{"cached_at":"2026-09-29T09:56:38.008931+00:00","cl_docket_id":"72181665","docket":{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","id":72181665,"court":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/courts/mad/","court_id":"mad","original_court_info":null,"idb_data":null,"clusters":[],"audio_files":[],"assigned_to":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/people/477/","referred_to":null,"bankruptcy_information":null,"absolute_url":"/docket/72181665/solos-technology-limited-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-01-23T10:16:58.719360-08:00","date_modified":"2026-09-11T11:49:49.312127-07:00","source":1,"appeal_from_str":"","assigned_to_str":"Allison D. Burroughs","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":"2026-01-23","date_terminated":null,"date_last_filing":"2026-09-11","case_name_short":"","case_name":"Solos Technology Limited v. Meta Platforms, Inc.","case_name_full":"","slug":"solos-technology-limited-v-meta-platforms-inc","docket_number":"1:26-cv-10304","docket_number_core":"2610304","docket_number_raw":"1:26-cv-10304","docket_number_source":0,"federal_dn_office_code":"1","federal_dn_case_type":"cv","federal_dn_judge_initials_assigned":"ADB","federal_dn_judge_initials_referred":"","federal_defendant_number":null,"pacer_case_id":"294817","cause":"15:1126 Patent Infringement","nature_of_suit":"830 Patent","jury_demand":"Plaintiff","jurisdiction_type":"Federal Question","appellate_fee_status":"","appellate_case_type_information":"","mdl_status":"","filepath_ia":"","filepath_ia_json":"","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"ia_needs_upload":true,"ia_date_first_change":"2026-01-23T10:16:58.712018-08:00","date_blocked":null,"blocked":false,"appeal_from":null,"parent_docket":null,"tags":[],"panel":[]},"parties":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/19574448/","id":19574448,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13441216/","attorney_id":13441216,"date_action":"2026-04-14","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","docket_id":72181665,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13441216/","attorney_id":13441216,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","docket_id":72181665,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13441216/","attorney_id":13441216,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","docket_id":72181665,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13441217/","attorney_id":13441217,"date_action":"2026-04-14","docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","docket_id":72181665,"role":6},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13441217/","attorney_id":13441217,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","docket_id":72181665,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","docket_id":72181665,"name":"Objector","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-04-07T07:22:02.327134-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-07T07:22:02.327148-07:00","name":"Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/19574447/","id":19574447,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13441215/","attorney_id":13441215,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","docket_id":72181665,"role":10}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","docket_id":72181665,"name":"Movant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-04-07T07:22:01.791436-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-07T07:22:01.791444-07:00","name":"Daitona Carter","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/17187052/","id":17187052,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13441211/","attorney_id":13441211,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","docket_id":72181665,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13441212/","attorney_id":13441212,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","docket_id":72181665,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13441213/","attorney_id":13441213,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","docket_id":72181665,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13441214/","attorney_id":13441214,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","docket_id":72181665,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","docket_id":72181665,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-01-23T10:43:40.692551-08:00","date_modified":"2026-01-23T10:43:40.692559-08:00","name":"EssilorLuxottica USA, Inc.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/17187051/","id":17187051,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13441211/","attorney_id":13441211,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","docket_id":72181665,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13441212/","attorney_id":13441212,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","docket_id":72181665,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13441213/","attorney_id":13441213,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","docket_id":72181665,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13441214/","attorney_id":13441214,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","docket_id":72181665,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","docket_id":72181665,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-01-23T10:43:40.677493-08:00","date_modified":"2026-01-23T10:43:40.677501-08:00","name":"Luxottica of America, Inc.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/17187050/","id":17187050,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13441211/","attorney_id":13441211,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","docket_id":72181665,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13441212/","attorney_id":13441212,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","docket_id":72181665,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13441213/","attorney_id":13441213,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","docket_id":72181665,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13441214/","attorney_id":13441214,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","docket_id":72181665,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","docket_id":72181665,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-01-23T10:43:40.663450-08:00","date_modified":"2026-01-23T10:43:40.663459-08:00","name":"Oakley, Inc.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/17187049/","id":17187049,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13441208/","attorney_id":13441208,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","docket_id":72181665,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13441208/","attorney_id":13441208,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","docket_id":72181665,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13821652/","attorney_id":13821652,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","docket_id":72181665,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13441209/","attorney_id":13441209,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","docket_id":72181665,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13441210/","attorney_id":13441210,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","docket_id":72181665,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","docket_id":72181665,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-01-23T10:43:40.650845-08:00","date_modified":"2026-01-23T10:43:40.650854-08:00","name":"Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/17187048/","id":17187048,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13441208/","attorney_id":13441208,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","docket_id":72181665,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13441208/","attorney_id":13441208,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","docket_id":72181665,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13821652/","attorney_id":13821652,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","docket_id":72181665,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13441209/","attorney_id":13441209,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","docket_id":72181665,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13441210/","attorney_id":13441210,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","docket_id":72181665,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","docket_id":72181665,"name":"Defendant","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-01-23T10:43:40.637611-08:00","date_modified":"2026-01-23T10:43:40.637621-08:00","name":"Meta Platforms, Inc.","extra_info":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/parties/17187047/","id":17187047,"attorneys":[{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11205326/","attorney_id":11205326,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","docket_id":72181665,"role":2},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/11205326/","attorney_id":11205326,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","docket_id":72181665,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13441206/","attorney_id":13441206,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","docket_id":72181665,"role":1},{"attorney":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/attorneys/13441207/","attorney_id":13441207,"date_action":null,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","docket_id":72181665,"role":1}],"party_types":[{"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","docket_id":72181665,"name":"Plaintiff","date_terminated":null,"extra_info":"","highest_offense_level_opening":"","highest_offense_level_terminated":"","criminal_counts":[],"criminal_complaints":[]}],"date_created":"2026-01-23T10:43:40.584459-08:00","date_modified":"2026-01-23T10:43:40.584472-08:00","name":"Solos Technology Limited","extra_info":""}],"entries":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/477696376/","id":477696376,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/493299334/","id":493299334,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72181665/116/solos-technology-limited-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-09-11T11:49:49.589428-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-11T11:49:49.602781-07:00","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":"116","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"095013951442","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Withdrawal of Appearance","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-09-11T11:49:49.561025-07:00","date_modified":"2026-09-11T11:49:49.570376-07:00","date_filed":"2026-09-11","time_filed":"14:43:41","entry_number":116,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-09-11.001","pacer_sequence_number":371,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/464398491/","id":464398491,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479570825/","id":479570825,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-05-18T10:05:22.523020-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-18T10:05:22.530111-07:00","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":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Abbreviated Electronic Appeal Record Sent to USCA","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-18T10:05:22.501210-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-18T10:05:22.501223-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-18","time_filed":"12:11:13","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-18.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/464327683/","id":464327683,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/479497535/","id":479497535,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72181665/114/solos-technology-limited-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-05-17T12:05:17.714299-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-17T12:05:17.755944-07:00","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":"114","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"095013686162","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Appeal to the Federal Circuit","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-17T12:05:17.680481-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-17T12:05:17.693641-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-17","time_filed":"14:23:09","entry_number":114,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-17.001","pacer_sequence_number":360,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/463415891/","id":463415891,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/478560897/","id":478560897,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-05-08T08:25:00.631489-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-08T08:25:00.638608-07:00","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":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief AND Order on Motion to Vacate","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-08T08:25:00.608398-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-08T08:25:00.608419-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-08","time_filed":"10:49:32","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-08.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/463289796/","id":463289796,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/478431087/","id":478431087,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72181665/112/solos-technology-limited-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-05-07T10:23:26.111598-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-05T02:26:54.997595-07:00","sha1":"33130863d3c94f6e9b12a00658b5a0864fd70979","page_count":10,"file_size":210586,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.mad.294817/gov.uscourts.mad.294817.112.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mad.294817/gov.uscourts.mad.294817.112.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 112 Filed 05/07/26 Page 1 of 10\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS\n__________________________________________\n )\nSOLOS TECHNOLOGY LIMITED, )\n )\n Plaintiff, )\n ) Case No. 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n v. )\n )\nMETA PLATFORMS, INC., et al., )\n )\n Defendants. )\n__________________________________________)\n\n OPPOSITION TO DAITONA CARTER\u2019S MOTION TO VACATE AND\n REQUEST FOR FILING RESTRICTIONS\n\n Daitona Carter\u2019s (\u201cCarter\u201d) Motion to Vacate and for Relief from Judgment (the \u201cMotion\u201d)\n\nshould be denied. This Motion is part of a continuing pattern of duplicative filings that warrant the\n\nimposition of restrictions. Accordingly, Plaintiff Solos Technology Limited (\u201cSolos\u201d) respectfully\n\nrequests that in addition to denying the Motion, the Court require Carter to seek leave before\n\nsubmitting any additional filings.\n\n INTRODUCTION\n\n Carter previously sought relief based on purported \u201cnewly discovered\u201d evidence. The\n\nCourt found that Carter failed to demonstrate that any of her submissions qualified as newly\n\ndiscovered because the materials were previously available and were, by her own account, within\n\nher possession prior to the Court\u2019s ruling. The Motion requests that the Court again reconsider\n\nthese same issues. It is therefore procedurally improper and should be denied on this basis alone.\n\n Even if the Court were to put procedural deficiencies aside, the Motion does not cure\n\nCarter\u2019s substantive deficiencies. The materials are not newly discovered, and if they were, they\n\ndo not alter the outcome. Carter also fails to identify any fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 112 Filed 05/07/26 Page 2 of 10\n\n\n\n\nby an opposing party with the requisite particularity. She instead relies on conclusory allegations\n\nof suppression, external interference, and unrelated third-party conduct that bear no connection to\n\nthis case or to her ability to present her position. Thus, she cannot satisfy Rule 60(b)(3).\n\n Similar deficiencies defeat Carter\u2019s remaining claims under Rules 60(b)(6) and 60(d)(3).\n\nRule 60(b)(6) applies only in extraordinary circumstances and cannot be used to circumvent the\n\nrequirements of Rules 60(b)(1) through (5). Here, Carter repackages the same unsupported\n\nallegations underlying her prior Rule 60(b)(1) and (3) arguments, including assertions of\n\nadministrative suppression, state actor involvement, cyber interference, and coordinated\n\nmisconduct. These allegations, however fanciful, do not constitute extraordinary circumstances\n\nthat prevented the full and fair adjudication of her intervention request.\n\n Nor can she satisfy Rule 60(d)(3). She presents no clear and convincing evidence of fraud\n\non the Court, fabrication of evidence, or conduct that corrupted the judicial process itself. Instead,\n\nCarter relies on generalized and conclusory allegations untethered to any actionable misconduct\n\nbefore this Court.\n\n Indeed, the Motion is part of a broader pattern of repetitive and duplicative filings\n\nfollowing the Court\u2019s denial of Carter\u2019s request to intervene, including multiple supplemental\n\nsubmissions, a motion for reconsideration, an initial motion to vacate, and related motions that\n\nhave consistently failed to cure the dispositive deficiencies. The Court has already cautioned Carter\n\nagainst filing duplicative materials and warned that her filing privileges may be restricted if\n\nabused. In light of this pattern, Solos respectfully requests that the Court require Carter to seek\n\nleave before proceeding with any additional filings.\n\n For these reasons and the reasons stated below, Carter\u2019s Motion should be denied and\n\nSolos\u2019 request for filing restrictions against Carter should be granted.\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 112 Filed 05/07/26 Page 3 of 10\n\n\n\n\n RELEVANT BACKGROUND\n\n On March 27, 2026, non-party Daitona Carter, proceeding pro se, moved to intervene\n\npursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24, asserting that she was a prior inventor of the\n\ntechnologies reflected in the Asserted Patents and seeking correction of inventorship under 35\n\nU.S.C. \u00a7 256. Mot. to Intervene, ECF No. 58. In connection with that motion, Carter filed\n\nnumerous supplemental memoranda, affidavits, and exhibits purporting to establish prior\n\nconception and technical development. See ECF Nos. 70, 72, 73, 77, 78, 79, 83.\n\n Solos opposed the motion, explaining that Carter failed to allege any legally protectable\n\ninterest in the asserted patents because she did not identify any specific contribution to the\n\nconception of any claimed invention or tie her allegations to any specific patent claim or limitation.\n\nPl.\u2019s Opp\u2019n to Mot. to Intervene at 2\u20135, ECF No. 82.\n\n On April 15, 2026, the Court denied Carter\u2019s motion to intervene and all related motions.\n\nElectronic Order, ECF No. 90. The Court held that Carter failed to allege a protectable interest\n\nbecause she presented conclusory allegations and failed to demonstrate that she contributed to the\n\nconception of the claimed inventions but instead relied on generalized assertions of prior work and\n\ntechnical activity. Id. The Court further found that Carter\u2019s submissions did not identify\n\ncontributions to the claimed inventions with the specificity required under governing law. Id.\n\n Following that ruling, Carter filed a motion for reconsideration, motion to vacate and\n\nrelated submissions. Mot. for Recons., ECF No. 91; see also ECF Nos. 94, 95. While those motions\n\nwere pending, Carter also filed a notice of appeal from the Court\u2019s denial of intervention and a\n\nmotion seeking a stay pending appeal. Notice of Appeal, ECF No. 97; Mot. to Stay, ECF No. 98.\n\n Plaintiff opposed Carter\u2019s request for reconsideration. Opp\u2019n to Mot. for Recons., ECF No.\n\n105. On April 29, 2026, the Court denied Carter\u2019s motions for reconsideration and for a stay.\n\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 112 Filed 05/07/26 Page 4 of 10\n\n\n\n\nElectronic Order, ECF No. 107. The Court held that Carter failed to present newly discovered\n\nevidence or identify any manifest error of law and that her additional submissions did not cure the\n\ndispositive deficiency identified in its prior order, including her failure to allege concrete, claim-\n\nlevel contributions to the asserted inventions. Id. The Court further found that Carter failed to\n\ndemonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits or entitlement to a stay. Id.\n\n Notwithstanding these rulings, Carter continued to submit additional filings advancing the\n\nsame underlying theories. See, e.g., ECF No. 103. On May 4, 2026, Carter filed the present Motion\n\nto Vacate and for Relief from Judgment. Mot. to Vacate, ECF No. 110. This Motion follows\n\nCarter\u2019s prior motion for reconsideration and earlier request for the same relief and relies on similar\n\nmaterials and allegations previously presented to and rejected by the Court.\n\n LEGAL STANDARD\n\n A. Relief From Judgment Under Rule 60\n\n Courts routinely deny post-judgment motions that seek to introduce arguments or evidence\n\nthat could have been raised earlier, as such filings undermine finality. See Fisher v. Kadant, Inc.,\n\n589 F.3d 505, 512\u201313 (1st Cir. 2009). Relief under Rule 60(b) is \u201cextraordinary in nature\u201d and\n\ngranted sparingly. Rivera-Vel\u00e1zquez v. Hartford Steam Boiler Inspection & Ins. Co., 750 F.3d 1,\n\n3 (1st Cir. 2014). Rule 60(b)(1) permits relief only for \u201cmistake, inadvertence, surprise, or\n\nexcusable neglect\u201d rather than a party\u2019s disagreement with the Court\u2019s reasoning or outcome. Ofori\n\nv. Ruby Tuesday, Inc., 205 F. App\u2019x 851, 853 (1st Cir. 2006). (\u201c[S]imple disagreement with the\n\ncourt\u2019s decision is not a basis for reconsideration.\u201d) Nor may it generally be used to raise\n\narguments that could have been presented earlier. Palmer v. Champion Mortgage, 465 F.3d 24, 30\n\n(1st Cir. 2006) (motions should not be used to raise arguments that could have been made earlier\n\nor to reargue previously rejected theories).\n\n\n\n 4\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 112 Filed 05/07/26 Page 5 of 10\n\n\n\n\n Rule 60(b)(3) allows relief for fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing\n\nparty, but only where the movant establishes the alleged misconduct by clear and convincing\n\nevidence and demonstrates that it substantially interfered with her ability to fully and fairly present\n\nher case. Anderson v. Cryovac, Inc., 862 F.2d 910, 923 (1st Cir. 1988).\n\n Furthermore, Rule 60(b)(6) and Rule 60(b)(1) \u201care mutually exclusive.\u201d de la Torre v.\n\nContl. Ins. Co., 15 F.3d 12, 15 n.5 (1st Cir. 1994). \u201c[60(b)](6) may not be used as a vehicle for\n\ncircumventing clauses (1) through (5).\u201d Cotto v. United States, 993 F.2d 274, 278 (1st Cir. 1993).\n\nCourts grant relief under Rule 60(b)(6) only where \u201cexceptional\u201d circumstances justify\n\n\u201cextraordinary\u201d relief. Valley Citizens for a Safe Env. v. Aldridge, 969 F.2d 1315, 1317 (1st Cir.\n\n1992) (describing the rule\u2019s catchall provision as narrowly applied).\n\n Lastly, Rule 60(d)(3) requires clear and convincing evidence of fraud on the court. The\n\nFirst Circuit defines fraud on the court as an unconscionable scheme designed to interfere with the\n\njudicial system\u2019s ability to impartially adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier of\n\nfact or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party\u2019s claim or defense. Aoude v.\n\nMobil Oil Corporation, 892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989) (citations omitted).\n\n B. Restrictions for Duplicative Filings\n\n Federal courts possess the authority to regulate the conduct of abusive litigants and may\n\nimpose filing restrictions in cases involving frivolous, duplicative, or harassing filings that burden\n\nthe Court and opposing parties. Cok v. Fam. Ct. of R.I., 985 F.2d 32, 34\u201335 (1st Cir. 1993).\n\nRestrictions should be tailored to the specific conduct at issue. Id. at 34. Courts may require a\n\nlitigant to obtain leave of court before filing further submissions where a clear pattern of\n\nduplicative or successive filings demonstrates an abuse of the judicial process and interferes with\n\nthe efficient administration of justice. Id. at 34\u201335; see also Amatucci v. Rae, No. 25-cv-167-JL-\n\n\n\n 5\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 112 Filed 05/07/26 Page 6 of 10\n\n\n\n\nAJ, 2025 WL 1592707, at *4 (D.N.H. May 22, 2025) (filing restriction after repeated duplicative\n\nactions and post-judgment filings).\n\n ARGUMENT\n\n A. Carter\u2019s Motion Is Procedurally Improper and Warrants Denial on This Basis\n Alone\n Carter seeks the same relief for a third time. The Motion relies on substantially the same\n\ntheories, materials, and allegations previously presented to and rejected by the Court. Indeed, this\n\nCourt has previously rejected repeat filings where the party seeks the same relief. See Smyth v.\n\nBisignano, No. 24-cv-10497-ADB, 2025 WL 2175877, at *1 (D. Mass. July 31, 2025) (dismissing\n\nduplicative motion).\n\n Here, Carter again asserts prior inventorship based on the same alleged 2009\u20132019 work,\n\nnow reframed through claims of administrative suppression, alleged restriction of ECF filings, and\n\nfraud on the court. See Mot. to Vacate at 2\u20133, 8\u201310, ECF No. 110. While the Motion expands on a\n\nconspiracy narrative referencing third parties, government actors, and other unrelated matters, the\n\ndescriptions do not alter the substance of the claims or supply a cognizable basis for relief. Instead,\n\nthey increase the volume of the record without curing the core deficiency previously identified by\n\nthe Court, specifically, Carter\u2019s failure to properly allege a legally cognizable interest in the\n\nAsserted Patents. See Mot. for Recons. at 2\u20133, ECF No. 91; Carter Decl. in Supp. of Emergency\n\nMot. to Vacate at 2\u20135, ECF No. 95-1; Electronic Order, ECF 107. The Motion is duplicative of\n\nCarter\u2019s previous filings and should be denied on this basis alone.\n\n B. Carter Again Fails to Satisfy Rule 60\n\n Even if the Court were to consider Carter\u2019s positions, they are internally contradictory and\n\nlegally insufficient. First, under the standards governing Rule 60, a movant cannot both assert that\n\ncritical evidence exists but was withheld and rely on that same absence of evidence to justify relief.\n\n\n 6\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 112 Filed 05/07/26 Page 7 of 10\n\n\n\n\nU.S. Steel v. M. DeMatteo Const. Co., 315 F.3d 43, 52 (1st Cir. 2002). Second, Rule 60(b)(1) and\n\n(b)(6) \u201care mutually exclusive.\u201d de la Torre, 15 F.3d at 15 n.5. As such, Carter cannot use Rule\n\n60(b)(6) to try to circumvent her failure to satisfy Rules 60(b)(1) and (3). Cotto, 993 F.2d at 278.\n\n The record reflects that Carter filed extensive materials and submissions, foreclosing any\n\nclaim that she was unable to present her position. The Motion itself confirms that Carter had\n\nrepeated opportunities to present arguments, evidence, and supplemental filings to the Court.\n\nThese circumstances foreclose relief under Rule 60. Carter\u2019s Rule 60(b)(1) argument also\n\nmischaracterizes the record. She contends that the Court\u2019s decision to grant leave to file a reply\n\nwhile issuing its ruling created a \u201cprocedural nullity,\u201d but the Court already determined that Carter\n\nhad a full opportunity to submit materials and that no procedural error occurred. See Mot. to Vacate\n\nat 29\u201330, ECF No. 110; Ofori, 205 F. App\u2019x at 853 (disagreement with the court\u2019s ruling does not\n\nwarrant reconsideration). Nor would any of Carter\u2019s additional materials have altered the outcome.\n\nAccordingly, Carter cannot demonstrate mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.\n\n Her Rule 60(b)(3) arguments also fail. Carter relies on allegations of \u201cadministrative\n\nsuppression,\u201d \u201cmalware,\u201d cyber interference, and third-party conduct, but does not tie that conduct\n\nto any opposing party. See Mot. to Vacate at 2, 26\u201328, ECF No. 110. Nor does she establish by\n\nclear and convincing evidence that misconduct by an adverse party substantially interfered with\n\nher ability to fully and fairly present her case. See Anderson, 862 F.2d at 923. Instead, she asserts\n\ngeneralized and conclusory allegations that are insufficient to warrant relief under Rule 60(b)(3).\n\n Carter\u2019s Rule 60(b)(6) arguments fare no better. The Motion advances wide-ranging\n\nallegations, including purported misuse of the \u201cstate secrets privilege,\u201d national security\n\ninvolvement, and external coercion, none of which constitute the extraordinary circumstances\n\nrequired for relief under Rule 60(b)(6). See Mot. to Vacate at 14\u201318, ECF No. 110; Valley Citizens\n\n\n\n 7\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 112 Filed 05/07/26 Page 8 of 10\n\n\n\n\nfor a Safe Env., 969 F.2d at 1317. Carter also references allegations of battery, financial harm, and\n\nthird-party interference, but those assertions merely repackage her broader theory that external\n\nforces prevented her from presenting evidence. The Motion does not present new facts, intervening\n\nlaws, or any legitimate basis for revisiting the Court\u2019s determinations.\n\n Nor can Carter satisfy Rule 60(d)(3). The Motion identifies no conduct rising to the level\n\nof fraud on the Court. Instead, it relies on allegations of systemic misconduct and \u201cfraud on the\n\ntribunal\u201d untethered to any clear and convincing evidence of an unconscionable scheme affecting\n\nthese proceedings. See Mot. to Vacate at 26\u201328, ECF No. 110. Rule 60(d)(3) is reserved for only\n\nthe most egregious misconduct corrupting the judicial process itself, which is wholly absent here.\n\nSee Roger Edwards, LLC v. Fiddes & Son Ltd., 427 F.3d 129, 133\u201335 (1st Cir. 2005).\n\n Accordingly, even if the Court were to consider Carter\u2019s argument, the Motion fails under\n\nevery provision of Rule 60 on which she relies.\n\n C. Filing Restrictions Are Warranted Based on Carter\u2019s Repetitive and Abusive\n Motion Practice\n The Motion\u2019s procedural impropriety and Carter\u2019s pattern of duplicative filings warrant the\n\nimposition of tailored filing restrictions. Courts may impose narrowly tailored filing restrictions\n\nwhere a litigant engages in repetitive, duplicative filings that burden the Court and interfere with\n\nthe efficient administration of justice. Cok, 985 F.2d at 34\u201335. That standard is satisfied where a\n\nparty continues to submit successive post-judgment motions that rest on the same underlying\n\ntheories, particularly after the Court has already addressed those arguments and identified their\n\ndeficiencies. See id. at 34\u201336 (recognizing authority to restrict abusive filings); see also Amatucci,\n\n2025 WL 1592707, at *4 (recommending filing restrictions following repeated filings). In such\n\ncircumstances, requiring a litigant to obtain leave of court before filing further submissions is\n\nappropriate and measured.