n\n\n\n\n Appx189\n\f 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\nCaseCase:\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 26-1721 Document\n 29-1 91-15\n Document\n Document: Page: Filed\n 91-15 190 04/17/26\n 04/17/26 Page 1 of 1\n Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n\n\n THEDIGITALGIRL, Inc. | Daitona Carter \"7-E| 90|... @thedigital... 24 Mar 2021\n @elonmusk lets collab or DIS hire me @facebook stole my $86B #projectARIA\n I'm biklisted from everything deleted my social media + removed my biz\n sites. I'm still being harassed w helicopters + intrusions. Thx to\n @MarkZuckerman and @boztank I need $7MM/yr for security too.\n\n & ink ague bore\n\n\n\n\n but idd/ WyleRise Hens be Adde\n cost r Ameris Briar Frontal 1 ih\n\n\n\n\n aww. ipopal our st wools suit soliga\n\n -as 10 ol poo at it babe met\n\n\n\n\n UAIE AUUCU INETICO I )\n PSMAAT CLASSES -\n\n\n\n 4 EvP aria homi\n Smart Glasses\n 1EvP aria bisl\n alb lens\n No views - 13 seconds...\n ar'a-cuediria.b\n Aneblorage do joural\n Clor-ah.co/n jr:\n APoStorace.do\n Aria Smart\n 13001 300 Da\n a a log 00900001 Glasses Pitch\n ana,log cont si\n year ago\n I ARIA SMARTO ASSE\n 1:56 co\n\n dea-Duty Aria Smart\n Glasses\n de supporta-ant-0/005. I year ago\n 0 Mi-50 . :55 8\n role-hat-roperedaraprags.is\n a anio-Brophone\n\n\n\n are tuninondant-hat-tabindna\n rola-supporta-arianie\n\n\n \u2022 rola-hac-raquindura-grape.s\n\n\n\n\n Appx190\n Appx189\n\f Case: 26-1721 Document: 29-1 Page: 191 Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n\n\nECF No. 91-16 \u2013 Attachment 16: Exhibit Timeline Comparison Chart\n\n\n\n\n Appx 98\n Appx191\n\f 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n CaseCase:\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 26-1721 Document\n 29-1 91-16\n Document\n Document: Page: Filed\n 91-16 192 04/17/26\n 04/17/26 Page 1 of 1\n Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n UNITED STATES\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n COURT\n DISTRICT\n DISTRICT OF\n OF MASSACHUSETTS\n MASSACHUSETTS\n\n\nSOLOS TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,\n Plaintiff,\n\n v.\n V. Case No. 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Judge Allison D. Burroughs\nMETA PLATFORMS, INC., et al.,\n Defendants.\n Defendants.\n\n\nIn re: DAITONA CARTER\n Proposed Intervenor.\n Proposed Intervenor.\n\n TIMELINE COMPARISON CHART\n\n Year Movant\n Movant Milestone\n Milestone (Key Exhibits) Solos Meta\n2013 Context-aware\n Context-awareAV/ad-insertion\n AV/ad-insertion (M-1) \u2014 \u2014\n2016 Nurture\n Nurture++ public\n public \"AI\n \u201cAI parents\"\n parents\u201d post\n post (M-3,\n (M-3, M-76/77) \u2014 \u2014\n Full prototype\n prototypecluster\n cluster(Oct\n (Oct2017):\n 2017): 5-week\n 5-week post\n post with\n Samsung/Oracle/NAVER viewers (M-88/M-8), optics/Snell\u2019s\n optics/Snell's Law\n (M-74/M-12), frame\n (M-74/M-12), frame assembly (M-6/M-50), Discovery/Geo AR\n2017 (M-17/M-18),\n (M-17/M-18),Samsung\n Samsung sensor\n sensor specialist\n specialist outreach\n outreach (M-15),\n (M-15), Alpha Labs \u2014 \u2014\n CEO outreach (M-24/M-89), cut-glass experiment (M-102), physical\n glasses photo (M-32/M-83/M-103), DLP diagram (M-81), public\n LinkedIn prototype post (M-90)\n2018 Thermal\n Thermaleye-tracking\n eye-tracking STL\n STL (M-97) \u2014 \u2014\n2019\n2019 \"Meet\n \u201cMeetAria\"\n Aria\u201ddeck\n deck++patent\n patent meetup\n meetup (M-52-54, M-98)\n (M-52\u201354, M-98) \u2014 \u2014\n Project Aria\n2020 Samsung\n Samsungpatent\n patent published\n published (M-100)\n (M-100) ++ LinkedIn outreach \u2014\n announced\n Federal notices to Cruz/agencies (M-84\u201387),\n (M-84-87), Ring logs (M-39), Ray-Ban Meta\n2021 \u2014\n Twitter to Andrew Bosworth (M-59) collab\n Consumer\n2023 AirGo\n Ongoing interference documentation Ray-Ban Meta\n+ launches\n glasses\n\n\n\n\n Appx192\n Appx191\n\fCase: 26-1721 Document: 29-1 Page: 193 Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n\n\n ECF No. 91-17 \u2013 Attachment 17: Exhibit Evidence Table\n\n\n\n\n Appx193\n\f 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n CaseCase:\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 26-1721 Document\n Document: 29-1 91-17\n Page: Filed\n 194 04/17/26\n 04/17/26 Page 1 of 3\n Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\n UNITED STATES\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n COURT\n DISTRICT\n DISTRICT OF\n OF MASSACHUSETTS\n MASSACHUSETTS\n\n\nSOLOS TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,\n Plaintiff,\n\n v.\n V. Case No. 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Judge Allison D. Burroughs\nMETA PLATFORMS, INC., et al.,\n Defendants.\n Defendants.\n\n\nIn re: DAITONA CARTER\n Proposed Intervenor.\n Proposed Intervenor.\n\n EVIDENCE TABLE\nExhibit\n Date Description (Short) Legal Purpose\n No.\n No.\n MirrorMixing Case Study \u2013- Waves\nM-51\nM-51 2009 Prior work and research with DSP/audio\n H(ybrid)-Compressor plugin\n \"How\n \u201cHow toto add Ads to videos without\n without\n 2013- Earliest documented\n documented conception\n conception of of context-\n context-\nM-1 distorted\" (ASR-driven contextual ad\n distorted\u201d\n 03-17 aware AV system\n insertion)\n 2016- \u201cNurture\n \"NurturebybyBreaking\n Breaking Barriers\u201d\n Barriers\" \u2013\nM-3 Conception of AI language translation\n translation device\n device\n 07-27 NLP\n NLP real-time\n real-time translation wearable\n LinkedIn post: \u201cAI\n \"AI parents (will\nM-76/ 2016- Earliest public conception of AI language\n language\n teach new language)\u201d\n language)\" + full project\nM-77 12-01 device\n list\nM-75\n 2016-\n 2016- Translation\n Translationinterface (Korean\u201c\u00abu\n interface (Korean \ube75\u201d\n \"Bread\") Early translation app proof\n 10-16\n 10-16 \u2192 \u201c Bread\u201d)\nM-78\n 2016 Translation\n 2016\u2013 Translationotes\n notes(Korean/English\n (Korean/English\n Language feature development\n 2017 phrases + grammar)\n 2017- AI language teaching software (\"<3 (\u201c<3\nM-73 AI instruction conception\n 01-29 days\")\n days\u201d)\n 2017- app.py\n 2017- app.py- \u2013Twilio\n TwilioSMS\n SMSintegration\n integration\nM-93 Communication infrastructure // source\n Communication infrastructure source code\n code\n 02-17 code\n code\n 2017- pythonOCRimage\n pythonOCRimageToText (ocr.py +\n To Text (ocr.py\nM-92 Optical character recognition source code\n 05-02 test images)\n images)\nM-30/\nM-30/ 2017-\n 2017- PHP linguistic engine\n engine\n Language processing backend\nM-95 04-19 (chinese_nouns.php,\n (chinese_nouns.php, grammar, etc.)\nM-96\n 2017- \"Object\n \u201cObjectDetection\n Detectionand\n andRecognition\"\n Recognition\u201d Computer\n Computer vision\n vision /object\n objectrecognition\n recognition\n 07-25 (You\n (YouTube skeletal mapping) conception\nM-80/\nM-80/ 2017 Korean Real World Learning Translation feature development\n\n Appx194\n Appx193\n\f 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n CaseCase:\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 26-1721 Document\n Document: 29-1 91-17\n Page: Filed\n 195 04/17/26\n 04/17/26 Page 2 of 3\n Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\nExhibit\n Date Description (Short) Legal Purpose\n No.\nM-61\nM-61 spreadsheet (vocabulary phrases)\n 2017- RPi Speech directory\n directory\nM-56 Speech processing source code\n 01-11 (speechAnalyser.py\n (speechAnalyser.py etc.) etc.)\n LinkedIn\n LinkedIn post: \"five\n \u201cfive weeks to have a\nM-88/ 2017-\n prototype\u201d (979 views;\n working prototype\" Public diligence + industry interest\nM-8 10-08\n 10-08\n Samsung/Oracle/NAVER viewers)\nM-74/\nM-74/ 2017- Blog Entry 9 \u2013- Snell's\n 2017- Snell\u2019s Law, lens\n Optical engineering + public disclosure\n Optical\nM-13 10-07 design, optics video\nM-12\n 2017- Reflection and refraction notes\n 2017-\n Optical physics conception\n 10-11 (Snell's Law)\n (Snell\u2019s Law)\n 2017- \"Build\n \u201cBuild a frame 3x thickness\u201d\n thickness\" (Maker\n (Maker\nM-6 Frame engineering\n 10-04 Lab)\n 10-04\n Smart Glasses\n Glasses Bookmarks\n Bookmarks/' Links.txt\n Links.txt\nM-42 2017 Software/hardware planning\n (OpenCV, RPi)\n LinkedIn outreach to ODG (Ralph\nM-79 2017-10\n 2017-10 Diligence & industry collaboration\n Osterhout) & NAVER Corp\n LinkedIn profile \u2013- JeongSu Dennis\nM-15 2017 HAN, Ph.D., Sensor Specialist at Third-party\n Third-partyengagement\n engagement // potential access\n access\n Samsung Electronics\n Samsung Electronics\n LinkedIn profile\n profile -\u2013- Junhee\n Junhee Lee,\n Lee, CEO\n 2017- Industry outreach (smart glasses\nM-24 of The Alpha Labs\n Labs Inc Inc(optics/smart\n (optics/smart\n 10-21 collaboration)\n glasses)\nM-89\n 2017- Alpha Labs smart-glasses\n 2017- smart-glasses\n Industry engagement\n 10-21 collaboration invitation\n collaboration invitation\n 2017- LinkedIn post with prototype video +\nM-90 Public disclosure of\n of functional\n functional prototype\n prototype\n 10-26\n 10-26 lab notes link\nM-18/\nM-18/ 2017- \"GeoAR\u201d\n 2017- \u201cGeo AR\"++Arducam/RPi\n Arducam/RPi camera\n Location-based\n Location-basedARAR ++ hardware procurement\n procurement\nM-19 10-26 sourcing\n 10-26 sourcing\n 2017- \"Discovery\n \u201cDiscovery Mode\"\n Mode\u201d (OpenCV object object\nM-17 Gaze-based recognition\n 10-23 detection + overlay)\n overlay)\nM-50/\nM-50/ 2017- Lens\n 2017- Lens & mirror mount assembly log +\n Physical reduction to practice\nM-10 10-27\n 10-27 optical\n optical stack sketch\n sketch\nM-21/\nM-21/ 2017- 1.22-inch MIPI DSI display +\n Component selection & assembly\nM-22 10-27 assembly\n 10-27 assemblynotes\n notes\nM-27/ Solar Temple Arm rendering +\n 2017 Wearable frame design\nM-29 handwritten ergonomic specs\n DLPNIRscan\n NIRscanNanoNano Optical\n Optical\nM-81\nM-81 2017 Detailed optical system design\n Architecture diagram\nM-82 Hand-drawn whiteboard eye diagram Optical engineering sketch\n 2017 Hand-drawn\n Hand-drawn\n Hand-drawn sketch: \"Concave\n \u201cConcave vs\nM-94 2017 Optical design (lenses + power)\n power)\n Lenses\" + solar panel\n Convex Lenses\u201d\nM-102 \u201ctrying to cut glass.\n ~2017 Text message: \"trying Physical experimentation\n Appx195\n Appx194\n\f 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n CaseCase:\n 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n 26-1721 Document\n Document: 29-1 91-17\n Page: Filed\n 196 04/17/26\n 04/17/26 Page 3 of 3\n Filed: 06/21/2026\n\n\nExhibit\n Date Description (Short) Legal Purpose\n No.\n Knife won\u2019t\n won't work.\n work.Ineed\n need laser.\"\n laser.\u201d +\n goggles photo\n Hacksaw tool (used for prototype\nM-11\nM-11 2017 Physical prototyping tool\n frame/glass work)\n Prototype frames description +\nM-103\nM-103 2017 glasses\n glasses photo\n photo (\"won't\n (\u201cwon\u2019t make\n make you\n you look Standalone\n Standalone wearable design + photo\n photo\n like a douchebag\u201d)\n douchebag\")\nM-32/ Black & white prototype glasses\n 2017 Actual reduction to practice\nM-83 photo\nM-97\n 2018- ThermalEyetap_\n ThermalEyetap_STL_Files.zip\n STL Files (3D-\n Gaze/thermal interaction prototype\n printable thermal\n 02-01 printable thermal eye-tracking)\n eye-tracking)\n Meetup: \"LEARN\n \u201cLEARN THE STEPS TO\nM-98\n 2019-\n 2019-\n PATENT, PITCH, PRODUCE & Public commercialization & patent diligence\n 04-17 FUNDING\"\n FUNDING\u201d\nM-52/\n \"MeetAria\u201d\n \u201cMeet Aria\"pitch\n pitchdeck\n deck(Pages\n (Pages1\u20133)\n 1-3)\u2013 -Prior\n Prior\u201cAria\u201d\n \"Aria\" mark\n mark++features\n features predating\n predating\nM-53/ 2019\n branding + full feature roadmap Meta\nM-54\n LinkedIn connection\n LinkedIn connection acceptance\n acceptance -\u2013\n 2020-\nM-104 BACKYOUNG HEO (CEO, Industry outreach / visibility\n 08-31\n Bithumb Korea)\n 2020-\nM-100\n 12-15 Samsung U.S.\n 12-15 U.S. Patent\n Patent10,866,417\n 10,866,417B2 B2 Temporal\n Temporal overlap + alleged copying of\n (pub. \u2013 see-through display apparatus Movant\u2019s Oct 2017 LinkedIn prototype post\n Movant's\n 2018)\n 2017-\n 2017\u2013 DuckDuckGo\n DuckDuckGosearchsearch\"daitona\n \u201cdaitona carter\"\n carter\u201d\nM-36 Online visibility & public disclosure\n 2021 \u2013 public\n public slides\nM-38\n Post/message to Mark Zuckerberg\n 2017+ Pre-litigation assertion of rights\n (@zuck) about the project\n Twitter post tagging @boztank &\n 2021-\nM-59 @fb about theft of $68B Project Public assertion of theft\n 04-24\n ARIA\n Jin Jordan / meeting location\nM-44 2017 Outreach / collaboration documentation\n document\nM-84/ Timely federal notice\n 2021- Guerrilla\n Guerrilla Mail to Sen. Cruz (theft\nM-85/\nM-86\n 01-02 allegations)\n 01-02 allegations)\n 2021- Gmail to FBI/SEC/DOJ/CIA/etc.\n FBI/SEC/DOJ/CIA/etc.\nM-87 Formal misappropriation notice\n 01-05 (multi-agency\n 01-05 (multi-agencynotice)\n notice)\n 2021- Ring Alarm logs\n logs (95\n (95 pages\n pages\u2013- access\n access\nM-39 Documented interference\n 04-26 code\n code tampering)\n\n\n\n\n Appx196\n Appx195\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-07-02T09:07:45.481460-07:00","document_number":"29","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"01302712237","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Appendix","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/484845705/","id":484845705,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73471924/29/2/solos-technology-ltd-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-07-01T18:40:40.268542-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-07T10:13:42.730965-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":162,"file_size":27365466,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"29","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"01302712238","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Appendix (Part 3 ) for Movant-Appellant Daitona Carter","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/484845706/","id":484845706,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73471924/29/3/solos-technology-ltd-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-07-01T18:40:40.292864-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-07T10:13:42.770452-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":329,"file_size":54809793,"filepath_local":null,"filepath_ia":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":"","ocr_status":null,"date_upload":null,"document_number":"29","attachment_number":3,"pacer_doc_id":"01302712239","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Appendix (Part 4 ) for Movant-Appellant Daitona Carter","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-01T18:40:04.718109-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-10T11:27:12.985197-07:00","date_filed":"2026-06-21","time_filed":null,"entry_number":29,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-06-21.002","pacer_sequence_number":1174811,"description":"MODIFIED ENTRY: APPENDIX FILED by Appellant Daitona Carter. Service: 06/21/2026 by email. [1174811] --[Edited 06/25/2026 by JSP - compliance review complete] [Daitona Carter] [Entered: 06/21/2026 04:30 AM]","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/469505534/","id":469505534,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/73471924/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/484845698/","id":484845698,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/73471924/28/solos-technology-ltd-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-07-01T18:40:04.658532-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-19T23:26:00.988785-07:00","sha1":"922725223d2c32dcfedc5974c0a4ceb684f566eb","page_count":57,"file_size":4975670,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.cafc.24274/gov.uscourts.cafc.24274.28.