Solos Technology Ltd. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. — Entry #43: Citation of Supplemental Authority pursuant to Fed

Case: 26-1721    Document: 43     Page: 1     Filed: 08/26/2026


                                                                    August 26, 2026

VIA CM/ECF
Jarrett B. Perlow, Clerk of Court
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
717 Madison Place, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20439

RE: Solos Technology Ltd. v. Meta Platforms, Inc., et al.,
    Appeal No. 2026-1721

SUBMISSION: Citation of Supplemental Regulatory Authority
            Under Fed. R. App. P. 28(j)

Dear Mr. Perlow:
       Pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(j), Movant-Appellant
Daitona Carter advises the Court of an intervening, non-disputable regulatory
action by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) that directly
impacts the threshold legal standards governing a "significantly protectable
interest" under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2), as argued at page 25 of Appellant’s
Opening Brief and page 9 of Appellant’s Reply Brief.

      On August 20, 2026, the USPTO formally published and unsealed an official
administrative utility tracking record assigned to Defendant-Appellee Meta
Platforms Technologies, LLC (US 2026/0244794 A1), legally certifying the utility
metrics of a chip-level hardware privacy mute circuit and secure processing
pathway.

       This official agency action is material to the preserved appellate issue of
whether Appellant’s hardware-enclaved sensor gating architecture—independently
anchored on the public record via the Technical Disclosure Commons on June 25,
2026 (Article No. 10575)—satisfies the threshold legal metrics of a protectable
property right, an issue preserved below, raised on page 25 of Appellant's Opening
Brief, and further elaborated on page 15 of Appellant's Reply Brief. Below,
Appellees maintained that Appellant's technology parameters constituted an
unprotectable "generalized concept." The USPTO's subsequent regulatory


           Case: 26-1721     Document: 43     Page: 2    Filed: 08/26/2026


publication establishes that this exact technical domain constitutes highly specific,
patentable utility subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

      Under established principles of judicial estoppel, referenced in Appellant's
Opening Brief at page 41 and Corrected Reply Brief at page 32, a corporate litigant
cannot maintain that a technological domain represents an empty factual void to
block an Article III intervention, while concurrently prosecuting a parallel federal
administrative track asserting that identical mechanical parameters are specific
enough to merit a statutory patent monopoly. This regulatory development directly
resolves the legal contradiction below, confirming Appellant's standing to seek
inventorship correction under 35 U.S.C. § 256.


Dated: August 26, 2026

                                                            Respectfully submitted,

                                                                 /s/ Daitona Carter
                                                  Daitona Carter, Appellant Pro Se
                                                General Delivery, Main Post Office
                                                         2 Massachusetts Ave NE
                                                           Washington, DC 20002
                                                         legal@daitonacarter.com


           Case: 26-1721     Document: 43    Page: 3    Filed: 08/26/2026


                         CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 21(a)(1) and Local Rule 25, the undersigned hereby

certifies under penalty of perjury that on August 26, 2026, a true and correct copy

of the foregoing Emergency Notice of Subsequent Multi-Forum Factual

Developments was served upon the parties to this proceeding via the following

approved service channels:


         · Electronically on counsel of record for Plaintiffs-Appellees and

            “Defendants” (Defendants-Appellees) via electronic mail and/or the

            Court's CM/ECF system, pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 25 and Fed. Cir.

            R. 25

         · Electronically on United States Patent and Trademark Office (Agency

            Respondents): Delivered via official service email to

            efileSO@uspto.gov pursuant to the service mandates of FRAP 21.

         · Electronically on PTAB Administration (Advisement Copy):

            Delivered directly to Deputy Chief Clerk, Trials – PTAB, Andrew

            Kellogg, at andrew.kellogg@uspto.gov for tracking across active Case

            Nos. IPR2026-00376, IPR2026-00412, IPR2026-00413, and

            IPR2026-00420.


Dated: August 26, 2026


Case: 26-1721   Document: 43   Page: 4   Filed: 08/26/2026


                                            Respectfully submitted,

                                                 /s/ Daitona Carter
                                  Daitona Carter, Appellant Pro Se
                                General Delivery, Main Post Office
                                         2 Massachusetts Ave NE
                                           Washington, DC 20002
                                         legal@daitonacarter.com