\n\n\n 8\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 112 Filed 05/07/26 Page 9 of 10\n\n\n\n\n Carter has previously sought the same relief through a prior motion for reconsideration, an\n\nearlier motion to vacate, multiple supplemental filings, and now a second motion to vacate that\n\nagain relies on substantially the same materials and arguments previously rejected by the Court.\n\nSee Mot. for Recons., ECF No. 91 (seeking reconsideration based on purported \u201cnew evidence\u201d);\n\nNotice of Supplemental Evidence, ECF No. 94 (submitting additional materials in support of\n\nreconsideration); Mot. to Vacate, ECF No. 95 (seeking vacatur and stay based on substantially\n\nsimilar allegations); Notice, ECF No. 103 (supplementing prior motions with additional exhibits\n\nand arguments); Electronic Order, ECF No. 107 (denying reconsideration and finding submissions\n\ndid not cure lack of claim-level contributions); Mot. to Vacate, ECF No. 110 (second motion to\n\nvacate reasserting prior theories under Rule 60). These filings have consistently failed to cure the\n\ndispositive deficiency identified by the Court, yet Carter continues to expand the record with\n\nadditional submissions advancing the same theories under new labels. Electronic Order, ECF No.\n\n107 (noting Carter\u2019s filings reflect \u201cgeneralized work\u201d and fail to identify \u201cconcrete, claim-level\n\ncontributions\u201d).\n\n The Court previously cautioned Carter to refrain from duplicative filings and warned that\n\nabuse of filing privileges could result in restrictions, but that warning has not altered her conduct.\n\nId. (referencing potential restrictive measures). In these circumstances, the requirement that Carter\n\nseek leave before additional filings is reasonable.\n\n CONCLUSION\n\n For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court deny Daitona\n\nCarter\u2019s Motion to Vacate and for Relief from Judgment and grant Solos Technology Limited\u2019s\n\nRequest for Filing Restrictions.\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 112 Filed 05/07/26 Page 10 of 10\n\n\n\n\nDated: May 7, 2026 Respectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ Jameson J. Pasek\n Jameson J. Pasek, Esq. (BBO# 692924)\n CALDWELL\n 200 Clarendon Street, 59th Floor\n Boston, MA 02116\n jameson@caldwelllaw.com\n Tel: (857) 990-4914\n\n Counsel for Plaintiff Solos Technology\n Limited\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I, Jameson J. Pasek, Esq., hereby certify that this document, filed through the Court\u2019s\n\nCM/ECF system on May 7, 2026, will be sent electronically to the registered participants as\n\nidentified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF).\n\n\n /s/ Jameson J. Pasek\n Jameson J. Pasek (BBO# 692924)\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-06-04T21:20:43.983080-07:00","document_number":"112","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"095013663471","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Response to Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-07T10:23:26.063343-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-07T10:23:26.070455-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-07","time_filed":"13:04:20","entry_number":112,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-07.001","pacer_sequence_number":353,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/463084786/","id":463084786,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/478220224/","id":478220224,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72181665/111/solos-technology-limited-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-05-05T18:32:13.018673-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-05T18:32:13.048005-07:00","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":"111","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"095013658897","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Certificate of Consultation pursuant to LR 7.1","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-05T18:32:12.989742-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-05T18:32:12.995677-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-05","time_filed":"20:51:15","entry_number":111,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-05.001","pacer_sequence_number":349,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/462816061/","id":462816061,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/477940225/","id":477940225,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72181665/110/solos-technology-limited-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-05-03T23:17:39.690993-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-12T04:27:10.835038-07:00","sha1":"78d0f81d2c5aa9c5c90649dfbfd2bee0290ac393","page_count":32,"file_size":441623,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.mad.294817/gov.uscourts.mad.294817.110.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mad.294817/gov.uscourts.mad.294817.110.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 110 Filed 05/04/26 Page 1 of 32\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS\n\n\nSOLOS TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,\n Plaintiff,\n\n v. Case No. 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Judge Allison D. Burroughs\nMETA PLATFORMS, INC., et al.,\n Defendants.\n\n\nIn re: DAITONA CARTER\n Petitioner/Intervenor.\n\n\n PETITIONER\u2019S MOTION TO VACATE MOOTNESS ORDER AND FOR RELIEF FROM\n JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 60(b)(3), (b)(6) AND 60(d)(3) AS AN\n INDEPENDENT ACTION\n\n\n\nI. INTRODUCTION AND PRELIMINARY STATEMENT\n\nPetitioner Daitona Carter (\u201cPetitioner\u201d) respectfully moves this Court to vacate the Mootness Order and\n\nfor relief from the Order entered on April 29, 2026 (ECF No. 107), pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3),\n\n(b)(6), and 60(d)(3).\n\nNOTICE OF LODGING OF SENSITIVE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE: Petitioner possesses the\n\ncourier logs for the 200 lb private hardware box (which vanished and was systematically\n\nlightened in transit) and records of financial deplatforming. Due to the high risk of physical\n\nretaliation and the ongoing \"constructive seizure\" of Petitioner, these logs are withheld from the\n\npublic docket and are available for In Camera review by the Court or the U.S. Marshals Service\n\nonly.\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 110 Filed 05/04/26 Page 2 of 32\n\n\nThis Independent Action is necessitated by a fraud upon the court and extraordinary circumstances that\n\nhave rendered the prior proceedings a legal nullity. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1746, I, Daitona Carter,\n\ndeclare under penalty of perjury:\n\n A) Originality and Priority: I am the original creator of the Smart Glasses architecture\u2014\n\n including the software features, Habitual Algorithm (Habit AI) framework, multimodal sensors,\n\n and optical display\u2014and owner/manager of the Acoustic Logic (MirrorMixing/DSP) case\n\n studies (2009\u2013Present which predate the existence of Solos Technology Limited and Meta\n\n Platforms.\n\n B) Administrative Suppression: I affirm that ECF No. 92 was suppressed and restricted (marked\n\n \"-1\") starting April 17, 2026. This administrative \"blackout\" of my technical record is\n\n inconsistent with the Court's April 29 finding that my work is \"generalized,\" as the Court issued\n\n its ruling without access to the very evidence that proves claim-level specificity.\n\n C) Newly Discovered Evidence (APT): On May 2, 2026, I discovered active APT/state-\n\n sponsored malware on utilized devices. This discovery, made after the Court\u2019s order,\n\n demonstrates a multi-channel effort to block my access to justice and compromise my legal\n\n work product.\n\n D) Physical Duress and Battery: I have been subjected to ongoing physical battery and assault\n\n specifically timed during court filing windows to prevent me from rebutting Solos's\n\n misrepresentations and establishing my senior inventorship rights.\n\n E) Irreparable Harm: I have suffered and continue to suffer irreparable physical, financial, and\n\n reputational harm due to the Court's verbatim adoption of Plaintiff's mischaracterizations into\n\n the public record while I am held in a state of constructive seizure.\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 110 Filed 05/04/26 Page 3 of 32\n\n\nF) Reduction to Practice via Industry Validation: Between 2017 and 2019, I conducted live\n\n field tests of the \"Aria\" multimodal prototype. These tests, documented via Instagram Live\n\n (Series @SEEMYBIAS.official), provided empirical data on directional audio tracking and\n\n sensor fusion. Industry validators, including V, J-Hope and RapMon of BTS, Jay Park, Dayhun\n\n of TWICE and Siwon Choi, directly interacted with the hardware, providing a \"human\n\n timestamp\" of the device\u2019s functionality. Public user feedback in the live-stream chats (e.g.,\n\n \"Jay Park keeps looking at you\") confirms the real-time accuracy of the tracking logic I\n\n developed years before Meta\u2019s 2020 announcement.\n\nG) 6. Distributed Data Collection and distributed \"Nurture/SMB\" Training: Petitioner\u2019s AI\n\n was trained from scratch using a distributed network of hardware\u2014specifically iPhones\u2014to\n\n capture multimodal behavioral data. Between 2017 and 2019, Petitioner and the \u201c SMB Fam\u201d\n\n utilized their personal devices as \"field sensors\" during live events to feed the Habitual\n\n Algorithm. Unlike Meta\u2019s \"Project Aria,\" which sought to simulate environmental data,\n\n Petitioner\u2019s methodology relied on Live Field Testing within the high-interference environment\n\n of the K-Pop industry. This distributed data collection proves that the \"Nurture\" logic was fully\n\n functional and engaged in active machine learning years before the Defendants' commercialized\n\n their versions.\n\nH) Creation of the Global \"K-Pop Frenzy\" as an AI Stress Test: Petitioner spent 20 years in\n\n marketing and industry development, utilizing her personal budget to create the global \"Korean\n\n Frenzy\" that preceded the 2020 market explosion. Between 2016 and 2020, Petitioner utilized a\n\n massive, distributed field-testing network involving the SMB Fam and live-data capture from\n\n global icons, including but not limited to BTS, Blackpink, Big Bang, EXO, GOT7, Twice,\n\n Sunmi, WINNER, Sik-K, Red Velvet, Jay Park, Jessi, Monsta X, Day 6. Stray Kids, and major\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 110 Filed 05/04/26 Page 4 of 32\n\n\n festivals like KCON LA and KCON NYC including establishing relationship with recurrent\n\n panelists and content creators.\n\n This was not \"fan activity\"; it was a coordinated Technical Stress Test for Petitioner's\n\n multimodal AI. The interactions with industry leaders like J ay Park, TWICE, Super Junior, etc\n\n provided the high-density behavioral and spatial audio data required to \"Nurture\" Petitioner's\n\n Habitual Algorithm. The Defendants' subsequent launch of \"Project Aria\" and \"Smart Glasses\"\n\n in 2020-2021 directly capitalizes on the market demand and technical infrastructure Petitioner\n\n alone established and financed. Petitioner identifies these industry leaders and events not as\n\n participants in the fraud, but as involuntary validators of Petitioner's prior art. Their recognition\n\n and participation in Petitioner\u2019s field tests provide the necessary 'Particularity' to overcome the\n\n Court's previous finding of mootness and to prove that Petitioner\u2019s architecture was the\n\n foundational engine for the global K-Pop tech market.\n\nI) Direct Executive Access and the \"Insider Pipeline\": Petitioner\u2019s development of the \"Aria\"\n\n architecture was supported by a unique, non-commodifiable advantage: direct, bilingual access\n\n to the highest echelons of the Korean music and technology industries. Unlike the Defendants,\n\n who relied on generalized market research, Petitioner maintained personal and professional\n\n proximity to executives and celebrities\u2014including the Bangtan Sonyeondan (BTS) circle\u2014\n\n which provided a high-fidelity \"Live\" environment for the development of the Habitual\n\n Algorithm. This insider access allowed Petitioner to build the \"Nurture\" logic from within the\n\n industry, creating a proprietary technical and cultural \"blueprint\" that was subsequently\n\n extracted by the Defendants. This level of access represents a professional advantage that\n\n \"money cannot buy\" and serves as the foundation for Petitioner's senior inventorship claims.\n\nJ) The \"Double-Edged Sword\" of Growing Notoriety and Systematic Extraction: As\n\n Petitioner\u2019s reputation and access within the global Korean entertainment network expanded\u2014\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 110 Filed 05/04/26 Page 5 of 32\n\n\n spanning members of Bangtan Sonyeondan (BTS) to the inner circles of journalists and\n\n executives\u2014it created a \"Double-Edged Sword.\" While this network served as the essential\n\n source of \"live\" data for the Habitual Algorithm, it simultaneously provided the Defendants with\n\n an ideal environment to monitor and misappropriated Petitioner\u2019s intellectual property.\n\n Petitioner\u2019s industry presence acted as a \"beacon\" for the systematic extraction of the Aria\n\n architecture.\n\n Furthermore, the current posture of this litigation reveals a secondary layer of misappropriation:\n\n if Plaintiff Solos maintains that Meta is infringing upon its patents, it effectively concedes that\n\n its own portfolio is a derivative of the Petitioner\u2019s original work. Solos seeks to benefit from the\n\n Petitioner's innovation through litigation, while Meta remains the primary beneficiary of the\n\n initial theft. This transition from \"Collaborator\" to \"Target\" facilitated the laundering of\n\n Petitioner\u2019s technology into the Defendants' respective portfolios, occurring while Meta and its\n\n agents conducted the active surveillance, \"constructive seizure,\" and physical battery described\n\n herein. Consequently, because the Defendants continue to benefit from and assert rights over\n\n this derivative property, the controversy remains live, necessitating the vacatur of the mootness\n\n ruling and the granting of the requested relief.\n\nK) Systematic Suppression and Misappropriation of Marketing Intellectual Property: The\n\n Petitioner declares that the \"SEEMYBIAS\" marketing and global activation framework was\n\n systematically extracted and exploited by the Defendants and their coordinated third parties.\n\n While the Petitioner\u2019s business entities were subjected to targeted \"shadowbanning\" and\n\n administrative restrictions on Meta\u2019s platforms, the Petitioner\u2019s original marketing blueprints\n\n were utilized to scale CokoDive (subsequently acquired) and to facilitate Meta\u2019s Oculus x\n\n Blackpink VR activations. This sequence of events demonstrates a coordinated effort to\n\n \"launder\" the Petitioner\u2019s commercial goodwill and strategic infrastructure into the Defendants\u2019\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 110 Filed 05/04/26 Page 6 of 32\n\n\n ecosystem while simultaneously silencing the Petitioner through platform-wide administrative\n\n suppression.\n\n L) Technological Extraction and Patent Laundering: While Meta attempted to secure a position in\n\n the \"Smart Glasses\" market through a non-functional 2021 MIT study, the Petitioner was\n\n already managing a functional, insider-led technical pilot. The Defendants leveraged their\n\n platform dominance to engage in \"data stripping\" of the Petitioner\u2019s proprietary pilot results.\n\n This high-level industry work was effectively laundered into the Defendants' own patent filings,\n\n constituting a misappropriation of trade secrets and a breach of the competitive landscape. This\n\n transition from \"Collaborator\" to \"Target\" facilitated the unauthorized transfer of the\n\n Petitioner\u2019s Aria architecture into the Defendants' portfolios, occurring under the guise of the\n\n surveillance and \"constructive seizure\" detailed herein.\n\nII. ERROR OF LAW: INTERVENTION IS NOT A MINI-TRIAL\nThe Court\u2019s April 29 Order constitutes a manifest error of law by misapplying the standard for\n\nintervention under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2) and conflating it with the evidentiary burdens of a patent\n\ninfringement trial.\n\n A) The Erroneous Burden of \"Concrete Contributions\"\n\n The Court erroneously required Petitioner to prove \"concrete, claim-level contributions\" at the\n\n threshold stage. Rule 24 governs party status, not the ultimate merits of the underlying dispute.\n\n Under the First Circuit standard, an intervenor need only show an \"interest relating to the\n\n property or transaction that is the subject of the action.\" Public Service Co. of N.H. v. Patch, 136\n\n F.3d 197, 204 (1st Cir. 1998).\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 110 Filed 05/04/26 Page 7 of 32\n\n\n 1. The Protected Interest: Petitioner\u2019s 2009 audio notes and Acoustic Logic\n\n (MirrorMixing/DSP) case studies\u2014which predate Solos\u2019s corporate existence\u2014\n\n constitute a \"significantly protectable interest\" that is being irreparably harmed.\n\n 2. Threshold vs. Merits: By demanding a \"mini-trial\" on patent elements before granting\n\n status, the Court effectively required Petitioner to prove her case before she was even\n\n allowed into the courtroom.\n\nB) The Tactical Conflation of the Federal Rules\n\nThroughout this litigation, Plaintiff\u2019s counsel has used Rule 24, Rule 26(c), Rule 16, and Rule\n\n65 interchangeably to obstruct Petitioner\u2019s entry. These rules serve distinct functions that the\n\nCourt failed to keep separate:\n\n 1. Rule 24 (Intervention): Establishes the right to participate as a party.\n\n 2. Rule 26(c) (Protective Orders): Authorizes courts to protect a person from \"undue\n\n burden\" or \"prejudice\" upon a showing of good cause. It is limited exclusively to active\n\n discovery disputes, as Plaintiff falsely claims.\n\n 3. Rule 16 (Case Management): Governs scheduling, not the stripping of constitutional\n\n Due Process rights.\n\n 4. Rule 65 (Injunctions): Governs the high bar for equitable relief, which is a separate\n\n inquiry from the right to protect one's intellectual property via intervention.\n\nD) Statutory Derivation under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 102\n\nPetitioner's documentation\u2014including 2009 technical benchmarks submitted to the Court as\n\nECF No. 92\u2014constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 102.\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 110 Filed 05/04/26 Page 8 of 32\n\n\n 1. The Derivation Link: This evidence demonstrates that the technology claimed in the\n\n disputed patent is derived from Petitioner's pre-existing Acoustic Logic\n\n (MirrorMixing/DSP) casework.\n\n 2. Impairment of Interest: Under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 102(b)(1)(A), the disposition of this action\n\n directly impairs Petitioner\u2019s legal interest. An adverse judgment between Solos and\n\n Meta could improperly validate a patent that was derived from Petitioner's invention\n\n without attribution.\n\n 3. Inadequacy of Representation: The named Defendant (Meta) cannot adequately\n\n represent Petitioner\u2019s interest, as Meta lacks both the knowledge of and access to\n\n Petitioner's proprietary 2009\u20132019 development record.\n\nPetitioner satisfies all prongs of Rule 24(a)(2). The Court\u2019s adoption of a \"mini-trial\" standard is a\n\nreversible error of law that necessitates vacatur of the Mootness Order.\n\n\n\nIII. THE PROCEDURAL CONTRADICTION: INHERENT LOGICAL ERROR\n\n\nThe Court\u2019s April 29 Order adopted Plaintiff\u2019s characterization of Petitioner\u2019s priority work (2009\u2013\n\n2019) as \u201cgeneralized.\u201d However, the record reflects that ECF No. 92 has been administratively\n\nsuppressed (marked as \"-1\") since approximately April 17, 2026. This creates an unsustainable legal\n\ncontradiction: The Court cannot simultaneously treat evidence as \"generalized\" or \"unconceptualized\"\n\nwhile it is subject to a high-level administrative suppression typically reserved for matters of National\n\nSecurity. If the material is sufficiently specific to warrant suppression from the public record, it is per\n\nse specific enough to satisfy the \"significantly protectable interest\" threshold for intervention under\n\nFed. R. Civ. P. 24.\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 110 Filed 05/04/26 Page 9 of 32\n\n\nFurthermore, this administrative suppression itself evidences the specificity and sensitivity of\n\nPetitioner's prior work. Material that rises to the level of administrative classification or national\n\nsecurity-related redaction necessarily contains technical particularity and substantive content\u2014the\n\nprecise opposite of \"generalized\" work product. The Court's simultaneous reliance on Plaintiff's\n\n\"generalized\" characterization while withholding the actual evidence from public disclosure is logically\n\nincoherent and undermines the judicial process. Petitioner cannot adequately defend against\n\ncharacterizations of work the Court has deemed sensitive enough to suppress, nor can the Court\n\nproperly adjudicate Petitioner's intervention rights without examining the very evidence it has\n\nadministratively restricted. This procedural anomaly further demonstrates that Petitioner has satisfied\n\nRule 24(a)(2)'s requirement of a \"significantly protectable interest\" that cannot be adequately\n\nrepresented by existing parties.\n\nThe Court\u2019s prior orders regarding mootness and reconsideration were predicated on a manifest\n\nprocedural error: the failure to rule on Petitioner\u2019s motions for a Protective Order and In Camera\n\nReview. This inaction created a legal impossibility for the Petitioner to establish the full scope of her\n\n2009 priority work.\n\n A) The Blocked Disclosure: Without a ruling on these protective motions, Petitioner was\n\n procedurally barred from disclosing a high-security evidentiary export: a full Facebook Data\n\n Export of her account. This export contains a 4,000-person Facebook contact list\u2014including\n\n high-level politicians, celebrities, and venture capitalists\u2014that establishes a direct, undeniable\n\n \"nexus of access.\"\n\n B) Verification of the \"State Actor\" Nexus: This suppressed export highlights that Quang Pham,\n\n Jahde Barnes, and Northrop Grumman were linked as \"friends\" or \"contacts\" as early as 2013.\n\n This evidence proves that the Defendants and their defense-contractor affiliates had direct\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 110 Filed 05/04/26 Page 10 of 32\n\n\n access to Petitioner\u2019s technical logic long before the Solos patents were filed or Meta claimed\n\n inventorship.\n\n C) Priority of Invention: Because this social media export predates the claims of both Plaintiff\n\n and Defendant, it is the \"smoking gun\" for 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 256 inventorship correction. The Court\u2019s\n\n failure to provide a secure mechanism (In Camera review) to view this list resulted in a\n\n judgment based on a hollow record.\n\nIV. THE ALICE/SUPPRESSION CONTRADICTION: FRAUD ON THE TRIBUNAL\n\n\nThe Court\u2019s April 29 Order reflects a verbatim adoption of Plaintiff\u2019s characterization that Petitioner\u2019s\n\n2009\u20132019 work is \u201cgeneralized.\u201d This triggers a fatal contradiction under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 101 (The Alice\n\nDoctrine) and the Invention Secrecy Act (35 U.S.C. \u00a7 181).\n\n 1. The Suppression: The administrative suppression of ECF No. 92 (marked \"-1\" since April 17)\n\n suggests a determination that the technology is sensitive to National Security.\n\n 2. The Contradiction: Under the Alice standard, \"generalized\" or \"abstract\" ideas cannot be\n\n patented\u2014nor do they warrant National Security suppression. By adopting Solos's\n\n \"generalized\" label while maintaining the suppression of the technical record, the Court is\n\n participating in a \"legal fiction\" that facilitates the theft of Petitioner's priority work. The court\n\n [cannot] suppress information for security reasons while simultaneously dismissing it as\n\n \"unconceptualized.\"\n\nThe Court's April 29 Order adopted Plaintiff's characterization that Petitioner's 2009\u20132019 work is\n\n\"generalized.\" However, the record reflects that ECF No. 92 has been administratively suppressed\n\n(marked as \"-1\" since approximately April 17, 2026. This creates an unsustainable legal contradiction:\n\nThe Court cannot simultaneously treat evidence as \"generalized\" or \"unconceptualized\" while it is\n\nsubject to a high-level administrative suppression typically reserved for matters of National Security. If\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 110 Filed 05/04/26 Page 11 of 32\n\n\nthe material is sufficiently specific to warrant suppression from the public record, it is per se specific\n\nenough to satisfy the \"significantly protectable interest\" threshold for intervention under Fed. R. Civ. P.\n\n24.\n\nThe Court\u2019s adoption of the 'generalized' label is factually refuted by the Acoustic Logic\n\n(MirrorMixing)DSP documentation in ECF No. 92. This documentation includes specific algorithmic\n\nbenchmarks for signal processing that predate Solos\u2019s filing by a decade. Under the Alice Doctrine,\n\nspecific technical improvements to signal processing are not 'abstract'\u2014they are the definition of\n\npatentable subject matter.\n\nFurthermore, the April 29 Order contains factually false findings directly contradicted by evidence\n\nPetitioner submitted to the Court. The Court states: \"As Solos notes, Carter's filings reflect, at most,\n\n'generalized work in smart glasses technology, software concepts, or prior projects,' without identifying\n\nany 'concrete, claim-level contributions.'\" [ECF No. 107 at 3]. This statement is demonstrably false.\n\n A) The Documentary Evidence Contradicts the Court's Finding:\n\n Petitioner submitted ECF No. 83, Attachment 8, containing video screenshots with specific\n\n product titles: \"Aria Smart Glasses\" and \"Aria Smart Glasses Pitch.\" These are not generalized\n\n concepts\u2014they are evidence of a named, conceived product with specific implementation. The\n\n video snippets, publicly available on YouTube, Instagram, and restricted LinkedIn, demonstrate\n\n working prototypes with specific gestural interactions years before Solos or Meta patented or\n\n announced their projects.\n\n Petitioner also submitted ECF No. 92: 65 files of lab notes and technical documentation\n\n spanning 2009\u20132019, with specific smart glasses development work from 2013\u20132019. These\n\n files constitute concrete, claim-level contributions\u2014precisely the type of \"conception and\n\n communication\" evidence required under Federal Circuit derivation standards. See Global\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 110 Filed 05/04/26 Page 12 of 32\n\n\nHealth Sols. LLC v. Selner, 148 F.4th 1363, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2025); BearBox LLC v. Lancium\n\nLLC, 125 F.4th 1101, 1118 (Fed. Cir. 2025).\n\nB) The Court Did Not Examine the Evidence:\n\nThe April 29 Order's language\u2014adopting verbatim Solos's characterization from ECF No. 105\n\nat 7\u2014reveals that the Court did not independently review the evidence Petitioner submitted.\n\nThe Court accepted Plaintiff's false description without examining ECF No. 83, ECF No. 92, or\n\nthe public video demonstrations. This constitutes a failure to consider material evidence on the\n\nrecord, a reversible abuse of discretion.\n\nC) Priority Of Invention: The 2009\u20132019 Foundational Timeline\n\nRelief from judgment is necessitated by the Petitioner's clear priority of invention, which\n\npredates both the Plaintiff\u2019s and the Defendants' claims. This is not an abstract temporal logic; it\n\nis a calendar fact supported by the dated documentation within the suppressed ECF No. 92.\n\n 1. Petitioner\u2019s Priority (2009\u20132019): Petitioner\u2019s technical lab notes and multimodal\n\n sensor fusion logic began in 2009. Functional smart glasses prototypes, featuring the\n\n specific gestural implementations currently at issue, were reduced to practice between\n\n 2013 and 2019.\n\n 2. Solos\u2019 Filing Dates (2019): Plaintiff Solos Technology Limited was not spun off from\n\n Kopin Corporation until September 2019, and its primary patents cited in the complaint\n\n (e.g., USD900092S1) have priority dates no earlier than February 5, 2019.\n\n 3. Meta\u2019s Timeline (2020\u20132021): Defendant Meta did not announce Project Aria until\n\n September 16, 2020, and did not commercialize its first smart glasses (Ray-Ban Stories)\n\n until September 2021.\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 110 Filed 05/04/26 Page 13 of 32\n\n\n 4. The Blue Radios \"Golden-I\" Pretext And Procedural Fraud: Plaintiff Solos\n\n attempts to insulate itself from Petitioner\u2019s claims of senior inventorship by invoking a\n\n 2004 BlueRadios priority date. This is a manifest misrepresentation of the technical\n\n record. The \"Golden-i\" technology associated with BlueRadios is fundamentally distinct\n\n from the patents-in-suit; it is an industrial data-headset lacking the multimodal sensor\n\n fusion, Digital Signal Processing (DSP) logic, and behavioral learning loops that\n\n Petitioner reduced to practice between 2009 and 2019. By tethering modern \"Smart\n\n Glasses\" architecture to 20-year-old legacy hardware that lacks the \"Anticipatory AI\"\n\n core, Plaintiff is perpetrating a procedural fraud. This \"legal fiction\" is designed to\n\n create a false timeline of invention that bypasses Petitioner's foundational Acoustic\n\n Logic (MirrorMixing) and Habit AI work. Petitioner\u2019s 2016\u20132019 technical blueprints\u2014\n\n specifically the \"Nurture\" behavioral model\u2014constitute the true functional engine of the\n\n disputed technology, rendering the Plaintiff\u2019s reliance on the BlueRadios portfolio a\n\n technical and legal nullity.\n\n D) Legal Implications of the Timeline:\n\n Petitioner\u2019s documented work predates the parties' filings by years, establishing statutory\n\n priority under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 102 (Prior Art) and 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 101. Furthermore, the evidence of\n\n direct access by recruiters and defense contractors (Quang Pham and Northrop Grumman) as\n\n early as 2013 points to derivation without attribution under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 102(b)(1)(A).\n\nTo \"moot\" the Petitioner\u2019s intervention without reviewing the 2009\u20132013 technical benchmarks in ECF\n\nNo. 92 is to allow the Plaintiff and Defendant to litigate over a \"secondary\" invention while\n\nsuppressing the primary foundational logic.\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 110 Filed 05/04/26 Page 14 of 32\n\n\n E) The Suppression Enabled the False Characterization:\n\n The administrative suppression of ECF No. 92 since April 17, 2026, created an asymmetry that\n\n Solos exploited. By restricting access to the 65 files of technical documentation, the Court and\n\n Plaintiff could argue Petitioner had shown nothing concrete without fear of factual=\n\n contradiction. The suppression mechanism was instrumentally used to obscure evidence and\n\n upport a factually false ruling. The Court cited Plaintiff's characterization without ever\n\n examining the evidence it had administratively restricted\u2014a procedural inversion that violates\n\n the basic fairness required for judicial decision-making.