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.cafc.24274/gov.uscourts.cafc.24274.28.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of\n Masschusetts\n in 1:26cv\u20131034\u2013ADB\n Judge Allison D. Burroughs\n\n OPENING BRIEF OF MOVANT-APPELLANT\n DAITONA CARTER\nJUNE 14, 2026 DAITONA CARTER\n Movant-Appellant Pro Se\n 2 Massachusetts Ave NE\n General Delivery, Main\n Post Office\n Washington, DC 20002\n legal@daitonacarter.com\n\f TABLE OF CONTENTS\nTABLE OF CONTENTS.....................................................................................................2\n\nTABLE OF AUTHORITIES...............................................................................................5\n\n Cases.................................................................................................................................5\n\n Statutes and Constitutional Provisions.............................................................................5\n\n Rules and Regulations......................................................................................................6\n\nI. STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES............................................................................7\n\nII. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT................................................................................8\n\nIII. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES .................................................................................. 9\n\nIV. STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................................................................... 12\n\n A. Nature of the Case and Coordinated Derivative Misappropriation Framework........13\n\n B. Factually Justified Pleading Timelines and Impossibility of Prior Administration...14\n\n C. The Three-Stage Administrative Lockout and Record Alteration Below..................15\n\n D. Overview of Vested Property Interests and Patent Stacks.........................................16\n\n E. Forensic Mapping of Movant's Technology and Ignored Exhibits............................17\n\n F. Integration of Stolen Assets into Global Supply Chains............................................17\n\n A. Denial of Motion to Intervene (First Circuit Procedural Law)...............................19\n\n B. Substantive Patent Law Frameworks (Federal Circuit Law)..................................19\n\n C. Fraud on the Court, Rule 41 Dismissals, and Constitutional Due Process.............20\n\n 2\n\fVII. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ................................................................................. 20\n\nVIII. ARGUMENT............................................................................................................23\n\nI. THE DISTRICT COURT MAINTAINED ANCILLARY JURISDICTION TO INVES-\nTIGATE COORDINATED FRAUD ON THE COURT UNDER RULE 60(d)(3)..........23\n\nII. THE REPLACEMENT OF FORENSIC PROOFS WITH \"-1\" PLACEHOLDERS\nCONSTITUTES AN INTENTIONAL SUPPRESSION OF EVIDENCE AND A\nFRAUD ON THE COURT UNDER RULE 60(d)(3).......................................................24\n\nIII. THE DISTRICT COURT COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR OF PATENT\nLAW BY DENYING INTERVENTION AND FORCING A PLEADING-STAGE\nLOCKOUT UNDER 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 256...............................................................................25\n\n A. The Lower Court Misapplied Threshold Intervention Metrics by Forcing an Exhaus-\n tive Pre-Discovery Mini-Trial ........................................................................................25\n\n B. Appellees\u2019 Reliance on the \"BlueRadio\" Motion to Dismiss is a Forensic Pretext to\n Short-Circuit Appellant\u2019s Intervention and Evade 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 256 Oversight..............26\n\n C. The District Court\u2019s Finding of a \"Factual Void\" Constitutes Reversible Legal Error\n Under CAFC Pleading Standards...................................................................................27\n\n D. Appellees Cannot Mechanically Enforce Procedural Timelines While Actively\n Maintaining the Ongoing Criminal Obstacles That Cause Them...................................28\n\n E. Contractual Privity is Not a Prerequisite for a Statutory Inventorship Claim Under\n Section 256.....................................................................................................................29\n\n F. The District Court Erred by Holding a Pro Se Intervenor to a Hyper-Technical Patent\n\n\n 3\n\f Litigation Pleading Standard..........................................................................................30\n\n G. The District Court\u2019s \"Catch-22\" Ruling is a Reversible Abuse of Discretion...........31\n\n H. The District Court Impermissibly Conducted a Premature \"Mini-Trial\" on the Merits\n via Text Order.................................................................................................................32\n\n I. The District Court Committed a Reversible Abuse of Discretion by Categorizing Ac-\n tive Witness Tampering and Extrajudicial Containment as Irrelevant to the Adjudica-\n tion of Title Under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 256 ............................................................................... 32\n\n J. The Lower Court Abused Its Discretion by Mooting Appellant\u2019s Pre-Emptive Secu-\n rity Motions and Ignoring Clear Evidence of Record Tampering..................................35\n\n K. Under Fortress Iron, the Exclusion of the True Creator Voids the Patent and De-\n prives the Court of the Power to Proceed.......................................................................36\n\nIX. THE DISTRICT COURT VIOLATED FIFTH AMENDMENT PROCEDURAL\nDUE PROCESS THROUGH ITS COERCIVE ............................................................... 36\n\n\"GRANT-and-TERMINATE\" MANEUVER AND FILING MORATORIUM (Appx19)\n........................................................................................................................................... 36\n\nX. THE FEIGNED, NON-ADVERSARIAL NATURE OF THE UNDERLYING AC-\nTIONS BARS APPELLEES FROM EQUITABLE RELIEF UNDER THE DOCTRINE\nOF UNCLEAN HANDS ................................................................................................... 38\n\nXII. TRANSNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FEDERATION UNDER THE AUKUS\nPROCUREMENT STRUCTURE REQUIRES AN IMMEDIATE DIRECT MANDATE\nFOR INVENTORSHIP CORRECTION...........................................................................40\n\n\n\n 4\n\f A. Reassignment on Remand to the Southern District of New York (SDNY) is Man-\n dated to Purge Systemic Conflicts..................................................................................41\n\n B. Appellees Are Equitably Estopped from Asserting Procedural Bars Where the Patent\n Title Relies on Coercive Extraction and TVPA Violations............................................41\n\nXII. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF ........................................................ 44\n\nCERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE.................................................................................45\n\nPROOF OF SERVICE.......................................................................................................46\n\nADDENDUM....................................................................................................................48\n\n Appx12\u2013 Electronic Order Denying Motion to Intervene ..........................................49\n\n Appx15 \u2013 Electronic Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration and Stay ............. 52\n\n Appx19 \u2013 Electronic Order Denying Rule 60 Motion to Vacate................................55\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\f TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n\nCases\n Apotex Inc. v. Daiichi Sankyo Co., 787 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2015). 24\n Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 544 (1965). 36\n B. Fernandez & Hnos., Inc. v. Kellogg USA, Inc., 440 F.3d 541, 544 18\n (1st Cir. 2006)\n Blue Gentian, LLC v. Tristar Products, Inc., 54 F.4th 1360 21, 30\n (Fed. Cir. 2022).\n Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991). 23, 27\n Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007). 31\n Fortress Iron, L.P. v. Digger Specialties, Inc., No. 24-2313 passim\n (Fed. Cir. Apr. 2, 2026).\n Geiger v. Foley Hoag LLP Retirement Plan, 521 F.3d 60, 64 18\n (1st Cir. 2008)\n George P. Reintjes Co. v. Riley Stoker Corp., 71 F.3d 44, 47 (1st Cir. 1995) 19\n Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Merck & Co., Inc., 888 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2018). passim\n Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238 (1944). passim\n Honeywell International Inc. v. Arkema Inc., 939 F.3d 1345 passim\n (Fed. Cir. 2019).\n Hor v. Chu, 699 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2012). passim\n In re Violation of Rule 28(c), 388 F.3d 1383, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2004 19\n Kem Mfg. Corp. v. Wilder, 817 F.2d 1517 (11th Cir. 1987). 27\n Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540 (1994). 41\n Media Technologies Licensing, LLC v. Upper Deck Co., 596 F.3d 1334, 1337 18\n (Fed. Cir. 2010)\n Pannu v. Iolab Corp., 155 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1998). 42\n Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co., passim\n 324 U.S. 806 (1945).\n Stark v. Advanced Magnetics, Inc., 119 F.3d 1551 (Fed. Cir. 1997). passim\n Stringfellow v. Concerned Neighbors in Action, 480 U.S. 370 (1987). 10\n Trbovich v. United Mine Workers, 404 U.S. 528, 538 n.10 (1972) 35\n United States v. Robin, 553 F.2d 8 (2d Cir. 1977). 41\n Universal Oil Products Co. v. Root Refining Co., 328 U.S. 575 (1946). 24\n Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., 604 U.S. 305 (2025). 23\n\nStatutes and Constitutional Provisions\n U.S. Const. amend. V. passim\n 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1595(b)(1). 42\n 6\n\f28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1295(a)(1). 10\n28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1331. passim\n28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1338(a). 10\n28 U.S.C. \u00a7 2106. passim\n35 U.S.C. \u00a7 101. passim\n35 U.S.C. \u00a7 102. passim\n35 U.S.C. \u00a7 256. passim\n\nRules and Regulations\n 48 C.F.R. \u00a7 52.222-50 42\n Fed. R. App. P. 10(e) 30, 37\n Fed. R. App. P. 32(a) passim\n Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 passim\n Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2) passim\n Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) passim\n Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) 14\n Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) passim\n Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) 14\n Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3) passim\n\n\n\n\n 7\n\f I. STATEMENT OF RELATED CASES\n\nPursuant to Federal Circuit Rule 47.5, Appellant states that there are no known related\ncases pending in this or any other court that would directly impact the determination of\nthis senior inventorship claim.\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\f II. JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT\n\n The District Court\u2019s statutory jurisdiction was originally invoked under 35 U.S.C.\n\u00a7 256 and 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1338(a). The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Cir-\ncuit has exclusive appellate jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1295(a)(1) over final decisions\nof United States District Courts where the claims arise under an Act of Congress relating\nto patents. This appeal is timely filed from the final judgment and a continuous matrix of\nsummary, unreasoned text-only orders of dismissal issued at every single stage of the un-\nderlying proceeding, which collectively denied intervention, foreclosed reconsideration,\nand summarily dismissed Appellant's independent action for relief.\n\n The District Court\u2019s electronic orders denying intervention as a matter of right un-\nder Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) constitute a final, appealable collateral or-\nder. Under the long-standing collateral order doctrine, a district court order denying inter-\nvention as of right is a final, appealable determination that is immediately reviewable by\nthis Court. See Stringfellow v. Concerned Neighbors in Action, 480 U.S. 370, 377\n(1987).