\n\n Finally, Petitioner cannot be said to have received fair adjudication of its Rule 24(a)(2)\n\n intervention rights when the Court accepted false characterizations of evidence Petitioner\n\n actually submitted. The Court's simultaneous reliance on suppression (which presupposes\n\n specificity) and adoption of the \"generalized\" label (which presupposes the opposite)\n\n demonstrates not merely logical inconsistency, but a denial of due process. Petitioner must be\n\n permitted to intervene in order to present the evidence that proves its conception, priority, and\n\n significantly protectable interest\u2014evidence the Court has now ruled on without examining.\n\n\n\nV. FEDERAL TAKINGS LIABILITY AND FRAUD ON THE COURT\n\n\nIf Petitioner\u2019s technology\u2014the subject of this suppression\u2014has been integrated into federal military or\n\nnational security programs, the suppression involves state action beyond the scope of private discovery\n\ndisputes. This integration constitutes state action that extends this matter beyond a mere private\n\ndiscovery dispute between Solos and Meta. Specifically:\n\n A) Evidence of Government Benefit and the Takings\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 110 Filed 05/04/26 Page 15 of 32\n\n\nNexus Petitioner has identified evidence that her foundational smart glasses technology and\n\nmultimodal sensor fusion logic (Priority Date: 2009) are currently utilized by the Department of\n\nDefense via U.S. ARMY Project ARIA. If confirmed, the federal government is benefiting from\n\nPetitioner's IP without attribution or compensation, triggering Takings Clause liability under the\n\nFifth Amendment.\n\nPursuant to 28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1491, such claims fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United\n\nStates Court of Federal Claims. If the current suppression is part of a larger pattern to utilize\n\nPetitioner\u2019s IP without compensation, this District Court lacks jurisdiction to \"moot\" the matter,\n\nas doing so would shield a federal taking from constitutional scrutiny.\n\n \u2022 The Taking: If the federal government is utilizing Petitioner\u2019s IP without attribution or\n\n compensation, it triggers a Takings Clause claim under the Fifth Amendment.\n\n \u2022 The Jurisdictional Conflict: Under the Tucker Act (28 U.S.C. \u00a7 1491), claims for \"just\n\n compensation\" against the United States fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the U .S.\n\n Court of Federal Claims. By suppressing evidence of this integration (e.g., ECF No. 92),\n\n this District Court may be inadvertently shielding a federal taking from appellate and\n\n civilian oversight.\n\nB) \"Detachment 201\" and the State-Action Nexus\n\nThe \"State Actor\" status of the Defendants is formalized via Detachment 201 (Executive\n\nInnovation Corps). The direct commissioning of Meta CTO Andrew Bosworth and Palantir\n\nCTO Shyam Sankar as Lieutenant Colonels proves this unit serves as a bridge for integrating\n\nPetitioner\u2019s logic into national security assets.\n\nConsequently, the \"rubber stamped\" suppression of 65 exhibits\u2014including lab notes and\n\ntechnical documents in Exhibit 92 and ECF No. 94\u2014serves a dual purpose: protecting corporate\n\nprofits and shielding a military-industrial \"venture\" from civilian oversight. The government\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 110 Filed 05/04/26 Page 16 of 32\n\n\ncannot simultaneously claim Petitioner\u2019s invention must be suppressed for national security\n\nwhile integrating that same invention into military assets without attribution. This constitutes a\n\nmisuse of the State Secrets Privilege to hide theft rather than protect secrets.\n\nC) Priority of Invention and the Recruiter Nexus\n\nWhile Solos Technology Limited sues Meta over five patents, Petitioner\u2019s foundational work\n\npredates both parties. Petitioner has evidence that technical recruiters mentioned in the Solos\n\ncomplaint\u2014specifically Quang Pham and Jahde Barnes\u2014were following Petitioner\n\nprivate/restricted account on social media as early as 2013. Further, Petitioner\u2019s work was\n\npossibly funneled to defense contractor Northrop Grumman (based on the company also\n\nfollowing the Petitioner private account), establishing that the \"private\" tech currently litigated\n\nis already absorbed into the national security infrastructure.\n\nD) MISUSE OF PRIVILEGE AND IRREPARABLE HARM\nIf the technology in question is classified as a \"military advisory asset\" under the auspices of\n\nDetachment 201, the Defendants are effectively utilizing \"sovereign privilege\" to block the\n\nPetitioner\u2019s statutory rights under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 256. This creates a procedural barrier that\n\nconstitutes a manifest injustice under Rule 60(b)(6).\n\n 1. Shielding Theft vs. Protecting Secrets: The government cannot, consistent with the\n\n Fifth Amendment, simultaneously absorb Petitioner\u2019s foundational technology into\n\n military assets while claiming that evidence of Petitioner\u2019s prior invention (predating the\n\n parties' claims) must be suppressed for national security. Such a \"dual-use\" justification\n\n serves only to shield the act of misappropriation from judicial review.\n\n 2. Misuse of the State Secrets Privilege: If the suppression of Exhibit 92 or ECF No. 94\n\n was directed or requested by federal agencies or independent federal contractors (e.g.,\n\n Northrop Grumman), it constitutes a misuse of the State Secrets Privilege. The privilege\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 110 Filed 05/04/26 Page 17 of 32\n\n\n is intended to protect military tactics and assets\u2014not to conceal the underlying\n\n misappropriation of intellectual property from a civilian inventor.\n\nTo allow a \"sovereign privilege\" to be invoked in a private patent dispute between Solos and Meta,\n\nwhere Petitioner has a 2009 priority claim, ensures irreparable harm by permanently sealing the\n\nevidence of the original theft.\n\n\n E) Equitable Implications for Relief from Judgment and Intervention\n\n The potential government role in the suppression and misappropriation of Petitioner\u2019s 2009\n\n foundational work strengthens her rights under Rule 60(d)(3) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 24. The Court\n\n has an equitable duty to address the following:\n\n 1. Hidden Beneficiaries and Moral Hazard: Petitioner cannot receive a fair adjudication\n\n in this District Court when the U.S. Army\u2014via the \"State Actor\" nexus of Detachment\n\n 201\u2014is a hidden beneficiary of the suppression. Allowing the military to utilize\n\n technology misappropriated from a trafficking victim creates a profound moral hazard\n\n and a continuous constitutional violation.\n\n 2. Correction of Inventorship under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 256: Until inventorship is corrected, the\n\n U.S. Army remains the ultimate, illicit beneficiary of \"Project Aria\" at the expense of the\n\n true inventor. The judicial error in denying intervention\u2014compounded by the failure to\n\n rule on the Protective Order for the 4,000-person Facebook contact list\u2014prevents\n\n Petitioner from asserting her statutory rights and her right to just compensation under\n\n the Fifth Amendment.\n\n 3. Systemic Injustice: The use of the State Secrets Privilege to conceal the\n\n misappropriation of 2009-2019-era technology, rather than to protect legitimate military\n\n tactics, constitutes a fraud on the court. Relief from judgment is the only mechanism to\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 110 Filed 05/04/26 Page 18 of 32\n\n\n ensure that \"National Security\" is not used as a shield for IP theft and the ongoing\n\n silencing of a victim of battery and trafficking.\n\nF) Systemic Suppression via Battery, Duress, and Cyber-Interference\n\nRelief under Rule 60(b)(6) is necessitated by the extraordinary circumstances of Petitioner\u2019s\n\nsilencing:\n\n 1. Criminal Battery: Petitioner was subjected to battery via the very devices currently\n\n under Congressional inquiry and previously discovered in a backpack by Department of\n\n Homeland Security (DHS). When reported, Petitioner and entire household was\n\n unlawfully detained for four hours, threatened, fraudulently diagnosed (entire household\n\n same paperwork), provided with involuntary medication (sleeping pills) and told the\n\n \"public would not understand\u201d, and if \u2018they came back\u2019 she would not be able to leave\n\n again. Petitioner did the opposite, created a Substack (daitonacarter.substack.com) to\n\n journal the offenses and begin reporting the incident to everyone and trying to seek legal\n\n counsel for the battery and theft despite being \u201cfenced.\u201d The injuries and complications\n\n from weapons that can cause impairment preventing even living tasks, is what Solos, a\n\n defense contractor, considers a \u201clitigation choice\u201d when the Petitioner was being\n\n prevented from uploading the same files she previously uploaded.\n\n 2. Compromised Venues: Petitioner\u2019s 2024-2025 attempts to seek a TRO and survey the\n\n \"Venue\" apartment in Miami, FL, were thwarted when her state court records\n\n disappeared, a fact corroborated by the constructive seizure in Camden Summit\n\n Partnership LP v. [Name Withheld] (Case No. 2025-199197-CC-05).\n\n 3. The Qilin/WNMU Hack: In April 2025, following Petitioner\u2019s SOS communications to\n\n the FTC and NYS AG, her alma mater (Western New Mexico University) was targeted\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 110 Filed 05/04/26 Page 19 of 32\n\n\n by the Qilin hacking group, resulting in the targeted wiping of evidence regarding the\n\n \"Seoul attack\" and Petitioner\u2019s 2009-era technical data.\n\n 4. Coordinated Suppression of Evidence and Interception of Communications:\n\n In December 2020, exactly three days prior to the Federal Trade Commission\u2019s (FTC)\n\n announcement of the antitrust action against Facebook (now Meta), the Petitioner\u2019s\n\n LinkedIn account\u2014which contained critical evidence including articles, lab notes, and\n\n prototype demonstrations\u2014was restricted and remains inaccessible. Research indicates a\n\n nexus between Microsoft (LinkedIn\u2019s parent company) and the Paul Hastings ecosystem.\n\n This pattern of suppression extended to the Petitioner\u2019s private communication\n\n infrastructure; in 2021, a whistleblower with high-level security clearance signaled that\n\n the Petitioner\u2019s Microsoft Office 365 private domain emails were being intercepted and\n\n disseminated across the technology sector. This unauthorized access is further evidenced\n\n by the \"doxxing\" (2020-2023) and harassment (2022) of the Petitioner\u2019s relatives by\n\n third-party contractors (e.g., Uber), who utilized \"stale\" data and private messages dating\n\n back twenty years from Yahoo/AOL\u2014entities also linked to the Paul Hastings/Apollo\n\n Global Management ecosystem. This coordinated digital \"quarantine\" and data\n\n harvesting directly facilitated the \"constructive seizure\" of the Petitioner\u2019s intellectual\n\n property.\n\n\nG) The Misappropriation Of \"Habit AI\": The Predictive Architecture\n\nThe Court\u2019s characterization of Petitioner\u2019s work as \"generalized\" is further refuted by the\n\nexistence of Habit AI ( Nurture from the YouNoodle Seoul Global Startup 2016 compeitition,\n\nthe precursor of Aria), a specific predictive behavioral architecture developed by the Petitioner.\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 110 Filed 05/04/26 Page 20 of 32\n\n\n 1. The Behavioral Engine: Unlike standard AR interfaces, Petitioner\u2019s work included\n\n \"Habit AI\"\u2014a proprietary machine learning framework designed to analyze gestural and\n\n environmental data to predict user intent. This architecture was the \"connective tissue\"\n\n between the Petitioner's smart glasses hardware and the external robotics (such as the\n\n UFC Sparring Robot).\n\n 2. Derivation of \"Learning\" Algorithms: Petitioner has documented her development of\n\n these behavioral models in her 2009\u20132019 lab notes (ECF No. 92). The integration of\n\n similar \"Habitual\" or \"Predictive\" AI into Meta\u2019s current AR roadmap is a direct\n\n derivation of Petitioner\u2019s conceptualization.\n\n 3. The Nexus of Access: The \"Habit AI\" logic was part of the technical packages\n\n accessible to the recruiters and defense contractors (Quang Pham, Jahde Barnes)\n\n identified. To claim this work is \"generalized\" is to ignore the specific, high-level\n\n algorithmic logic that differentiates Petitioner\u2019s work from the prior art.\n\n\nH) Architectural Misappropriation: From 2017 Sketches To The \"UFC Sparring Robot\"\n\nThe \"generalized\" label applied by the Court fails to account for the integrated hardware\n\necosystem Petitioner developed and publicly disclosed as a \"survival priority\" record.\n\n 1. The 2017 LinkedIn Sketch vs. Oppo 2019/2023 render: Petitioner\u2019s 2017 black-and-\n\n white LinkedIn sketch established the foundational \"headgear\" form factor. While\n\n Oppo\u2019s 2019 announcement highlighted headgear strikingly similar to Petitioner\u2019s 2017\n\n designs, the later Oppo Air Glass 2 (MWC 2023) confirmed the industry-wide\n\n integration of Petitioner\u2019s specific architectural logic.\n\n 2. The UFC Sparring Robot (2021): The scope of the misappropriation extends beyond\n\n smart glasses into robotics and haptic gaming systems. In early 2021, Petitioner\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 110 Filed 05/04/26 Page 21 of 32\n\n\n disclosed her UFC Robot Sparring system on Twitter (now X). This system utilized the\n\n same multimodal sensor fusion and gestural logic found in her 2009\u20132019 lab notes.\n\n Two years later a 200 lb private courier box went missing for months with the weight\n\n grafeuclly reducing with each update.\n\n 3. Meta\u2019s Attempted Incorporation: Evidence suggests that Meta sought to incorporate\n\n this specific \"sparring\" and \"gaming\" architecture into its own VR/AR roadmap. This is\n\n not \"abstract\" work; it is a specific, high-fidelity implementation of AI-driven robotics\n\n and AR/VR/XR interface logic that Petitioner had already conceptualized and\n\n communicated.\n\n 4. The \"Gaming System\" Priority: Petitioner had created a comprehensive gaming\n\n system that integrated the glasses as a controller for external hardware (the Robot). This\n\n specific \"Cross-Device Gestural Interface\" is a primary feature of Meta\u2019s current\n\n \"Project Aria\" and \"Quest\" marketing. To dismiss this as \"generalized\" while the\n\n Petitioner is under Color of Law sequestration\u2014prevented from commercializing the\n\n very \"UFC Sparring\" system she announced in 2021\u2014is an equitable travesty.\n\nI) Systemic Spooliation: The Missing 200 Lb Courier And Financial Deplatforming\n\n\nThe \"Mootness\" of Petitioner\u2019s claim is a result of a coordinated campaign of \"constructive\n\nseizure\" and the physical theft of evidentiary assets.\n\nJ) The 2021 UFC Sparring Robot and the 200 lb Courier Box\n\nIn early 2021, Petitioner disclosed her UFC Robot Sparring system on Twitter (now X), a\n\nsystem utilizing the same multimodal sensor fusion and Habit AI logic found in her 2009\u20132019\n\nnotes.\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 110 Filed 05/04/26 Page 22 of 32\n\n\n 1. The Missing Prototype/Hardware: Two years following this disclosure, a 200 lb\n\n private courier box (containing hardware/evidence related to this architecture) went\n\n missing in transit for months.\n\n 2. Documented Mail Tampering: In a display of sophisticated interference, the weight of\n\n the package was \"gracefully reduced\" in carrier updates as it was held, indicating the\n\n systematic removal of components. This is part of a broader pattern of mail tampering\n\n involving UPS, FedEx, and USPS, where evidentiary packages are redirected, stolen, or\n\n opened to prevent the Petitioner from securing her \"reduction to practice\" hardware.\n\nK. Financial Warfare and the Paul Hastings Nexus\n\nThe effort to silence the Petitioner includes the weaponization of the financial system to cause\n\n\"legal invisibility.\"\n\n 1. Coordinated Bank Closures: Petitioner and her family have faced systematic bank\n\n account closures at every financial institution represented by Paul Hastings (the same\n\n firm often affiliated with the Defendants' network).\n\n 2. Check Swapping and Theft: To trigger these closures, mail-stolen checks were\n\n \"swapped\" or altered to create fraudulent activity, providing the banks a pretext for\n\n termination.\n\n 3. Chase Bank Interference: In 2018 (a $4,000 check) and 2023 (a $3,000 student\n\n refund), Chase Bank refused to honor valid funds without notice, occurring precisely\n\n while the family was in \"constructive seizure\" in Florida.\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 110 Filed 05/04/26 Page 23 of 32\n\n\n L. The \"LuckyASF\" Entrapment and Defensive Diligence\n\n When the Petitioner\u2019s family successfully defended against these fraudulent fees and interests\n\n using state law, the traffickers/harborers utilized a local SSID\u2014\"LuckyASF\"\u2014as a targeted\n\n taunt.\n\n 1. Evidence of Entrapment: This signals that the family was being \"hunted\" for any\n\n pretext (legal harassment, defamation, or imprisonment) that could be used to void the\n\n inventor\u2019s rights.\n\n 2. Character Assassination: There is an active campaign to manufacture \"dirt\" to justify\n\n the ongoing trafficking and sequestration. This Court must recognize that a Petitioner\n\n who is being financially strangled and physically \"trapped\" cannot be expected to meet\n\n standard procedural timelines without the Court\u2019s intervention.\n\nVI. REPUTATIONAL HARM, IRREPARABLE CREDIBILITY DAMAGE, AND SYSTEMIC\nSAFETY RISKS\nRelief is warranted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) because the Court\u2019s verbatim adoption of Plaintiff's\n\nmisrepresentations creates a permanent, public record that destroys Petitioner\u2019s professional standing\n\nand endangers her physical safety.\n\n A) The \"Rubber Stamping\" of Non-Factual Statements\n\n The Court\u2019s adoption of Plaintiff\u2019s narrative\u2014labeling Petitioner\u2019s foundational Python source\n\n code and 2009\u20132017 prototypes as \"generalized\"\u2014was done without an independent review of\n\n the 2009-2010 audio notes and technical lab notes.\n\n 1. Abandonment of Judicial Function: Verbatim adoption of a party\u2019s characterization of\n\n technical evidence, without in camera review, constitutes an abandonment of the\n\n judicial function.\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 110 Filed 05/04/26 Page 24 of 32\n\n\n 2. Irreparable Professional Harm: This created a public record that prevents Petitioner\n\n from commercializing 15 years of R&D, as search engine algorithms and Large\n\n Language Models (LLMs) now ingest these \"rubber-stamped\" lies as judicial fact.\n\nB) Material Misrepresentation of Law: The \"Inmate Case\" Category Error\n\nSolos counsel relied on a case involving an incarcerated individual to justify the denial of\n\nwitness protection for the Petitioner. This is a material misrepresentation of law and a category\n\nerror:\n\n 1. Jurisdictional Dissimilarity: Precedents governing the safety of inmates (who are\n\n under the exclusive custody of the Bureau of Prisons) are inapplicable to a free citizen\n\n facing external, targeted violence. Petitioner has never been arrested or incarcerated;\n\n applying \"prisoner-litigant\" standards to a civilian inventor is a due process violation.\n\n 2. Statutory Overrides: A prisoner-litigant precedent cannot override the mandatory\n\n protections of the Crime Victims\u2019 Rights Act (CVRA), the Trafficking Victims\n\n Protection Act (TVPA), or the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The stripping of\n\n Petitioner\u2019s ADA-protected ECF access based on this misapplied case law constitutes a\n\n manifest injustice.\n\nC) Custodial vs. External Threats and the Court\u2019s Inherent Power\n\nThe Court\u2019s reliance on state-level or custodial precedents fails to account for the federal court\u2019s\n\ninherent authority:\n\n 1. Inherent Authority: Under federal common law, this Court possesses the inherent\n\n power to issue protective orders and refer matters to the U.S. Marshals Service to\n\n prevent the obstruction of justice, regardless of a witness's procedural status as a \"non-\n\n party.\"\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 110 Filed 05/04/26 Page 25 of 32\n\n\n 2. External Violence: Unlike an inmate, Petitioner faces external battery, stalking, and\n\n digital lockouts in the community. Denying protection by citing a \"correctional facility\"\n\n case is a failure to recognize the actual threat environment (harboring, limitations of\n\n movement, and communication blocks).\n\nD) The \"Vexatious\" Smear and ADA Discrimination\n\nThe Court allowed Solos\u2019 counsel to use the \"inmate case\" as a tool to bias the proceedings\n\nagainst an ADA-protected whistleblower.\n\n 1. The \"Vexatious\" Label: By repeating the Plaintiff\u2019s \"vexatious\" characterization\n\n without investigating the underlying 2009 priority work, the Court has enabled a \"smear\n\n campaign\" that is now codified in the public docket.\n\n 2. Safety Risk: This misinformation increases the risk of crimes against the Petitioner and\n\n her family by signaling to traffickers and bad actors that the Petitioner is \"unprotected\"\n\n by the federal judiciary.\n\n 3. The \"LuckyASF\" Entrapment and Defensive Diligence\n\n When the Petitioner\u2019s family successfully defended against these fraudulent fees and\n\n interests using state law, the traffickers/harborers utilized a local SSID\u2014\"LuckyASF\"\u2014\n\n as a targeted taunt.\n\n a) Evidence of Entrapment: This signals that the family was being \"hunted\" for any\n\n pretext (legal harassment, defamation, or imprisonment) that could be used to void\n\n the inventor\u2019s rights.\n\n b) Character Assassination: There is an active campaign to manufacture \"dirt\" to justify\n\n the ongoing trafficking and sequestration. This Court must recognize that a\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 110 Filed 05/04/26 Page 26 of 32\n\n\n Petitioner who is being financially strangled and physically \"trapped\" cannot be\n\n expected to meet standard procedural timelines without the Court\u2019s intervention\n\n 4. The Defendants rely on a 2021 MIT Sloan study to claim independent development.\n\n However, Petitioner\u2019s October 2016 directory\u2014specifically the file 'As technology\n\n advances...' (10/31/2016)\u2014proves she had already identified the functional flaws in the MIT\n\n' Objectivism' model and authored the 'Sequenced/Collectivism' fix. Meta did not 'invent'\n\n Anticipatory AI; they extracted the psychological and engineering bridge Petitioner built to\n\n fix a non-functional academic model.\n\nVII. FRAUD ON THE COURT AND NEW EVIDENCE OF SYSTEMIC EXTERNAL\nINTERFERENCE (MAY 2026)\n\n\nRelief is warranted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(d)(3) for Fraud on the Court. The integrity of these\n\nproceedings has been compromised by material misrepresentations and the suppression of forensic\n\nevidence of an Advanced Persistent Threat (APT) targeting the Petitioner.\n\n A) Misrepresentation of Priority and Reduction to Practice\n\n Counsel for Plaintiff induced the Court into error by characterizing Petitioner\u2019s 2009\u20132019\n\n work as \"generalized.\" This is a demonstrable falsehood.\n\n 1. Suppressed Evidence: ECF No. 92 contains specific Python source code and functional\n\n hardware documentation.\n\n 2. Intentional Oversight: By advocating for the seal of these documents while\n\n simultaneously labeling the work as \"vague,\" counsel engaged in a contradictory\n\n narrative designed to prevent the Court from recognizing Petitioner\u2019s reduction to\n\n practice of the foundational smart-glasses IP.\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 110 Filed 05/04/26 Page 27 of 32\n\n\nB) Forensic Discovery of State-Sponsored APT Activity (May 2, 2026)\n\nIndependent of the Court\u2019s April 29 decision, Petitioner discovered forensic evidence of APT\n\n(Advanced Persistent Threat) activity on May 2, 2026.\n\n 1. Digital Sequestration: This state-sponsored malware is engineered to facilitate the\n\n \"digital sequestration\" of the Petitioner, preventing the secure transmission of technical\n\n data to this Court.\n\n 2. Ongoing Interference: This May discovery proves that while the Court was \"mooting\"\n\n the intervention, a concurrent technical effort was underway to ensure the Petitioner\n\n remained silenced and unable to communicate the technical specifics of her 2009\n\n priority work.\n\nC) Material Conflicts of Interest and \"Common Identity\" of Interest\n\nPetitioner has uncovered evidence of a \"revolving door\" and concurrent representation that\n\ncreates an undisclosed conflict under ABA Formal Opinions regarding conflicting interests:\n\n 1. Samsung and Concurrent Representation: Plaintiff\u2019s counsel (Caldwell) represents\n\n Samsung in various patent matters. Petitioner\u2019s claims specifically involve Samsung\u2019s\n\n use of derivative technology (e.g., Samsung Patent 10,866,417 B2, Exhibit N, Att. 25).\n\n This creates a \"concurrent conflict\" where counsel cannot advocate for the validity of the\n\n Solos patents without directly clashing with Petitioner\u2019s priority claims which impact\n\n Samsung\u2019s interests.\n\n 2. The \"Safe House Project\" Nexus: Caldwell\u2019s April 23, 2026, partnership with the Safe\n\n House Project (SHP) to protect \"AI-powered anti-trafficking tools\" is highly prejudicial.\n\n SHP\u2019s leadership includes board members affiliated with Wells Fargo, the same\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 110 Filed 05/04/26 Page 28 of 32\n\n\n institution that deplatformed the Petitioner and her family, facilitating a constructive\n\n seizure in Miami, FL.\n\n 3. Data Laundering and Spoliation: This network is linked to the Bending\n\n Spoons/Evernote deal, which Petitioner alleges served as a mechanism for data\n\n laundering and the spoliation of evidence foundational to this case.\n\n 4. DOJ \"Revolving Door\": Leadership at SHP includes former high-level DOJ officials\n\n who were in roles related to victim services during the years the Petitioner was reporting\n\n these crimes to the FBI and DOJ. The fact that the same DOJ is in possession of\n\n Petitioner\u2019s 2009\u20132019 reports\u2014while counsel for the \"anti-trafficking\" partner seeks to\n\n suppress her evidence\u2014points to a systemic fraud on the court.\n\n D) Identity of Interest Between Adversaries\n\n Evidence suggests a shared financier or network between Solos and Meta. In patent law, if a law\n\n firm is aware that their client and the \"adversary\" share a common financier, they have an\n\n ethical obligation to disclose.\n\n 1. Camden Property Trust: Defendant\u2019s counsel represents Camden Property Trust, the\n\n entity responsible for the constructive seizure of the Petitioner in Miami.\n\n 2. The Result: The Defendants' counsel represents the entities involved in the physical\n\n trafficking and sequestration of the Petitioner, while Plaintiff's counsel represents the\n\n entities (Samsung) utilizing the stolen technology. This \"pincer\" maneuver has left the\n\n Petitioner without an unconflicted venue to assert her rights.\n\nThe \"rubber stamping\" of narratives provided by conflicted counsel has allowed for the misuse of\n\njudicial power to shield a multi-billion dollar IP theft. Petitioner respectfully requests that the Court\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 110 Filed 05/04/26 Page 29 of 32\n\n\nvacate the mootness order and appoint a Special Master to untangle these documented conflicts and the\n\nMay 2026 APT interference.\n\nVIII. THE \"GRANT-AND-TERMINATE\" PROCEDURAL NULLITY: A STRUCTURAL\nERROR\n\nRelief is mandatory under Rule 60(b)(1) and (b)(6) because the Court\u2019s simultaneous actions created a\n\nprocedural nullity that violated Petitioner\u2019s Fifth Amendment rights.\n\n A) The Extinguishment of the Right to be Heard\n\n The Court\u2019s April 29 Order \"GRANTED\" Petitioner leave to file a reply (ECF No. 106)\n\n regarding the Motion for Reconsideration. However, the Court simultaneously terminated the\n\n proceedings (ECF No. 107) before that reply\u2014the Notice of Candor\u2014could be docketed or\n\n considered.\n\n 1. Structural Defect: Under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, a party has\n\n a right to be heard \"at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.\" Armstrong v.\n\n Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965).\n\n 2. Procedural Nullity: By mooting the case before the authorized Reply could be placed\n\n on the record, the Court rendered its own order granting leave a nullity. This effectively\n\n \"gagged\" the Petitioner at the precise moment the Court acknowledged her right to\n\n respond, preventing the disclosure of the Notice of Candor which contained facts central\n\n to the Court\u2019s jurisdiction.\n\n B) Impact on the Judicial Record\n\n This \"Grant-and-Terminate\" maneuver prevented the Petitioner from correcting the record\n\n regarding the Samsung concurrent conflict, the May 2, 2026 APT discovery, and the\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 110 Filed 05/04/26 Page 30 of 32\n\n\n Facebook data export. A judgment entered while a permitted response is pending is inherently\n\n defective and must be vacated to preserve the integrity of the judicial process.\n\n\nCONCLUSION\n\n\nThe judicial error in denying intervention prevents the Petitioner from asserting her right to just\n\ncompensation and allows for the potential abuse of the State Secrets Privilege to shield the\n\nmisappropriation of foundational 2009 intellectual property. This Court\u2019s \"Grant-and-Terminate\"\n\nprocedural defect, combined with the \"rubber-stamping\" of material misrepresentations regarding\n\nPetitioner\u2019s work, constitutes a manifest injustice that only vacatur can remedy.\n\nThe \"State Actor\" nexus established via Detachment 201 and the integration of Petitioner\u2019s logic into\n\nU.S. ARMY Project ARIA necessitates a stay of these proceedings to investigate whether the judicial\n\nmachinery is being utilized to facilitate a Fifth Amendment Taking under the guise of a private patent\n\ndispute.