\n\n The Movant-Appellant\u2019s original Notice of Appeal was timely stamped on April\n21,2026 and formally transmitted on April 22, 2026. To preserve absolute structural re-\nview over the expanding matrix of electronic docket closures and text orders below, Ap-\npellant formally filed an Amended Notice of Appeal on May 17, 2026. The submission of\nboth the initial and amended notices completely preserves Appellant's substantial rights,\nplacing this entire record squarely within the jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit.\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\f III. STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES\n\n\n\n1. Issue One: Whether the District Court committed a manifest error of law and\n abused its discretion by denying Appellant\u2019s Motion to Intervene under Rule 24\n and entertaining a premature Motion to Dismiss, where the principal litigants de-\n ployed a pre-textual procedural device\u2014the \"BlueRadio\" 2004 Bluetooth time-\n line\u2014as a forensic fraud to engineer an artificial dismissal, thereby intentionally\n blocking judicial review of Appellant\u2019s senior priority status, true inventorship, and\n 65 technical exhibits Appx201-357.\n2. Issue Two: Whether the District Court abused its discretion and committed a struc-\n tural error of law by holding that a voluntary dismissal under Rule 41 strips it of all\n ancillary jurisdiction, using an unreasoned, text-only order at every stage of the liti-\n gation to block Appellant's Motion to Intervene, Motion for Reconsideration, and\n Motion to Vacate under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3) (Appx12,\n Appx15, and Appx19).\n3. Issue Three: Whether the District Court abused its discretion and denied due\n process by applying a hyper-technical, final patent litigation pleading standard to a\n pro se civilian\u2019s Motion to Intervene, failing to liberally construe the threshold\n pleadings as required by Supreme Court precedent.\n4. Issue Four: Whether the District Court committed a reversible legal error by es-\n tablishing a \"Catch-22\" logical contradiction\u2014holding that Appellant cannot inter-\n vene because she lacks a formal, issued patent title, while simultaneously locking\n the door to the only forum where Appellant can invoke 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 256 to prove\n that Appellees criminally misappropriated her unpatented work to procure that very\n title.\n\n\n\n 10\n\f 5. Issue Five: Whether the District Court abused its discretion by conducting a pre-\n mature, summary \"mini-trial\" on the merits via an unreasoned text order, ignoring\n the mandatory rule that all well-pleaded factual allegations in a motion to intervene\n must be accepted as true.\n 6. Issue Six: Whether, in light of this Court\u2019s recent precedential decision in Fortress\n Iron, L.P. v. Digger Specialties, Inc. (Apr. 2, 2026), a District Court lacks jurisdic-\n tional authority to proceed over a patent title dispute when it has active notice that\n the true, unjoined creator has been denied her mandatory notice and statutory right\n to contest the title under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 256(b).\n 7. Issue Seven: Whether the District Court violated Appellant\u2019s Fifth Amendment\n Procedural Due Process rights by executing a coercive \"Grant-and-Terminate\" ma-\n neuver, wherein the court granted Appellant leave to file an expanded reply but si-\n multaneously terminated the entire proceeding before the authorized reply could be\n docketed (Appx15).\n 8. Issue Eight: Whether the total non-appearance and failure to file entries of appear-\n ance by the corporate Defendants at the Federal Circuit, paired with their absolute\n lower-court silence regarding the technical record, entities the present Senior In-\n ventor to a direct appellate mandate for inventorship correction under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7\n 256(b) or an outright invalidation of the patents-in-suit under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7\n 101/102.\n 9. Issue Nine: Did the District Court commit a reversible error of law by adopting a\n prevailing party's Plaintiff-Appellant\u2019s briefs verbatim (Appx655), thereby abdi-\n cating its statutory obligation to perform an independent judicial analysis?\n10. Issue Ten: Did the Clerk of Court directly violate the mandatory, non-discre-\n tionary filing duties prescribed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(d)(4) by\n intercepting and rejecting Appellant's emergency filings?\n\n\n 11\n\f IV. STATEMENT OF THE CASE\n\n\n\n This appeal arises from a structural procedural lockout executed at the district level\nto insulate corporate litigants from an independent inventorship claim. On January 23,\n2026, Plaintiff Solos Technology Limited filed an infringement action against Meta Plat-\nforms, Inc. over five technology patents. On March 27, 2026, Appellant Daitona Carter,\nproceeding pro se, served a timely Motion to Intervene and a Proposed Complaint un-\nder FRCP 24(a)(2), asserting prior conception, reduction to practice, and sole inventor-\nship under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 256.\n\n On March 30, 2026, Docket Clerk Caetlin McManus commanded Appellant to \"re-\nfrain from emailing more documents to the Court\u201d until the judge rules on the Motion to\nIntervene (Appx52). Appellant complied with this restriction while navigating ongoing\nmail tam- pering, physical threats, and active electronic data spoliation by third-party\nservices and platforms within the Appellees ,financial and share legal network.\n\n Following Appellant's extensive external campaign and explicit threat to execute\nan extraordinary Writ of Mandamus to enforce compliance with FRCP 5(d)(4), the clerk's\noffice backpedaled on April 7, 2026, attempting to re-characterize the communication\nlockout. The Appellant was provided ECF access on April 7, and would lose access again\nwithout notice, prior to the roll out of the Appellant\u2019s trademark \u201cARIA\u201d (Appx109) and\nother tech- nological work into the US ARMY under the \u201cUS Project ARIA\u201d on April 28\nthus pre- venting the ability to file an immediate injunction and requiring the $0 IFPS\nMovant to solicit funds to have the April 29, 2026 filings hand delivered just hours\nbefore being DENIED, MOOTED and TERMINATED.\n\n The Appellant formally apprised the lower court of ongoing unauthorized elec-\ntronic intrusions, file manipulations, and targeted harassment affecting the litigation ma-\n 12\n\fterials on or about April 13,2026. Appellant submitted a formal application for Protective\nOrders, Witness Protection and Status Conference outlining specific technical safeguards\nto preserve record integrity and halt adversarial misconduct. The lower court summarily\ndenied and mooted this request on April 15, 2026, citing a \u201clitigation choice\u201d.\nSubsequently, when Appellant submitted the foundational \"proof of creation\" sketches\nalongside a Motion for Reconsideration, the unauthorized file substitutions/swapping\noccurred as predicted (relating to the thermal eye tracking and lenses/display and other\ntechnical notes swapped out of order), resulting in the corrupted record now appearing at\nAppx201-357. The electronic manip- ulation of Appellant's files has remained unhalted\nand continuous throughout these pro- ceedings in addition to physical incidents.\n\n\n\n Appellant moved for reconsideration and relief from judgment under Rules 59(e)\nand 60(b)(3), 60(b)(6), and 60(d)(3) (Appx15, Appx19). The District Court summarily\ndenied all remaining relief via consecutive Electronic Orders Appx15 and Appx19 (ECF\nNos. 107 and 113), implemented a pre-filing strike injunction, and explicitly passed juris-\ndiction to this Court (Appx15, Appx19).\n\n\n\nA. Nature of the Case and Coordinated Derivative Misappropriation Framework\n This litigation is a non-adversarial, collusive sham engineered between the Plaintiff\nproxy entity and five corporate Defendants. The lawsuit functions not as a genuine intel-\nlectual property dispute, but as an automated laundering mechanism to \"clean title\" on a\nstolen smart-glasses and behavioral prediction logic architecture. While foundational au-\ndio processing case study was published openly in 2009 for the music industry, the core\nconsumer full-stack software and hardware prototype models were built in strict confi-\ndentiality between 2013 and 2017 (Appx191-196, Appx134-136, Appx472, and\nAppx666).\n 13\n\f A tier-1 defense contractor, acting as the operational system integrator for the\nmulti-party network, intercepted this confidential architecture via cyber-surveillance and\nphysical extraction. The aggregator subsequently fragmented the architecture across\nglobal military networks. This includes the UK Ministry of Defence\u2014where the original\nsupplier retains a twenty percent equity stake in the spin-off entity\u2014and United States\nArmed Forces programs of record.\n\n Following explicit notice delivered to the corporate Defendant-Appellees\u2019 Chief\nExecutive Officer and current Chief Technology Officer (former Vice President of\nFacebook Reality Labs) at Meta Platforms (f/k/a Facebook) in 2021 (Appx189 and\nAppx312), the conspirators attempted to mask the derivation by routing the asset through\ndownstream acquisitions of international startups, running lab notes through Italy via\nEuropean financing conduits between 2022 and 2024. Simultaneously, the Defendants\nsystematically weaponized Appellant's senior common law trademark\u2014originally\nregistered via a 2019 validation plat- form entry \u2014deploying it across active military\nframeworks in the United States, United Kingdom, and Australia.\n\n\n The conspirators maintained structural silence until Appellant prepared to commer-\ncialize the consumer eyewear product independently. To pre-empt regulatory exposure\nand insulate their global defense contracts, the parties filed a feigned patent lawsuit,\nmaintaining total silence regarding the underlying technology and trademark infringe-\nment.\nB. Factually Justified Pleading Timelines and Impossibility of Prior Administration\n\n To satisfy the timeliness and diligence requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Pro-\ncedure 24(a), any administrative delay in asserting these senior inventorship claims was\ndictated by an absolute, extrajudicial impossibility of performance. Appellant did not\nsleep on her protectable rights; rather, the physical and electronic capacity to compile ev-\n\n 14\n\fidence, access federal dockets, or file public administration reports was entirely blocked\nby active, hostile external containment operations executed by the background beneficia-\nries of the derived technology.\n\n Based on the technical extraction of data occurring prior to the Defendants' public\n2020 commercialization announcement, Appellant was subjected to severe, non-consen-\nsual communication fencing and digital isolation that has persisted for more than a\ndecade. Between 2022 and the present, this containment mutated into continuous, acute\nphysical interventions and systematic forced isolation designed to strip the true creator of\nthe physical capacity to approach a court of law. Because Appellant was subjected to se-\nvere duress and complete financial strangulation, the filing of standard corporate records\nor immediate filing histories during this window was a structural impossibility.\n\n This absolute barrier to performance was broken on March 26 and March 27, 2026,\nwhen Appellant utilized the certified evidence platform to serve formal electronic notice\nof her 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 256 senior inventorship claims on all defense contractors and suppli-\ners. This electronic service triggered a mandatory, non-discretionary federal reporting\nobligation regarding data conversion under applicable Department of Defense (DOD) ac-\nquisition regulations. Because this absolute duress was broken the exact moment Appel-\nlant secured emergency email and ADA filing access from the District Clerk on March\n30, 2026, the intervention is timely as a matter of law.\n\nC. The Three-Stage Administrative Lockout and Record Alteration Below\n\n The moment Appellant attempted to protect her senior inventorship rights under 35\nU.S.C. \u00a7 256, the District Court instituted a total administrative lockout. Rather than issu-\ning reasoned, written opinions subject to regular appellate scrutiny, the district judge uti-\nlized unreasoned, summary text-only orders at every single stage of the proceeding, sys-\n\n\n\n 15\n\ftematically stripping Appellant of a meaningful opportunity to be heard across three dis-\ntinct filings.\n\n First, the court denied Appellant's Motion to Intervene as a matter of right under\nRule 24(a)(2) via an initial gate-keeping text-only entry, declaring the core priority archi-\ntecture to be \"generalized work\" while simultaneously locking sixty-five (65) technical\nforensic files behind restricted \"-1\" placeholders (Appx201).\n\n Second, upon Appellant moving for Reconsideration to expose this administrative\ncontradiction, the court deployed a shortcut by issuing a subsequent unreasoned text-only\norder to evade its mandatory duty to review the uncorrupted cryptographic hashes.\n\n Third, when Appellant filed a Motion to Vacate Mootness, Order for Relief, and an\nIndependent Action under Rule 60(d)(3) to expose the multi-forum corporate fraud, the\ncourt issued its final text-only entry, falsely claiming a Rule 41 voluntary dismissal evis-\ncerated its continuous inherent power to investigate a fraud on the court.\n\n This universal text-only lockout was paired with the explicit suppression of physi-\ncal evidence. By summarily carving out the raw, physical proof of the extrajudicial con-\ntainment campaign, the court acted as if it possessed outside knowledge of facts hidden\nfrom the inventor, using an arbitrary procedural shortcut to blind the record to the violent\nenforcement mechanisms protecting the stolen asset. The corporate Defendant-Appellees\u2019\nsubsequently failed to register or file entries of appearance before the Federal Circuit,\nleaving the fraudulent Plaintiff-Appellee as the sole active participant defending an en-\ntirely uncontested inventorship record.\n\nD. Overview of Vested Property Interests and Patent Stacks\n\n The Movant\u2019s underlying property interest spans an extensive, multi-decade tech-\nnological reduction to practice from 2009 through 2019, covering the exact directional\n\n 16\n\faudio, adaptive beamforming, multimodal acoustic control, and neuromuscular EMG in-\nput stacks that form the core of the multi-billion dollar dispute between Plaintiff Solos\nTechnology Limited and Defendant Meta Platforms, Inc.\n\n Beyond the core Solos audio patents, the Movant's property interest expands into\nMeta's neuromuscular input stack, which has been directly targeted in active litigation,\nincluding Meta U.S. Patent No. 12,210,681 (forearm surface electrodes capturing EMG\nmuscle signals to translate neural intents into clicks) and U.S. Patent No. 7,596,393\n(wrist-worn multiple-sensor EMG configurations) (Appx282, Appx302,and Appx323) .\n\nE. Forensic Mapping of Movant's Technology and Ignored Exhibits\n\n The record catalogs the exact, claim-level forensic evidence and physical exhibits\nthat the District Court completely ignored by rubber-stamping the Appellees' text-only\norders. Appellant has provided an exhaustive mapping of her original architecture to the\nspecific patent stacks in dispute. This forensic mapping bridges her 2009 directional au-\ndio frameworks and her 2013\u20132017 confidential full-stack prototypes directly to the as-\nserted claims (Appx122-191 and Appx218-356, and 657).\n\n By utilizing unreasoned text-only entries, the lower court avoided conducting a\nproper side-by-side technical comparison, thereby refusing to acknowledge that Appel-\nlant\u2019s proprietary code and architectural blueprints form 100% of the codebase of the\ncontested patent stacks.\n\nF. Integration of Stolen Assets into Global Supply Chains\n\n This case involves a patent infringement dispute between Department of Defense\n(DoD) contractors over technology integrated into domestic and global defense frame-\nworks. However, both the Plaintiff and the Defendant are bad-faith actors with unclean\nhands. The underlying technology consists of proprietary, unpatented operational meth-\n\n\n 17\n\fods originally developed by Appellant, a civilian. Appellees acquired this technology\nthrough independent criminal activity, integrated it into the DOD supply chain, and sub-\nsequently filed fraudulent patent applications to \"wash\" the stolen asset.\n\n Appellant moved to intervene as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure\n24(a) to protect her foundational intellectual property, halt the fraudulent commercial lit-\nigation, and assert a claim for correction of inventorship under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 256. The Dis-\ntrict Court summarily barred Appellant from entering the case via a brief text order, cre-\nating an unconscionable procedural lockout that insulated this supply-chain asset wash\nfrom independent judicial review.\n\n\n\n\n 18\n\f V. STATEMENT OF THE STANDARD OF REVIEW\n\n\n\nA. Denial of Motion to Intervene (First Circuit Procedural Law)\n\n This Court applies the regional law of the First Circuit when reviewing a district\ncourt's procedural rulings on intervention. See, e.g., Media Technologies Licensing, LLC\nv. Upper Deck Co., 596 F.3d 1334, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The United States Court of\nAppeals for the First Circuit reviews a district court\u2019s denial of a Motion to Intervene as\nof right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2) for an abuse of discretion. See,\ne.g., B. Fernandez & Hnos., Inc. v. Kellogg USA, Inc., 440 F.3d 541, 544 (1st Cir. 2006);\nGeiger v. Foley Hoag LLP Retirement Plan, 521 F.3d 60, 64 (1st Cir. 2008). A district\ncourt abuses its discretion if it applies an incorrect legal standard, ignores a material fac-\ntor, or commits a clear error of judgment. B. Fernandez & Hnos., 440 F.3d at 544. To the\nextent the District of Massachusetts applied premature structural hurdles, or conducted a\npremature \"mini-trial\" on the merits at the threshold stage without allowing discovery or\nan evidentiary hearing, those actions are reviewed under this regional abuse of discretion\nstandard. See Honeywell International Inc. v. Arkema Inc., 939 F.3d 1345, 1349 (Fed.\nCir. 2019).\nB. Substantive Patent Law Frameworks (Federal Circuit Law)\n\n While regional circuit law governs the threshold procedural intervention mechan-\nics, this Court reviews underlying interpretations of substantive patent law and statutory\nauthority under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 256(b) and 35 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 101/102 de novo, applying exclu-\nsive Federal Circuit law without deference to the court below. See Hor v. Chu, 699 F.3d\n1331, 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Questions regarding an inventor's continuous rights despite\ncorporate shuffles or transnational transfers are legal questions reviewed de novo. See\nBlue Gentian, LLC v. Tristar Products, Inc., 54 F.4th 1360, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2022). Fur-\n\n\n 19\n\fthermore, whether a patent that omits a true creator is void and invalid as a matter of law\nbecause it cannot be legally corrected under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 256 is a pure question of law re-\nviewed de novo. See Barrette Outdoor Living, Inc. v. Fortress Iron, LP, 24-1231, (Fed.\nCir. Oct. 17, 2025).\nC. Fraud on the Court, Rule 41 Dismissals, and Constitutional Due Process\n\n Whether the District of Massachusetts violated a pro se appellant's procedural due\nprocess rights by enforcing text-only entries, implementing administrative lockouts, or\nhiding code behind restricted placeholders is a constitutional question reviewed de novo.\nSee In re Violation of Rule 28(c), 388 F.3d 1383, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Additionally,\nwhether the district court failed to exercise its continuous ancillary jurisdiction to inves-\ntigate a collusive Rule 41 dismissal or an out-of-court asset transfer constituting a fraud\non the court under Rule 60(d)(3) involves questions of law regarding judicial integrity\nthat are reviewed de novo under First Circuit guidance. See, e.g., George P. Reintjes Co.\nv. Riley Stoker Corp., 71 F.3d 44, 47 (1st Cir. 1995); Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Merck &\nCo., Inc., 888 F.3d 1231, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 2018).\n\n VII. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT\n\n A federal court is never a passive rubber stamp for a clandestine, out-of-court asset\ntransfer. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3), a court maintains continuous\nancillary jurisdiction to protect the integrity of the judicial machinery from collusive ma-\nnipulation. Because the Plaintiff proxy entity and the five corporate Defendant-Appellees\nfeigned adversity while sharing an identity of interest to extinguish Appellant\u2019s rights, the\nunderlying Rule 41 dismissal is a structural nullity.\n\n The District Court built its dismissal orders on a logical and legal contradiction that\nmirrors the premature structural hurdles reversed by this Court in Honeywell Interna-\ntional Inc. v. Arkema Inc., 939 F.3d 1345, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2019). It dismissed Appellant\u2019s\n\n 20\n\fproofs as \"generalized work\" via text-only entries while simultaneously enforcing an ad-\nministrative lockout that actively suppressed her raw code and sketches from judicial\nview behind restricted \"-1\" placeholders.\n\n Furthermore, under the governing frameworks of Hor v. Chu, 699 F.3d 1331 (Fed.\nCir. 2012), Stark v. Advanced Magnetics, Inc., 119 F.3d 1551 (Fed. Cir. 1997), and Blue\nGentian, LLC v. Tristar Products, Inc., 54 F.4th 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2022), an inventor's\nrights are not severed merely because an unfaithful intermediary or defense contractor\nrepurposes consumer code for a separate, unforeseen military sector or executes transna-\ntional corporate shuffles.\n\n Because the true Senior Inventor is physically present before this panel, the multi-\nforum corporate Defendant-Appellees\u2019 have completely defaulted on appeal, and the\nPlaintiff's title is built upon an original theft that triggers the Doctrine of Unclean Hands\nas defined in Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Merck & Co., Inc., 888 F.3d 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2018)\nand Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co., 324 U.S.\n806 (1945), this Court should bypass an appearance-of-bias remand. The Federal Circuit\nmust exercise its direct statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 256(b) or 35 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7\n101/102 to either order an outright correction of the patent rolls or declare the fraudu-\nlently procured assets void ab initio.\n\n The District Court's summary exclusion of Appellant via text order is a textbook\nabuse of discretion and a severe violation of procedural due process. First, the court\nfailed to hold Appellant\u2019s pro se motion to the less stringent standards required by law,\nimproperly demanding full-scale patent litigation proofs at the absolute threshold of the\ncase. Second, the court created an unconstitutional procedural barrier by using the Ap-\npellees' possession of a fraudulently obtained patent title as the sole legal justification to\nblock the true creator from challenging that title. Third, the District Court violated Rule\n\n 21\n\f24 by conducting a premature \"mini-trial\" on the merits without discovery or an eviden-\ntiary hearing. Finally, under this Court\u2019s controlling precedent in Fortress Iron, L.P. v.\nDigger Specialties, Inc. (Fed. Cir. Apr. 2, 2026), a patent that omits a true inventor and\ncannot be legally corrected under \u00a7 256 is void and invalid as a matter of law. By block-\ning the true creator, the District Court actively presided over a legally dead asset, requir-\ning this Court to vacate the text order and issue a direct mandate.\n\n\n\n\n 22\n\f VIII. ARGUMENT\n\n\n I. THE DISTRICT COURT MAINTAINED ANCILLARY JURISDICTION TO\n INVESTIGATE COORDINATED FRAUD ON THE COURT UNDER RULE\n 60(d)(3)\n\n\n The District Court erred as a matter of law by acting as though a voluntary dis-\nmissal completely eviscerates its jurisdictional capacity to address systemic corruption. A\nvoluntary dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits that remains fully\nsubject to review under Rule 60. The Supreme Court has explicitly confirmed that a vol-\nuntary threshold dismissal under Rule 41 does not strip a federal court of its power to act\nunder Rule 60. Waetzig v. Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., 604 U.S. 305, 307 (2025).\n\n\n Under Rule 60(d)(3), the court\u2019s authority to set aside an action for a fraud that de-\nfiles the court itself is absolute, perpetual, and unlimitable by procedural timelines. These\ninherent powers flow directly from the nature of the institution and are entirely necessary\nto prevent the judicial machinery from providing cover to collusive schemes. Chambers v.\nNASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43 (1991); Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322\nU.S. 238 (1944).\n\n When parties coordinate to foster a deceptive appearance of adversity to validate a\nstolen asset while avoiding an active jurisdictional inquiry, the court retains ancillary ju-\nrisdiction to void the proceeding. This absolute institutional duty is commanded by the\nSupreme Court's definitive holding in Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Automotive Main-\ntenance Machinery Co., 324 U.S. 806, 816 (1945). Because a patent is an item of vital\npublic interest, any collusive deployment of a federal courtroom designed to settle, sup-\npress perjury, or \"wash\" an asset known to be derived from an unfaithful employee's theft\nof sketches constitutes an unbypasable fraud on the court. Under the Precision Instrument\n 23\n\fmandate, the public interest requires the court to look completely past the superficial pro-\ncedural agreements of the litigants. The court must activate its absolute equitable author-\nity to refuse shelter to the collusive scheme.\n\n This critical intervention standard is further backed by this Court's framework in\nApotex Inc. v. Daiichi Sankyo Co., 787 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2015), recognizing that a\nproposed intervenor establishes Article III standing and an absolute right to enter a patent\ndispute when the collusive litigation of primary parties threatens to erect fraudulent legal\nbarriers against the true developer. Because the active litigants here possess total unclean\nhands, their feigned adversity is a structural nullity. The trial court's refusal to inspect this\nstructural collusion below constitutes a reversible abuse of discretion.\n\n\n II. THE REPLACEMENT OF FORENSIC PROOFS WITH \"-1\"\n PLACEHOLDERS CONSTITUTES AN INTENTIONAL SUPPRESSION OF\n EVIDENCE AND A FRAUD ON THE COURT UNDER RULE 60(d)(3)\n\n\n\n A tribunal's judgment must be vacated under Rule 60(d)(3) when the integrity of\nthe judicial process has been completely subverted by an unconscionable scheme engi-\nneered by officers of the court. Universal Oil Products Co. v. Root Refining Co., 328\nU.S. 575, 580 (1946). Fraud on the court occurs when the mechanisms of justice are ac-\ntively manipulated to shield an ongoing wrong from judicial scrutiny.\n\n The record in this case provides clear and convincing evidence of intentional struc-\ntural suppression rather than an automated technical failure:\n\n 1. The Target of Suppression: The 65 files uploaded on April 17, 2026\n (Appx201-2018), contained the primary forensic proofs of prior conception\n including lab notes and direct corporate notice to the Meta Platform\u2019s Ap-\n\n 24\n\f pellees' CEO and CTO. This evidence completely destroyed the Appellees'\n claim that the Appellant lacked a protectable property interest under Rule\n 24.\n 2. The Manufactured Glitch: By withholding these 65 files behind blank \"-1\"\n placeholders (Appx198), officers of the court permitted the Plaintiff-Ap-\n pellee to write a false narrative. The District Court then rubber-stamped the\n Plaintiff-Appellees' talking points verbatim (Appx662), claiming the Appel-\n lant's motions were \"conclusory.