\n\nNOTICE OF LODGING OF SENSITIVE PHYSICAL EVIDENCE:\n\nPetitioner possesses the courier logs for the 200 lb private hardware box (which vanished for\n\nweeks/months and was systematically lightened in transit). Due to the high risk of physical retaliation\n\nand the ongoing 'constructive seizure' of Petitioner, these logs are withheld from the public docket and\n\nare available for In Camera review by the Court or the U.S. Marshals Service only\n\nWHEREFORE, Petitioner respectfully prays that this Court:\n\n 1. VACATE the April 29, 2026, Mootness Order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), (3), (6) and\n\n 60(d)(3) to correct manifest procedural errors and address the documented fraud on the court;\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 110 Filed 05/04/26 Page 31 of 32\n\n\n 2. STAY the May 6, 2026, appellate deadline and all underlying proceedings in Solos v. Meta\n\n (Case No. 1:26-cv-10304) to allow for the adjudication of this Motion and to prevent further\n\n spoliation of evidence;\n\n 3. CONDUCT an In Camera hearing to review the Facebook Data Export (2009\u20132019) and the\n\n technical contents of ECF No. 92, resolving the contradiction between the Court\u2019s \"generalized\"\n\n label and the Petitioner\u2019s specific \"reduction to practice\";\n\n 4. RESTORE Petitioner\u2019s ECF filing privileges immediately as a mandatory ADA\n\n accommodation, ensuring meaningful access to the Court for a whistleblower with documented\n\n disabilities;\n\n 5. GRANT the Motion to Intervene as a matter of right pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a);\n\n 6. APPOINT A SPECIAL MASTER to investigate the \"State Actor\" nexus involving\n\n Detachment 201, the forensic evidence of May 2, 2026 APT activity, and the potential\n\n misappropriation of Petitioner\u2019s IP into U.S. ARMY Project ARIA; or, in the alternative,\n\n 7. TRANSFER the relevant claims to the United States Court of Federal Claims pursuant to 28\n\n U.S.C. \u00a7 1491 if the federal government is confirmed as the ultimate beneficiary of the\n\n misappropriated technology.\n\n 8. ORDER the U.S. Marshals Service to provide a secure channel for the submission of physical\n\n evidence (hardware/lab notes) to prevent further spoliation or interception in transit.\n\nDated: May 3, 2026\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n/s/ Daitona Carter\nDaitona Carter, Pro Se\nAddress: NO FIXED ADDRESS\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 110 Filed 05/04/26 Page 32 of 32\n\n\n(Withheld for physical safety)\nPhone: NONE\nEmail: On file with the Clerk of Court\n(Omitted from public filing for physical safety and cyber-security)\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-06-11T10:34:43.087583-07:00","document_number":"110","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"095013652524","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Miscellaneous Relief AND Vacate","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/482370804/","id":482370804,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72181665/110/1/solos-technology-limited-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-11T10:34:24.201179-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-11T10:34:24.201197-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":9,"file_size":2026148,"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":"110","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"095013652525","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit Notice of Candor","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/482370807/","id":482370807,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72181665/110/2/solos-technology-limited-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-11T10:34:24.258079-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-11T10:34:24.258096-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":4,"file_size":666599,"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":"110","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"095013652526","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit Federal Appeals - Emergency Report (Ongoing Interference)","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/482370808/","id":482370808,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72181665/110/3/solos-technology-limited-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-11T10:34:24.284701-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-11T10:34:24.284718-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":2,"file_size":456359,"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":"110","attachment_number":3,"pacer_doc_id":"095013652527","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit state-sponsored malware discovery and the nexus to the ongoing obstructi","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/482370809/","id":482370809,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72181665/110/4/solos-technology-limited-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-11T10:34:24.312858-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-11T10:34:24.312876-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":2,"file_size":279756,"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":"110","attachment_number":4,"pacer_doc_id":"095013652528","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit 20172019 \"Aria\" Field Tests and Industry Validation","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/482370838/","id":482370838,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72181665/110/5/solos-technology-limited-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-11T10:34:25.765675-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-11T10:34:25.765692-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":2,"file_size":279765,"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":"110","attachment_number":5,"pacer_doc_id":"095013652529","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit \"Verbatim Adoption\"","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/482370848/","id":482370848,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72181665/110/6/solos-technology-limited-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-11T10:34:26.224477-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-11T10:34:26.224494-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":1,"file_size":257984,"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":"110","attachment_number":6,"pacer_doc_id":"095013652530","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit Documentation of physical interference and theft","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/482370853/","id":482370853,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72181665/110/7/solos-technology-limited-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-11T10:34:26.535745-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-11T10:34:26.535761-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":2,"file_size":339118,"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":"110","attachment_number":7,"pacer_doc_id":"095013652531","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit Technical Specificity & Derivation Comparison","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/482370859/","id":482370859,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72181665/110/8/solos-technology-limited-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-11T10:34:26.818232-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-11T10:34:26.818257-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":1,"file_size":259156,"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":"110","attachment_number":8,"pacer_doc_id":"095013652532","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit Physical courier logs regarding the 200 lb feight","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/482370865/","id":482370865,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72181665/110/9/solos-technology-limited-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-11T10:34:27.022465-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-11T10:34:27.022482-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":1,"file_size":323891,"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":"110","attachment_number":9,"pacer_doc_id":"095013652533","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit Bank closure records and mail-tampering evidence","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/482370870/","id":482370870,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72181665/110/10/solos-technology-limited-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-11T10:34:27.243339-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-11T10:34:27.243356-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":2,"file_size":287159,"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":"110","attachment_number":10,"pacer_doc_id":"095013652534","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Affidavit [Proposed] Order Granting Movant Daitona Carters Motion To Vacate Orde","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/482370874/","id":482370874,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72181665/110/11/solos-technology-limited-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-11T10:34:27.399729-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-11T10:34:27.399747-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":2,"file_size":275752,"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":"110","attachment_number":11,"pacer_doc_id":"095013652535","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Text of Proposed Order [Proposed] Order Granting Movant Daitona Carters Motion T","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-05-03T23:17:39.667642-07:00","date_modified":"2026-05-03T23:17:39.673465-07:00","date_filed":"2026-05-04","time_filed":"01:16:43","entry_number":110,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-05-04.001","pacer_sequence_number":342,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/462593704/","id":462593704,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/477711960/","id":477711960,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72181665/108/solos-technology-limited-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-04-30T15:25:16.337176-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-05T04:15:21.215374-07:00","sha1":"5e48cbf52a2d156d992c627a700bcc5bac8b45f3","page_count":16,"file_size":234253,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.mad.294817/gov.uscourts.mad.294817.108.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mad.294817/gov.uscourts.mad.294817.108.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 108 Filed 04/30/26 Page 1 of 16\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR\n THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS\n\nSOLOS TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,\n\n Plaintiff,\n\n v. Civil Action No. 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\nMETA PLATFORMS, INC.,\n REQUEST FOR HEARING\nMETA PLATFORMS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC\n Leave to File Granted April 27, 2026\nOAKLEY, INC.\nLUXOTTICA OF AMERICA, INC. AND\nESSILORLUXOTTICA USA, INC.\n\n Defendants.\n\n\n META DEFENDANTS\u2019 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR\n MOTION TO DISMISS UNDER RULE 12(b)(7)\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 108 Filed 04/30/26 Page 2 of 16\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\n\n\nI. ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 1\n\n A. BlueRadios is a Necessary Party Under Rule 19(a)............................................... 2\n\n 1. BlueRadios has a plausible co-ownership claim from inventorship. ............. 4\n\n 2. BlueRadios has a present, legal interest in the Asserted Patents. .................. 5\n\n B. All Equitable Factors Weigh In Favor of Dismissal. ............................................. 7\n\n C. Alternatively, This Action Should Be Stayed. ....................................................... 9\n\n 1. Regardless of the test, all factors weigh in favor of a stay. ........................... 9\n\n 2. Staying this action at least until resolution of the HBSR action would\n provide meaningful clarity. .......................................................................... 10\n\nII. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................ 10\n\n\n\n\n i\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 108 Filed 04/30/26 Page 3 of 16\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n\n Page(s)\n\nCases\n\nA123 Sys. v. Hydro-Quebec,\n 626 F.3d 1213 (Fed. Cir. 2010)................................................................................................ 8\n\nAntennaSys, Inc. v. AQYR Techs., Inc.,\n 976 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2020)................................................................................................ 3\n\nAsymmetRx, Inc. v. Biocare Med., LLC,\n 582 F.3d 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................ 9\n\nBlueRadios, Inc. v. Hamilton, Brook, Smith & Reynolds, P.C.,\n 166 F.4th 197 (1st Cir. Feb. 2, 2026) ....................................................................................... 1\n\nBlueRadios, Inc. v. Hamilton, Brook, Smith & Reynolds, P.C.,\n No. 21-cv-10488-DJC, D.I. 296 (D. Mass. Apr. 22, 2026) ................................................... 10\n\nChr. Hansen HMO GmbH v. Glycosyn LLC,\n 662 F. Supp. 3d 50 (D. Mass. 2023) ...................................................................................... 10\n\nEthicon, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.,\n 135 F.3d 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998)................................................................................................ 3\n\nFilmtec Corp. v. Allied-Signal, Inc.,\n 939 F.2d 1568 (Fed. Cir. 1991)............................................................................................ 6, 7\n\nIsrael Bio-Eng\u2019g Project v. Amgen, Inc.,\n 475 F.3d 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007)................................................................................................ 6\n\nLee v. Anthony Lawrence Collection, L.L.C.,\n 47 F.4th 262 (5th Cir. 2022) ................................................................................................ 3, 9\n\nLone Star Silicon Innovations LLC v. Nanya Tech. Corp.,\n 925 F.3d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2019)................................................................................................ 7\n\nOmni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,\n 7 F.4th 1148 (Fed. Cir. 2021) .................................................................................................. 7\n\nProvident Tradesmens Bank & Tr. Co. v. Patterson,\n 390 U.S. 102 (1968) ................................................................................................................. 9\n\nRepublic of Philippines v. Pimentel,\n 553 U.S. 851 (2008) ............................................................................................................. 2, 3\n\n\n\n ii\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 108 Filed 04/30/26 Page 4 of 16\n\n\n\n\nShermoen v. United States,\n 982 F.2d 1312 (9th Cir. 1992) ................................................................................................. 3\n\nUniv. of Pittsburgh v. Varian Med. Sys., Inc.,\n 569 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2009)................................................................................................ 3\n\nWindsurfing Int\u2019l, Inc. v. Ostermann,\n 100 F.R.D. 82 (S.D.N.Y. 1983) ............................................................................................... 8\n\nOther Authorities\n\nFed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1)(B) ............................................................................................................ 7\n\nFed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).................................................................................................................. 7\n\nFed. R. Civ. P. 19 .................................................................................................................. passim\n\nFed. R. Civ. P. 19(a) .............................................................................................................. 2, 5, 9\n\nFed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1) .................................................................................................................. 3\n\nFed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(B)(ii) ............................................................................................................ 3\n\nFed. R. Civ. P. 19(b)(1).................................................................................................................. 7\n\n\n\n\n iii\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 108 Filed 04/30/26 Page 5 of 16\n\n\n\n\nI. ARGUMENT\n\n BlueRadios has made a non-frivolous claim of ownership over the Asserted Patents in this\n\ncase, establishing a bona fide threat that this Court and Meta will waste significant resources\n\nlitigating claims involving the Asserted Patents multiple times. To guard against that, the Court\n\nshould dismiss, or in the alternative, stay the case for six months until a jury determines whether\n\na patent prosecution firm improperly left BlueRadios inventors off of patent applications\u2014the very\n\nfirm that filed provisional applications that led to three of the Asserted Patents here.\n\n Solos attempts to cast BlueRadios\u2019 claims of ownership as baseless. But Solos\u2019 position\n\nhas been rejected twice already. Following extensive discovery and a trial, a jury found that it was\n\n\u201cmore likely than not that Kopin agreed under the contract\u201d to \u201c[a]ssign BlueRadios co-ownership\n\nof patents that incorporate Golden-i technology,\u201d \u201cincorporate[ed] BlueRadios\u2019 employees\u2019\n\ninventive contributions in issued patents and patent applications without naming them as co-\n\ninventors,\u201d and \u201cincorporate[ed] BlueRadios\u2019 developments in issued patents and patent\n\napplications without naming BlueRadios as a co-owner.\u201d Mot. Ex. 8 at 2, 5. And in a second\n\nlitigation, the First Circuit had stern words for Kopin\u2019s patent prosecution counsel, Hamilton,\n\nBrook, Smith & Reynolds, P.C. (\u201cHBSR\u201d), finding that HBSR \u201cwould have read [the contract]\n\n(and thus understood) that BlueRadios and Kopin jointly owned the IP for Golden-i.\u201d BlueRadios,\n\nInc. v. Hamilton, Brook, Smith & Reynolds, P.C., 166 F.4th 197, 223 (1st Cir. Feb. 2, 2026).\n\n Given these circumstances, after receiving BlueRadios\u2019 letter asserting ownership over the\n\nAsserted Patents and offering a license (Mot. Ex. 1), Meta had little choice but to move to dismiss\n\nfor nonjoinder. Meta cannot reasonably be expected to sit on its hands and simply hope that it will\n\nnot be subjected to two separate suits by two feuding owners. Rule 19 is designed specifically to\n\nprevent this type of prejudice. Permitting the ownership dispute to play out simultaneously with\n\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 108 Filed 04/30/26 Page 6 of 16\n\n\n\n\nthe present suit would impede any settlement discussions (with either Solos or BlueRadios), be\n\ninefficient, and put unnecessary strain on valuable judicial resources. Meta, stuck in the middle,\n\nsimply requests the Court postpone (through dismissal or stay) resolution of any infringement\n\nallegations until ownership has been perfected\u2014just as envisioned by Rule 19.\n\n To be clear, in the ownership dispute between Solos and BlueRadios, Meta is a third party\n\non the outside looking in. And the disparate positions of the parties here cannot be overstated.\n\nThrough no fault of its own, Meta does not have access to the confidential material available to\n\nSolos or from either BlueRadios litigation. As Meta pointed out in its motion, much of the facts it\n\nrelies on are pieced together from court filings and opinions. D.I. 50 (\u201cMem.\u201d) at 2 n.1. That\n\nevidence is powerful, and certainly enough to demonstrate a non-frivolous ownership interest by\n\nBlueRadios\u2014as explained in Meta\u2019s motion and in more detail below. And despite the vast\n\nresources and potential evidence available to it in comparison to Meta, Solos submitted just two\n\nexhibits with its opposition: (1) the contract between BlueRadios and Kopin, which two courts and\n\na jury have already found gives BlueRadios ownership rights; and (2) a brief, two-page declaration\n\nfrom a named inventor on just two of the five Asserted Patents. When BlueRadios is not present\n\nto represent its own interests, and Meta only has so much information available to it, a single,\n\nuntested declaration cannot negate the plausibility of BlueRadios\u2019 ownership claim.\n\n For the reasons explained in Meta\u2019s motion and herein, this case should be dismissed.\n\n A. BlueRadios is a Necessary Party Under Rule 19(a).\n\n To prevail under Rule 19(a), Meta need only show that BlueRadios has a non-frivolous\n\nassertion of co-ownership of the Asserted Patents for BlueRadios to be a required party. See, e.g.,\n\nRepublic of Philippines v. Pimentel, 553 U.S. 851, 867 (2008). Solos does not dispute the non-\n\nfrivolous standard, D.I. 100 (\u201cOpp.\u201d) at 1, yet still attempts to argue the merits of BlueRadios\u2019\n\nownership claim and that a co-pending suit is necessary, id. at 11-13. Not so. It matters not that\n 2\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 108 Filed 04/30/26 Page 7 of 16\n\n\n\n\nownership has not been fully adjudicated. See Mem. at 11. And no cases cited by Solos show\n\notherwise. See Opp. at 14-15. Simply because ownership had been resolved before dismissal under\n\nRule 19 in some other instances does not render it necessary. Moreover, the Court \u201cneed not seek\n\nto predict the outcome[]\u201d of the claim; rather, it \u201csuffices that the claim[] would not be frivolous.\u201d\n\nPimentel, 553 U.S. at 868; see also Lee v. Anthony Lawrence Collection, L.L.C., 47 F.4th 262, 266\n\n(5th Cir. 2022) (\u201c[T]he inquiry at this stage is more about whether the absent party claims a non-\n\nfrivolous interest, not the ultimate merit of the claim\u201d); Shermoen v. United States, 982 F.2d 1312,\n\n1317 (9th Cir. 1992) (\u201cJust adjudication of claims requires that courts protect a party\u2019s right to be\n\nheard and to participate in adjudication of a claimed interest, even if the dispute is ultimately\n\nresolved to the detriment of that party.\u201d).\n\n Solos cannot overcome the non-frivolous standard. Even with the limited information\n\navailable, Meta has plausibly demonstrated BlueRadios\u2019 rights to the Asserted Patents (1) through\n\ninventorship by BlueRadios employees; and (2) pursuant to the contract between BlueRadios and\n\nKopin. And patent co-owners are indisputably necessary parties to patent infringement suits under\n\nRule 19(a)(1). See, e.g., AntennaSys, Inc. v. AQYR Techs., Inc., 976 F.3d 1374, 1378 (Fed. Cir.\n\n2020) (a patent infringement action \u201cmust join as plaintiffs all co-owners\u201d) (quoting Ethicon, Inc.\n\nv. U.S. Surgical Corp., 135 F.3d 1456, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1998)); Univ. of Pittsburgh v. Varian Med.\n\nSys., Inc., 569 F.3d 1328, 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (\u201c[I]f a co-owner of a patent wishes to sue for\n\ninfringement, he must join the other co-owners in the action in order to avoid a dismissal for lack\n\nof standing.\u201d). Solos\u2019 arguments regarding whether complete relief can be accorded and whether\n\nthere is a risk of inconsistent obligations are mere distractions. Opp. at 13-14. It fails to rebut\n\nBlueRadios\u2019 unprotected interest under Rule 19(a)(B)(ii) and that, as a plausible co-owner,\n\nBlueRadios must be present for the suit to proceed. See Mem. at 10-11 (collecting cases).\n\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 108 Filed 04/30/26 Page 8 of 16\n\n\n\n\n 1. BlueRadios has a plausible co-ownership claim from inventorship.\n\n Meta has demonstrated that BlueRadios has a non-frivolous claim to co-ownership of the\n\nAsserted Patents through inventorship. Mem. at 11-15. Solos falsely claims that Meta\u2019s motion is\n\n\u201cbased on speculation\u201d regarding a \u201cdecades-old collaboration.\u201d Opp. at 1. That BlueRadios\u2019 and\n\nKopin\u2019s active partnership ended in 2009 does not preclude Kopin and its patent prosecution\n\ncounsel from later having wrongfully usurped BlueRadios\u2019 previously disclosed technology. It\n\ncannot reasonably be disputed that the Asserted Patents stem from technology developed long\n\nprior to Solos\u2019 acquisition of Kopin\u2019s patent portfolio.\n\n The evidence available to Meta plausibly shows that technology came from Kopin\u2019s joint\n\ndevelopment with BlueRadios. The \u2019389 patent was originally assigned to Kopin, Compl., Ex. 1,\n\nand the other Asserted Patents stem from work done with Kopin. Mem. at 11-12. In fact, Solos\n\nacknowledges that the work at Kopin \u201cformed the foundation of the Asserted Patents.\u201d Compl.,\n\n\u00b6 53. And at the March Hearing, counsel for Solos asserted that the technology at issue here and\n\nthe technology at issue in the first BlueRadios litigation were so intertwined that Kopin\u2019s counsel\n\nfrom that case, Morgan Lewis, should not be permitted to appear in this case. See, e.g., Mar. 26\n\nHr\u2019g Tr. at 5:8-22. Solos further argued, \u201cThe five asserted patents in this case do not derive from\n\nanother portfolio. They directly derive from this portfolio\u201d\u2014meaning, Kopin\u2019s patent portfolio,\n\nrather than anything independently developed by or at Solos. Id. at 9:15-16. In short, Solos has\n\nadmitted that the Asserted Patents and Kopin patent portfolio are tied together.\n\n Moreover, public records show that the Asserted Patents are linked to HBSR, which is\n\ncurrently fighting, inter alia, malpractice claims for failing to name BlueRadios\u2019 employees as\n\ninventors on patent applications it filed on behalf of Kopin. Of the five Asserted Patents, three\n\nclaim priority to provisional applications originally prosecuted by HBSR\u2014the \u2019174, \u2019339, and\n\n\u2019389 patents. See Compl. Exs. 1, 4, 5; Exs. 9-15. And for several of those provisional applications,\n 4\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 108 Filed 04/30/26 Page 9 of 16\n\n\n\n\nthe filing attorney was Nelson Pierce, who is personally identified in the second BlueRadios\n\nlitigation complaint. Mot. Ex. 5, \u00b6 12. Solos does not mention HBSR in its opposition, let alone\n\naddress the potential import of the malpractice suit. There is more than a speculative connection\n\nbetween the Asserted Patents and Kopin\u2019s and HBSR\u2019s alleged misconduct.\n\n In addition, there is the recent letter from BlueRadios, which expressly states that\n\n\u201cBlueRadios, Inc. believes they are the co-owners of the 5 patents specified in the complaint filed\n\nby Solos Technology, Limited on 01/23/26.\u201d Mot., Ex. 1 at 3; see also id. at 1 (BlueRadios\n\nasserting that \u201c[t]he genesis of the Solos\u2122 IP came from the Golden-i project co-developed by\n\nBlueRadios and Kopin\u201d), 2 (BlueRadios asserting that \u201c[t]he Whisper\u2122 Audio-processing\n\ntechnology . . . was derived from BlueRadios original work on Golden-i\u201d). Solos does not\n\nmeaningfully engage with the contents of that letter, dismissing it out of hand as unable to \u201cprovide\n\na basis for joint inventorship.\u201d Opp. at 12. But the Court should not ignore BlueRadios\u2019 explicit\n\nassertion of ownership, particularly in light of the other significant evidence put forth by Meta,\n\nincluding from the two ongoing BlueRadios litigations and Solos\u2019 own admissions. Indeed, despite\n\nthose two other cases on the ownership of Kopin\u2019s patents, which have involved extensive\n\ndiscovery, the best evidence Solos could put forth to support sole ownership was apparently an\n\nuncorroborated two-page declaration from a single inventor on just two of five Asserted Patents.\n\n 2. BlueRadios has a present, legal interest in the Asserted Patents.\n\n If the Court finds that BlueRadios is a co-owner of the Asserted Patents through\n\ninventorship, it need not reach the issue of whether BlueRadios\u2019 contract with Kopin provides a\n\nnon-frivolous basis for co-ownership. For this reason, most of Solos\u2019 arguments can be\n\ndisregarded. See Opp. at 8-11. But were the Court to reach this issue, the BlueRadios-Kopin\n\ncontract provides a separate reason that BlueRadios is an absent, necessary party under Rule 19(a).\n\nSpecifically, a jury has already found that it was \u201cmore likely than not that Kopin agreed under the\n 5\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 108 Filed 04/30/26 Page 10 of 16\n\n\n\n\ncontract\u201d to \u201c[a]ssign BlueRadios co-ownership of patents that incorporate Golden-i technology.\u201d\n\nMot., Ex. 8 at 3. As explained, it is plausible that the Asserted Patents incorporate Golden-i\n\ntechnology. See, e.g., Mem. at 11-15; see also Mot. Ex. 1 at 1 (BlueRadios asserting that it\n\n\u201cacquired IP ownership under a joint venture contract from Kopin\u201d), id. (Ex. 1 at 1 (BlueRadios\n\nasserting that it \u201cwas the original architect, designer, developer, and manufacturer for the Golden-\n\ni family of devices. Kopin Corporation technical role was limited to providing BlueRadios their\n\nmicro-display\u201d). It is irrelevant that Kopin\u2019s and BlueRadios\u2019 active partnership ended years ago.\n\n Solos also tries to sidestep the BlueRadios-Kopin contract by arguing that it \u201cdoes not\n\neffectuate a present transfer of title\u201d because it only states that intellectual property \u201cwill be owned\n\njointly.\u201d Opp. at 1; see also id. at 9. But such \u201cforward-looking language,\u201d Opp. at 1, related to the\n\nyet-to-be-developed intellectual property\u2014not the ownership right. The contract terms show the\n\nparties intended for ownership to automatically vest. See Israel Bio-Eng\u2019g Project v. Amgen, Inc.,\n\n475 F.3d 1256, 1265 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (\u201cIn construing the substance of [an alleged] assignment, a\n\ncourt must carefully consider the intention of the parties and the language of the grant.\u201d) (citation\n\nomitted). The contract makes no mention of a promise to later assign or transfer title; rather, it\n\nstates that once the intellectual property exists, it \u201cwill be jointly owned.\u201d Opp., Ex. 1 at 6. Even\n\nif the \u201cassignment of rights in an invention [] made prior to the existence of the invention\u201d granted\n\nonly \u201cequitable title\u201d at that time, \u201c[o]nce the invention is made and an application for patent is\n\nfiled, [] legal title to the rights accruing thereunder would be in the assignee.\u201d Filmtec Corp. v.\n\nAllied-Signal, Inc., 939 F.2d 1568, 1572 (Fed. Cir. 1991). In effect, the BlueRadios-Kopin contract\n\n\u201cdid not merely obligate [Kopin] to grant future rights, but expressly granted to [BlueRadios] rights\n\nin any future invention. Ordinarily, no further act would be required once an invention came into\n\n\n\n\n 6\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 108 Filed 04/30/26 Page 11 of 16\n\n\n\n\nbeing; the transfer of title would occur by operation of law.\u201d Id. at 1573. BlueRadios thus has a\n\npresent, legal interest in the Asserted Patents, not merely an unperfected future interest.\n\n Regardless, Rule 19 turns on \u201cinterest,\u201d not a legal right; therefore, an equitable interest in\n\ntitle suffices for BlueRadios to be a necessary party. Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1)(B); see O\u2019Connor\u2019s\n\nFederal Rules: Civil Trials Ch. 3-I \u00a7 2 (2025 ed.) (\u201cThe \u2018interest\u2019 requirement of FRCP 19(a)(1)(B)\n\nis not limited to a legal interest.\u201d). Solos\u2019 cited cases do not show otherwise. Omni MedSci, Inc. v.\n\nApple Inc., 7 F.4th 1148, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 2021), considered standing under Rule 12(b)(6), relying\n\non a different standard, and Lone Star Silicon Innovations LLC v. Nanya Tech. Corp., 925 F.3d\n\n1225, 1236 (Fed. Cir. 2019), involved an exclusive licensee, not a co-owner.\n\n In sum, the BlueRadios-Kopin contract, already found to grant BlueRadios joint ownership\n\nin any patent incorporating Golden-i technology, provides another reason BlueRadios is necessary.\n\n B. All Equitable Factors Weigh In Favor of Dismissal.\n\n First, both Meta and BlueRadios would be prejudiced absent dismissal. Solos argues that\n\n\u201cMeta\u2019s prejudice argument rests on speculation that BlueRadios might bring a separate\n\ninfringement suit.\u201d Opp. at 2. Not true. BlueRadios\u2019 letter asserting an ownership interest in the\n\nAsserted Patents and offering a license demonstrates that it is monitoring this litigation and\n\nbelieves it may be entitled to compensation by Meta. That demonstrates a cognizable risk of a\n\nsecond suit\u2014although such a risk is not necessary for this factor to weigh in favor of dismissal.\n\nFurthermore, Solos ignores the prejudice to BlueRadios absent dismissal, which must be\n\nconsidered under Rule 19(b)(1). As Meta explained in its motion, its defenses and counterclaims\n\nnecessarily affect BlueRadios\u2019 rights, including the validity and enforceability of its patents, its\n\nsettlement and licensing opportunities, and its subjection to third-party discovery. Mem. at 16-17.\n\nSolos does not address such potential prejudice to BlueRadios.\n\n\n\n 7\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 108 Filed 04/30/26 Page 12 of 16\n\n\n\n\n Second, the prejudice to Meta and BlueRadios cannot be mitigated. Solos has not and\n\ncannot dispute that BlueRadios would not be present to defend the validity and enforceability of\n\nthe Asserted Patents. It does not matter that Solos may also be motivated to preserve the patents.\n\nSee, e.g., A123 Sys. v. Hydro-Quebec, 626 F.3d 1213, 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (finding that even if\n\nthe absent party and Solos \u201cshare the same overarching goal of defending the patents\u2019 validity,\u201d\n\nthat does not mean the absent party\u2019s interests \u201cwill be adequately represented\u201d by the plaintiff).\n\nIndeed, were Meta to bring an inequitable conduct counterclaim regarding the inventorship of the\n\nAsserted Patents, Solos and BlueRadios would be diametrically opposed in their positions.\n\nBlueRadios could lose all rights to its patents if Meta successfully proved them invalid or\n\nunenforceable and no mitigating steps can prevent that. And just because a judgment may be placed\n\nin a trust, as contemplated in Windsurfing Int\u2019l, Inc. v. Ostermann, 100 F.R.D. 82, 83\u201384 (S.D.N.Y.\n\n1983), it does not mean that BlueRadios would agree to accept a portion of any damages award,\n\nand Solos has not demonstrated it would. Meta could still be subjected to another suit. In any event,\n\neven if minimal mitigating steps may be available, that does not outweigh the grave prejudice to\n\nMeta and BlueRadios or the other three equitable factors.\n\n Third, for similar reasons, a judgment rendered in BlueRadios\u2019 absence would not be\n\nadequate. As Meta explained above and in its motion, Mem. at 17-18, BlueRadios would not be\n\nbound by a judgment in this suit. It could choose to forgo a portion of any damages award and\n\nbring its own, separate suit against Meta\u2014assuming the Asserted Patents even survive this action.\n\nSee id. at 17. Solos does not contest this, instead arguing only that Meta conflates this and the prior\n\nfactor. Opp. at 17-18. But just because these factors overlap does not mean they do not weigh in\n\nfavor of dismissal; here, both do.\n\n\n\n\n 8\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 108 Filed 04/30/26 Page 13 of 16\n\n\n\n\n Fourth, Solos would have an adequate remedy if this action were dismissed for nonjoinder.\n\nIt can simply reassert its claims after perfecting its ownership rights. See, e.g., Lee v. Anthony\n\nLawrence Collection, L.L.C., 47 F.4th 262, 270 (5th Cir. 2022) (finding plaintiffs could reassert\n\nclaims after establishing ownership rights to intellectual property). Solos incorrectly asserts there\n\nis no adequate remedy \u201cbecause no proceeding exists to resolve BlueRadios\u2019 alleged interest in\n\nthe Asserted Patents.\u201d Opp. at 2. But Solos has several options available to resolve the ownership\n\ndispute. It may reach out to BlueRadios and seek to perfect its ownership interests through\n\nsettlement/assignment, particularly in view of the two pending BlueRadios suits. Or, it may file a\n\ndeclaratory judgment action to establish its supposed complete ownership through litigation. It is\n\nunclear why third-party Meta should be prejudiced simply because Solos does not want to exercise\n\nthe options available to it. A co-pending litigation is not required. Indeed, because it is such an\n\nimportant issue, courts may and do raise problems of nonjoinder sua sponte, sometimes for the\n\nfirst time on appeal. See, e.g., Provident Tradesmens Bank & Tr. Co. v. Patterson, 390 U.S. 102,\n\n111 (1968) (finding that a court should, when necessary, \u201con its own initiative, take steps to protect\n\nthe absent party, who of course had no opportunity to please and prove his interest\u201d); AsymmetRx,\n\nInc. v. Biocare Med., LLC, 582 F.3d 1314, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (vacating a \u201cfinal judgement\u201d in\n\nan infringement suit because it could not proceed without an absent patent co-owner, even though\n\nnonjoinder \u201cwas not raised by either party or the district court\u201d). All that is required is a non-\n\nfrivolous \u201cclaim\u201d of interest. Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a); see also Mem. at 11; supra pp. 2-3. And\n\nBlueRadios\u2019 claim is plainly non-frivolous given the prior findings by a jury and an appellate court.\n\n C. Alternatively, This Action Should Be Stayed.\n\n 1. Regardless of the test, all factors weigh in favor of a stay.\n\n Solos asserts that this district typically applies a three-factor framework focused on\n\n(1) simplification of issues, (2) prejudice to the non-moving party, and (3) the stage of the\n\n 9\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 108 Filed 04/30/26 Page 14 of 16\n\n\n\n\nlitigation. Opp. at 18 n.4 (citing Chr. Hansen HMO GmbH v. Glycosyn LLC, 662 F. Supp. 3d 50,\n\n53 (D. Mass. 2023)). Regardless of whether a three- or four-factor test applies, all factors weigh\n\nin favor a stay. As Meta explained in its motion, Mem. at 19-20, the four traditional stay factors\n\nall demonstrate a stay is justified if this Court finds a dismissal inequitable. But even under Solos\u2019\n\nthree-factor test, the result is the same. It cannot reasonably be disputed that a stay would result in\n\nsimplification of the issues or that this case is at an early stage (no answer has been filed yet and\n\nno schedule has been issued). Any potential prejudice to Solos is minimal and does not outweigh\n\nthe other factors or the overarching goals and rationale of Rule 19. See Mem. at 18-20.\n\n 2. Staying this action at least until resolution of the HBSR action would\n provide meaningful clarity.\n\n At minimum, this action should be stayed through the verdict in the BlueRadios litigation\n\nagainst HBSR. BlueRadios was recently granted significant discovery into previously withheld\n\nemails between HBSR and Kopin. Order, BlueRadios, Inc. v. Hamilton, Brook, Smith & Reynolds,\n\nP.C., No. 21-cv-10488-DJC, D.I. 296 (D. Mass. Apr. 22, 2026). This may provide key insight into\n\nthe potential scope of any alleged malpractice, including whether any misconduct affects the patent\n\napplications at issue in this case. As noted above, HBSR was the patent prosecution counsel on\n\nprovisional applications leading to three of the five Asserted Patents. See supra pp. 4-5. Moreover,\n\nthe pretrial conference in the second BlueRadios litigation is scheduled for September 9, 2026\n\n(less than six months from now), with trial likely shortly after. Id. Even if that trial does not fully\n\nresolve any ownership dispute, the result will provide meaningful clarity on BlueRadios\u2019\n\nownership assertions. It would be appropriate to at least stay the case for the intervening\u2014and\n\nrelatively short\u2014time period and revisit the issue once more information is available.\n\nII. CONCLUSION\n\n For the foregoing reasons, Meta\u2019s motion to dismiss should be granted with prejudice.\n\n\n 10\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 108 Filed 04/30/26 Page 15 of 16\n\n\n\n\nDated: April 30, 2026 By: /s/ Matthias A. Kamber\n PAUL HASTINGS LLP\n 200 Clarendon Street, 49th Floor\n Boston, MA 02116\n Tel: (415) 856-7050\n Fax: (415) 856-7150\n\n Matthias A. Kamber (Mass BBO #654217)\n PAUL HASTINGS LLP\n 101 California St., 48th Floor\n San Francisco, CA 94111\n Tel: (415) 856-7050\n Fax: (415) 856-7150\n matthiaskamber@paulhastings.com\n\n Lisa Nguyen (pro hac vice pending)\n Eric Lancaster (pro hac vice pending\n PAUL HASTINGS LLP\n Palo Alto, CA 94304\n Tel: (650) 320-1800\n Fax: (650) 320-1990\n lisanguyen@paulhastings.com\n ericlancaster@paulhastings.com\n\n Stephanie Adamakos (Mass BBO #705076)\n PAUL HASTINGS LLP\n 2050 M St. NW\n Washington, DC 20005\n Tel: (202) 551-1700\n Fax: (202) 551-1705\n stephanieadamakos@paulhastings.com\n\n Attorneys for Defendant\n Meta Platforms, Inc. and Meta Platforms\n Technologies, LLC\n\n\n\n\n 11\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 108 Filed 04/30/26 Page 16 of 16\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I hereby certify that this document, filed through the Court\u2019s CM/ECF system on April\n\n30, 2026, will be sent electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of\n\nElectronic Filing (NEF).\n\n\n\n\n /s/ Matthias A. Kamber\n Matthias A. Kamber\n\n\n\n\n 12\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-06-04T21:18:23.197553-07:00","document_number":"108","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"095013647901","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Reply to Response to Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-04-30T15:25:16.310761-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-30T15:25:16.317145-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-30","time_filed":"17:30:01","entry_number":108,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-30.001","pacer_sequence_number":336,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/462593668/","id":462593668,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/477711924/","id":477711924,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72181665/109/solos-technology-limited-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-04-30T15:25:14.968289-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-30T15:25:14.981405-07:00","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":"109","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"095013647942","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Declaration","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-04-30T15:25:14.939450-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-30T15:25:14.947009-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-30","time_filed":"17:36:47","entry_number":109,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-30.001","pacer_sequence_number":339,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/462408363/","id":462408363,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/477522406/","id":477522406,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-04-29T13:31:35.222182-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-29T13:31:35.228333-07:00","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":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order AND ~Util - Terminate Motions","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-04-29T13:31:35.208934-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-29T13:31:35.208945-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-29","time_filed":"15:49:19","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-29.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/462377743/","id":462377743,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/477490995/","id":477490995,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72181665/106/solos-technology-limited-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-04-29T11:25:53.364618-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-29T11:25:53.371722-07:00","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":"106","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"095013643739","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Leave to File Document","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-04-29T11:25:53.338768-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-29T11:25:53.346011-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-29","time_filed":"14:14:26","entry_number":106,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-29.001","pacer_sequence_number":322,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/462068514/","id":462068514,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/477175168/","id":477175168,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72181665/105/solos-technology-limited-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-04-27T09:21:54.440157-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-05T02:40:00.109213-07:00","sha1":"fbd8f41942961c8028e0f0f0102fed7fa8b110a0","page_count":11,"file_size":225649,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.mad.294817/gov.uscourts.mad.294817.105.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mad.294817/gov.uscourts.mad.294817.105.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 105 Filed 04/27/26 Page 1 of 11\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS\n__________________________________________\n )\nSOLOS TECHNOLOGY LIMITED, )\n )\n Plaintiff, )\n ) Case No. 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n v. )\n )\nMETA PLATFORMS, INC., et al., )\n )\n Defendants. )\n__________________________________________)\n\n PLAINTIFF\u2019S OPPOSITION TO PROPOSED INTERVENOR\u2019S MOTION FOR\n RECONSIDERATION AND RELIEF FROM ORDER\n\n Daitona Carter\u2019s (\u201cCarter\u201d) Motion for Reconsideration (the \u201cMotion\u201d) and Relief from\n\nOrder should be denied.\n\n INTRODUCTION\n\n Carter fails to show any clear error of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e).\n\nHer arguments rest on the assertion that the Court improperly ruled after granting leave to file\n\nadditional materials without setting a deadline and while ancillary motions remained pending. The\n\nCourt\u2019s grant of leave to file supplemental material without a specified deadline does not stay\n\nadjudication of a pending motion or require the Court to delay ruling indefinitely. Likewise, the\n\npendency of such motions, including requests for in camera treatment or protective orders, does\n\nnot prevent a court from resolving intervention, nor does it create any entitlement to delay\n\nadjudication. Because the motion to intervene had been briefed and opposed, the Court acted\n\nwithin its discretion in resolving it. Furthermore, Carter had access to the Court\u2019s filing system and\n\nthe ability to submit materials regardless of the status of her motions, and her failure to do so\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 105 Filed 04/27/26 Page 2 of 11\n\n\n\n\nreflects a litigation choice, not judicial error. Accordingly, her \u201cprocedural error\u201d and \u201cdeadlock\u201d\n\narguments provide no basis for relief under Rule 59(e).\n\n Furthermore, Carter\u2019s allegations of spoliation, interference, digital lockouts, and related\n\nexternal conduct are equally unavailing. Even accepting those assertions as true, they do not\n\nestablish any error of law under Rule 59(e), nor do they excuse her failure to present materials that\n\nwere, by her own account, within her possession prior to the Court\u2019s ruling. These allegations are\n\nnevertheless irrelevant because they do not address the dispositive issue, specifically, Carter\u2019s\n\nfailure to allege any specific contribution to the conception of a claimed invention.\n\n Next, Carter\u2019s reliance on purportedly \u201cnewly discovered\u201d evidence under Rule 60(b)(2)\n\nfares no better. The materials she identifies predate the Court\u2019s ruling and were within her\n\npossession, foreclosing any claim that they are newly discovered. Her invocation of \u201cequitable\n\nconsiderations\u201d is likewise conclusory and does not cure this deficiency, as she offers no concrete\n\nexplanation for how the materials were unavailable prior to filing or what efforts she undertook to\n\nobtain and present them with reasonable diligence. Instead, she relies on vague references to\n\n\u201cspoliation,\u201d \u201caccess issues,\u201d and unspecified \u201cexternal interference,\u201d unsupported by facts\n\ndemonstrating that the evidence could not have been timely submitted. In any event, the proffered\n\nmaterials are cumulative and fail to identify any specific patent claim, claim limitation, or concrete\n\ncontribution to the conception of a claimed invention. Absent a claim-level contribution to\n\nconception, Carter cannot establish a legally cognizable inventorship interest and therefore cannot\n\ndemonstrate a protectable interest sufficient to support intervention under Rule 24.\n\n For these reasons and the reasons stated below, Carter\u2019s Motion should be denied. 1\n\n\n\n1\n Carter\u2019s subsequently filed \u201cEmergency Motion to Vacate\u201d (ECF No. 95) provides no independent basis for relief\nand repackages similar arguments asserted in support of reconsideration. As before, Carter fails to identify any specific\nclaim of any asserted patent, any claim limitation, or any concrete contribution to the conception of a claimed\n\n 2\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 105 Filed 04/27/26 Page 3 of 11\n\n\n\n\n LEGAL STANDARD\n\n A. Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment Under Rule 59(e)\n\n A motion to alter or amend a judgment under Rule 59(e) can only be granted to (1) correct\n\na manifest error of law or fact, (2) consider newly discovered evidence, (3) account for an\n\nintervening change in controlling law, or (4) prevent manifest injustice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e);\n\nMarie v. Allied Home Mortg. Corp., 402 F.3d 1, 7 n.2 (1st Cir. 2005). Reconsideration is an\n\nextraordinary remedy that must be used sparingly, and the moving party bears the burden of clearly\n\nestablishing a manifest error or presenting qualifying new evidence. Palmer v. Champion Mortg.,\n\n465 F.3d 24, 30 (1st Cir. 2006); Rev-Lyn Contracting Co. v. Patriot Marine, LLC, 760 F. Supp. 2d\n\n162, 171 (D. Mass. 2011). Rule 59(e) does not permit a party to relitigate issues already decided\n\nor to raise arguments and evidence that could have been presented prior to judgment. Crawford v.\n\nClarke, 578 F.3d 39, 44 (1st Cir. 2009); F.D.I.C. v. World Univ. Inc., 978 F.2d 10, 16 (1st Cir.\n\n1992). Motions that merely repeat prior arguments should be denied. Prescott v. Higgins, 538 F.3d\n\n32, 45 (1st Cir. 2008).\n\n B. Relief From Judgment Based on Newly Discovered Evidence Under Rule 60(b)(2)\n\n Rule 60(b)(2) permits relief from a final judgment based on \u201cnewly discovered evidence\n\nthat, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered\u201d earlier. Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2).\n\nTo prevail, the movant must satisfy a four-part test, demonstrating that: (1) the evidence was\n\ndiscovered after judgment, (2) could not have been discovered earlier with due diligence, (3) must\n\n\n\ninvention. This deficiency remains dispositive and independently forecloses intervention, regardless of how the\nmotion is styled.\n\nThe motion\u2019s additional assertions concerning alleged procedural error, purported jurisdictional defects under 35\nU.S.C. \u00a7 256, requests for a stay of proceedings, and allegations of external interference are legally unsupported and\nimmaterial to the governing standards. Section 256 does not create a jurisdictional bar to adjudication of the underlying\npatent dispute, and a non-party who has not established a legally protectable interest lacks any basis to seek vacatur\nor to control the course of proceedings. Accordingly, the Emergency Motion to Vacate should be denied for the same\nreasons set forth herein.\n\n 3\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 105 Filed 04/27/26 Page 4 of 11\n\n\n\n\nnot be merely cumulative or impeaching, and (4) must be of such a nature that it would likely\n\nchange the outcome. Boston Parent Coal. for Acad. Excellence Corp. v. Sch. Comm. for City of\n\nBoston, 89 F.4th 46, 62\u201363 (1st Cir. 2023) (internal quotations and citations omitted). The movant\n\nbears the burden of establishing each element, and a failure to satisfy any one part results in denial.\n\nU.S. Steel v. M. DeMatteo Const. Co., 315 F.3d 43, 52 (1st Cir. 2002).\n\n The rule is aimed at situations where evidence was genuinely unobtainable at the time of\n\nthe proceeding, not where a party seeks to supplement the record with materials that were available\n\nbut not timely presented. The due diligence requirement is strictly enforced, and the movant must\n\nprovide a convincing explanation for the prior omission of the evidence. See Del Moral v. UBS\n\nFin. Servs. Inc. of P.R., 815 F. Supp. 2d 495, 504 (D.P.R. 2011) (citing Karak v. Bursaw Oil Corp.,\n\n288 F.3d 15, 19\u201320 (1st Cir. 2002)). Finally, the evidence must be \u201cof such nature that it would\n\nprobably change the result . . . .\u201d Mitchell v. United States, 141 F.3d 8, 18 (1st Cir. 1998).\n\n C. Standard for Intervention Under Rule 24\n\n Under Rule 24(a)(2), a party seeking intervention must demonstrate that its motion is\n\ntimely, that it has a protectable interest relating to the subject of the action, that disposition of the\n\naction may impair that interest, and that the existing parties do not adequately represent it. Ungar\n\nv. Arafat, 634 F.3d 46, 50\u201351 (1st Cir. 2011). Failure to satisfy any one of these requirements\n\ndefeats intervention. Photographic Illustrators Corp. v. Orgill, Inc., 316 F.R.D. 45, 48 (D. Mass.\n\n2016). A putative intervenor must, at minimum, demonstrate a \u201csignificantly protectable interest\u201d\n\nthat is direct and not speculative, and that bears a close relationship to the underlying dispute.\n\nStudents for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., 308 F.R.D. 39, 47 (D.\n\nMass. 2015) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Courts routinely deny intervention where\n\nthe asserted interest is too speculative. Ungar, 634 F.3d at 52.\n\n\n\n 4\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 105 Filed 04/27/26 Page 5 of 11\n\n\n\n\n In the patent context, a legally protectable interest based on inventorship requires a specific\n\ncontribution to the conception of at least one claim element of an asserted patent. Eli Lilly & Co.\n\nv. Aradigm Corp., 376 F.3d 1352, 1361\u201362 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Where a proposed intervenor fails to\n\nidentify such a contribution, courts find no cognizable interest sufficient to support intervention.\n\nSiemens Gamesa Renewable Energy A/S v. Gen. Elec. Co., 617 F. Supp. 3d 55, 63 (D. Mass. 2022).\n\n ARGUMENT\n\n A. The \u201cProcedural Error\u201d Arguments Fail Under Rule 59(e)\n\n Carter\u2019s \u201cnon-stated deadline\u201d argument fails as a matter of law because it conflates\n\nprocedural concepts and mischaracterizes the basis of the Court\u2019s ruling. Carter ignores that the\n\nruling turned on the absence of non-conclusory allegations establishing a contribution to the\n\nconception of any claimed invention, not on any perceived incompleteness of the record. See Mot.\n\nto Intervene at 3\u20135, ECF No. 58 (asserting generalized prior inventorship without identifying any\n\npatent claims or claim elements); Pl.\u2019s Opp. at 2\u20134, ECF No. 82 (explaining that Carter failed to\n\nidentify any specific contribution to the claimed inventions); Order, ECF No. 90. Carter also treats\n\nthe Court\u2019s grant of leave to file supplemental material as if it imposed an obligation to delay\n\nadjudication and further conflates the absence of a filing deadline with a procedural bar to ruling.\n\n Carter\u2019s arguments lack merit. Leave to file is permissive, not mandatory, and does not\n\noperate as a stay or otherwise restrict the Court\u2019s authority to decide a briefed motion. See Creative\n\nSols. Grp., Inc. v. Pentzer Corp., 199 F.R.D. 443, 444 (D. Mass. 2001) (mere filing of a motion\n\ndoes not operate as a stay unless and until a stay is granted). Here, the motion to intervene had\n\nalready been briefed and opposed, and the Court acted within its discretion in resolving it. Carter\u2019s\n\nattempt to recast the denial as procedurally premature therefore identifies no legal error and\n\nprovides no basis for relief under Rule 59(e).\n\n\n\n 5\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 105 Filed 04/27/26 Page 6 of 11\n\n\n\n\n Next, Carter\u2019s \u201cprocedural deadlock\u201d argument is likewise unavailing. Her assertion that\n\nshe could not submit evidence while her motions for in camera protective orders were pending is\n\nself-defeating. The Court is not required to resolve ancillary requests before ruling on a dispositive\n\nmotion, particularly where the motion to intervene had been fully briefed and opposed. See\n\nNationwide Mut. Ins. Co. v. Nat\u2019l REO Mgmt., Inc., 205 F.R.D. 1, 13 (D.D.C. 2000) (additional\n\npending motions denied as moot following decision on intervenor status); United States v. Shepard,\n\n2011 WL 873424, at *4\u20135 (D.R.I. Mar. 3, 2011) (resolving underlying motion without addressing\n\ncollateral requests in ancillary motions). Nor do pending protective motions create any entitlement\n\nto delay the proceedings. Goodwin v. City of Boston, 118 F.R.D. 297, 298 (D. Mass. 1988) (moving\n\nfor a protective order does not automatically stay the proceedings). Carter had also been granted\n\naccess to the Court\u2019s electronic filing system. See Order, ECF No. 69. She therefore retained the\n\nability to submit materials prior to the Court\u2019s ruling. Her decision not to do so reflects a litigation\n\nchoice, not a procedural defect or judicial error, and provides no basis for relief under Rule 59(e).\n\nSee Rev-Lyn Contracting, 760 F. Supp. 2d at 171.\n\n Lastly, Carter\u2019s allegations of spoliation provide no basis for reconsideration, as they are\n\nunsupported and legally irrelevant to the Court\u2019s prior ruling. To the extent Carter claims that any\n\n\u201cexternal interference\u201d prevented her from submitting evidence, such assertions do not establish a\n\nclear error of law under Rule 59(e), nor do they excuse her failure to present materials that, by her\n\nown account, existed within her possession or control prior to the Court\u2019s decision. See U.S. Steel,\n\n315 F.3d at 52. Even accepting these allegations as true, they do not address the dispositive\n\ndeficiency identified by the Court, as Carter still fails to allege any specific contribution to the\n\nconception of any claim element of the asserted patents. See Eli Lilly, 376 F.3d at 1361\u201362;\n\nEthicon, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 135 F.3d 1456, 1461\u201362 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Carter\u2019s assertions\n\n\n 6\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 105 Filed 04/27/26 Page 7 of 11\n\n\n\n\nregarding data loss, digital lockouts, or physical inaccessibility therefore do not cure the absence\n\nof a legally protectable interest or support relief under Rule 59(e).\n\n B. The \u201cNewly Discovered Evidence\u201d Argument Fails Under Rule 60(b)(2)\n\n Carter\u2019s \u201cnewly discovered evidence\u201d argument fails at the threshold because the materials\n\nshe identifies do not qualify as newly discovered within the meaning of Rule 60(b)(2). Evidence\n\nthat existed and was accessible prior to the Court\u2019s ruling cannot be recast as newly discovered\n\nsimply because it was not presented. See U.S. Steel, 315 F.3d at 52. By her own account, the\n\nreferenced exhibits date back years and were maintained in her possession, whether in digital\n\nrepositories or as retained originals. Therefore, the materials cannot, as a matter of law, constitute\n\n\u201cnewly discovered\u201d evidence under Rule 60(b)(2).\n\n Furthermore, even if the Court were to treat these materials as newly surfaced, Carter fails\n\nto demonstrate the required diligence. Rule 60(b)(2) demands a convincing explanation for why\n\nthe evidence could not have been obtained and presented earlier through reasonable effort. See Del\n\nMoral, 815 F. Supp. 2d at 504. Carter offers only generalized assertions of limited mobility and\n\nunspecified interference, without detail, documentation, or explanation of efforts undertaken to\n\nsecure or submit the materials before the Court ruled. Such vague and unsupported claims fall\n\nshort of the diligence required, particularly where Carter had access to the Court\u2019s filing system\n\nand the ability to submit additional materials.\n\n Most fundamentally, the proffered materials would not change the outcome because they\n\ndo not cure the dispositive defect identified by the Court. Even as described, the exhibits reflect\n\ngeneralized work in smart glasses technology, software concepts, or prior projects, but do not\n\nidentify any specific contribution to the conception of a particular claim element of any asserted\n\npatent. That deficiency is fatal to both derivation and joint inventorship theories, which require\n\nconcrete, claim-level contributions, not broad technical overlap or prior independent development.\n 7\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 105 Filed 04/27/26 Page 8 of 11\n\n\n\n\nSee Ethicon, 135 F.3d at 1460; CardiAQ Valve Techs., Inc. v. Neovasc, Inc., 57 F. Supp. 3d 118,\n\n122 (D. Mass. 2014). These same issues are dispositive of her remaining arguments. Her assertions\n\nof ownership, derivation, and \u201cderivative standing\u201d rest on the premise that she is an omitted\n\ninventor, but she offers no plausible, claim-specific allegations to support that conclusion. See Eli\n\nLilly, 376 F.3d at 1361\u201362. Absent a cognizable inventorship interest, she cannot establish a\n\nprotectable interest under Rule 24, and her claims of irreparable harm collapse as a matter of law.\n\nSee Ungar, 634 F.3d at 52. Because Carter\u2019s new submissions add volume but not the required\n\nspecificity, they do not establish a legally protectable interest and would not alter the Court\u2019s\n\nruling.