\"\n 3. The Timing of Exposure: The sudden release and appearance of these iden-\n tical files on or about June 5, 2026\u2014coinciding exactly with the transmis-\n sion of the record to the CAFC\u2014proves the files were fully intact within the\n system. They were deliberately gatekept from the active docket to prevent\n independent judicial evaluation during the intervention and reconsideration\n phases.\n\n As established by the procedural strategy in Trump v. IRS, a proceeding is com-\npletely corrupted when institutional actors use administrative pretexts to alter timelines\nand hide operational facts from the court record. To penalize a pro se litigant by dismiss-\ning her case while the court's own administration actively suppresses her evidence is a\nsevere violation of Fifth Amendment Due Process that demands immediate reversal.\n\n\n\n\n 25\n\f III. THE DISTRICT COURT COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR OF\n PATENT LAW BY DENYING INTERVENTION AND FORCING A\n PLEADING-STAGE LOCKOUT UNDER 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 256\n\n\nA. The Lower Court Misapplied Threshold Intervention Metrics by Forcing an\nExhaustive Pre-Discovery Mini-Trial\n\n The lower court committed a manifest error of patent law by transforming the lib-\neral gate-keeping standard of Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2) into an aggressive, un-bypasable\nbarrier (Appx12). Rule 24(a) merely requires a proposed intervenor to assert a \"signifi-\ncantly protectable interest\" that may be practically impaired if the litigation proceeds in\ntheir absence. It does not require an independent creator to completely win her case or\nsatisfy an ultimate trial-stage evidentiary standard of proof at the threshold pleading\nstage.\n\n In Honeywell International Inc. v. Arkema Inc., 939 F.3d 1345, 1349 (Fed. Cir.\n2019), this Court explicitly reversed a denial of a party's right to protect its intellectual\nproperty interests, reinforcing that courts cannot use procedural technicalities to block a\nreal party in interest from defending its technology. Much like the impermissible pre-\njudgment reversed in Honeywell, the District Court below improperly forced an exhaus-\ntive \"mini-trial\" on the merits before discovery could even begin (Appx15).\n\n By merging initial intervention standards with final trial metrics and suppressing\nthe active file, the District Court engineered an unconscionable, systemic Catch-22: The\nMovant is permanently locked out of the courtroom because she does not possess deep,\nclaim-level discovery materials; yet she is entirely denied the ability to conduct discovery\nbecause she has been locked out of the courtroom.\n\n\n\n\n 26\n\fB. Appellees\u2019 Reliance on the \"BlueRadio\" Motion to Dismiss is a Forensic Pretext\nto Short-Circuit Appellant\u2019s Intervention and Evade 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 256 Oversight\n\n Appellees seek to leverage a pending Motion to Dismiss\u2014predicated on an unre-\nlated 2004 \"BlueRadio\" timeline\u2014to execute a procedural exit before Appellant\u2019s senior\ninventorship can be adjudicated. Under controlling Supreme Court authority, a federal\ncourt\u2019s inherent jurisdiction to investigate maneuvers designed to compromise the in-\ntegrity of the tribunal cannot be defeated by a premature dismissal.\n\n \u00b7 Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 246 (1944).\n \u00b7 Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 44 (1991).\n\n Where principal litigants attempt to deploy procedural screens to establish a false\nappearance of adversity, an excluded senior inventor possesses a substantial legal interest\nto intervene as of right under Rule 24(a).\n\n \u00b7 Kem Mfg. Corp. v. Wilder, 817 F.2d 1517, 1521 (11th Cir. 1987).\n\n As this Court explicitly held in Hor v. Chu, 699 F.3d 1331, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2012),\nthe clock for an inventorship correction claim under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 256 accrues only upon\nthe formal issuance of the patent. Furthermore, Hor establishes that where a named\npatentee or corporate proxy utilizes unclean hands to intentionally hide applications, ma-\nnipulate dockets, or mislead the tribunal, that party is completely barred from using the\npassage of time, laches, or delay defenses to throw the victim out of court.\n\n The primary parties are attempting to do exactly what Hor prohibits: deploying a\n2004-era Bluetooth \"walkie-talkie\" timeline as an artificial legal shield to convince the\ncourt that the technology has a linear history separate from Appellant. This procedural\nmechanism is being used to escape judicial review of Appellant's senior priority status\nand to rush the proceeding toward a non-adversarial exit before the 65 technical exhibits\n(Appx198) can be forensically examined.\n\n 27\n\fC. The District Court\u2019s Finding of a \"Factual Void\" Constitutes Reversible Legal\nError Under CAFC Pleading Standards\n\n\n\n The lower court\u2019s denial of intervention rests on a flagrant mischaracterization of\nfoundational technology. Treating an ancient 2004 Bluetooth framework (Appx621) as\nthe linear lin- eage of modern edge-computed, egocentric AI architectures represents a\nforensic decep- tion.\n\n By summarily ignoring 65 technical exhibits (Appx198) documenting Appellant\u2019s\nstructural reduction to practice between 2009 and 2019, the District Court committed a\nmanifest abuse of discretion. Under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 256, a true inventor\u2019s statutory right to\nprotect their intellectual property cannot be extinguished by an engineered procedural\nlockout.\n\n Under the Doctrine of Unclean Hands and the strict baseline affirmed in Gilead\nSciences, Inc. v. Merck & Co., 888 F.3d 1231, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2018), serious pre-litiga-\ntion business misconduct forfeits a party's right to assert or profit from the resulting intel-\nlectual property. Because both primary parties here possess unclean hands derived from\nan unauthorized server exfiltration, this original derivation creates an infectious unen-\nforceability that taints the entire patent family.\n\n The complete absence of a true, un-coerced inventive relationship between the\nnamed filers and the technology invalidates the entire patent family as a matter of law un-\nder 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 101 and \u00a7 102. The District Court's decision to skip a review of\ndocuments under protective order and in-camera review (Appx52) and embrace the\nDefendant-Appellees' push for a BlueRadio-based dismissal permitted the principal\nlitigants to fake an adversarial impasse. This Court must invoke its inherent power to\nhalt the pending dismissal proceedings, reverse the Rule 24 denial, and un-moot the\ntechnical record.\n 28\n\fD. Appellees Cannot Mechanically Enforce Procedural Timelines While Actively\nMaintaining the Ongoing Criminal Obstacles That Cause Them\n\n The District Court's summary denial of intervention entirely ignored the ongoing\nnature of the extrajudicial containment deployed against Appellant, refusing to address\nthe fundamental why behind Appellant's situational constraints. Appellees\u2019 entire defen-\nsive posture relies on a deliberate severing of cause and effect: they demand strict com-\npliance with complex appellate and district court technicalities, while completely obscur-\ning the ongoing witness tampering, asset extraction, and structural isolation that legally\nprevent perfect procedural symmetry.\n\n\n The United States Supreme Court has established that a party is completely barred\nfrom utilizing procedural rules to profit from an inequitable situation that they themselves\nare actively maintaining. Precision Instrument, 324 U.S. 806, 814 (1945). Where an un-\nrepresented inventor faces continuous corporate and physical interference, the state-sec-\ntor failures to halt the underlying offense operate as a continuous Force Majeure event\n(Appx554). Equity requires this Court to look directly at the root cause of the delay, un-\nmoot the 65 technical and related exhibits, and reject the enforcement of rigid pleading\ntimelines to prevent the judicial machinery from being used to bury an ongoing theft.\n\nE. Contractual Privity is Not a Prerequisite for a Statutory Inventorship Claim\nUnder Section 256\n Under Stark v. Advanced Magnetics, Inc., 119 F.3d 1551, 1555 (Fed. Cir. 1997),\nthis Court established that 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 256 serves as an absolute property-preservation\nshield to prevent corporate forfeiture of independent creations. Stark commands that a\nvictim-inventor's right to enter a lawsuit and correct a title remains fully protected regard-\nless of how deceptive, dirty, or fraudulent the stealing corporations were. Under the Stark\nstandard, only the omitted true inventor must possess clean hands; the deceptive intent or\n\n\n 29\n\fcorporate restructuring loops executed by the stealing intermediaries cannot operate to\nsever the property rights of the true developer.\n\n Similarly, under Blue Gentian, LLC v. Tristar Products, Inc., 54 F.4th 1360 (Fed.\nCir. 2022), a correction of inventorship claim does not require a voluntary employment or\ncontractual relationship. Derivation can be established through an involuntary, indirect\npipeline where an aggregator accesses a creator's digital environment. By demanding a\nstrict, public 1-to-1 comparison of an explicitly unshared, confidential 2013\u20132019 full\nstack (Appx662) at the initial pleading stage, the lower court created an impossible\nclosed loop: it blocked access to the discovery tools required to expose the data-harvest-\ning logs, while simultaneously punishing Appellant for lacking those exact files.\n\n Appellant has satisfied this standard via the 65 technical forensic attachments (i.e\nspeechAnalyser.py). Under the cryptographic verification standard of Federal Rule of\nAppellate Procedure 10(e), these uncorrupted repositories provide objective, independent\nmathematical corroboration of senior conception. Because the record stands un-rebutted\nby any factual filing from the Appellees, there is no triable issue of fact remaining,\nlegally mandating this Court to issue an outright correction of the patent rolls.\nF. The District Court Erred by Holding a Pro Se Intervenor to a Hyper-Technical\nPatent Litigation Pleading Standard\n The District Court committed a threshold legal error by evaluating Appellant's mo-\ntion under the rigid, sophisticated standard expected of registered patent attorneys. Under\nlong-standing Supreme Court precedent, a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded,\nmust be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.\n\n \u00b7 Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007).\n\n Appellant's motion clearly detailed the unauthorized server extraction of her un-\npatented work, its structural laundering through defense channels, and its subsequent\n\n 30\n\ffraudulent transformation into the patents-in-suit. By ignoring these substantive, struc-\ntural claims and dismissing the motion on technical procedural formalities, the District\nCourt abused its discretion.\n\n This hyper-technical enforcement operates in tandem with a broader procedural\nlockout. Appellate courts recognize that enforcing complex formatting tracks and rigid\npleading timelines against an unrepresented litigant\u2014while simultaneously ignoring the\nextrajudicial containment arrays that cause those situational limitations\u2014violates the fun-\ndamental tenets of equity. The lower court completely severed cause and effect by de-\nmanding a flawless procedural performance while permitting Appellees to hide behind\ntheir structural connections to bury the underlying theft.\n\nG. The District Court\u2019s \"Catch-22\" Ruling is a Reversible Abuse of Discretion\n\n The District Court locked the courtroom door utilizing a circular, contradictory le-\ngal paradox. The court held that Appellant could not intervene under Rule 24(a) because\nshe does not currently hold the formal, issued patent title. Yet, the entire purpose of Ap-\npellant\u2019s intervention is to invoke 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 256 to correct the fraudulent inventorship\nand strip the title from the stealing entities.\n\n This Court has established that a proposed intervenor only needs to show a \"signif-\nicantly protectable interest\" in the property or transaction that is the subject of the action.\nA civilian whose proprietary designs, processes, methods, strategy and case work, forms\n100% of the architecture and claims of a contested military patent possesses an absolute,\nprotectable property interest. To allow defense contractors to use the fruit of their crimi-\nnal acquisition\u2014the fraudulent patent title\u2014as a shield to prevent the victim from enter-\ning the court is an egregious abuse of judicial equity.\n\n Under the doctrine of unclean hands established in Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. Merck\n& Co., 888 F.3d 1231, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2018), serious pre-litigation misconduct forfeits a\n 31\n\fparty's right to assert or profit from the resulting intellectual property. Appellees cannot\nuse procedural rules to profit from an inequitable situation that they themselves are ac-\ntively maintaining through continuous witness tampering and asset exploitation.\n\n\nH. The District Court Impermissibly Conducted a Premature \"Mini-Trial\" on the\nMerits via Text Order\n\n When reviewing a motion to intervene under Rule 24, a district court must accept\nall well-pleaded factual allegations in the intervention motion as true. It is procedurally\nimproper to weigh evidence, judge credibility, or adjudicate the ultimate merits of the un-\nderlying title dispute at the intervention stage.\n\n The District Court's use of a summary text order to conduct a \"mini-trial\" deprived\nAppellant of basic Due Process. The court demanded that Appellant conclusively prove\ncomplex technical inventorship before being granted party status or being allowed to con-\nduct federal discovery. This premature adjudication flipped the Federal Rules of Civil\nProcedure on their head, effectively imposing a trial-stage standard of proof at the thresh-\nold pleading gate.