\n\n C. Carter\u2019s Serial and Procedurally Improper Filings Further Demonstrate That a\n Stay Is Unwarranted\n Carter\u2019s request for a stay should also be denied because it is part of a broader pattern of\n\nserial, duplicative, and procedurally improper filings that have already imposed an unnecessary\n\nburden on Plaintiff. Following the Court\u2019s denial of her motion to intervene, Carter did not present\n\na targeted or legally sufficient motion addressing the deficiencies identified by the Court. Instead,\n\nCarter initiated a cascade of overlapping filings, including the motion for reconsideration, multiple\n\nsupplemental notices of additional evidence, an emergency motion to vacate raising substantially\n\nidentical arguments, and repeated notices attempting to augment the record with materials that\n\nwere previously available or immaterial to the dispositive legal issues.\n\n These filings do not cure the defect identified by the Court but instead attempt to relitigate\n\nintervention through volume rather than legal sufficiency. Courts reject such tactics, recognizing\n\nthat duplicative and successive filings are not a proper vehicle to revisit issues already decided.\n\nSee Glendora v. Dolan, 871 F. Supp. 174, 176 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (explaining that the remedy to\n\naddress a ruling is appeal or reconsideration, not \u201cduplicative\u201d filings, and noting that repetitive\n\n\n 8\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 105 Filed 04/27/26 Page 9 of 11\n\n\n\n\nmaterials may be dismissed on procedural grounds); see also Rob New v. JPMorgan Chase Bank,\n\nN.A., 730 F. Supp. 3d 851, 853\u201355 (N.D. Ind. 2024) (holding that duplicative litigation is\n\n\u201cimproper and vexatious\u201d and that asserting the same claims in successive filings is \u201cfrivolous and\n\nabusive\u201d).\n\n Here, Carter\u2019s \u201cemergency\u201d motion to vacate repackages the same arguments as the instant\n\nMotion, asserting procedural error and seeking a stay of proceedings based on the purported\n\npendency of ancillary motions at the time of the intervention denial, supplemental exhibit filings,\n\nand alleged injuries. At the same time, Carter filed a notice of appeal and a motion for an\n\nadministrative stay, further multiplying proceedings without narrowing the issues or addressing\n\nthe dispositive deficiencies identified by the Court. This type of repetitive motion practice, where\n\na party reasserts arguments already rejected, can constitute an abuse of the judicial process and\n\nneedlessly burdens both courts and litigants. See Rivertown TCI, L.P. v. Optymyze PTE Ltd., No.\n\n24-2576, 2026 WL 972888, at *2\u20133, 7 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 10, 2026) (finding repeated motions raising\n\npreviously rejected arguments to be an \u201cabuse[] [of] the judicial process\u201d warranting \u201cpre-filing\n\ninjunction\u201d).\n\n Carter\u2019s pattern of filings further supports denial of a stay. Courts discourage such\n\npiecemeal motion practice because it \u201cwaste[s] judicial resources\u201d and imposes unnecessary\n\nburdens on both the court and the parties. Vera v. Rodriguez, No. 16-491, 2017 WL 6621048, at *1\n\n(D.N.M. Dec. 27, 2017) (criticizing \u201coverlapping and often duplicative arguments\u201d that increase\n\nthe burden on courts and litigants). Here, granting a stay would reward piecemeal and duplicative\n\nfiling tactics, prolong proceedings, and prejudice Plaintiff by delaying resolution of the underlying\n\npatent dispute.\n\n\n\n\n 9\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 105 Filed 04/27/26 Page 10 of 11\n\n\n\n\n Accordingly, Carter\u2019s serial and procedurally improper filings provide another basis to\n\ndeny the requested stay.\n\n D. Additional Procedural Deficiencies\n\n Carter also fails to comply with Local Rule 7.1(a)(2). Although she claims that advance\n\nnotice would risk the alteration or destruction of relevant evidence, she sent an email on the\n\nmorning of the filing requesting a response by 5:00 P.M. and then proceeded to file that day. It is\n\ninconsistent to claim that advance notice would pose such a risk while simultaneously attempting\n\nto provide minimal, same-day notice before filing. Such perfunctory, last-minute notice does not\n\nsatisfy the rule\u2019s good-faith conferral requirement and further undermines the procedural propriety\n\nof the Motion.\n\n CONCLUSION\n\n For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court deny Daitona\n\nCarter\u2019s Motion for Reconsideration and Relief from Order in its entirety and all other requested\n\nrelief.\n\n Respectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ Jameson J. Pasek\n Jameson J. Pasek, Esq. (BBO# 692924)\n CALDWELL\n 200 Clarendon Street, 59th Floor\n Boston, MA 02116\n jameson@caldwelllaw.com\n Tel: (857) 990-4914\n\n Counsel for Plaintiff Solos Technology\n Limited\n\nDated: April 27, 2026\n\n\n\n\n 10\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 105 Filed 04/27/26 Page 11 of 11\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I, Jameson J. Pasek, Esq., hereby certify that this document, filed through the Court\u2019s\n\nCM/ECF system on April 27, 2026, will be sent electronically to the registered participants as\n\nidentified on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF).\n\n /s/ Jameson J. Pasek\n Jameson J. Pasek (BBO# 692924)\n\n\n\n\n 11\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-06-04T21:13:40.042898-07:00","document_number":"105","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"095013636710","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Response to Motion","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-04-27T09:21:54.415304-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-27T09:21:54.421991-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-27","time_filed":"11:52:49","entry_number":105,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-27.001","pacer_sequence_number":319,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/462037621/","id":462037621,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/477143744/","id":477143744,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-04-27T06:18:57.869500-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-27T06:18:57.876842-07:00","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":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Order on Motion for Leave to File Document","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-04-27T06:18:57.852529-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-27T06:18:57.852551-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-27","time_filed":"08:29:13","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-27.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/461846912/","id":461846912,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/476947756/","id":476947756,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72181665/103/solos-technology-limited-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-04-24T01:19:56.004871-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-05T04:00:10.803543-07:00","sha1":"0196c9743b2468e5485f97504d87cd43f2ba6645","page_count":3,"file_size":104219,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.mad.294817/gov.uscourts.mad.294817.103.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mad.294817/gov.uscourts.mad.294817.103.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 103 Filed 04/24/26 Page 1 of 3\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS\nSOLOS TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,\n Plaintiff,\n\n v. Case No. 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Judge Allison D. Burroughs\nMETA PLATFORMS, INC., et al.,\n Defendants.\n\n\nIn re: DAITONA CARTER\n Proposed Intervenor.\n\n\n NOTICE OF FILING SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBITS\n IN SUPPORT OF MOVANT\u2019S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION\nProposed Intervenor Daitona Carter, hereby gives notice of filing the following supplemental\n\nexhibits to the record in support of her pending Motion for Reconsideration::\n\n\n Exhibit T-1: Photographic Still of Virtual Technical Deliberation; Participant: John\n\n Rossant; Metadata Date: August 5, 2020.\n\n Exhibit T=2: Photographic Still of Virtual Technical Deliberation; Participant: Emily\n\n Yates; Metadata Date: August 5, 2020.\n\n Exhibit T-3: Photographic Record of Platform Interface; August 5, 2020. This exhibit\n\n demonstrates the Movant\u2019s active presence and intent to provide technical input during\n\n the virtual deliberation. The interface artifact confirms the Movant\u2019s contemporaneous\n\n engagement with the platform and the participants.\n\nThese exhibits provide contemporaneous evidence of the Movant's proximity to key industry\n\nfigures and the technology's development timeline prior to the Defendants' public\n\nannouncements.\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 103 Filed 04/24/26 Page 2 of 3\n\n\n\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n\n/s/ Daitona Carter\nDaitona Carter, Pro Se Proposed Intervenor\nlegal@daitonacarter.com\nDated: April 24, 2026\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 103 Filed 04/24/26 Page 3 of 3\n\n\n\n\nCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n\nI hereby certify that on this 24th day of April, 2026, I caused a true and correct copy of the\n\nforegoing Notice of Filing Exhibits, Declaration of Daitona Carter, and Exhibits T-1 and T-2 to\n\nbe served via the Court\u2019s CM/ECF system, which will send notification of such filing to all\n\ncounsel of record.\n\nExecuted on April 24, 2026.\n\n/s/Daitona Carter\nDaitona Carter, Proposed Intervenor\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-06-04T21:11:38.411344-07:00","document_number":"103","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"095013632773","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice - Other","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/481631493/","id":481631493,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72181665/103/1/solos-technology-limited-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-04T21:10:46.399195-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-04T21:10:46.399213-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":2,"file_size":92726,"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":"103","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"095013632774","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Affidavit Supp. Declaration of Daitona Carter re: August 2020 Zoom Meeting Metad","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/481631494/","id":481631494,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72181665/103/2/solos-technology-limited-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-04T21:10:46.495625-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-04T21:10:46.495650-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":3,"file_size":508465,"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":"103","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"095013632775","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit Exhibits T1-T3: Zoom Stills of John Rossant, Emily Yates; Chris Yeh Blit","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-04-24T01:19:55.974211-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-24T01:19:55.981437-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-24","time_filed":"04:04:26","entry_number":103,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-24.001","pacer_sequence_number":312,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/461817346/","id":461817346,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/476917549/","id":476917549,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72181665/102/solos-technology-limited-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-04-23T16:24:14.702998-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-23T16:24:14.709575-07:00","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":"102","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"095013632604","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Leave to File Document","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-04-23T16:24:14.672588-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-23T16:24:14.678182-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-23","time_filed":"18:29:27","entry_number":102,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-23.001","pacer_sequence_number":310,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/461661015/","id":461661015,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/476758341/","id":476758341,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72181665/101/solos-technology-limited-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-04-22T15:27:44.972375-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-22T15:27:44.976819-07:00","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":"101","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"095013629505","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"USCA Case Number","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-04-22T15:27:44.954579-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-22T15:27:44.958988-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-22","time_filed":"17:35:57","entry_number":101,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-22.001","pacer_sequence_number":306,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/461608326/","id":461608326,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/476704553/","id":476704553,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72181665/100/solos-technology-limited-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-04-22T11:25:12.879062-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-05T02:35:30.728337-07:00","sha1":"9db5db61026925d5151e303804d4b76c4fc7b014","page_count":27,"file_size":345654,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.mad.294817/gov.uscourts.mad.294817.100.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mad.294817/gov.uscourts.mad.294817.100.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 100 Filed 04/22/26 Page 1 of 27\n\n\n\n\n IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT\n FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS\n__________________________________________\n )\nSOLOS TECHNOLOGY LIMITED, )\n ) Case No. 1:26-cv-10304-ADB\n Plaintiff, )\n )\n v. )\n )\nMETA PLATFORMS, INC., et al. )\n )\n Defendants. )\n__________________________________________)\n\n PLAINTIFF\u2019S OPPOSITION TO META PLATFORMS, INC. AND META\n PLATFORMS TECHNOLOGIES, LLC\u2019S MOTION TO DISMISS,\n OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, STAY THE PROCEEDINGS\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 100 Filed 04/22/26 Page 2 of 27\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF CONTENTS\n\nI. INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................1\n\nII. FACTUAL BACKGROUND............................................................................................3\n\n A. The BlueRadios\u2013Kopin Collaboration Was Limited to a Discrete Project Ending\n in 2009....................................................................................................................3\n\n B. The Asserted Patents Were Developed Years Later Through Independent\n Work.......................................................................................................................4\n\n C. Solos Acquired Its Patent Rights Through a Subsequent Transaction with\n Kopin......................................................................................................................5\n\n D. The Prior BlueRadios Litigation Concerned Different Patents and a Different\n Time Period............................................................................................................5\n\nIII. LEGAL STANDARD........................................................................................................5\n\n A. Joinder Under Rule 19............................................................................................5\n\n B. Stay.........................................................................................................................6\n\nIV. ARGUMENT.....................................................................................................................7\n\n A. This Action Should Not Be Dismissed Under Rules 12(b)(7) and 19(a)...............7\n\n 1. BlueRadios Is Not a Required Party Under Rule 19(a)..................................7\n\n i. Complete Relief Is Available Among the Parties...............................7\n\n ii. BlueRadios Has No Interests That Can Be Impaired..........................8\n\n iii. Meta Is Not Subject to a Substantial Risk of Incurring Double or\n Inconsistent Obligations...................................................................13\n\n 2. Meta\u2019s Involuntary Joinder Argument Fails Absent Proof of Co-\n Ownership.....................................................................................................14\n\n 3. Rule 19(b) Weighs Against Dismissal...........................................................15\n\n B. A Stay Is Unwarranted..........................................................................................17\n\nV. CONCLUSION................................................................................................................20\n\n\n\n i\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 100 Filed 04/22/26 Page 3 of 27\n\n\n\n\n TABLE OF AUTHORITIES\n\nCases Pages\n\nA.L.M. Holding Co. v. All States Materials Grp. Inc.,\n 784 F. Supp. 3d 417 (D. Mass. 2025)....................................................................18, 19, 20\n\nAmersham Int\u2019l v. Corning Glass Works,\n 108 F.R.D. 71 (D. Mass. 1985)......................................................................................6, 18\n\nAmgen, Inc. v. Ariad Pharm., Inc.,\n 513 F. Supp. 2d 34 (D. Del. 2007).................................................................................8, 15\n\nAutomated Transactions, LLC v. Bath Sav Inst.,\n 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48964 (D. Me. Mar. 14, 2013).....................................................19\n\nBacardi Int\u2019l Ltd. v. V. Suarez & Co.,\n 719 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2013).................................................................................................14\n\nBio-Rad Labs., Inc. v. Int\u2019l Trade Comm\u2019n,\n 996 F.3d 1302 (Fed. Cir. 2021)...............................................................................8, 10, 11\n\nBlue Cross & Blue Shield of Mass., Inc. v. Regeneron Pharms., Inc.,\n 633 F. Supp. 3d 385 (D. Mass. 2022)................................................................................19\n\nBlueRadios, Inc. v. Hamilton, Brook, Smith & Reynolds, P.C.,\n 166 F.4th 197 (1st Cir. 2026)...............................................................................................3\n\nBlueRadios, Inc. v. Kopin Corp., Inc.,\n 2017 WL 11546716 (D. Colo. Jan. 24, 2017)..............................................................3, 5, 9\n\nChr. Hansen HMO GmbH v. Glycosyn LLC,\n 662 F. Supp. 3d 50 (D. Mass. 2023)..................................................................................18\n\nDDB Technologies, LLC v. MLB Advanced Media, L.P.,\n 517 F.3d 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2008).........................................................................................14\n\nDelano Farms Co. v. Cal. Table Grape Comm\u2019n,\n 623 F. Supp. 2d 1144 (E.D. Cal. 2009).............................................................................16\n\nDelgado v. Plaza Las Americas, Inc.,\n 139 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1998)..................................................................................................13\n\nEli Lilly & Co. v. Aradigm Corp.,\n 376 F.3d 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2004).....................................................................................8, 11\n\n\n\n ii\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 100 Filed 04/22/26 Page 4 of 27\n\n\n\n\nEthicon, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp.,\n 135 F.3d 1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998)....................................................................................11, 14\n\nGryphon Networks Corp. v. Contract Ctr. Compliance Corp.,\n 792 F. Supp. 2d 87 (D. Mass. 2011)....................................................................................6\n\nH.D. Corp. of Puerto Rico v. Ford Motor Co.,\n 791 F.2d 987 (1st Cir. 1986)............................................................................................... 6\n\nHarish v. Arbit,\n 2025 WL 3313013 (D.N.J. July 31, 2025)...........................................................................7\n\nHilton v. Kerry,\n 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169661 (D. Mass. Dec. 2, 2013)................................................. 19\n\nHeath v. Aspen Skiing Corp.,\n 325 F. Supp. 223 (D. Colo. 1971)........................................................................................6\n\nInMode Ltd. v. BTL Indus., Inc.,\n 774 F. Supp. 3d 263 (D. Mass. 2025)..................................................................................6\n\nIn re JJ. of S. Ct. of Puerto Rico,\n 695 F.2d 17 (1st Cir. 1982)................................................................................................19\n\nIsrael Bio-Eng\u2019g Project v. Amgen Inc.,\n 475 F.3d 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2007).............................................................................10, 11, 15\n\nKimberly-Clark Corp. v. Procter & Gamble Distrib. Co.,\n 973 F.2d 911 (Fed. Cir. 1992).....................................................................................11, 12\n\nKoninklijke Philips N.V. v. Amerlux, LLC,\n 167 F. Supp. 3d 270 (D. Mass. 2016)................................................................................18\n\nLandis v. N. Am. Co.,\n 299 U.S. 248 (1936).............................................................................................................6\n\nLee v. Anthony Lawrence Collection, L.L.C.,\n 47 F.4th 262 (5th Cir. 2022)........................................................................................13, 17\n\nLone Star Silicon Innovations LLC v. Nanya Tech. Corp.,\n 925 F.3d 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2019).............................................................................6, 8, 9, 10\n\nMerritt v. Tiernan,\n 732 F. Supp. 3d 180 (D.R.I. 2024)......................................................................................7\n\n\n\n\n iii\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 100 Filed 04/22/26 Page 5 of 27\n\n\n\n\nMurdock Webbing Co. v. Dalloz Safety, Inc.,\n 213 F. Supp. 2d 95 (D.R.I. 2002)......................................................................................11\n\nNames for Dames, Inc. v. Gimbel,\n 1989 WL 82417 (S.D.N.Y. July 19, 1989)........................................................................18\n\nNarragansett Tribe of Indians v. S. Rhode Island Land Dev. Corp.,\n 418 F. Supp. 798 (D.R.I. 1976) ..........................................................................................6\n\nNorthern Arapaho Tribe v. Harnsberger,\n 697 F.3d 1272 (10th Cir. 2012).........................................................................................15\n\nOmni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,\n 7 F.4th 1148 (Fed. Cir. 2021)........................................................................................9, 10\n\nPropat Intern. Corp. v. Rpost, Inc.,\n 473 F.3d 1187 (Fed. Cir. 2007)...........................................................................................8\n\nRawlings v. Nat\u2019l Molasses Co.,\n 394 F.2d 645 (9th Cir. 1968).............................................................................................14\n\nRaytheon Co. v. Cont\u2019l Cas. Co.,\n 123 F. Supp. 2d 22 (D. Mass. 2000)....................................................................................6\n\nRepublic of the Philippines v. Pimentel,\n 553 U.S. 851 (2008).........................................................................................13, 15, 16, 18\n\nSchering Corp. v. Roussel-UCLAF SA,\n 104 F.3d 341 (Fed. Cir. 1997)...........................................................................................15\n\nShermoen v. United States,\n 982 F.2d 1312 (9th Cir. 1992)...........................................................................................13\n\nSomerville Pub. Schools v. McMahon,\n 139 F.4th 63 (1st Cir. 2025)..............................................................................................18\n\nSTC.UNM v. Intel Corp.,\n 754 F.3d 940 (Fed. Cir. 2014).....................................................................................14, 15\n\nTelevisa, S.A. de C.V. v. Koch Lorber Films,\n 382 F. Supp. 2d 631 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)...............................................................................18\n\nWhite v. University of California,\n 765 F.3d 1010 (9th Cir. 2014)...........................................................................................13\n\n\n\n\n iv\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 100 Filed 04/22/26 Page 6 of 27\n\n\n\n\nWestern Auto Supply Co. v. Noblex Advertising, Inc.,\n 173 F.R.D. 338 (D.P.R. 1997)...........................................................................................16\n\nWindsurfing International, Inc. v. Ostermann,\n 100 F.R.D. 82 (S.D.N.Y. 1983)...................................................................................16, 17\n\nStatutes\n\n35 U.S.C. \u00a7 281................................................................................................................................8\n\n35 U.S.C. \u00a7 100............................................................................................................................... 8\n\nRules\n\nFed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(7)...................................................................................................................5\n\nFed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)....................................................................................................1, 2, 5, 13, 15\n\nFed. R. Civ. P. 19(b)....................................................................................................2, 5, 6, 15, 17\n\nFed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1)(A)..............................................................................................................7\n\nFed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1)(B)..............................................................................................................7\n\nFed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1)(B)(i).........................................................................................................13\n\nFed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1)(B)(ii)..................................................................................................13, 14\n\n\n\n\n v\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 100 Filed 04/22/26 Page 7 of 27\n\n\n\n\n Meta Platforms, Inc. and Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC\u2019s (collectively, \u201cMeta\u201d)\n\nMotion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Stay the Proceedings (the \u201cMotion\u201d) should be denied\n\nbecause it rests on speculation, applies inapposite case law, and fails to establish any basis for\n\njoinder or a stay.\n\nI. INTRODUCTION\n\n In the patent context, Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a) permits joinder where an absent party has\n\nsubstantial rights in the patents at issue, meaning rights that amount to actual ownership. Courts\n\ndo not permit joinder based on speculation about what ownership an absent party might have. To\n\nassert a non-frivolous claim of co-ownership, therefore, Meta must identify a patent-specific\n\nownership nexus between BlueRadios, Inc. (\u201cBlueRadios\u201d) and the Asserted Patents. Meta has\n\nnot\u2014and cannot\u2014do so.\n\n Meta relies on a letter from BlueRadios\u2019 CEO, sent six weeks after this action was filed,\n\nand a decades-old collaboration between BlueRadios and Kopin Corporation (\u201cKopin\u201d), neither of\n\nwhich demonstrates BlueRadios having substantial rights in the Asserted Patents. Indeed, Meta\n\neffectively concedes the absence of any such rights by asserting that Solos Technology Limited\u2019s\n\n(\u201cSolos\u201d) Asserted Patents \u201cappear\u201d to have \u201ccome from the joint project between Kopin and\n\nBlueRadios.\u201d At most, Meta suggests a potential interest based on contractual language or joint\n\ninventorship. However, even taking such assertions as true, Meta\u2019s arguments fail as a matter of\n\nlaw. Under Federal Circuit precedent, (1) contractual language stating that certain intellectual\n\nproperty \u201cwill be owned jointly\u201d does not effectuate a present transfer of title absent operative\n\nassignment language, and (2) a prior collaboration does not confer an ongoing ownership right in\n\nlater-developed inventions, even where those inventions build on earlier work.\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 100 Filed 04/22/26 Page 8 of 27\n\n\n\n\n Similarly, co-ownership through joint inventorship extends only to intellectual property\n\ndeveloped through the parties\u2019 joint efforts. Yet, Meta fails to identify any post-2009 work under\n\nthe agreement, much less any work contributing to specific claims of the Asserted Patents. Nor\n\ndoes Meta identify a joint inventor or allege collaboration between BlueRadios and Solos. The\n\ncircumstances surrounding conception of the Asserted Patents and inventorship, moreover, are\n\nconfirmed by the only inventor-specific evidence before the Court, the declaration of Solos\u2019\n\nprogram lead, Ernesto Martinez.\n\n Furthermore, even if BlueRadios were a required party under Rule 19(a), the four Rule\n\n19(b) factors\u2014prejudice, mitigation, adequacy of judgment, and adequacy of alternative\n\nremedies\u2014weigh in Solos\u2019 favor. First, Meta\u2019s prejudice argument rests on speculation that\n\nBlueRadios might bring a separate infringement suit, yet speculation is insufficient, particularly\n\nwhere there is no ownership case pending regarding the Asserted Patents. Second, BlueRadios has\n\ndemonstrated awareness of this litigation, negating any notice concern and allowing the Court to\n\nmitigate purported prejudice through tailored relief. Third, the issues before the Court would not\n\nbe impacted without BlueRadios\u2019 participation and therefore a judgment in this case would be\n\nadequate; notably, Meta does not meaningfully address this factor and instead conflates adequacy\n\nwith alleged prejudice. Fourth, there is no adequate alternative remedy for Solos because no\n\nproceeding exists to resolve BlueRadios\u2019 alleged interest in the Asserted Patents.