\n\n This procedural shortcut mirrors the error reversed in Honeywell International Inc.\nv. Arkema Inc., 939 F.3d 1345, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2019), where this Court made clear that\nprocedural technicalities cannot be weaponized to lock a real party in interest out of de-\nfending its technology. By forcing an exhaustive evaluation before discovery could be-\ngin, the lower court permitted the principal litigants to deploy a pre-textual \"BlueRadio\"\ntimeline to finalize their artificial title-laundering scheme.\n\n\n\n\n 32\n\fI. The District Court Committed a Reversible Abuse of Discretion by Categorizing\nActive Witness Tampering and Extrajudicial Containment as Irrelevant to the\nAdjudication of Title Under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 256\n\n The District Court committed a threshold error of law by holding that the severe\nphysical battery, forced harboring, and ongoing confinement documented in Appellant\u2019s\nmotions were entirely unrelated to the underlying patent dispute. Appellees seek to insu-\nlate their procedural maneuvers by claiming that extrajudicial coercion and the active\nsuppression of an inventor's person are independent criminal matters that fall outside the\njurisdiction of a Title 35 civil proceeding. This assertion is fundamentally wrong as a\nmatter of law. The United States Supreme Court has explicitly established that a civil fed-\neral courtroom cannot blind itself to ongoing bad-faith behavior or coercive tactics uti-\nlized by principal litigants to secure, clean, or protect an intellectual property asset (Pre-\ncision Instrument, 324 U.S. 806, 814 (1945); Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire\nCo., 322 U.S. 238, 246 (1944)). The Precision Instrument mandate commands that a civil\ncourt must apply the Doctrine of Unclean Hands to deny enforcement or clearance to any\nasset whose possession relies on a continuous sequence of unconscionable conduct. Be-\ncause a patent is an item of vital public interest (Appx476-534), any coordinated effort to\ndeploy the au- tomated machinery of a federal court to settle or wash a title\u2014while\nactively keeping the true senior inventor under physical duress and electronic\ncontainment to prevent her entry\u2014constitutes a direct fraud on the court.\n The record demonstrates that the District Court was on explicit notice that Appel-\nlant was being subjected to continuous physical harm and forced confinement designed\nspecifically to block her from accessing counsel and entering the case. Appellant\u2019s emer-\ngency application for protective intervention was not an extrinsic grievance; it was a di-\nrect documentation of the unlawful containment arrays that prevented her from satisfying\nthe court\u2019s rigid procedural timelines. By summarily labeling the physical forensic evi-\ndence and images of severe civil and criminal battery as \"unrelated,\" and failing to refer\n 33\n\fthe matter to the United States Marshals Service or appropriate federal protective chan-\nnels, the district judge committed a profound error of equity. A civil tribunal completely\nabdicates its structural duty when it punishes a pro se litigant for filing delays that are ac-\ntively engineered by the adverse corporate thieves. Appellees cannot deploy physical,\nelectronic, and financial violence to trap an inventor outside the legal system, and then\nstand before an Article III tribunal to argue that her situational limitations require a pro-\ncedural lockout. Because these un-rebutted extrajudicial interventions represent a contin-\nuous Force Majeure event, Appellees are equitably estopped from asserting any timeline-\nbased or independent-action bars to her intervention.\n\n Under the strict inventorship boundaries reaffirmed by this Court in Fortress Iron,\nL.P. v. Digger Specialties, Inc. (Fed. Cir. Apr. 2, 2026), a patent that incorrectly lists its\ninventors and cannot be lawfully corrected under Section 256 is fundamentally invalid.\nThe primary parties cannot use a \"BlueRadio\" procedural decoy or an unrecorded out-of-\ncourt agreement to sanitize an asset whose chain of custody is permanently broken by the\nongoing containment of its creator. Because the lower court\u2019s text-only orders across\nDocuments 90, 107, and 113 operated to systematically insulate a fraudulent title wash\nwhile vital evidence remained restricted behind \"-1\" system indicators, this Court must\ninvoke its plenary authority under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 2106 to vacate the orders below, reverse\nthe lockout, and protect the integrity of the federal patent system.\n As shown on the first page of the Samsung Patent No. 10.886,417 B2 (Appx188),\nthe Appellant sketched and invented the transparent display only required for the \u201csee-\nthrough\u201d TV, but modern smart glasses \u201clens,\u201d Samsung\u2019s transparent TV patent is a\ndirect copu of this text and design, which is already a matter of public record. In\nDecember 2020 (three days) before the Federal Trade Commission initiated its case\nagainst the Defendent-Appelle, Meta, critical evidence on Linkedin was actively\nsuppressed via restric ion to hide data and cause spoilation. \u201cM-82\u201d (Appx94), the\ngolden egg keep being deleted and denied admission to the court. CAFC also denied the\ncorrectio via early motion. 34\n\fJ. The Lower Court Abused Its Discretion by Mooting Appellant\u2019s Pre-Emptive\nSecurity Motions and Ignoring Clear Evidence of Record Tampering\n\n To intervene as of right, an applicant must demonstrate that disposing of the action\nmay, as a practical matter, impair or impede their ability to protect their interest. Fed. R.\nCiv. P. 24(a)(2). Here, Appellant's proprietary interest centers on unique, high-utility\ntechnical data establishing priority of creation and Senior Inventorship. As documented at\nAppx68, Appx71, Appx74, and Appx130, the material physical evidence of Appellant's\npriority has been altered or replaced and swapped with non-authenticated data within the\nrecord. Allowing the underlying litigation to proceed to final judgment on a corrupted\nevidentiary foundation permanently impairs Appellant\u2019s ability to defend her global\nproprietary rights, effectively stripping her of her intellectual property without due\nprocess of law.\n\n A lower court abuses its discretion when it fails to consider relevant, highly signifi-\ncant factors or makes a clear error of judgment. In the context of intervention as of right,\na court must evaluate whether the existing proceedings can provide a fair and adequate\nforum for the proposed intervenor's claims. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a).\n\n The burden of showing inadequate representation under Rule 24(a)(2) is minimal\nand is satisfied if the applicant shows that representation of his interest \"may be\" inade-\nquate. Trbovich v. United Mine Workers, 404 U.S. 528, 538 n.10 (1972).The existing\nstate and corporate litigants in the lower court are entirely unaligned with, and struc-\nturally hostile to, Appellant\u2019s priority claims. This misalignment is made manifest by the\nexisting parties' failure to monitor, preserve, or correct the fraudulent manipulation of the\nevidentiary record below. Because the existing parties have actively permitted or failed to\ncontest the systematic erasure of Appellant's foundational \"seniorship\" sketches, they\ncannot\u2014and will not\u2014adequately represent or defend Appellant\u2019s rights in this action.\nIntervention is legally required to restore adversarial integrity to these proceedings.\n 35\n\fK. Under Fortress Iron, the Exclusion of the True Creator Voids the Patent and De-\nprives the Court of the Power to Proceed\n\n This Court\u2019s recent decision in Fortress Iron, L.P. v. Digger Specialties, Inc., No.\n24-2313 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 2, 2026) fundamentally alters the jurisdictional landscape of this\ncase. Writing for a unanimous panel, Circuit Judge Alan D. Lourie explicitly reaffirmed\nthe absolute structural necessity of proper inventorship, noting that a patent which incor-\nrectly lists its inventors and cannot be corrected according to law is invalid.\n\n Judge Lourie further dismantled the notion that courts can treat excluded creators\nas minor procedural afterthoughts, stating that omitted inventors occupy the central role\nin the patent process, and emphasizing that being named on a patent carries legal, finan-\ncial, and ownership consequences that an inventor has a right to contest.\n\n Because the underlying lawsuit lacks genuinely adverse parties and instead oper-\nates as an artificial corporate vehicle designed to launder a stolen patent title, the entire\nproceeding below is a structural nullity. The trial court's 95-minute summary mooting of\nAppellant's 65 technical exhibits (Appx201 lowe district ECF No. 92) left a profound\nchain-of-custody defect entirely unaddressed. Under the clear mandates of Fortress Iron\nand Hor v. Chu, 699 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2012), the complete absence of a true, un-\ncoerced inventive relation- ship invalidates the entire patent family as a matter of law\nunder 35 U.S.C. \u00a7\u00a7 101 and 102, requiring this Court to intervene and halt the engineered\nprocedural lockout.\n\n\n\n\n 36\n\fIX. THE DISTRICT COURT VIOLATED FIFTH AMENDMENT PROCEDURAL\n DUE PROCESS THROUGH ITS COERCIVE\n \"GRANT-and-TERMINATE\" MANEUVER AND FILING MORATORIUM\n (Appx19)\n The lower court's reliance on unreasoned text-only orders to dispose of every major\nmotion at every single stage of the litigation constitutes a structural due process violation.\nWhile text-only orders are administratively permissible for routine scheduling adjust-\nments, they cannot be deployed as a universal procedural shield to summarily eviscerate\ncomplex constitutional claims, extrajudicial containment evidence, and senior inventor-\nship title under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 256. By failing to provide a single syllable of written legal\nreasoning for any of its definitive rulings, the District Court effectively insulated its\nshortcuts from regular appellate scrutiny, necessitating a complete vacatur of all text-only\nentries and a mandatory reassignment under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 2106.\n\n A right to respond that cannot be physically exercised is an outright constitutional\nnullity. The lower court violated the fundamental tenets of Procedural Due Process under\nArmstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 544 (1965) by executing a simultaneous \"Grant-and-Ter-\nminate\" timing trick. By issuing an electronic order that granted Appellant leave to file an\nexpanded reply, while simultaneously terminating the entire civil action within the exact\nsame hour, the court effectively gagged Appellant from placing critical conflict disclo-\nsures onto the permanent record.\n\n This procedural gag was compounded by an unvarnished corruption of the physical\nrecord. The court dismissed Appellant\u2019s priority claims as \"generalized concepts\" while\nits own CM/ECF system systematically locked and suppressed 65 highly specific techni-\ncal exhibits (Appx201). The active spoliation of the PACER docket\u2014converting valid\nelectronic files picturing (i.e speechAnalyser.py) and explicit optical sketches into \"-1\"\nindicators during transmission\u2014was an extrajudicial attempt to hide the explicit deriva-\ntion trail (Appx129-356). A federal court cannot legally or logically declare evidence\n\n 37\n\f\"conclusory\" while actively executing a system lockout that bars itself from inspecting\nthat exact evidence. This Court must evaluate this appeal on a corrected record under\nFRAP 10(e).\n\n The District Court completed its structural lockout in Appx19 by issuing a sweep-\ning pre-filing moratorium and explicitly threatening to terminate the pro se Movant's\nelectronic filing privileges. While a trial court possesses broad discretion to manage its\ndaily docket, that authority is strictly limited to evenhanded, constitutional measures. It\ncannot be weaponized as an unreviewable shield to permanently insulate a structural er-\nror from appellate review.\n\n The court utilized the Movant's continuous, valid objections to the \"mini-trial\" er-\nror as a pretext to silence her entirely. Stripping a pro se patent owner of her right to file\nduring an active appeal is a flagrant violation of Fifth Amendment Due Process and the\nfundamental right of meaningful access to the courts. It represents an egregious mecha-\nnism of total exclusion designed to protect a collusive corporate arrangement from out-\nside scrutiny.\n\n X. THE FEIGNED, NON-ADVERSARIAL NATURE OF THE UNDERLYING\n ACTIONS BARS APPELLEES FROM EQUITABLE RELIEF UNDER THE\n DOCTRINE OF UNCLEAN HANDS\n\n The hyper-technical pleading barriers deployed by the Plaintiff proxy entity below\ncannot be viewed in isolation; they represent a bad-faith framework designed to execute\nan artificial, non-probable cause litigation to split the spoils of an exfiltrated consumer\nproduct architecture. Neither primary party could satisfy the statutory elements of inven-\ntorship, which is why the corporate Defendants stood entirely mute below and have now\ncompletely failed to enter an appearance before the Federal Circuit.\n\n\n\n 38\n\f To satisfy the timeliness and diligence requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Pro-\ncedure 24(a), any administrative delay in asserting these senior inventorship claims was\ndictated by an absolute, extrajudicial impossibility of performance. Appellant did not\nsleep on her protectable rights; rather, the physical and electronic capacity to compile ev-\nidence or file public reports was entirely blocked by active, hostile containment opera-\ntions executed by the background beneficiaries of the derived technology.\n\n As this Court explicitly held in Hor v. Chu, 699 F.3d 1331, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2012),\nthe clock for an inventorship correction claim under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 256 does not run from\nwhen the original theft or server exfiltration occurred, nor does it run from the application\nfiling date. The statutory window accrues only upon the formal issuance of the patent.\nFurthermore, Hor establishes that where a named patentee or corporate proxy utilizes un-\nclean hands to intentionally hide applications, manipulate dockets, or mislead the tri-\nbunal, that party is completely barred from using the passage of time, laches, or delay de-\nfenses to throw the victim out of court. A multi-decade or multi-year corporate shell\ngame cannot lock a true creator out of an Article III tribunal when the underlying delay\nwas forced by the wrongdoers' own deceptive concealment.\n\n Under the Doctrine of Unclean Hands and the strict baseline affirmed in Gilead\nSciences, Inc. v. Merck & Co., Inc., 888 F.3d 1231, 1239 (Fed. Cir. 2018), serious pre-lit-\nigation business misconduct\u2014including the unauthorized extraction of code and the de-\nployment of hostile containment arrays\u2014forfeits a party's right to assert or profit from\nthe resulting intellectual property. Because both primary parties here possess completely\nunclean hands derived from an unauthorized server exfiltration, this original derivation\ncreates an infectious unenforceability that taints the entire patent family.\n\n The complete absence of a true, un-coerced inventive relationship between the\nnamed filers and the technology invalidates the entire patent family as a matter of law un-\n\n 39\n\fder 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 101 and \u00a7 102. If the Plaintiff's fragmentation and global dispersion of\nthe architecture have rendered a clean untangling of the claims impossible, the underlying\npatents must be declared void ab initio.\n\n XII. TRANSNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FEDERATION UNDER THE AUKUS\n PROCUREMENT STRUCTURE REQUIRES AN IMMEDIATE DIRECT MAN-\n DATE FOR INVENTORSHIP CORRECTION\n\n The final, definitive proof of structural collusion within the underlying litigation\nlies in the systematic weaponization of pre-announcement timelines to insulate position-\ning and preemptively control the field. The District Court committed a manifest error of\nlaw by transforming a liberal threshold intervention standard into an aggressive pleading-\nstage barrier. This procedural lockout effectively prevented any independent judicial re-\nview of the technology's true derivation trail before the assets were dispersed globally.\n\n By treating Appellant's 65 technical forensic attachments (i.e. speechAnalyser.py)\nas a \"factual void,\" the original tribunal permitted the principal litigants to fake an adver-\nsarial impasse. This engineered lockout cleared the path for the corporate defendants to\nfragment and federate the exfiltrated consumer product architecture directly across global\nmilitary networks, including the UK Ministry of Defence and the Australian Defence\nForce under the trilateral AUKUS alliance.\n\n Because the technology stack is currently being integrated into international sover-\neign procurement dockets under the duplication of Appellant's senior common law trade-\nmark and blueprints, a remand to a forensically compromised district docket would cause\nsevere procedural prejudice. Under the express supervisory powers granted by 28 U.S.C.\n\u00a7 2106, this Court is fully empowered to bypass a futile remand. The uncontested techni-\ncal record requires this Court to issue a direct mandate to the Director of the USPTO to\n\n\n\n 40\n\fcorrect the patent rolls under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 256(b), establishing Appellant as the sole right-\nful inventor.\n\nA. Reassignment on Remand to the Southern District of New York (SDNY) is\nMandated to Purge Systemic Conflicts\n\n Should this Court determine that any portion of this patent dispute requires a fac-\ntual remand rather than a direct statutory mandate to the USPTO, venue must be trans-\nferred. Reassignment on remand to an uncompromised circuit footprint\u2014specifically the\nSouthern District of New York\u2014is structurally demanded under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 2106 be-\ncause the original tribunal's systematic text-only gatekeeping, electronic closures, and\nverbatim rubber-stamping (Appx665) meet the three-part disqualification criteria set\nforth in United States v. Robin, 553 F.2d 8, 10 (2d Cir. 1977).\n\n The record reflects deep institutional conflicts tying the Appellees to the original\nlocal forum. The head partner of the Defendant-Appellee\u2019s law firm is Brad Bondi\u2014the\nbiological brother of the former U.S. Attorney General, whose sudden dismissal directly\ncoincided with the Appellant\u2019s initial filings. Concurrently, the Defendant's in-house le-\ngal lead, Ethan Davis, operated within the upper echelons of the DOJ during these contin-\nuous violations, resigning a mere six days before the Movant\u2019s underlying property inter-\nests were systematically targeted. To expect an objective evaluation in the original dis-\ntrict is a structural impossibility; transfer to the SDNY is required to restore public trust\nand preserve the absolute appearance of judicial impartiality under Liteky v. United\nStates, 510 U.S. 540, 554 (1994).\n\nB. Appellees Are Equitably Estopped from Asserting Procedural Bars Where the\nPatent Title Relies on Coercive Extraction and TVPA Violations\n\n The District Court\u2019s summary enforcement of pleading deadlines constitutes a re-\nversible error of law because it completely ignored its mandatory obligation to safeguard\n\n 41\n\fthe overarching public policy and statutory prerequisites of the United States. Appellees\nseek to insulate their procedural maneuvers by claiming that the severe exploitation un-\nderlying this dispute is entirely irrelevant to a Title 35 patent litigation framework, sug-\ngesting that Appellant's sole remedy is to initiate a separate, independent civil action.\nThis assertion is fundamentally wrong as a matter of law and represents a bad-faith at-\ntempt to finalize a structural lockout.\n\n The United States Supreme Court has explicitly established that because a patent is\nan item of vital public interest affected with a paramount public interest, a civil court can-\nnot blind itself to unconscionable, coercive, or illegal procurement methods used to se-\ncure or protect an intellectual property asset.\n\n \u00b7 Precision Instrument Mfg. Co. v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery Co., 324\n U.S. 806, 814 (1945).\n \u00b7 Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 246 (1944).\n\nThe Precision Instrument mandate dictates that a civil court must apply the Doctrine of\nUnclean Hands to refuse enforcement or clearance of any asset acquired via inequitable\nbehavior.\n\n The record establishes that the Appellees did not arrive at the claimed invention\nthrough independent human conception or lawful collaboration under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 101.\nRather, the foundational technology was procured by the physical and situational extrac-\ntion of the Inventor herself, under conditions explicitly documented in the lower court as\nviolating the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA), 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1595. Under long-\nstanding patent principles, an intellectual property title cannot be separated from the hu-\nman mind that conceived it. Because the technology was derived from the forced extrac-\ntion of a human creator, the corporate defendants could not legally execute a valid decla-\nration of inventorship before the USPTO. The application they filed was a systemic fraud\n\n 42\n\ffrom day one, creating a profound chain-of-custody defect that breaks the chain of title\nab initio under Pannu v. Iolab Corp., 155 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 1998) and Fortress Iron,\nL.P. v. Digger Specialties, Inc. (Fed. Cir. Apr. 2, 2026).\n\n Furthermore, under federal procurement mandates, including FAR 52.222-50, the\ngovernment maintains an absolute zero-tolerance policy regarding human exploitation\nwithin its supply chains. By utilizing summary, text-only orders to lock out a recognized\nTVPA claimant who holds a direct property interest in the underlying unpatented work,\nthe District Court failed its equitable duty.\n\n Appellees cannot capture an inventor, strip her of resources, deploy institutional\nand law enforcement connections to block her from launching an independent action, and\nthen argue in this forum that she must seek a separate remedy. The record establishes that\nAppellant engaged in continuous, active diligence to secure legal counsel and institu-\ntional assistance as early as 2021, long before the physical battery and extrajudicial con-\ntainment arrays were initiated.\n\n Equity does not demand a futile act. Where an unrepresented creator's continuous,\npre-injury attempts to retain counsel were systematically neutralized, and her electronic\ncapacity to initiate an independent case remains blocked by the wrongdoers' own contain-\nment arrays and local systemic interference, forcing her out of the primary action is an\nabsolute denial of Due Process under the Fifth Amendment. Because the Appellees' on-\ngoing extrajudicial containment was the sole root cause of Appellant\u2019s situational filing\nlimitations, Appellees are equitably estopped from asserting any procedural, timeline-\nbased, or independent-action bars to her intervention. This Court must invoke its plenary\nauthority under 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 2106 to vacate the lower court's text orders, reverse the pro-\ncedural lockout, and protect the integrity of the federal patent system.\n\n\n\n 43\n\f XII. CONCLUSION AND PRAYER FOR RELIEF\n\nFor the foregoing reasons, Movant-Appellant respectfully requests that this Court:\n\n 1. VACATE the District Court\u2019s text-only dismissal and gatekeeping orders across\n Appx12, Appx15, and Appx19 as a manifest abuse of discretion and a structural\n fraud on the court that violated the Movant's Fifth Amendment Due Process rights;\n \u00b7 REVERSE the erroneous denial of the Movant-Appellant\u2019s Motion to Intervene\n under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), validating her documented, col-\n orable property interests in the asserted patents;\n \u00b7 ISSUE A DIRECT MANDATE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 2106 instructing the Di-\n rector of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to immediately\n correct the inventorship record under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 256(b) by adding the Appellant\n as the sole true inventor of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,306,389; 10,651,866; 11,082,055;\n 11,871,174; and 12,216,339 based on the uncontradicted forensic, source-code, and\n prototype evidence; and\n \u00b7 ORDER A REMAND AND TRANSFER directing that any necessary ancillary,\n continuing compliance, or further evidentiary proceedings be stripped from the\n compromised forum and reassigned to an uncompromised jurisdiction under a\n newly designated district judge within the U.S. District Court for the Southern Dis-\n trict of New York (SDNY).\n\nDated: June 14, 2026\nRespectfully submitted,\n/s/ Daitona Carter\nDAITONA CARTER, Movant-Appellant Pro Se\n2 Massachusetts Ave NE, General Delivery, Main Post Office\nWashington, DC 20002\nlegal@daitonacarter.com\n\n\n 44\n\f CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE\n\nPursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(g)\n\n 1. This brief complies with the type-volume limitation of Federal Rule of Appellate\n Procedure 32(a)(7)(B) because, excluding the parts of the brief exempted by Fed-\n eral Circuit Rule 32(b), this brief contains exactly 9,796 words as calculated by the\n word count function of the word processing system used to prepare this brief.\n \u00b7 This brief complies with the typeface requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate\n Procedure 32(a)(5) and the type style requirements of Federal Rule of Appellate\n Procedure 32(a)(6) because this brief has been prepared in a proportionally spaced\n typeface, 14-point Times New Roman, using OnlyOffice.\n\nDated: June 18, 2026\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n/s/ Daitona Carter\nDAITONA CARTER\nMovant-Appellant Pro Se\n2 Massachusetts Ave NE\nGeneral Delivery, Main Post Office\nWashington, DC 20002\nlegal@daitonacarter.com\n\n\n\n\n 45\n\f PROOF OF SERVICE\n\n\n\nPursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 25(d) and Fed. Cir. R. 25(e), I certify that on June 19,\n2026, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing Opening Brief upon the\nfollowing counsel of record using the methods indicated below:\n\nI. Via Electronic Filing (CM/ECF System):\nThe following registered counsel for the Plaintiff-Appellee will receive automated\nservice via the court's generated Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF):\n\nCounsel for Solos Technology Limited:\nJameson J. Pasek\nCaldwell Law\n200 Clarendon Street, 59th Floor Boston, MA 02116\nEmail: jameson@caldwelllaw.com\n\nII. Via Mail Service:\nAppellant became aware that the previously a malware-modified version was\nserved via Fedex on June 19, 2026. This finalized version is served electronically\nvia email on June 21, 2026 to correct the record and prevent further spoliation.\n\nBecause the following counsel for the Defendant-Appellees are not registered for\nelectronic filing, I served them by depositing copies of the Opening Brief and\nAppendix via Mail, along with an electronic copy for their convenience, addressed\nas follows:\n\fCounsel for Defendant (Meta Platforms, Inc and Meta Platforms\nTechnologies, LLC):\nLisa K. Nguyen\nPaul Hastings LLP\n1117 S. California Ave\nPalo Alto, CA 94304\nEmail: lisanguyen@paulhastings.com\n\n\nCounsel for Defendants (Oakley, Inc., Luxottica of America, Inc., and\nEssilorLuxottica USA, Inc., ):\nAli S. Razai\nMorgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP\n600 Anton Blvd., Suite 1800\nCosta Mesa, CA 92626\nEmail: ali.razai@morganlewis.com\n\nPursuant to the Crime Victims' Rights Act (CVRA) and FAR 52.222-50\ncompliance protocols, automated duplicate copy packages will be concurrently\ndispatched via verified administrative delivery channels to the Department of\nJustice Office of the Inspector General (DOJ OIG) and the Department of Defense\nOffice of the Inspector General (DOD OIG) to satisfy mandatory trilateral\nreporting constraints.