\n\n Lastly, Meta\u2019s alternative request for a stay fails. While Meta invokes the four-factor test\n\napplicable to stays pending appeal, courts in this District evaluate pretrial stays based on\n\nsimplification of issues, prejudice, and the stage of the case. Under either framework, however, a\n\nstay is unwarranted because no parallel proceeding exists to resolve any alleged ownership interest,\n\nand Meta\u2019s speculative theory does not overlap with the core issues in this case. Thus, a stay would\n\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 100 Filed 04/22/26 Page 9 of 27\n\n\n\n\nnot simplify the litigation, but would instead prejudice Solos by delaying enforcement of its patent\n\nrights for an indeterminate period.\n\n For these reasons, and those set forth below, Meta\u2019s Motion should be denied.\n\nII. FACTUAL BACKGROUND\n\n A. The BlueRadios\u2013Kopin Collaboration Was Limited to a Discrete Project Ending\n in 2009\n\n In 2007, BlueRadios and Kopin entered into a limited collaboration to develop a prototype\n\nhead-mounted device known as \u201cGolden-i.\u201d See BlueRadios, Inc. v. Hamilton, Brook, Smith &\n\nReynolds, P.C., 166 F.4th 197, 205\u201309 (1st Cir. 2026); BlueRadios, Inc. v. Kopin Corp., Inc., No.\n\n16-CV-2052-JLK, 2017 WL 11546716, at *3 (D. Colo. Jan. 24, 2017). The collaboration was\n\ngoverned by a development agreement under which BlueRadios provided certain wireless design\n\ncomponents, while Kopin contributed display-related technology and undertook responsibility for\n\npatent filings. See 2007 BlueRadios\u2013Kopin \u201cGolden-i Wireless Video Design Solution\u201d\n\nAgreement (the \u201cAgreement\u201d) (attached hereto as Ex. 1).\n\n The Agreement was expressly limited in scope to work performed \u201cin the course of this\n\ndevelopment contract,\u201d and thus confined any potential rights to that discrete Golden-i project. See\n\nEx. 1 at 5. The Agreement does not contain any present assignment of patent rights but instead\n\nprovides only that certain intellectual property \u201cwill be owned jointly,\u201d and therefore no automatic\n\ntransfer of title. Id. The collaboration ended in mid-2009, at which point the parties ceased all joint\n\nwork and communication. See BlueRadios, 166 F.4th at 208. There is no allegation\u2014and no\n\nevidence\u2014that any collaboration between BlueRadios and Kopin continued after 2009, or that\n\nBlueRadios participated in any subsequent development efforts.\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 100 Filed 04/22/26 Page 10 of 27\n\n\n\n\n B. The Asserted Patents Were Developed Years Later Through Independent Work\n\n The Asserted Patents arise from technologies conceived and developed years after the\n\nGolden-i collaboration ended. The earliest priority date associated with the Asserted Patents is no\n\nearlier than 2013, with patent filings beginning in 2015\u2014well after any collaboration between\n\nBlueRadios and Kopin had ceased. See, e.g., Doc. No. 1-1 (U.S. Patent No. 10,306,389; filed Oct.\n\n15, 2015; claiming priority to Mar. 13, 2013). These later developments were part of a separate\n\nand independent effort focused on wearable computing systems, including the Solos\u2019 smart-glasses\n\nplatform. As confirmed by Solos\u2019 program lead, Ernesto C. Martinez-Villalpando, Ph.D. (\u201cDr.\n\nMartinez\u201d), who joined Kopin in 2013 and led its consumer wearable computing initiatives\n\nbeginning in 2015, the Solos platform was conceived and developed as a distinct program within\n\nKopin\u2019s system innovation division, focused on consumer and sports performance applications.\n\nSee The Declaration of Ernesto C. Martinez-Villalpando, Ph.D. (\u201cE. Martinez Decl.\u201d) (attached\n\nhereto as Ex. 2).\n\n Dr. Martinez confirms that BlueRadios had no involvement in the development of the Solos\n\nplatform or the technologies underlying the Asserted Patents, and that he did not interact with\n\nBlueRadios in connection with any such development work. Id. \u00b6\u00b6 7\u20139. Dr. Martinez further\n\nexplains that the Solos smart glasses platform was developed independently of the earlier Golden-\n\ni project and was not part of any continuous development effort, but instead involved different\n\ntechnical architecture, design objectives, and system integration. Id. \u00b6\u00b6 10\u201311. Accordingly, none\n\nof the technology, system architecture, or development work pertaining to Golden-i was used in\n\nthe development of the Solos platform, and no Golden-i intellectual property was transferred to,\n\nor used in connection with, the Solos program or any subsequent Solos-related development. Id.\n\n\u00b6\u00b6 12\u201313, 15.\n\n\n\n 4\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 100 Filed 04/22/26 Page 11 of 27\n\n\n\n\n C. Solos Acquired Its Patent Rights Through a Subsequent Transaction with Kopin\n\n In 2019, Solos Technology Limited (\u201cSolos\u201d) acquired assets from Kopin associated with\n\nthe Solos smart-glasses product line, including related intellectual property rights. See Doc. 1 \u00b6 61.\n\nThe Asserted Patents are part of that acquired portfolio and reflect development by Kopin\u2019s Solos\n\ndivision, separate and distinct from the earlier Golden-i project. See E. Martinez Decl. (Ex. 2 \u00b6\u00b6\n\n12\u201315). Although certain work at Kopin preceded Solos, that work was distinct from the earlier\n\n2007\u20132009 BlueRadios collaboration. See id. \u00b6\u00b6 53\u201355, 63.\n\n D. The Prior BlueRadios Litigation Concerned Different Patents and a Different\n Time Period\n\n BlueRadios previously litigated claims against Kopin in the District of Colorado relating\n\nto alleged conduct during the parties\u2019 2007\u20132009 collaboration. See BlueRadios, No. 16-CV-2052-\n\nJLK. That litigation addressed whether Kopin had improperly omitted BlueRadios inventors. See\n\nid., Doc. No. 51-8 (Colorado Verdict Form) at 12; Doc. No. 51-7 (Colorado Final Judgment) at 3\u2013\n\n4. Notably, inventorship was corrected regarding two patents that are not among the Asserted\n\nPatents, and the jury found that BlueRadios was entitled to co-ownership of one additional patent\n\narising from the Golden-i project. See id., Doc. No. 124 (Colorado joint motion to correct\n\ninventorship). BlueRadios did not allege, let alone establish, that it has an ownership interest in\n\nthe Asserted Patents.\n\nIII. LEGAL STANDARD\n\n A. Joinder Under Rule 19\n\n Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 19 outlines a three-step approach to determine whether a\n\ncase should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(7): first, whether the absent entity is a required party\n\nunder Rule 19(a); if so, whether joinder is feasible; and third, if joinder is not feasible, whether the\n\naction should proceed in equity and good conscience under Rule 19(b). Fed. R. Civ. P. 19. A party\n\n\n 5\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 100 Filed 04/22/26 Page 12 of 27\n\n\n\n\nis only required if, in its absence, the Court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties,\n\nor if the absent party claims a legally cognizable interest that would be impaired or would expose\n\nexisting parties to a substantial risk of inconsistent obligations. Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1). In patent\n\ncases, a non-party must have substantial rights in the patents-in-suit, not a potential interest. Lone\n\nStar Silicon Innovations LLC v. Nanya Tech. Corp., 925 F.3d 1225, 1237\u201339 (Fed. Cir. 2019).\n\n If a party is deemed required but joinder is not feasible, the Court must determine whether\n\nthe action should proceed under Rule 19(b). The party seeking dismissal bears the burden of\n\npersuasion. Raytheon Co. v. Cont\u2019l Cas. Co., 123 F. Supp. 2d 22, 32 (D. Mass. 2000). Rule 19(b)\n\nconsiders (1) prejudice to an absent party, (2) the ability to mitigate prejudice, (3) the adequacy of\n\na judgment in the party\u2019s absence, and (4) whether dismissal would leave the plaintiff without an\n\nadequate remedy. H.D. Corp. of Puerto Rico v. Ford Motor Co., 791 F.2d 987, 992\u201393 (1st Cir.\n\n1986). \u201cIn general, \u2018the philosophy of [] Rule 19 is to avoid dismissal wherever possible.\u2019\u201d\n\nNarragansett Tribe of Indians v. S. Rhode Island Land Dev. Corp., 418 F. Supp. 798, 813 n.5\n\n(D.R.I. 1976) (quoting Heath v. Aspen Skiing Corp. 325 F. Supp. 223, 229 (D. Colo. 1971)).\n\n B. Stay\n\n A stay is only appropriate where it promotes judicial economy and the movant makes a\n\nclear showing of hardship. Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254\u201355 (1936); Gryphon Networks\n\nCorp. v. Contact Ctr. Compliance Corp., 792 F. Supp. 2d 87, 92 n.4 (D. Mass. 2011) (only granting\n\na stay where a clear case of hardship or inequity is demonstrated). Courts consider whether a stay\n\nwill simplify the issues, whether it will prejudice the non-moving party, and whether it will\n\npromote efficient resolution of the case. InMode Ltd. v. BTL Indus., Inc., 774 F. Supp. 3d 263, 265\n\n(D. Mass. 2025). A stay is not warranted where it would result in protracted delay and prejudice\n\nto the plaintiff. Amersham Int\u2019l v. Corning Glass Works, 108 F.R.D. 71, 72 (D. Mass. 1985).\n\n\n\n 6\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 100 Filed 04/22/26 Page 13 of 27\n\n\n\n\nIV. ARGUMENT\n\n A. This Action Should Not Be Dismissed Under Rules 12(b)(7) and 19(a)\n\n Under Rule 19(a)(1)(A), complete relief is available, and under Rule 19(a)(1)(B),\n\nBlueRadios has no interests that would be impaired, and Meta does not face any substantial risk\n\nof inconsistent obligations.\n\n 1. BlueRadios Is Not a Required Party Under Rule 19(a)\n\n i. Complete Relief Is Available Among the Parties\n\n The \u201ccomplete relief\u201d inquiry under Rule 19(a)(1)(A) refers to relief as between the\n\nparties\u2014here, Solos and Meta\u2014not whether an absent third party might prefer to participate or\n\ncould be affected by the outcome. Merritt v. Tiernan, 732 F. Supp. 3d 180, 183\u201384 (D.R.I. 2024)\n\n(Rule 19(a)(1)(A) is only concerned with existing parties; the possibility of separate litigation\n\ninvolving absent parties does not affect the complete relief analysis). Courts consistently apply\n\nthis limitation in patent cases. For example, in Harish v. Arbit, 2025 WL 3313013, at *3 (D.N.J.\n\nJuly 31, 2025), the court held that an absent patent assignee was not a required party because its\n\nabsence did not prevent resolution of the inventorship dispute or the provision of complete relief\n\namong the existing parties. The same rationale applies here.\n\n In the instant case, the Court can fully adjudicate Solos\u2019 infringement claims and Meta\u2019s\n\ninvalidity, unenforceability, and noninfringement defenses without BlueRadios\u2019 participation.\n\nEven if BlueRadios were an assignee, complete relief turns on the rights and liabilities as between\n\nSolos and Meta, not on the purported interests of BlueRadios. The absence of BlueRadios therefore\n\nposes no barrier to determining infringement, validity, or any available remedies. Any concern,\n\nmoreover, that BlueRadios might be affected by the outcome falls under Rule 19(a)(1)(B), not (A),\n\nand Meta\u2019s conflation of this prong should be rejected.\n\n\n\n 7\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 100 Filed 04/22/26 Page 14 of 27\n\n\n\n\n ii. BlueRadios Has No Interests That Can Be Impaired\n\n Meta cannot demonstrate that BlueRadios holds substantial rights 1 in the Asserted Patents\n\nbecause its argument rests on the assertion that BlueRadios may be a co-owner. A party with a\n\npurported interest in the Asserted Patents is only required if necessary to satisfy the statutory\n\nrequirements of the Patent Act 2\u2014\u201ca suit for infringement . . . [may] be brought by a party holding\n\nlegal title to the patent.\u201d Propat Intern. Corp. v. Rpost, Inc., 473 F.3d 1187, 1189 (Fed. Cir. 2007)\n\n(emphasis added) (internal citation omitted). Co-ownership, reflecting shared legal title, or the\n\ntransfer of substantial rights, may arise through (1) transfer or assignment; (2) joint development;\n\nor (3) inventorship. See Lone Star Silicon Innovations LLC v. Nanya Tech. Corp., 925 F.3d 1225,\n\n1236 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (exclusive licensee granted opportunity to join patent assignee under Rule\n\n19 analysis); Bio-Rad Labs., Inc. v. Int\u2019l Trade Comm\u2019n, 996 F.3d 1302, 1317\u201318 (Fed. Cir. 2021)\n\n(co-ownership requires joint development during the course of conduct); Eli Lilly & Co. v.\n\nAradigm Corp., 376 F.3d 1352, 1361\u201362 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (joint inventorship requires a\n\ncontribution at the conception of the claimed invention).\n\n First, BlueRadios has not been transferred or assigned legal rights to the Asserted Patents.\n\nIn determining whether a transfer has occurred, the Federal Circuit assesses whether a party holds\n\nsubstantial rights (i.e., true ownership) based on the substance of the rights actually conveyed\n\nunder the governing agreement. Lone Star Silicon Innovations, 925 F.3d at 1230 (substantive rights\n\nmeans actual ownership). In Lone Star, the court analyzed a specific patent transfer agreement and\n\nevaluated, based on its terms, whether all substantial rights had in fact been conveyed. 925 F.3d at\n\n\n1\n In determining whether an absent party is necessary under Rule 19 in patent cases, courts apply Federal Circuit\nlaw to assess whether a party holds \u201csubstantial rights\u201d in the patent at issue\u2014i.e., rights sufficient to render it the\neffective patentee under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 281. See Amgen, Inc. v. Ariad Pharm., Inc., 513 F. Supp. 2d 34 (D. Del. 2007).\n2\n The Patent Act permits a \u201cpatentee\u201d to sue \u201cfor infringement of his patent.\u201d 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 281. \u201cPatentee\u201d includes\n\u201cnot only the patentee to whom the patent was issued but \u2026 successors in title to the patentee.\u201d 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 100(d).\n\n\n 8\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 100 Filed 04/22/26 Page 15 of 27\n\n\n\n\n1230\u201331. That inquiry turned on concrete contractual provisions governing control of the patents\n\nat issue, not on speculation about possible ownership of future patents. Id. That requirement\n\nforecloses reliance on conjecture and instead demands evidence of an executed transfer of rights\n\nof the patents at issue.\n\n Nor can Meta rely on forward-looking contractual language to establish an automatic\n\nassignment. The Federal Circuit has held that language providing that intellectual property \u201cshall\n\nbe the property of\u201d a party does not effectuate a present assignment, but instead \u201creflect[s] a future\n\nagreement to assign rather than a present assignment.\u201d Omni MedSci, Inc. v. Apple Inc., 7 F.4th\n\n1148, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Such language creates, at most, a contingent contractual right\n\nrequiring a subsequent act of assignment before ownership can vest. Accordingly, under Lone Star\n\nand Omni, a party claiming an interest must identify a contractual provision that effectuates a\n\npresent transfer of title through operative assignment language, not merely language reflecting a\n\nfuture intent to assign.\n\n Here, the language of the Agreement confirms that no present ownership rights were ever\n\nconveyed to BlueRadios. The BlueRadios\u2013Kopin contract provides that \u201c[a]ny intellectual\n\nproperty rights developed by BlueRadios in the course of this development contract (\u2018Joint\n\nDevelopments\u2019), will be owned jointly.\u201d See Ex. 1 at 5 (lacking required assignment language);\n\nBlueRadios, No. 16-cv-2052-JLK (Doc. No. 100-4). This forward-looking language does not\n\neffectuate a present assignment and contains no operative terms (such as \u201chereby assigns\u201d) that\n\nwould automatically transfer title to BlueRadios. See Omni MedSci, 7 F.4th at 1152\u201353. Meta also\n\nfails to identify any executed transfer of rights to BlueRadios. Conversely, Solos holds an\n\nunbroken chain of title from the inventor through assignments recorded at the USPTO. 3 Therefore,\n\n\n3\n Assignment records for the Asserted Patents are publicly available from the United States Patent and Trademark\nOffice\u2019s Assignment Database. See, e.g., Reel/Frame Nos.: U.S. Pat. No. 10,306,389\u201337404/0115, 37404/0168,\n\n 9\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 100 Filed 04/22/26 Page 16 of 27\n\n\n\n\nMeta\u2019s arguments fail: (1) under Lone Star, because it does not identify any executed transfer of\n\nrights in the Asserted Patents, and (2) under Omni, because the type of contractual language it\n\ninvokes cannot create present ownership as a matter of law.\n\n Next, Meta has not demonstrated that BlueRadios has obtained substantial rights through\n\njoint development. Establishing co-ownership through joint development requires proof that the\n\nspecific inventive concepts claimed in the Asserted Patents were developed during the relevant\n\ncontract period. The Federal Circuit has made clear that a party cannot claim ownership of later-\n\ndeveloped patents even if those inventions build upon or are informed by prior research funding\n\nor contractual arrangements. See Israel Bio\u2013Eng\u2019g Project v. Amgen Inc., 475 F.3d 1256, 1267\n\n(Fed. Cir. 2007) (holding that a contractual joint-ownership provision did not extend to inventions\n\nconceived after the collaborative R&D period, even when those inventions built on proprietary\n\ninformation developed during the collaboration). Similarly, in Bio-Rad Labs., Inc. v. Int\u2019l Trade\n\nComm\u2019n, the Federal Circuit held that ownership provisions limited to intellectual property\n\ndeveloped during employment did not create ownership rights in later-conceived patents, even\n\nwhere the later inventions built on earlier work performed during the employment relationship.\n\n996 F.3d 1302, 1317\u201319 (Fed. Cir. 2021).\n\n As explained above, the contractual provision on which Meta relies states that any\n\nownership by BlueRadios extends to \u201cintellectual property rights developed by BlueRadios in the\n\ncourse of this development contract.\u201d See Ex. 1 at 5; Doc. No. 50 at 3\u20134 (referencing the\n\ncollaborative period). The contract language therefore works against Meta. All collaboration ended\n\n\n\n\n37404/0190, 37404/0253, and 51280/0099; U.S. Pat. No. 11,082,055\u201356563/0796, 73032/0706, and 73032/0870; U.S.\nPat. No. 10,651,866\u201373075/0452, 49324/0997, and 51280/0099; U.S. Pat. No. 11,871,174\u201364408/0557, 64408/0694,\n64318/0720, 64408/0777, 64318/0843, and 64347/0190; and U.S. Pat. No. 12,216,339\u201373034/0033; and 73034/0524.\n\n 10\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 100 Filed 04/22/26 Page 17 of 27\n\n\n\n\nin 2009, and years before Solos was formed in 2015. See E. Martinez Decl. (Ex. 2) (explaining\n\nthat Kopin\u2019s Solos division was formed in 2015).\n\n Nor do the prior litigations between BlueRadios and Kopin alter this conclusion. See Doc.\n\nNo. 50 at 12\u201315 (relying on disputes involving unrelated patents to suggest potential ownership of\n\nthe Asserted Patents). The Colorado litigation addressed whether Kopin was obligated to assign\n\nco-ownership of certain patents developed during the 2007 to 2009 collaboration. As explained\n\nabove, such rationale is consistent with Israel Bio\u2013Eng\u2019g Project v. Amgen Inc. and Bio-Rad Labs.,\n\nInc. v. Int\u2019l Trade Comm\u2019n, where a contract limits co-ownership to inventions developed during\n\nthe parties\u2019 collaboration, rather than extending to later-developed inventions. Therefore,\n\nBlueRadios\u2019 reliance on the prior litigation or its assertion that the contract \u201cis still in effect\u201d is\n\nmisplaced.\n\n Lastly, Meta fails to show that any BlueRadios employee contributed to a specific claim of\n\nthe Asserted Patents. To qualify as a joint inventor, an individual must contribute to the conception\n\nof the claimed invention, and that contribution must be significant when measured against the full\n\ninvention. See Eli Lilly & Co. v. Aradigm Corp., 376 F.3d 1352, 1361\u201362 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (joint\n\ninventorship requires a contribution at the conception of the claimed invention). Joint inventorship\n\nalso requires collaboration among the inventors. See Kimberly-Clark Corp. v. Procter & Gamble\n\nDistrib. Co., 973 F.2d 911, 916\u201317 (Fed. Cir. 1992). A person who merely assists in reduction to\n\npractice or explains the state of the art does not qualify as a joint inventor. See Ethicon, Inc. v. U.S.\n\nSurgical Corp., 135 F.3d 1456, 1460 (Fed. Cir. 1998); Murdock Webbing Co. v. Dalloz Safety,\n\nInc., 213 F. Supp. 2d 95, 100 (D.R.I. 2002).\n\n As explained above, the Asserted Patents were conceived and developed years after all\n\ncollaboration ceased. See E. Martinez Decl. (Ex. 2) (explaining that Solos-related technologies\n\n\n\n 11\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 100 Filed 04/22/26 Page 18 of 27\n\n\n\n\nwere developed beginning in 2015, after the Golden-i collaboration ended, and were conceived as\n\npart of a separate and independent development effort). Even if BlueRadios played a role in\n\ndeveloping Golden-i systems or Whisper\u2122 audio-processing technology, that work does not\n\nestablish joint inventorship of the Asserted Patents, the earliest of which was filed in 2015 and\n\nclaims priority no earlier than 2013. See Doc. No. 1-1 (patent face listing filing date (Oct. 15, 2015)\n\nand related U.S. provisional application date (Mar. 13, 2013)). Nor does Meta attempt to make the\n\nrequired showing. It identifies no individual who allegedly collaborated with the named inventors\n\nor contributed to conception of any claimed invention of the Asserted Patents. See Kimberly-Clark,\n\n973 F.2d at 916\u201317 (requiring collaboration and contribution to conception). This failure is\n\nunsurprising because there are no such allegations for Meta to support such a theory, nor any\n\nfactual basis in the record from which such allegations could be drawn.\n\n For instance, the March 10, 2026 letter from BlueRadios\u2019 CEO asserts only in general\n\nterms that BlueRadios \u201cbelieves they are the co-owners of the 5 patents specified in the complaint\n\nfiled by Solos\u201d based on the 2007 to 2009 collaboration. See Doc. No. 51-1 at 4. These statements\n\ncannot provide a basis for joint inventorship. In addition, Meta\u2019s technological comparisons fare\n\nno better, pointing only to generalized features such as microphone-based voice input and sensor-\n\nbased motion or context detection. See Doc. No. 50 at 12\u201314. These materials fail to identify any\n\nspecific inventive contribution to the conception of any claim of the Asserted Patents and cannot\n\ndo so because no such overlap exists. See E. Martinez Decl. (Ex. 2) (explaining that Golden-i and\n\nSolos were developed at different times, for different purposes, and using different system\n\narchitectures); Kimberly-Clark, 973 F.2d at 916\u201317.\n\n Because Meta cannot establish any cognizable interest under the proper framework, it\n\npivots to a different theory, recasting its position as a \u201cnon-frivolous claim\u201d of ownership. That\n\n\n\n 12\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 100 Filed 04/22/26 Page 19 of 27\n\n\n\n\nreframing is misplaced. Rule 19(a) does not turn on a \u201clow bar\u201d standard, but on whether the absent\n\nparty holds a legally protected interest. Meta misapplies that standard and relies on four inapposite\n\ncases including White v. University of California, 765 F.3d 1010, 1015\u201318, 1025\u201327 (9th Cir.\n\n2014) (absent tribes asserted a substantiated, legally protected claim to specific human remains\n\nsupported by official determinations identifying them as the proper recipients); Republic of the\n\nPhilippines v. Pimentel, 553 U.S. 851, 858\u201360 (2008) (absent sovereigns invoked a forfeiture\n\nstatute granting a present legal entitlement to identified assets while actively pursuing recovery of\n\nthose assets); Lee v. Anthony Lawrence Collection, L.L.C., 47 F.4th 262, 270 (5th Cir. 2022) (an\n\nactive ownership dispute over the trademark was underway, creating a concrete, ongoing claim of\n\nright); and Shermoen v. United States, 982 F.2d 1312, 1317 (9th Cir. 1992) (absent tribes had an\n\nindisputable, legally protected interest because the litigation directly implicated their sovereign\n\nrights). These cases share a common feature absent here: each involved a defined, legally\n\nsupported claim to specific property or rights, not speculation about a possible interest. Accepting\n\nMeta\u2019s reading of these cases would mean that any purported ownership claim, no matter how\n\nspeculative, could halt patent litigation.\n\n In sum, because Meta fails to show that BlueRadios has any interest in the Asserted Patents,\n\nit cannot establish that any such interest would be impaired under Rule 19(a)(1)(B)(i), and its\n\nreliance on inapposite matters does not cure that deficiency.\n\n iii. Meta Is Not Subject to a Substantial Risk of Incurring Double or\n Inconsistent Obligations\n\n Meta\u2019s argument that proceeding without BlueRadios creates a \u201csubstantial risk\u201d of\n\ninconsistent obligations is misplaced. Rule 19(a)(1)(B)(ii) requires a concrete and practical risk\n\nthat a party would be unable to comply with one court\u2019s order without breaching another, not\n\nmerely the possibility of inconsistent outcomes or parallel litigation. Delgado v. Plaza Las\n\n\n 13\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 100 Filed 04/22/26 Page 20 of 27\n\n\n\n\nAmericas, Inc., 139 F.3d 1, 3 (1st Cir. 1998) (\u201c\u2018Inconsistent obligations\u2019 are not ... the same as\n\ninconsistent adjudications or results\u201d) (internal citation omitted). Courts consistently distinguish\n\nbetween inconsistent obligations and inconsistent adjudications, holding that only the former\n\nimplicates Rule 19. See Bacardi Int\u2019l Ltd. v. V. Su\u00e1rez & Co., 719 F.3d 1, 11 (1st Cir. 2013).\n\nMoreover, a party lacking the legal right to bring an infringement action cannot create a substantial\n\nrisk of inconsistent obligations for a defendant. Rawlings v. Nat\u2019l Molasses Co., 394 F.2d 645,\n\n647\u201348 (9th Cir. 1968) (absence of former joint patent owner did not expose defendant to\n\ninconsistent obligations where that party lacked the capacity to sue for infringement).\n\n No such showing can be made on this record. Here, any hypothetical risk depends on a\n\nchain of unresolved contingencies, including whether BlueRadios could establish co-ownership of\n\nthe Asserted Patents, obtain the legal right to sue, and prevail on any infringement claim. Such\n\nspeculative possibilities fall short of the concrete, non-speculative risk required under Rule\n\n19(a)(1)(B)(ii). Accordingly, Meta cannot demonstrate that it faces a substantial risk of double or\n\ninconsistent obligations.\n\n 2. Meta\u2019s Involuntary Joinder Argument Fails Absent Proof of Co-\n Ownership\n\n Meta\u2019s reliance on the rule against involuntary joinder is misplaced. The rule presupposes\n\nthat BlueRadios is a co-owner of the Asserted Patents and none of the cases cited by Meta support\n\ndismissal based on alleged ownership; instead, each involves established or adjudicated co-\n\nownership. In Ethicon, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., dismissal followed only after the court\n\ndetermined, based on corroborated evidence, that an omitted inventor was in fact a joint inventor\n\nand thus a co-owner; in STC.UNM v. Intel Corp., 754 F.3d 940 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the absent party\u2019s\n\nco-ownership derived from documented inventorship and assignment rights reflected in the patent\n\nrecord; in DDB Technologies, L.L.C. v. MLB Advanced Media, L.P., 517 F.3d 1284 (Fed. Cir.\n\n\n 14\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 100 Filed 04/22/26 Page 21 of 27\n\n\n\n\n2008), ownership turned on an employment agreement that automatically assigned rights in future\n\ninventions; in Israel Bio\u2013Eng\u2019g Project v. Amgen Inc., the court resolved ownership on summary\n\njudgment based on contractual assignments and the timing of invention; and in Schering Corp. v.\n\nRoussel\u2013UCLAF SA, 104 F.3d 341 (Fed. Cir. 1997), co-ownership was undisputed. The\n\ninvoluntary joinder doctrine has no application unless and until co-ownership is established.\n\n 3. Rule 19(b) Weighs Against Dismissal\n\n Even if BlueRadios were a required party under Rule 19(a), the Court must determine\n\nwhether the action should proceed \u201cin equity and good conscience.\u201d Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(b). Rule\n\n19(b) considers four factors in determining whether to proceed, including the extent of prejudice\n\nto the absent party, the ability to lessen or avoid such prejudice, the adequacy of a judgment\n\nrendered in the party\u2019s absence, and whether the plaintiff would have an adequate remedy if the\n\naction were dismissed. The party seeking dismissal bears the burden of persuasion on these\n\ninquiries. Amgen, Inc. v. Ariad Pharm., Inc., 513 F. Supp. 2d 34 (D. Del. 2007) (denying dismissal\n\ndespite absent patent owners).\n\n First, Meta\u2019s prejudice argument is premised on a mischaracterization of the record. Doc.\n\nNo. 50 at 16 (claiming that \u201cPlaintiff and BlueRadios are currently embroiled in litigation against\n\neach other\u201d). In fact, BlueRadios and Solos are not currently engaged in any litigation, and no\n\ninventorship or ownership dispute is pending between them. Meta\u2019s assertions are also internally\n\ninconsistent, simultaneously claiming that such a dispute exists while also suggesting a dispute\n\nover ownership \u201cseems likely.\u201d Id.\n\n In support of its argument, Meta relies on several inapposite cases, all of which involve\n\nconcrete, legally established interests including: Pimentel, 553 U.S. at 867\u201368 (sovereign\n\nimmunity and statutory ownership claim); STC.UNM, 754 F.3d at 942\u201343 (action barred where\n\nco-owner refused to join); Northern Arapaho Tribe v. Harnsberger, 697 F.3d 1272, 1279\u201381 (10th\n 15\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 100 Filed 04/22/26 Page 22 of 27\n\n\n\n\nCir. 2012) (existing property interest coupled with sovereign immunity); Delano Farms Co. v. Cal.\n\nTable Grape Comm\u2019n, 623 F. Supp. 2d 1144, 1170 (E.D. Cal. 2009) (sovereign owned the patents\n\nat issue). Here, BlueRadios has not established any ownership interest in the Asserted Patents nor\n\ninitiated any proceeding to adjudicate such a claim. Western Auto Supply Co. v. Noblex\n\nAdvertising, Inc., 173 F.R.D. 338, 341\u201342 (D.P.R. 1997) (finding no prejudice where any risk of\n\nfuture dispute was \u201cabstract\u201d). Absent a concrete ownership interest, Meta cannot demonstrate that\n\nany judgment in this action would impair BlueRadios\u2019 rights or result in legally cognizable\n\nprejudice.\n\n Second, Meta\u2019s contention that any prejudice cannot be mitigated ignores both the record\n\nand controlling authority. Meta argues that BlueRadios must be present to \u201cdefend its patents,\u201d\n\ndespite the absence of any adjudicated ownership interest or proceeding regarding ownership of\n\nthe Asserted Patents. Its continued reliance on Pimentel underscores the weakness of its position.\n\nAs referenced above, Pimentel turned on the combination of foreign sovereign immunity and\n\nclaims to specifically identified assets subject to a statutory forfeiture regime which were also\n\npending in another proceeding. 553 U.S. 851, 867\u201370 (2008). The court required dismissal because\n\nthere were no alternative means to accord relief or mitigate prejudice in the sovereigns\u2019 absence.\n\nBy contrast, in patent cases, courts have recognized that any potential prejudice can be mitigated\n\nthrough tailored relief, even absent a confirmed co-owner. For instance, in Windsurfing\n\nInternational, Inc. v. Ostermann, the court held that any potential prejudice to an absent co-owner\n\ncould be addressed through tailored relief, including holding damages in trust and providing notice\n\nto the absent party. 100 F.R.D. 82, 83\u201384 (S.D.N.Y. 1983) (finding that specific relief sufficiently\n\nmitigates prejudice). Thus, even assuming some risk of prejudice, the Court can fashion relief to\n\nmitigate it.\n\n\n\n 16\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 100 Filed 04/22/26 Page 23 of 27\n\n\n\n\n Third, the adequacy of a judgment weighs strongly in Solos\u2019 favor. This Court can\n\nadjudicate Solos\u2019 infringement claims and Meta\u2019s defenses, and award complete relief, without\n\nBlueRadios\u2019 participation. There is no basis to conclude that a judgment in this matter would be\n\nanything but adequate. See Windsurfing, 100 F.R.D. at 84 n.4 (judgment adequate despite absence\n\nof alleged co-owner). Meta nevertheless fails to meaningfully address this prong and instead\n\nconflates the adequacy of a potential judgment with the purported prejudicial effect of a judgment.\n\n Fourth, the absence of an adequate alternative remedy weighs strongly against dismissal.\n\nMeta argues that Solos can resolve the ownership issue and then refile, but that assertion is both\n\nspeculative and unsupported by the record. Unlike Lee v. Anthony Lawrence Collection, L.L.C.,\n\non which Meta relies, an active ownership dispute over the trademark at issue was underway. 47\n\nF.4th 262, 270 (5th Cir. 2022) (plaintiffs could reassert claims after establishing rights to the mark).\n\nThere is no pending proceeding here that will resolve BlueRadios\u2019 alleged interest in the Asserted\n\nPatents. The Colorado litigation concerns different patents and the malpractice dispute on appeal\n\ndoes not adjudicate ownership of the Asserted Patents. See Windsurfing, 100 F.R.D. at 84\n\n(declining to stay patent dispute where delay would effectively deprive plaintiff of an adequate\n\nremedy given the patent\u2019s defined term). Like Windsurfing, dismissal here would not preserve an\n\nadequate alternative remedy but instead would deprive Solos of a meaningful opportunity to\n\nenforce its patents.\n\n Accordingly, the four Rule 19(b) factors weigh against dismissal, and Meta has failed to\n\nmeet its burden to demonstrate that this action cannot proceed in BlueRadios\u2019 absence.\n\n B. A Stay Is Unwarranted\n\n The Court should decline Meta\u2019s alternative request for a stay. Although Meta invokes the\n\ntraditional four-factor test applicable to stays pending appeal, courts in this District typically\n\n\n\n 17\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 100 Filed 04/22/26 Page 24 of 27\n\n\n\n\nevaluate pretrial stays under a three-factor framework 4 focused on simplification of issues,\n\nprejudice to the non-moving party, and the stage of the litigation. Applying the four-factor test\n\nMeta puts forth, it must establish (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable injury\n\nabsent a stay; (3) that a stay will not substantially injure other parties; and (4) that the public interest\n\nfavors a stay. Somerville Pub. Schools v. McMahon, 139 F.4th 63 (1st Cir. 2025) (denying stay\n\nafter applying the four-factor test and finding no likelihood of success on the merits); Amersham\n\nInt\u2019l, 108 F.R.D. at 72 n.3 (denying stay due to the risk of prejudice from protracted delay). Under\n\neither standard, Meta\u2019s request fails.\n\n First, Meta cannot show that BlueRadios is likely to succeed on the merits regarding co-\n\nownership of the Asserted Patents. As explained above, its arguments are insufficient as a matter\n\nof law and premised on mischaracterizations of the record. Doc. No. 50 at 16 (claiming that\n\n\u201cPlaintiff and BlueRadios are currently embroiled in litigation against each other\u201d). In making this\n\nclaim, Meta relies on inapposite authority, including Televisa, S.A. de C.V. v. Koch Lorber Films,\n\n382 F. Supp. 2d 631 (S.D.N.Y. 2005), where a parallel proceeding was actively addressing the\n\nownership dispute, Pimentel, where absent sovereigns asserted direct, legally cognizable\n\nownership claims to specific assets, and Names for Dames, Inc. v. Gimbel, 1989 WL 82417\n\n(S.D.N.Y. July 19, 1989) where joinder was denied because the absent party had no independent\n\ninterest. By contrast, Meta claims, without support, that \u201cit is likely BlueRadios will be adjudicated\n\nto be a co-owner of the Asserted Patents.\u201d See Doc. No. 50 at 19. Yet, there is no proceeding\n\n\n4\n Courts in this District typically evaluate stays under a three-factor framework, considering (1) whether a stay would\nsimplify the issues, (2) whether a stay would unduly prejudice the non-moving party, and (3) the stage of the litigation.\nSee Chr. Hansen HMO GmbH v. Glycosyn LLC, 662 F. Supp. 3d 50, 53 (D. Mass. 2023). Under this framework,\nMeta\u2019s request fails for reasons similar to those under the four-part test it invokes. A stay would not simplify the\nissues, as Meta\u2019s ownership theory does not overlap with infringement, validity, or claim construction. An open-ended\nstay would also prejudice Solos, as delayed enforcement would cause harm and could extend for years. See A.L.M.\nHolding Co. v. All States Materials Grp. Inc., 784 F. Supp. 3d 417, 421 n.4 (D. Mass. 2025). Finally, although this\ncase is at an early stage, there is no other proceeding that would meaningfully simplify the issues. See Koninklijke\nPhilips N.V. v. Amerlux, LLC, 167 F. Supp. 3d 270, 274\u201375 (D. Mass. 2016).\n\n 18\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 100 Filed 04/22/26 Page 25 of 27\n\n\n\n\npending in which BlueRadios could succeed on the merits, and, as discussed above, BlueRadios\n\ncannot obtain any cognizable interest under Federal Circuit precedent.\n\n Second, Meta fails to show that it will be irreparably harmed absent a stay. Its purported\n\nhardship\u2014routine time and costs\u2014is not considered irreparable. In re JJ. of S. Ct. of Puerto Rico,\n\n695 F.2d 17, 20 (1st Cir. 1982) (\u201ceven substantial and unrecoupable\u201d litigation costs do not amount\n\nto irreparable injury) (internal citation omitted). Meta\u2019s reliance, moreover, on Blue Cross & Blue\n\nShield of Mass., Inc. v. Regeneron Pharms., Inc., 633 F. Supp. 3d 385, 392 (D. Mass. 2022)\n\nunderscores the weakness of its position: the stay in Blue Cross was predicated on a pending\n\nparallel action involving the same underlying factual dispute. Likewise, Hilton v. Kerry, No. 13-\n\n11710-TSH, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 169661, at *2 (D. Mass. Dec. 2, 2013), involved a\n\ndemonstrated risk due to imminent self-harm, and Automated Transactions, LLC v. Bath Sav. Inst.,\n\nNo. 2:12-cv-393-JAW, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48964, at *1 (D. Me. Mar. 14, 2013), involved\n\nmultiple actions brought by the same plaintiff concerning the same patents. Meta provides no\n\nsimilar circumstances and fails to show any potential harm, let alone irreparable harm.\n\n Third, the issuance of a stay would substantially injure Solos. Courts recognize that patent\n\nowners suffer significant harm when enforcement is delayed, particularly where a stay is based on\n\nspeculation. See A.L.M. Holding Co. v. All States Materials Grp. Inc., 784 F. Supp. 3d 417, 421\n\nn.4 (D. Mass. 2025) (undue prejudice where the likely length of the stay was \u201cpotentially years\u201d).\n\nHere, Solos would suffer the same undue prejudice as A.L.M. because a stay would delay\n\nenforcement for an indeterminate period, allowing continued infringement without any\n\ncorresponding benefit to resolving such issues.\n\n Fourth, the public interest does not favor a stay. Meta argues that a stay would conserve\n\nresources, protect absent parties\u2019 rights, and promote a single, final determination. But those\n\n\n\n 19\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 100 Filed 04/22/26 Page 26 of 27\n\n\n\n\ninterests are not served here. No current or prior litigation involves ownership of the Asserted\n\nPatents. As a result, halting this case would waste judicial resources and fail to produce any final\n\ndetermination on ownership. See A.L.M., 784 F. Supp. 3d at 421 n.3 (public policy favors the\n\nexpeditious resolution of patent cases because they are time-limited assets). Accordingly, Meta\u2019s\n\nalternative request for a stay should be denied.\n\nV. CONCLUSION\n\n For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Solos Technology Limited respectfully requests that\n\nthe Court deny Meta Platforms, Inc. and Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC\u2019s Motion to Dismiss\n\nor, in the Alternative, Stay the Proceedings.\n\n Respectfully submitted,\n\n /s/ Jameson J. Pasek\n Jameson J. Pasek, Esq. (BBO# 692924)\n CALDWELL\n 200 Clarendon Street, 59th Floor\n Boston, MA 02116\n jameson@caldwelllaw.com\n (857) 990-4914\n\nDated: April 22, 2026 Counsel for Plaintiff Solos Technology\n Limited\n\n\n\n\n 20\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 100 Filed 04/22/26 Page 27 of 27\n\n\n\n\n CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n I hereby certify that this document, filed through the Court\u2019s CM/ECF system on April 22,\n\n2026, will be sent electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of\n\nElectronic Filing (NEF).\n\n /s/ Jameson J. Pasek\n Jameson J. Pasek, Esq. (BBO# 692924)\n\n\n\n\n 21\n\f","ocr_status":2,"date_upload":"2026-06-04T21:01:00.487099-07:00","document_number":"100","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"095013628214","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Response to Motion","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/481631180/","id":481631180,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72181665/100/1/solos-technology-limited-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-04T20:59:54.609480-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-04T20:59:54.609502-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":8,"file_size":1339651,"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":"100","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"095013628215","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/481631181/","id":481631181,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72181665/100/2/solos-technology-limited-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-04T20:59:54.745264-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-04T20:59:54.745286-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":4,"file_size":176758,"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":"100","attachment_number":2,"pacer_doc_id":"095013628216","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Exhibit","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-04-22T11:25:12.853383-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-22T11:25:12.860760-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-22","time_filed":"14:12:53","entry_number":100,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-22.001","pacer_sequence_number":303,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/461515864/","id":461515864,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/476608740/","id":476608740,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"","date_created":"2026-04-21T14:24:33.307193-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-21T14:24:33.311938-07:00","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":"","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Abbreviated Electronic Appeal Record Sent to USCA","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-04-21T14:24:33.295467-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-21T14:24:33.295478-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-21","time_filed":"16:56:39","entry_number":null,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-21.001","pacer_sequence_number":null,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/461502893/","id":461502893,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/476595593/","id":476595593,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72181665/97/solos-technology-limited-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-04-21T13:25:29.246365-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-21T13:25:29.253385-07:00","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":"97","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"095013625901","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Notice of Appeal to the Federal Circuit","acms_document_guid":""},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/481631176/","id":481631176,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72181665/97/1/solos-technology-limited-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-06-04T20:57:38.571853-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-04T20:57:38.571868-07:00","sha1":"","page_count":4,"file_size":90903,"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":"97","attachment_number":1,"pacer_doc_id":"095013625902","is_available":false,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":2,"description":"Notice of appearance","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-04-21T13:25:29.218515-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-21T13:25:29.226500-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-21","time_filed":"15:45:48","entry_number":97,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-21.001","pacer_sequence_number":294,"description":"","tags":[]},{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/461502879/","id":461502879,"docket":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/dockets/72181665/","recap_documents":[{"resource_uri":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/recap-documents/476595579/","id":476595579,"tags":[],"absolute_url":"/docket/72181665/98/solos-technology-limited-v-meta-platforms-inc/","date_created":"2026-04-21T13:25:28.184266-07:00","date_modified":"2026-06-05T02:34:34.154882-07:00","sha1":"0ac58b8f1e174200f44fa6b7ebd2aa32eac1b07c","page_count":12,"file_size":227960,"filepath_local":"recap/gov.uscourts.mad.294817/gov.uscourts.mad.294817.98.0.pdf","filepath_ia":"https://archive.org/download/gov.uscourts.mad.294817/gov.uscourts.mad.294817.98.0.pdf","ia_upload_failure_count":null,"thumbnail":null,"thumbnail_status":0,"plain_text":" Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 98 Filed 04/20/26 Page 1 of 12\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT\n\nDAITONA CARTER,\nAppellant,\n\nv.\n Case No.: 2026-26-136\nSOLOS TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,\nMETA PLATFORMS, INC., et al., (Appeal from U.S. District Court for the\nAppellees.\n District of Massachusetts, Case No. 1:26-\n cv-10304-ADB)\n\n\n MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE STAY PENDING APPEAL\n\n\nCOMES NOW Appellant Daitona Carter, appearing pro se, and respectfully moves this Court for\nan Administrative Stay of the District Court's Order denying intervention (ECF No. 58) and any\nsubsequent ruling on the Motion to Dismiss scheduled for April 22, 2026.\n\n\nI. GROUNDS FOR STAY\n\nA. Irreparable Harm\nAppellant will suffer irreparable harm if the District Court proceeds with its dismissal on April\n22, 2026.\n\n 1. Loss of Property Rights: The underlying litigation concerns patent validity and\ninventorship. If the District Court dismisses the case without Appellant's participation, the Court\nrisks validating a patent that is invalid under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 256 due to the omission of the true\ninventor (Appellant). This would permanently extinguish Appellant's statutory rights to her own\ninvention.\n\n\n 2. Personal Safety: Appellant has filed a pending Motion for Witness Protection and\nReferral to the U.S. Marshals, citing credible threats of physical battery and spoliation of\nevidence. The District Court has refused to rule on this safety motion. Dismissing the case now\n\n\n\n\n 1\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 98 Filed 04/20/26 Page 2 of 12\n\n\n\n\nwould leave Appellant without legal recourse and exposed to the very harms she seeks to\nprevent, constituting irreparable personal harm.\n\nB. Likelihood of Success on the Merits\n\nAppellant is likely to succeed on the merits of her appeal for the following reasons:\n 1. Newly Discovered Evidence: The District Court denied intervention on April 15,\n2026, based on an \"incomplete record.\" Since that ruling, Appellant has filed over 60 Exhibits\n(ECF No. 92 and related filings) proving her status as the source of derivation and/or joint\ninventor. These exhibits include source code, blueprints, and dated public disclosures predating\nthe Defendants' filings. The District Court failed to consider this evidence.\n 2. Procedural Error: The District Court denied intervention while ignoring Appellant's\npending motions for In Camera Protective Orders, which were essential to submitting trade\nsecret evidence safely.\n 3. Bad Faith \"Rush\": The District Court issued its denial order merely 49 minutes after\nAppellant's Writ of Mandamus was docketed in this Court. This precipitous ruling demonstrates\nan attempt to finalize a dismissal before Appellant could present her full record, violating\nfundamental due process.\n\nC. Public Interest\n\n The public interest favors a stay. The judicial system should not validate patents derived\nfrom stolen intellectual property or ignore credible threats of violence against a litigant. Allowing\nthe District Court to proceed without resolving the safety motion and without reviewing the 100\nexhibits of inventorship would undermine the integrity of the patent system and the safety of its\nparticipants.\n\nII. CONCLUSION\n\n For the foregoing reasons, Appellant respectfully requests that this Court grant an\nAdministrative Stay of the District Court's proceedings, specifically halting the April 22, 2026,\nruling on the Motion to Dismiss, pending the resolution of this appeal and the District Court's\nruling on the pending safety motion.\n\n\n 2\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 98 Filed 04/20/26 Page 3 of 12\n\n\n\n\nRespectfully submitted,\n/s/ Daitona Carter\nDaitona Carter, Pro Se\n[Contact Information Withheld Pursuant to TVPA and 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 3521 Safety Referral]\nDate: April 20, 2026\n\n\n\n\n 3\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 98 Filed 04/20/26 Page 4 of 12\n\n\n\n\nCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE\n\n\nI hereby certify that on April 20, 2026, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing\ndocuments on all counsel of record via electronic mail (email) at the following addresses:\n\n\nCounsel for Solos Technology Limited:\n\n\nAli S. Razai, ali.razai@morganlewis.com\nVanessa Green, vanessa.green@morganlewis.com\nAndrew V. Devkar, andrew.devkar@morganlewis.com\nBrandon G. Smith, brandon.g.smith@morganlewis.com\nLeslie Y. Garcia, leslie.y.garcia@morganlewis.com\nOffice Calendar Department, occalendardepartment@morganlewis.com\nKatherine W. Soule, katherine.soule@morganlewis.com\nKatie Thompson, katie.thompson@morganlewis.com\nCounsel for Facebook, Inc./Meta Platforms, Inc.:\n\n\nEric E. Lancaster, ericlancaster@paulhastings.com\nCecilia Acosta, ceciliaacosta@paulhastings.com\nRaye Jones, rayejones@paulhastings.com\nLisa K. Nguyen, lisanguyen@paulhastings.com\nMatthias Kamber, matthiaskamber@paulhastings.com\nJerrice Thomas, jerricethomas@paulhastings.com\nStephanie Nicole Adamakos, stephanieadamakos@paulhastings.com\nCounsel for Ray-Ban, Inc.:\n\n\nJameson J. Pasek, jameson@caldwelllaw.com\nKeegan Michael Caldwell, keegan@caldwelllaw.com\nShixiong Wang, steve@caldwelllaw.com\n\n\n 4\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 98 Filed 04/20/26 Page 5 of 12\n\n\n\n\nI declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.\n\n\nExecuted on April 20, 2026, at New York, New York.\n\n/s/ Daitona Carter\n\nDaitona Carter, Pro Se\n[Contact Information Withheld Pursuant to TVPA and 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 3521 Safety Referral]\n\n\n\n\n 5\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 98 Filed 04/20/26 Page 6 of 12\n\n\n\n\n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT\n\nDAITONA CARTER,\nAppellant,\n\nv.\n Case No.: 2026-26-136\nSOLOS TECHNOLOGY LIMITED,\nMETA PLATFORMS, INC., et al., (Appeal from U.S. District Court for the\nAppellees.\n District of Massachusetts, Case No. 1:26-\n cv-10304-ADB)\n\n\n DECLARATION OF DAITONA CARTER\n IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ADMINISTRATIVE STAY PENDING APPEAL\n\n\n\n\nI, Daitona Carter, declare as follows:\n\n 1. I, Daitona Carter, submit this Declaration in support of my Motion for Administrative\n\n Stay Pending Appeal. This declaration is intended to alert the Court to an immediate\n\n threat to the safety of a witness under 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 3521 and to provide the factual basis\n\n for the irreparable harm that will occur if the District Court proceedings are not stayed\n\n prior to the April 22, 2026 deadline.\n\n 2. This filing provides non-conclusory evidence of a protectable interest in the subject\n\n intellectual property required under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24 and 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 256.\n\n 3. This supplement further addresses an immediate threat to the safety of Movant in her\n\n capacity as a federal whistleblower and witness, necessitating an emergency referral\n\n under 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 3521.\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 98 Filed 04/20/26 Page 7 of 12\n\n\n\n\nI. THE NEXUS: STRATEGIC SEQUESTRATION AND COMPULSORY ACCESS\n\nStrategic Hire (September/October 2018): Movant was required to use her pre-existing\n\nIEEE.org professional email account for onsite onboarding and HR communications. This\n\naccount contained her professional research history and technical communications, and select\n\nnotes/documentation /references of prior innovations.\n\nAt the time of Movant\u2019s hiring, Amazon was a lead investor in North Inc. via its Alexa Fund.\n\nTimeline of Separation: Movant\u2019s employment relationship with Amazon ended in February\n\n2019. This separation occurred immediately following the successful commercial launch of the\n\nNorth Focals smart glasses.\n\nConsolidation of Research into Patent Portfolios: Following the separation in February 2019,\n\nMovant discovered that her technical innovations were integrated into the North Focals product\n\nand consolidated into North Inc. patent portfolios.\n\n \u2022 Identity of Interest and Successor Liability: North Inc. acquired certain Intel Vaunt\n\n patents and technology in December 2018. In 2019, Meta Materials Inc. (MMAT)\n\n acquired from North Inc. the first- and second-generation roll-to-roll holographic\n\n manufacturing technology originally developed by Intel for the Vaunt AR glasses. North\n\n Inc. was subsequently acquired by Google in June 2020.\n\nMovant states that the intellectual property now being litigated between Solos Technology\n\nLimited and Meta Platforms, Inc. derives from this same chain of custody (North Inc. \u2192 Intel\n\nVaunt technology \u2192 Meta Materials Inc.). Under 35 U.S.C. \u00a7 256, the Court cannot fully\n\nadjudicate ownership claims between the parties without first addressing Movant\u2019s senior rights\n\nas the original inventor.\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 98 Filed 04/20/26 Page 8 of 12\n\n\n\n\nIdentity of Branding and IP: The \u201cAria\u201d Nexus\n\nMovant conceived and documented the \u201cAria\u201d platform and branding (multimodal AI for smart\n\neyewear) as part of her Nurture research between 2016 and 2019. In September 2020, Meta\n\nPlatforms publicly launched \u201cProject Aria\u201d using the same name and similar software logic. No\n\npayment was made to the movant for use of the \u201cAria\u201d branding. Movant states that this\n\nsequence supports her claim of prior conception.\n\nAsset Consolidation (North/Meta Materials Inc.): The above-referenced technology was\n\nconsolidated into North Inc. and the Intel Vaunt portfolios and subsequently transferred as\n\ndescribed above. These assets are now being liquidated through the Meta Materials Inc.\n\nBankruptcy Estate (Case 24-50792).\n\nThe Lawyer Nexus (Identity of Interest): Plaintiff Solos\u2019s counsel (Perkins Coie LLP)\n\nrepresented the debtor Meta Materials Inc. (MMAT) in its Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings\n\n(Case No. 24-50792, District of Nevada), with attorneys Andrea J. Driggs and Bradley A.\n\nCosman appearing as primary counsel.\n\nFurthermore, the Lead Independent Trust Manager of Camden Property Trust \u2014 the REIT that\n\nowns and operates the Camden Brickell apartment community (the physical venue at issue in\n\nrelated proceedings) \u2014 was a partner at Paul Hastings LLP prior to 1993.\n\nII. The October 21, 2024 Event: Physical And Identity Sequestration\n\nThe October 21 Breach: Movant identifies a coordinated event on October 21, 2024 at Camden\n\nBrickell, involving physical battery and the misappropriation of her trade secrets.\n\nSequestration of PII & Assets: Movant states that the administrative relationship described\n\nabove has been utilized and or abused to sequester Personal Identifying Information (PII)\u2014\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 98 Filed 04/20/26 Page 9 of 12\n\n\n\n\nincluding Social Security numbers, bank account data, and relative information\u2014as well as the\n\n2023 keycode, physical keys, and maintenance/security logs.\n\nObstruction of Justice: Movant states that this sequestration prevents her from proving the\n\nphysical theft of her hardware and strips her family of the legal identity required to maintain this\n\naction.\n\nIII. Master Timeline Of Temporal Priority\n\n\n Technology Carter Evidence Patent / Asset Lead Years\n Component (Year) Number\n Hybrid Audio 2009 (M-51) Solos US \u2014 7\n Logic 9,312,826\n Turn-by-Turn 2013-2017 Google (Jan 2026 \u2014 9\n Navigation Asset)\n Multimodal AI / 2016 (M-3) Meta \u201cProject \u2014 4\n \u201cAria\u201d Aria\u201d (2020)\nModular Eyewear 2017 (M-32, Solos USD \u2014 2\n M-103) 900,092\n Contextual 2013 (M-1) Meta US \u2014 9\n Interface 11,288,495\n \u201cDiscovery May 2017 (M-92) Meta US \u2014 6\n Mode\u201d Code 11,850,001\n\n\nEvidence of prior conception and inventorship has been filed in the District Court record as ECF\n\nNo. 92 and related exhibits. I am prepared to provide these to the Court of Appeals immediately\n\nupon request via a secure medium.\n\nIV. Emergency Notice Of Referral To U.S. Marshals (18 U.S.C. \u00a7 3521)\n\nPursuant to 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 3521(a)(1), the Movant requests a formal referral to the U.S. Marshals\n\nService, citing documented physical breaches, geofenced targeting, and identity sequestration as\n\nevidence of a credible threat related to a technology theft. The request emphasizes that federal\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 98 Filed 04/20/26 Page 10 of 12\n\n\n\n\nlaw authorizes protection for both \"witnesses\" and \"potential witnesses\" when a \"crime of\n\nviolence\" or obstruction is likely.\n\nIV. Emergency Notice Of Witness Intimidation And Request For Judicial Protective\nMeasures (18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1512; 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 3521)\n\n\nPursuant to the Court\u2019s inherent authority to supervise the integrity of its proceedings and 18\n\nU.S.C. \u00a7 1512, which prohibits the harassment or intimidation of witnesses in federal\n\nproceedings, Movant requests immediate judicial intervention.\n\nContrary to Defendants\u2019 assertions, a court\u2019s power to protect those providing evidence is not\n\nrestricted to formal \"parties.\" Federal law under 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 1512(b) and (d) explicitly protects\n\n\"any person\" from being harassed or intimidated to hinder, delay, or prevent their testimony or\n\nthe production of records in an official proceeding. The documented physical breaches,\n\ngeofenced targeting, and identity sequestration described herein constitute a direct attempt to\n\nobstruct the administration of justice by preventing Movant from providing the \"newly\n\ndiscovered evidence\" central to this Motion for Reconsideration.\n\nAccordingly, Movant respectfully requests the following emergency relief:\n\n A) Formal Referral to the U.S. Marshals Service for an immediate threat assessment and\n\n eligibility review for protection under 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 3521(a)(1), which authorizes the\n\n Attorney General to protect \"witnesses\" and \"potential witnesses\" alike.\n\n B) A Civil Protective Order issued under the Court\u2019s inherent power, restraining Defendants,\n\n their counsel, and all related corporate agents from any further contact, surveillance, or\n\n interference with Movant or her family.\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 98 Filed 04/20/26 Page 11 of 12\n\n\n\n\n C) Leave to File Under Seal all future documentation regarding Movant\u2019s physical location,\n\n hardware serial numbers, and PII to prevent further technological targeting and physical\n\n breaches.\n\n D) A Stay of All Related Deadlines in the underlying litigation until the Court addresses\n\n these safety concerns and the referral to the U.S. Marshals, as Movant cannot safely\n\n participate in a proceeding while her legal identity and physical safety are being\n\n compromised.\n\nVERIFICATION\nI declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct to the best of my\nknowledge, information, and belief.\nExecuted on: April 20, 2026\n/s/ Daitona Carter\nDaitona Carter, Pro Se\nlegal@daitonacarter.com (Public Correspondence)\n[Address Withheld Pursuant to TVPA and 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 3521 Safety Referral]\n\f Case 1:26-cv-10304-ADB Document 98 Filed 04/20/26 Page 12 of 12\n\n\n\n\nCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE PURSUANT TO LR 5.2\nI hereby certify that on April 20, 2026, I served a true and correct copy of the foregoing\n\ndocuments on all counsel of record via electronic mail (email) at the following addresses:\n\n/s/ Daitona Carter\n\f","ocr_status":1,"date_upload":"2026-06-04T20:58:14.284660-07:00","document_number":"98","attachment_number":null,"pacer_doc_id":"095013625920","is_available":true,"is_free_on_pacer":null,"is_sealed":null,"document_type":1,"description":"Stay","acms_document_guid":""}],"date_created":"2026-04-21T13:25:28.155828-07:00","date_modified":"2026-04-21T13:25:28.164492-07:00","date_filed":"2026-04-21","time_filed":"15:48:45","entry_number":98,"recap_sequence_number":"2026-04-21.001","pacer_sequence_number":298,"description":"","tags":[]}],"entries_total":"https://www.courtlistener.com/api/rest/v4/docket-entries/?count=on&docket=72181665&page_size=40"}