\n\n\n\nDate: June 21, 2026\nSignature: /s/ Daitona Carter\nDaitona Carter\nMovant-Appellant Pro Se\n2 Massachusetts Ave NE\nGeneral Delivery, Main Post Office\nWashington, DC 20002\nPhone Number: NONE\nEmail: legal@daitonacarter.com (Designated Service Proxy)\nPrimary Service Method: Electronic Service Only via US-Appellate-ECF Gateway\n\f ADDENDUM\nAppx12, Appx15, and Appx19\n\n\n\n\n 48\n\f Appx12\u2013 Electronic Order Denying Motion to Intervene\n\n\n\n\n\u201cJudge Allison D. Burroughs: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Currently before the\nCourt is pro se movant Daitona Carter’s (“Carter”) motion to inter-\nvene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24. [ECF No. 58 ]. For the following reasons,\nthat motion is denied.\n\nAn applicant may intervene as a matter of right under Rule 24(a) if (1) the application is\ntimely, (2) the applicant claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is\nthe subject of the action; (3) the applicant is so situated that the disposition of the action\nmay as a practical matter impair or impede her ability to protect that interest; and (4) her\ninterest will not be adequately represented by existing parties. Travelers Indem. Co. v.\nDingwell, 884 F.2d 629, 637 (1st Cir. 1989). “Failure to satisfy any single require-\nment for intervention... is sufficient grounds to deny [the] request.” Victim Rights\nLaw Center v. Rosenfelt, 988 F.3d 556, 560–61 (1st Cir. 2021). Under Rule\n24(b)(1)(B), the Court may also “permit anyone to intervene... who has a claim...\nthat shares with the main action a common question of law or fact.” Permissive\nintervention under Rule 24(b) is “‘wholly discretionary,’ and a\n\n 49\n\fcourt should consider whether intervention will prejudice the existing parties or delay the\naction.” In re Bos. Sci. Corp. ERISA Litig., 254 F.R.D. 24, 33 n.82 (D. Mass.\n2008) (quoting In re Sonus Networks, Inc. Sec. Litig., 229 F.R.D. 339, 345 (D. Mass.\n2005)). The Court accepts as true non\u2212conclusory allegations made in support of the mo-\ntion to intervene. B. Fernandez & Hnos., Inc. v. Kellogg USA, Inc., 440 F.3d 541, 543\n(1st Cir. 2006). Here, Carter may not intervene under Rule 24(a) because she has not suf-\nficiently alleged that she has a protectible interest in this action. Carter claims sole inven-\ntorship and ownership of the asserted patents under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 256, based on her alleged\n“prior conception and reduction to practice of the of technologies embodied in the\nasserted patents.” [ECF No. 58 at 3]. She has not, however, presented non\u2212con-\nclusory allegations to support this claim. See, e.g., Ultravision Techs., LLC v. GoVision,\nLLC, No. 18\u2212cv\u221200100, 2020 WL 7261089, at *5 (E.D. Tex. Dec. 9, 2020). To qualify\nas an inventor of the asserted patents, she must have “contribute[d] to the concep-\ntion of the invention,” which is “‘the formation... of a definite and\npermanent idea of the complete and operative invention[,]’... includ[ing] every\nfeature of the subject matter claimed in the patent.” Ethicon, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical\nCorp., 135 F.3d 1456, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (quoting Hybritech, Inc. v. Monoclonal An-\ntibodies, Inc., 802 F.2d 1367, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 1986)). Neither Carter’s motion,\n[ECF No. 58 ], nor her proposed complaint in intervention, [ECF No. 58\u22121], nor any of\nher many other filings to date, [ECF Nos. 70 , 72 , 73 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 83 ], contain non\u2212-\nconclusory allegations suggesting that she contributed to the formation of a definite and\npermanent idea as to every feature of the subject matter claimed in the asserted patents.\nEthicon, Inc., 135 F.3d at 1460; cf.Iceotope Group Limited v.\n\nLiquidCool Solutions, Inc., No. 20\u2212cv\u221202644, 2022 WL 204923, at *3 (D. Minn. Jan.\n24, 2022) (holding that allegations that inventors made “unspecified contribu-\ntion[s] to an assortment of [the asserted] patents or patent applications” were too\n\n 50\n\fconclusory to support inventor change under \u00a7 256). Accordingly, Carter may not inter-\nvene under Rule 24(a).\n\nThe Court also denies Carter’s request for permissive intervention under Rule\n24(b). Allowing Carter to intervene here would not only substantially expand the scope\nof the action to include disputes over inventorship; it would also “unduly hinder\nthe efficient resolution” of this case. T\u2212Mobile Ne. LLC v. Town of Barnstable,\n969 F.3d 33, 42 (1st Cir. 2020).\n\nAccordingly, Carter’s motion to intervene, [ECF No. 58 ], is DENIED, and all her\nother pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. (CAM)\n\n(Entered: 04/15/2026)\u201d\n\n\n\n\n 51\n\f Appx15 \u2013 Electronic Order Denying Motion for Reconsideration and Stay\n\n\n\n\n\u201cJudge Allison D. Burroughs: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Pro se movant Daitona\nCarter's motion for leave to file a reply, [ECF No. 106 ], is GRANTED.\n\nCarter moves for reconsideration of the Court’s order, [ECF No. 90 ], denying her\nrequest for intervention, [ECF Nos. 91 , 95 ], and for a stay pending her appeal of that or-\nder, [ECF No. 98 ].\n\nThe Court considers Carter’s motions for reconsideration under the Rule 59(e)\nstandard. See Perez\u2212Perez v. Popular Leasing Rental, Inc., 993 F.2d 281, 284 (1st Cir.\n1993). The granting of a motion for reconsideration is “an extraordinary rem-\nedy” that is only warranted if “newly discovered evidence... has come to\nlight or... the rendering court committed a manifest error of law.” Palmer v.\nChampion Mortg., 465 F.3d 24, 30 (1st Cir. 2006) (citation omitted). “[S]imple\ndisagreement with the court’s decision is not a basis for reconsideration.”\nOfori v. Ruby Tuesday, Inc., 205 F. App’x 851, 853 (1st Cir. 2006). Courts have\n“substantial discretion” and “broad authority” to allow or\ndeny\n\n 52\n\freconsideration. Ruiz Rivera v. Pfizer Pharm., LLC, 521 F.3d 76, 81–82 (1st\nCir.2008). Carter’s filings do not meet the standard for reconsideration. As an ini-\ntial matter, Carter has not sufficiently shown that anything contained in the filings qual-\nifies as “newly discovered” within the meaning of Rule 59(e), in the sense\nthat it was not previously available to her. See Biltcliffe v. CitiMortgage, Inc., 772 F.3d\n925, 931 (1st Cir. 2014). More importantly, what she has submitted does not cure the de-\nfect identified in the Court’s prior order, namely, that Carter has not sufficiently\nalleged that she conceived of or contributed to the conception of the inventions at issue in\nthis litigation. See Glob. Health Sols. LLC v. Selner, 148 F.4th 1363, 1371 (Fed. Cir.\n2025) (noting that, to prove derivation, a party “must produce evidence sufficient\nto show (i) conception of the claimed invention, and (ii) communication of the conceived\ninvention to the respondent prior to respondent's filing of that patent application”);\nBearBox LLC v. Lancium LLC, 125 F.4th 1101, 1118 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (noting that\n“[a]n alleged joint inventor must show that he contributed significantly to the con-\nception... or reduction to practice of at least one claim” and that the “con-\ntributions... arise from ‘some element of joint behavior... ’ with the other\ninventors” (citation omitted)). As Solos notes, Carter’s filings reflect, at\nmost, “generalized work in smart glasses. technology, software concepts, or prior\nprojects,” without identifying any “concrete, claim\u2212level contribu-\ntions.” [ECF No. 105 at 7]. Accordingly, Carter’s motions for reconsider-\nation are DENIED.\n\nBefore seeking a stay pending appeal from the court of appeals, a person “must\nordinarily move first in the district court,” Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(1), but the stan-\ndard governing its issuance is “generally the same” in both, Hilton v.\nBraunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987). A stay is “‘an exercise of judicial\ndiscretion’ and ‘[t]he propriety of its issue is dependent upon the circum-\n\n 53\n\fstances of the particular case.’” Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 433 (2009)\n(quoting Virginian Ry. Co. v. United States, 272 U.S. 658, 672–73 (1926)). To\nobtain a stay, Carter must “(1) make a ‘strong showing that [she is] likely\nto succeed on the merits’ in [her] appeal; (2) show that [she] ‘will be ir-\nreparably injured absent a stay’; (3) show that ‘issuance of the stay will\n[not] substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding’; and (4)\nshow that the stay would serve‘the public interest.’” New York v.\nTrump, 133 F.4th 51, 65 (1st Cir. 2025) (quoting Nken, 556 U.S. at 434). “The\nfirst two factors... are the most critical.” Nken, 556 U.S. at 434.\n\nCarter is not entitled to a stay pending appeal. She has not made a strong showing that\nshe is likely to succeed on the merits, identifying no authority that clearly supports her\nrequest for intervention under the circumstances. Given the weakness of her showing on\nthe merits, even her assertions of serious harm—at least some of which appear un-\nrelated to the present action, [ECF No. 98 at 1–2]—do not carry the day.\nSee Braintree Lab'ys, Inc. v. Citigroup Global Markets Inc., 622 F.3d 36, 42 (1st Cir.\n2010). Because Carter has not satisfied her burden on the first two factors, the Court need\nnot consider the remaining factors. Carter’s motion for a stay pending appeal is\nDENIED.\n\nFinally, Carter is reminded that the local rules require motions and supporting materials\nto be filed at the same time, L.R. 7.1(a), and encouraged to refrain from filing further\ndocuments\n\nthat substantially duplicate or repeat material contained in prior filings. Carter is further\nreminded that the Court has discretion to rescind electronic filing privileges if those priv-\nileges are abused.\n\n(CAM) (Entered: 04/29/2026)\u201d\n\n 54\n\f Appx19 \u2013 Electronic Order Denying Rule 60 Motion to Vacate\n\n\n\n\n\u201cJudge Allison D. Burroughs: ELECTRONIC ORDER entered. Pro se movant Daitona\nCarter’s motion to vacate the Court’s prior order denying her request for\nreconsideration, [ECF No. 110 ], is DENIED.\n\nCarter’s motion invokes Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(3), 60(b)(6),\nand 60(d)(3). [ECF No. 110 at 1]. Relief under Rule 60(b) is “extraordinary in na-\nture,” and a district court does not abuse its discretion in summarily denying a\nRule 60(b) motion that “simply restate[s] the arguments already fully considered\nand rejected by the court in its previous ruling.” Diaz v. Gonzales, 167 F. App'x\n820, 822 (1st Cir. 2006). To satisfy Rule 60(b)(3), Carter “‘must demon-\nstrate misconduct—such as fraud or misrepresentation—by clear and con-\nvincing evidence’ and ‘show that the misconduct foreclosed full and fair\npreparation or presentation of [her] case.’” Giroux v. Fed. Nat. Mortg.\nAss'n, 810 F.3d 103, 108 (1st Cir. 2016) (quoting Karak v. Bursaw Oil Corp., 288 F.3d\n15, 21 (1st Cir. 2002)). “[R]elief under Rule 60(b)(6) is available only in narrow\ncircumstances,” that is, “when Rules 60(b)(1) through (b)(5) are\n\ninapplicable” and “extraordinary circumstances... justify reopen-\ning.” BLOM Bank SAL v. Honickman, 605 U.S. 204, 211 (2025) (citation mod-\n\n 55\n\fified). For a court to “set aside a judgment for fraud on the court” under\nRule 60(d)(3), there must be a showing of “an unconscionable scheme or the most\negregious conduct designed to corrupt the judicial process.” Fontanillas\u2212Lopez v.\nMorell Bauza Cartagena & Dapena, LLC, 832 F.3d 50, 63 n.11 (1st Cir. 2016) (quoting\nLinkCo, Inc. v. NaoyukiAkikusa, 367 F. App’x 180, 182 (2d Cir. 2010)); see also\nGillis v. Chase, 894 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 2018) (“[F]raud on the court requires inter-\nference with the judicial process itself, such as bribery of a judge.”).\n\nCarter’s motion does not satisfy Rule 60(b) or (d). It appears primarily to restate\narguments that the Court already considered and rejected in ruling on Carter’s\nprior motion to intervene and motions for reconsideration. See [ECF No. 90]; [ECF No.\n107].\n\nCarter has not shown misconduct, such as fraud or misrepresentation, by clear and\n\nconvincing evidence, as required for relief under Rule 60(b)(3). By the same token, she\nhas not shown any interference with the judicial process amounting to fraud on the court,\nas required for relief under Rule 60(d)(3). Finally, she has not shown extraordinary cir-\ncumstances sufficient to satisfy the strict Rule 60(b)(6) standard. Accordingly, her motion\nto vacate, [ECF No. 110 ], is DENIED.\n\nThe Court notes that this is Carter’s third motion for reconsideration of its denial\nof her motion to intervene, and that it substantially restates arguments advanced in\nCarter’s prior filings. See [ECF Nos. 91 , 95 , 110 ]. Accordingly, the Court orders\nthat, during the pendency of her appeal, Carter must request leave of the Court before fil-\ning any further materials related to her request for intervention. Any further filings by\nCarter related to her request for intervention during the pendency of her appeal without\nprior leave of the Court will be struck. Should this not deter Carter, the Court will con-\n\n\n 56\n\fsider terminating her electronic filing privileges. As Carter is aware, her recourse now\nlies with the Court of Appeals.\n\n(CAM) (Entered: 05/08/2026)\u201d\n\n\n\n\n 57\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-07-07T10:15:09.123279-07:00","document_number":"28","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"01302712234","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-07-01T18:40:04.592627-07:00","date_modified":"2026-07-10T11:27:12.656699-07:00","date_filed":"2026-06-21","time_filed":null,"entry_number":28,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-06-21.001","pacer_sequence_number":1174810,"description":"OPENING BRIEF FILED by Appellant Daitona Carter. Service: 06/21/2026 by email. [1174810] [26-1721] This document is non-compliant. See Doc No.[30] [Daitona Carter] [Entered: 06/21/2026 04:23 AM]","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=73471924&page_size=40"}